RealGM

Jazz Trade: Favors + JJ
Jazz Receive: Dieng + Aldrich + 2018 1st*
Jazz Why: Favors has more upside (see Wolves why), but the Jazz loathe the chance of losing Hayward and Favors for ZERO compensation in back to back offseasons, Jazz make a move. And it is arguable, who is better player -- flight risk Favors or "value" locked in Dieng. They also secure a 1st round pick.

Bucks Trade: Middleton + Vaughn + 2018 1st*
Bucks Receive: Wiggins + JJ
Bucks Why: the debated Wiggins for Middleton swap. I for one feel Wiggins has more value vs. Middleton (Wiggins better contract, more upside, younger, less injury). Bucks take gamble Wiggins at 22, who perfectly fits Bucks' core with Giannis and Parker, can become 2nd super star. Also gain vet JJ to help with Parker injury and transition back into lineup.

Wolves Trade: Wiggins + Dieng + Aldrich + OKC 2018 1st*
Wolves Receive: Middleton + Favors + Vaughn
Wolves Why: sacrifice upside at SG for a better win-now player in Middleton, but gain upside in Favors vs. Dieng. Mitigated by the risk Favors bolts in offseason (or he remains injury prone or proves not perfect fit next to Towns), [minus Favors] Wolves would have cap space for 1 big time (max?) 2018 FA -- who can Butler and Towns recruit (more cap space if needed, Wolves easily move Gibson 14mil expiring)?

*2018 1st to Jazz: Better of lotto protected Bucks or OKC 1st to Jazz, less desirable to Wolves.

Obviously MIN does this. They get Middleton + Favors + clear 2018 space + avoid the $30M/year no one should pay Wiggins. Milwaukee and Utah pass super hard.

I don't see Utah doing this. The Favors/Dieng part is debatable, depending on Favors health going forward.

They need JJ though. They're already very light on offense-creation and shooting. Losing him for an un needed extra center really hurts their playoff chances.

Really terrible for Utah.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

GobertReport wrote:Really terrible for Utah.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Try explaining???

Favors and Dieng on court production is very similar. Look up some stats.

Favors is UFA. Jazz should understand meaning of flight risk. Dieng has value due to his contract, and being a good value compared to contracts being handed out today/2018.

Favors has more upside. Dieng has some of his own, although a older player vs. his years experience.

Favors has more injury concerns.

giberish wrote:I don't see Utah doing this. The Favors/Dieng part is debatable, depending on Favors health going forward.

They need JJ though. They're already very light on offense-creation and shooting. Losing him for an un needed extra center really hurts their playoff chances.

I think trade can be done without JJ. He doesn't need to be sticking point to trade.

Wiggins and Parker would be awful together. No defense on the wings would make Giannis cry.

Wow that's insane value for wolves bucks don't do it as said in many many past posts bucks don't trade midds for wiggs then add a 1st? Value bad fit even worse

Sent from my LGLS991 using RealGM mobile app

Which J.J are we talking about?

old ball coach wrote:Wow that's insane value for wolves bucks don't do it as said in many many past posts bucks don't trade midds for wiggs then add a 1st? Value bad fit even worse

Sent from my LGLS991 using RealGM mobile app

Value wise Wiggins has more value vs. Middleton. Bucks need to add to acquire him.

If you don't like the fit, I can understand the argument...would like to know why. But doesn't change the value of Wiggins > Middleton.

rugbyrugger23 wrote:

old ball coach wrote:Wow that's insane value for wolves bucks don't do it as said in many many past posts bucks don't trade midds for wiggs then add a 1st? Value bad fit even worse

Sent from my LGLS991 using RealGM mobile app

Value wise Wiggins has more value vs. Middleton. Bucks need to add to acquire him.

If you don't like the fit, I can understand the argument...would like to know why. But doesn't change the value of Wiggins > Middleton.

Yet somehow you keep trying to have Minnesota get Middleton. The value is pretty equal between those 2 as many told you in the last thread, in fact Middleton probably has more value at this point. It's also funny you keep mentioning flight risks, as if the team with that player should discount them because they are a flight risk. Yet Minnesota traded for Butler whose a huge flight risk, but something tells me you don't value him any less because of that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

RipPizzaGuy wrote:

rugbyrugger23 wrote:

old ball coach wrote:Wow that's insane value for wolves bucks don't do it as said in many many past posts bucks don't trade midds for wiggs then add a 1st? Value bad fit even worse

Sent from my LGLS991 using RealGM mobile app

Value wise Wiggins has more value vs. Middleton. Bucks need to add to acquire him.

If you don't like the fit, I can understand the argument...would like to know why. But doesn't change the value of Wiggins > Middleton.

Yet somehow you keep trying to have Minnesota get Middleton. The value is pretty equal between those 2 as many told you in the last thread, in fact Middleton probably has more value at this point. It's also funny you keep mentioning flight risks, as if the team with that player should discount them because they are a flight risk. Yet Minnesota traded for Butler whose a huge flight risk, but something tells me you don't value him any less because of that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

Now you are just spreading lies. Last thread confirmed Wiggins has more value...from the individual responses to the actual poll outcome. So there's that...

How much more value Wiggins has is debatable.

Flight risk is a big zap on value. I think exactly why Wolves got Butler for such a value trade. If he had 1 or more years on top of his 2+1, he would of demanded more value in return (similar to the larger asking price during 2016 draft -- that Thibs didn't pay). Middleton is no different. He is a flight risk on a 2+1. Next year even less value than this year. And prior year (before injury) his value on a 3+1 would have been peak.

