RealGM

Thunder send: Paul, Noel
Thunder receive: Wiggins, Leonard

Miami sends: Waiters, Winslow, Leonard, Johnson
Miami receives: Culver, Paul, Noel

Minnesota sends: Wiggins, Culver
Minnesota receives: Winslow, Johnson, Waiters

Why for OKC? They get out of the tax, get out of Paul's larger years in favor of a "youngster that still has potential", and save money the next few years.

Why for Miami? They get an all star caliber PG, better center depth, and a youngster with potential in Culver for spare parts (2 guys who the team has had qualms about) and Winslow. This allows them to take advantage of Butler's prime and still have a bright spot of potential with Culver.

Why for Minnesota? They get out of Wiggins for 2 better bad deals and a Winslow/Culver swap.

I feel like Minnesota needs to add something to someone (like a 1st) but I can't decide who.

No from Miami. It doesn't matter how many times it gets posted, the answer is no. Miami is quite happy with the team right now and they don't need Chris Paul. Miami has youngsters with potential already. Also, Winslow was the Heat's best player tonight. He won't do 27/7/7 every night, but I like that when the Heat needed him, he had plenty left for the team.

I don't really like it for any team.

For Minny, I continue to believe that Wiggins trade value in the league is much higher then the trade board thinks. There were at least significant rumors that Minny had the option of moving Wiggins for decent value in July (though I'd love to know exactly what the trade offer actually was). I'd hold out for a Batum or better trade. Johnson + Waiters is essentially Batum in value, but adding Culver for Winslow is IMO a downgrade for Minny, as they need the upside of Culver (as a rookie Culver obviously isn't as good as Winslow but the point is to peak in 3-5 years).

For Miami, you add a very expensive, declining older star to your already kind of old probably about starting to decline existing star, so why do you add the win-later move of Winslow for Culver? Instead of getting value there, you really need a pick back for when you inevitably decline after Paul/Butler age.

For OKC, while i think there are a couple teams around the league that would value Wiggins I don't think it's a good deal.

I'm with gom. No way at all. Just don't want Chris Paul.

I like he construction of the trade. At this point in their team direction though, I suspect MIA prefers Winslow and MIN prefers Culver.

shrink wrote:I like he construction of the trade. At this point in their team direction though, I suspect MIA prefers Winslow and MIN prefers Culver.

At this point, I think Miami prefers Winslow to Paul as well. I just don't get why we'd give him up.

I know it's just one game but we used 3 point guard last night. Between them they scored 70 points, 13 assists and 12 boards. I'd like to see what they can do a little longer...

BBallFreak wrote:

shrink wrote:I like he construction of the trade. At this point in their team direction though, I suspect MIA prefers Winslow and MIN prefers Culver.

At this point, I think Miami prefers Winslow to Paul as well. I just don't get why we'd give him up.

From a trade value comparison, it’s:

Paul vs Waiters, Leonard and James Johnson (that is also a ton of bad salary, but Paul is a better player).

Winslow vs Culver

For MIA, the deal also provides extra incentive, adding Noel for cheap, while saving them $6 mil, which helps their hard capped team with the lux.

I know Winslow played well, but I don’t think he’s a better player than Chris Paul.

shrink wrote:

BBallFreak wrote:

shrink wrote:I like he construction of the trade. At this point in their team direction though, I suspect MIA prefers Winslow and MIN prefers Culver.

At this point, I think Miami prefers Winslow to Paul as well. I just don't get why we'd give him up.

From a trade value comparison, it’s:

Paul vs Waiters, Leonard and James Johnson (that is also a ton of bad salary, but Paul is a better player).

Winslow vs Culver

For MIA, the deal also provides extra incentive, adding Noel for cheap, while saving them $6 mil, which helps their hard capped team with the lux.

I know Winslow played well, but I don’t think he’s a better player than Chris Paul.

What''s the projection for the two, longterm?

Wiggins began this season just as he's played the other five--giving you points on simply awful shooting, poor defense and little else. Yes, Wiggins actually got some rebounds this game, but I'm willing to bet that he'll return to his career average by season end. As for the rest, I mean the guy had 0 assists, 0 steals, and 0 blocks in 36 minutes while shooting .370 from the field...and was an "amazing" -26 in his time on the court.

Despite being a historically bad player, Wiggins is actually set to make more total money over more years than CP3 (a guy who, while also extremely overpaid, can at least still play). At that salary, nobody is trading assets to get Wiggins. Nobody.

BBallFreak wrote:

shrink wrote:

BBallFreak wrote:At this point, I think Miami prefers Winslow to Paul as well. I just don't get why we'd give him up.

From a trade value comparison, it’s:

Paul vs Waiters, Leonard and James Johnson (that is also a ton of bad salary, but Paul is a better player).

Winslow vs Culver

For MIA, the deal also provides extra incentive, adding Noel for cheap, while saving them $6 mil, which helps their hard capped team with the lux.

I know Winslow played well, but I don’t think he’s a better player than Chris Paul.

What''s the projection for the two, longterm?

Winslow vs Paul, or Winslow vs Culver?

Hmmm... I never thought about the comparison before, but Culver played some PG in pre-season, and looked comfortable.

The Wolves shouldn't even think about trading Culver until they've at least given him a half-a-season sample size. They have no idea what they'd be trading. If push comes to shove, they should attach picks to Wiggins, not prospects already on the roster. Trading Culver now and having to develop some kid who is currently a freshman in college just resets the clock. You don't want to keep resetting the clock with Towns on the roster.

shrink wrote:

BBallFreak wrote:

shrink wrote:From a trade value comparison, it’s:

Paul vs Waiters, Leonard and James Johnson (that is also a ton of bad salary, but Paul is a better player).

