RealGM

Celtics trade: KP/#28/#32
Celtics get: Gafford

Jazz trade: Sexton/Martin/#43
Jazz get: KP/Powell/#28

Mavs trade: Gafford/Powell/Prosper/30 PHI 2nd
Mavs get: Sexton/#43

4th team trades: fake 2nd
4th team gets: Martin/Prosper/#32/30 PHI 2nd

so our mystery team gets a look at Prosper a big wing but who hasn't shown much, a good 2nd this year and a future 2nd for taking on Martin($8M, but less could be gtd and he could be waived, too lazy to do the math). Should be enough even for the full $8M

Boston replaces KP with Gafford still giving them a solid center and saves an absolute fortune in real money
Utah gets a first for Sexton by taking on a little bit of money this year
Dallas gets their Kyrie stopgap and looks to find an older prospect at 43

Not bad for too boston

The Wizards could be that 4th team

neno wrote:I think boston would pass

Cool.

Any reasons to help me understand why?

Edit: Now confused by your edit. No idea what you actually think here lol

TGW wrote:The Wizards could be that 4th team

Thanks. That helps!

Think Jazz deserves more. 28 for Sexton alone already feels light imo without the extra salary and jazz pitching in a second on top.

Think Sexton can fetch 25 from Orlando at the least and can't say the same for gafford. Mavs owe a little here

Texas Chuck wrote:Celtics trade: KP/#28/#32
Celtics get: Gafford

Jazz trade: Sexton/Martin/#43
Jazz get: KP/Powell/#28

Mavs trade: Gafford/Powell/Prosper/30 PHI 2nd
Mavs get: Sexton/#43

4th team trades: fake 2nd
4th team gets: Martin/Prosper/#32/30 PHI 2nd

so our mystery team gets a look at Prosper a big wing but who hasn't shown much, a good 2nd this year and a future 2nd for taking on Martin($8M, but less could be gtd and he could be waived, too lazy to do the math). Should be enough even for the full $8M

Boston replaces KP with Gafford still giving them a solid center and saves an absolute fortune in real money
Utah gets a first for Sexton by taking on a little bit of money this year
Dallas gets their Kyrie stopgap and looks to find an older prospect at 43

I think Boston giving up two picks is a bit rich here.

@daddy -- yeah maybe. I was basing this on Jazz fans posting that they couldn't get a 1st for Sexton at the deadline. But obviously #43 can be kept. Maybe Dallas adds cash as well. Hard for Dallas to add too much more value.

@Dan -- I feel pretty good about my values here. I mean Boston saves an absolute fortune in real money and gets back a very playable replacement center.

Value is fine for Boston. I’d rather try to send Gafford somewhere else though for an expiring stiff and keep some of draft capital we send out. Our tax situation doesn’t really allow for him to be resigned next year and us avoid the tax like we need to unless they salary dump Hauser and shed a significant portion of Jrue’s money. I think Hauser the player and the assets it might cost to shed a chunk of Jrue’s money which is a lot to give up to keep Gafford and if we don’t keep him I don’t think next years team without Tatum is worth giving up picks for a rental.

Don't think Dallas owes jack here. Sexton is flawed and that Sixers 2nd could be high given Pg13 is washed and Embiid is as available as Street Clothes Davis. I understand the reasoning for the OP, but Mavs don't have to add a thing

Few comments:
Don't think UTA want 1st rd pick in this draft, it's a team full of prospects and are adding another #6 + #21, they prefer improving their future picks and spreading them over.
UTA don't want or need KP, there are teams that want him, so he adds value to some teams.
I don't think Celts want Gafford, they are happy to just dump him and Hauser, that alone drops them below tax.
In a limited cap environment, guaranteeing contract is destruction of space to absorb money and should be limited by GMs, KJM, Holmes and Okogie contracts are better off waived...
Mavs are better off dumping Hardy and Prosper, they are young can get PT on non-competitive teams, Powell as expiring and emergency center stays

I know the old wisdom was to keep deals small, but in the new cap environment , I'd lump in CHO, LAL, or both...
Not to hijack your thread, but I think bigger is better

Celtics trade: KP/#33
Celtics get: Vando/#28

Celtics "stretch" KP, into 3 years of Vando...
replacing #28 with #33 reduces the pick salary by 1.5M (or 2.8 if signed to 2-way) --> this part can be removed but I think it's better for the Celtics

Jazz trade: Sexton/Clarkson/LAL 27
Jazz get: Nurk/Vincent/Kleber/LAL 26/LAL 28(top 4)/LAL 27 top 4 protected swap

Jazz add 2 1sts in years they don't have picks and keep the LAL 27 pick as a swap, they have another 2 picks in that draft as is.