RipPizzaGuy wrote:It's also funny you keep mentioning flight risks, as if the team with that player should discount them because they are a flight risk. Yet Minnesota traded for Butler whose a huge flight risk, but something tells me you don't value him any less because of that.

Butler's trade value was lower because he was a flight risk for CHI, so I think by bringing him up, you are reinforcing rugby's point that being a flight risk lowers a good player's trade value.

illusional wrote:Which J.J are we talking about?

Thanks for posting that, it's Joe Johnson, but I wasn't sure either, and I had to look it up to double-check he was still there. When I hear JJ, I think Reddick, then Barea, then I start going through a whole list in my head of JJ players, like James Johnson, Jimmy Jackson, etc.

I really just popped in to mention that when someone posts, you want people to understand what you have to say. To help clarity, I recommend that you use players full names, not initials or nicknames (very hard), and in trades with more than two teams, you list the in-and-out for each specific team. What may be clear to a poster may not be clear to a reader, so I appreciate it when people take he extra time to help me understand exactly what you mean.

rugbyrugger23 wrote:

RipPizzaGuy wrote:

rugbyrugger23 wrote:Value wise Wiggins has more value vs. Middleton. Bucks need to add to acquire him.

If you don't like the fit, I can understand the argument...would like to know why. But doesn't change the value of Wiggins > Middleton.

Yet somehow you keep trying to have Minnesota get Middleton. The value is pretty equal between those 2 as many told you in the last thread, in fact Middleton probably has more value at this point. It's also funny you keep mentioning flight risks, as if the team with that player should discount them because they are a flight risk. Yet Minnesota traded for Butler whose a huge flight risk, but something tells me you don't value him any less because of that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

Now you are just spreading lies. Last thread confirmed Wiggins has more value...from the individual responses to the actual poll outcome. So there's that...

How much more value Wiggins has is debatable.

Flight risk is a big zap on value. I think exactly why Wolves got Butler for such a value trade. If he had 1 or more years on top of his 2+1, he would of demanded more value in return (similar to the larger asking price during 2016 draft -- that Thibs didn't pay). Middleton is no different. He is a flight risk on a 2+1. Next year even less value than this year. And prior year (before injury) his value on a 3+1 would have been peak.

Really I'm spreading lies? 13v15 and I didn't even vote. If those extra 2 people in your 28 person sample make Wiggins clearly more valuable than Middleton I'm not sure what to tell you.

The provlem with your logic is nobody trades a star with 3 years left on his contract. Go look at all the stars who got moved, cousins, George, butler, etc... They get moved with 2 or less years remaining so by that standard every star to move is a flight risk and nobody should ever pay full value for any star.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

Not even on the trade but Butler had 2 full seasons left. Thats not a flight risk, and if it is over half the league should be getting traded.

Flight risk has a lot to do with value of any player traded -- super star or not. Not sure why this is even debatable? Really?

1 year left then UFA is less value than 2 years then UFA. 1 year left then RFA has more value than both (when comparing contract status purely).

bondom34 wrote:Not even on the trade but Butler had 2 full seasons left. Thats not a flight risk, and if it is over half the league should be getting traded.

It actually is a flight risk, and Butler was discounted because of it. What makes it a flight risk, more so than years remaining, is the UFA status. Of course 2 years is better than 1 year then UFA. But more ideal is 1 or 2 years left then RFA!

This isn't as far off as some posters are saying but there's a real issue with the timing of the trade.

I could see the Jazz doing a trade like this at the deadline if they're well out of the playoff hunt anyway. But the picks being offered don't provided enough incentive to do this before the deadline begins. They'll at least want to take inventory of what they have without Hayward before blowing it up.

As far as the Bucks, they're not adding a first unless Middleton isn't the same player after his hamstring injury, and if that's the case, Minny probably shouldn't do it.

Everyones a flight risk. Trade em all.

RipPizzaGuy wrote:

rugbyrugger23 wrote:

RipPizzaGuy wrote:Yet somehow you keep trying to have Minnesota get Middleton. The value is pretty equal between those 2 as many told you in the last thread, in fact Middleton probably has more value at this point. It's also funny you keep mentioning flight risks, as if the team with that player should discount them because they are a flight risk. Yet Minnesota traded for Butler whose a huge flight risk, but something tells me you don't value him any less because of that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

Now you are just spreading lies. Last thread confirmed Wiggins has more value...from the individual responses to the actual poll outcome. So there's that...

How much more value Wiggins has is debatable.

Flight risk is a big zap on value. I think exactly why Wolves got Butler for such a value trade. If he had 1 or more years on top of his 2+1, he would of demanded more value in return (similar to the larger asking price during 2016 draft -- that Thibs didn't pay). Middleton is no different. He is a flight risk on a 2+1. Next year even less value than this year. And prior year (before injury) his value on a 3+1 would have been peak.

Really I'm spreading lies? 13v15 and I didn't even vote. If those extra 2 people in your 28 person sample make Wiggins clearly more valuable than Middleton I'm not sure what to tell you.

The provlem with your logic is nobody trades a star with 3 years left on his contract. Go look at all the stars who got moved, cousins, George, butler, etc... They get moved with 2 or less years remaining so by that standard every star to move is a flight risk and nobody should ever pay full value for any star.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

Yes Wiggins clearly has more value vs. Middleton, how much is debatable -- but you said Middleton has more value.

Wiggins is younger, better contract, more upside, less injury concern.

Middleton is better all around player now.

That equals more value for Wiggins.