RealGM

This is really more of two separate trades than one, but I clumped them.
My main purpose was getting Hunter to CLE to give them a big defensive wing.


Hawks
trade away Murray, Hunter, Capela
get Dinwiddie Bertans LeVert Thomas(Cam) picks: UTA (2024, protected) Clippers (2024), Sixers (2025), Suns (2027), Sixers (2027)
rationale: keep a clean cap and gain a ton of draft assets should there be another pairing to try with trae. Thomas is a very capable scorer and LeVert would fit in nicely if he is not re-directed.

Cavaliers
trade Allen and LeVert
get Capela and Hunter
Knicks got OG, Cavs need a similar type of player big defensive frame and ability to shoot from deep. Hunter provides just that which is important with Spida/Garland in the backcourt. Already a bit shallow in depth that does hurt, but they will have to scour the buyout market or identify some D-League standouts for added depth in the dog days. Allen is a casualty here, but one must expect Mobley is going to move to the C in a few years (when Capela's contract expires). Capela is a worthy stand in.

Nets
Trade Dinwiddie Thomas (Cam) and picks Suns (2027), Sixers (2027)
get Dejonte Murray
rationale: Nets are not currently built to win very much and do not control their destiny when it comes to picks. While I fully expect them to be where Spida winds up next season, for today they need to make a push for the play-in. Murray is a great option because he is simply a lesser-star who can play both sides of the court and will be able to retain value if traded as part of the package for Spida next year (or be able to play along side him). Nets own picks and the 2029's are preserved.

Thunder
Trade Bertans and picks: UTA (2024, protected) Clippers (2024), Sixers (2025)
get Jared Allen
rationale: It's not an all-in move and these are not exactly high value picks, but it offers effective rim protection and added size for the playoff push. Thunder are probably not going to benefit by having quantity of picks this draft and are better off cashing in guys who they can't possibly roster for a player with such a clear role.

nykballa2k4 wrote:This is really more of two separate trades than one, but I clumped them.
My main purpose was getting Hunter to CLE to give them a big defensive wing.

Just want to start by saying I love that you have a really big deal, but you told us the main idea. That helps us to provide useful feedback because we can peel back some layers towards that goal.

Like I don't see Cleveland wanting to move Allen to get Hunter. But might they add some minor value to swap LeVert for him? I think so yeah. So then could there be a team wanting LeVert to send an expiring and a touch more value to Atlanta?

Like Hunter to Cleveland
LeVert/2nds from Cleveland to NY
Fournier/24 DAL or NY 1st to Atlanta

With some salary filler as needed for tax purposes?

That seems pretty sensible for all. Cavs get their big wing. Knicks get a guy who can create some offense both in the absence of Randle but also for their 2nd unit. Atlanta gets a first and salary relief for a guy who seems no longer core.

The Nets are not trading 2 firsts, one of which is considered a premium one, and Cam Thomas for Murray. Thus far the market has not met that price on Murray. The most interested bidder (Lakers) can't meet that 2 first price. Why would the Nets pay above asking when nobody else has shown an ability or willingness to meet asking price?

Brooklyn says no to the inclusion of Cam Thomas or the Suns 2027.

I think they’re out on Murray in general unless they can flip the picks they get for DFS/Royce O’Neale for him.

Texas Chuck wrote:

nykballa2k4 wrote:This is really more of two separate trades than one, but I clumped them.
My main purpose was getting Hunter to CLE to give them a big defensive wing.

Just want to start by saying I love that you have a really big deal, but you told us the main idea. That helps us to provide useful feedback because we can peel back some layers towards that goal.

Like I don't see Cleveland wanting to move Allen to get Hunter. But might they add some minor value to swap LeVert for him? I think so yeah. So then could there be a team wanting LeVert to send an expiring and a touch more value to Atlanta?

Like Hunter to Cleveland
LeVert/2nds from Cleveland to NY
Fournier/24 DAL or NY 1st to Atlanta

With some salary filler as needed for tax purposes?

That seems pretty sensible for all. Cavs get their big wing. Knicks get a guy who can create some offense both in the absence of Randle but also for their 2nd unit. Atlanta gets a first and salary relief for a guy who seems no longer core.

Appreciate the feedback!

Honestly I like that value for NY. I just question if ATL would accept something that seems on the light side.

TheNetsFan wrote:The Nets are not trading 2 firsts, one of which is considered a premium one, and Cam Thomas for Murray. Thus far the market has not met that price on Murray. The most interested bidder (Lakers) can't meet that 2 first price. Why would the Nets pay above asking when nobody else has shown an ability or willingness to meet asking price?