Winslow vs Culver

For MIA, the deal also provides extra incentive, adding Noel for cheap, while saving them $6 mil, which helps their hard capped team with the lux.

I know Winslow played well, but I don’t think he’s a better player than Chris Paul.

What''s the projection for the two, longterm?

Winslow vs Paul, or Winslow vs Culver?

Hmmm... I never thought about the comparison before, but Culver played some PG in pre-season, and looked comfortable.

I was speaking specifically about Paul.

I like Culver but I like Winslow a lot more right now. Making a trade for Paul while swapping Winslow for Culver seems extremely foolhardy to me. It accelerates our timeline on one hand while taking away a player who is starting to look fully developed and replacing him with a raw prospect on the other hand.

It's just a mess of mixed directions. I just don't see why Miami participates. I've been open about not wanting Paul in Miami. Last night we played three point guards (Winslow, Nunn, and Dragic) and they combined for 70 points, 13 assists, and 12 rebounds. I just don't see any reason to consider Paul yet...

Make it Covington instead of Culver

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:Make it Covington instead of Culver

Why bother? We'd rather have Winslow. They'd rather have Covington.

I feel as though Winslow's inclusion in any Paul trade makes the trade so much worse for Miami, and you already know my feelings on a Paul trade, in general...

BBallFreak wrote:

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:Make it Covington instead of Culver

Why bother? We'd rather have Winslow. They'd rather have Covington.

I feel as though Winslow's inclusion in any Paul trade makes the trade so much worse for Miami, and you already know my feelings on a Paul trade, in general...

With Winslow becoming more of a playmaker, how would you fit him in with a Butler/Paul team without someone being marginalized? (That's mostly why I did the swap)

I agree Wiggins had a bad overall shooting game last night, but he had the Wolves final two baskets in the overtime win at BRK.

Mamba4Goat wrote:

BBallFreak wrote:

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:Make it Covington instead of Culver

Why bother? We'd rather have Winslow. They'd rather have Covington.

I feel as though Winslow's inclusion in any Paul trade makes the trade so much worse for Miami, and you already know my feelings on a Paul trade, in general...

With Winslow becoming more of a playmaker, how would you fit him in with a Butler/Paul team without someone being marginalized? (That's mostly why I did the swap)

If he's more of a playmaker now, why do we need to put so much money into Paul?

BBallFreak wrote:

Mamba4Goat wrote:

BBallFreak wrote:Why bother? We'd rather have Winslow. They'd rather have Covington.

I feel as though Winslow's inclusion in any Paul trade makes the trade so much worse for Miami, and you already know my feelings on a Paul trade, in general...

With Winslow becoming more of a playmaker, how would you fit him in with a Butler/Paul team without someone being marginalized? (That's mostly why I did the swap)

If he's more of a playmaker now, why do we need to put so much money into Paul?

Well, it's Chris Paul. He may have an awful deal and be an injury risk, but if you can do it by giving up guys like Johnson, Waiters, and Leonard...why not? He substantially raises the floor for the team and you honestly don't lose much.

Mamba4Goat wrote:

BBallFreak wrote:

Mamba4Goat wrote:
With Winslow becoming more of a playmaker, how would you fit him in with a Butler/Paul team without someone being marginalized? (That's mostly why I did the swap)

If he's more of a playmaker now, why do we need to put so much money into Paul?

Well, it's Chris Paul. He may have an awful deal and be an injury risk, but if you can do it by giving up guys like Johnson, Waiters, and Leonard...why not? He substantially raises the floor for the team and you honestly don't lose much.

We lose a ton. Flexibility matters. We're suddenly stuck with one of the worst contracts in the league, who routinely misses at least 20 games a season, and he'll be 37 and making $44 million when we would otherwise have cap space.

So yeah, we lose a lot, and we're now stuck with that contract for it's duration.

So, without incentive (and no, trading Winslow for Culver doesn't count) Paul is an absolute no...

BBallFreak wrote:

Mamba4Goat wrote:

BBallFreak wrote:Why bother? We'd rather have Winslow. They'd rather have Covington.

I feel as though Winslow's inclusion in any Paul trade makes the trade so much worse for Miami, and you already know my feelings on a Paul trade, in general...

With Winslow becoming more of a playmaker, how would you fit him in with a Butler/Paul team without someone being marginalized? (That's mostly why I did the swap)

If he's more of a playmaker now, why do we need to put so much money into Paul?

If the Warriors have a shooter like DeAngelo Russell, why do they put so much money into Steph Curry?

Everyone knows I think that Chris Paul is a big injury risk, a potential locker room problem on the wrong team, and overpaid. However, he is still one of the best facilitators in the entire NBA. I am happy to see Winslow facilitate, and you want that talented player on the floor, but is he even an above average facilitator as a PG?

I think Paul greatly increases the Heat’s chances for success the next two years. If they can trade two years of bad, unproductive salary, for three years of Paul’s bad PRODUCTIVE salary, I like it for the Heat. I don’t know if Winslow is the key to a fair trade, or whether the direction would work for a Winslow/Culver swap. However, setting the Winslow part aside, if I was the Heat, I’d certainly consider raising the team’s ceiling if it meant I got out of the bad two year deals,