We don't know what the Spurs have formally offered, but what we can say I suppose is that the Lakers offer of 1 premium pick and 1 premium swap isn't cutting it. The argument of "why do we have to pay more than LA?" is toothless because to get a player of value you have to give to get. Right now Nets are fighting for their lives to be a play-in team. If you are cool with not making the real playoffs and handing over a top-10 (or better) pick to the Rockets -- that's cool. But if I were a Nets fan I would want to make some sort of a deal that gives me a real chance at playoffs and keeps the possibility of big-game hunting this summer alive.

The Cavs are telling teams Allen isn't available and it's not even clear thar Hunter has positive trade value (or is a good defender after all his injuries). This isn’t fixable from the Cavs perspective.

Texas Chuck wrote:

nykballa2k4 wrote:This is really more of two separate trades than one, but I clumped them.
My main purpose was getting Hunter to CLE to give them a big defensive wing.

Just want to start by saying I love that you have a really big deal, but you told us the main idea. That helps us to provide useful feedback because we can peel back some layers towards that goal.

Like I don't see Cleveland wanting to move Allen to get Hunter. But might they add some minor value to swap LeVert for him? I think so yeah. So then could there be a team wanting LeVert to send an expiring and a touch more value to Atlanta?

Like Hunter to Cleveland
LeVert/2nds from Cleveland to NY
Fournier/24 DAL or NY 1st to Atlanta

With some salary filler as needed for tax purposes?

That seems pretty sensible for all. Cavs get their big wing. Knicks get a guy who can create some offense both in the absence of Randle but also for their 2nd unit. Atlanta gets a first and salary relief for a guy who seems no longer core.

Agree they aren't going to put Allen in this kind of deal. Would like your proposal for CLE though.

jbk1234 wrote:The Cavs are telling teams Allen isn't available and it's not even clear thar Hunter has positive trade value (or is a good defender after all his injuries). This isn’t fixable from the Cavs perspective.

To some degree isn't that context?
To make a terrible example: If Embiid would be healthy by the playoffs would you trade him with Mobley and matching contracts for Embiid?

I interpret that comment to mean that Cavs are not sellers and not trying to diminish at that position. If there was a player like Mikal Bridges or OG etc on the market one would think he would be on the table...

What about something like Claxton & Royce to OKC, Bertans & OKC picks to Atlanta & Murray to Brooklyn?

Rough deal for the Cavs. Allen > Capela, and I'd argue that LeVert >= Hunter.

nykballa2k4 wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:The Cavs are telling teams Allen isn't available and it's not even clear thar Hunter has positive trade value (or is a good defender after all his injuries). This isn’t fixable from the Cavs perspective.

To some degree isn't that context?
To make a terrible example: If Embiid would be healthy by the playoffs would you trade him with Mobley and matching contracts for Embiid?

I interpret that comment to mean that Cavs are not sellers and not trying to diminish at that position. If there was a player like Mikal Bridges or OG etc on the market one would think he would be on the table...

Haynes reported that, according to other teams calling, the Cavs aren't interested in trading Allen or Mitchell. Now, can you come up with some crazy offer they would have to accept, sure. That's true of 98% of the players in the NBA. You have them sending Allen out for a player who isn't universally viewed as having positive value around the NBA.

nykballa2k4 wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:The Cavs are telling teams Allen isn't available and it's not even clear thar Hunter has positive trade value (or is a good defender after all his injuries). This isn’t fixable from the Cavs perspective.

To some degree isn't that context?
To make a terrible example: If Embiid would be healthy by the playoffs would you trade him with Mobley and matching contracts for Embiid?

I interpret that comment to mean that Cavs are not sellers and not trying to diminish at that position. If there was a player like Mikal Bridges or OG etc on the market one would think he would be on the table...

Allen, Mobley and matching for Embiid? Even if "healthy", HELL NO! Because (A) "Healthy Embiid" means healthy NOW, and it's not a matter of IF that changes, it's WHEN, and; (B) We can make the playoffs as is, while I don't think Embiid brings us any closer to a ring.

TheBrooklynKidd wrote:Brooklyn says no to the inclusion of Cam Thomas or the Suns 2027.

I think they’re out on Murray in general unless they can flip the picks they get for DFS/Royce O’Neale for him.

Correct, this would have to be Luka for them to trade both. This would not happen. That Suns pick is super super valuable and Cam Thomas is one of if not the top 3 young scorers in the league right now.

There’s no chance the Cavs do this trade