CHO trade: Nurk, Josh Green/#33
CHO take: KP/Clarkson

CHO add 2 expiring vets instead of players that didn't contribute.

LAL trade: Kleber/Vincent/Vando/LAL26/LAL28/LAL30 + 27 swap
LAL receive: Gafford/Josh Green/PHI 30

Add a center, and replace Vincent with Green, it's an upgrade IMO

Mavs trade: Gafford/Hardy/LAL29/PHI 30
Mavs get: Sexton/LAL30

Same as OP, but push the 1st from LAL 1 year

Flotsam (Hardy, Prosper, min deals for balance is needed) into WAS TPEs for #28

Mavrelous wrote:Few comments:
Don't think UTA want 1st rd pick in this draft, it's a team full of prospects and are adding another #6 + #21, they prefer improving their future picks and spreading them over.
UTA don't want or need KP, there are teams that want him, so he adds value to some teams.
I don't think Celts want Gafford, they are happy to just dump him and Hauser, that alone drops them below tax.
In a limited cap environment, guaranteeing contract is destruction of space to absorb money and should be limited by GMs, KJM, Holmes and Okogie contracts are better off waived...
Mavs are better off dumping Hardy and Prosper, they are young can get PT on non-competitive teams, Powell as expiring and emergency center stays

I know the old wisdom was to keep deals small, but in the new cap environment , I'd lump in CHO, LAL, or both...
Not to hijack your thread, but I think bigger is better

Celtics trade: KP/#33
Celtics get: Vando/#28

Celtics "stretch" KP, into 3 years of Vando...
replacing #28 with #33 reduces the pick salary by 1.5M (or 2.8 if signed to 2-way) --> this part can be removed but I think it's better for the Celtics

Jazz trade: Sexton/Clarkson/LAL 27
Jazz get: Nurk/Vincent/Kleber/LAL 26/LAL 28(top 4)/LAL 27 top 4 protected swap

Jazz add 2 1sts in years they don't have picks and keep the LAL 27 pick as a swap, they have another 2 picks in that draft as is.

CHO trade: Nurk, Josh Green/#33
CHO take: KP/Clarkson

CHO add 2 expiring vets instead of players that didn't contribute.

LAL trade: Kleber/Vincent/Vando/LAL26/LAL28/LAL30 + 27 swap
LAL receive: Gafford/Josh Green/PHI 30

Add a center, and replace Vincent with Green, it's an upgrade IMO

Mavs trade: Gafford/Hardy/LAL29/PHI 30
Mavs get: Sexton/LAL30

Same as OP, but push the 1st from LAL 1 year

Flotsam (Hardy, Prosper, min deals for balance is needed) into WAS TPEs for #28

Celtics need to reduce 26/27 Salary. This increases it significantly.
If they had already accomplished a deal that addressed 26/27 and this didn’t push them back into the Tax that year then I could see it.
Make it Vincent, Maxi or Rui instead of Vanderbilt and it works for the Celtics. This does not.

brackdan70 wrote:Celtics need to reduce 26/27 Salary. This increases it significantly.
If they had already accomplished a deal that addressed 26/27 and this didn’t push them back into the Tax that year then I could see it.

They need to reduce both 25/26 and 26/27
This trade drops them below the 2nd Apron this year, they can continue the salary saving with Hauser and Holiday.

Yeah I appreciate your criticisms of the OP, but a deal that much bigger isn't better imo. And once again its too cute with the picks. This board is obsessed with that, but we never actually see teams make deals like this.

Sometimes the hunt for the perfect is the enemy of the good.*

*not saying the OP is good, just talking about the concept here.

I think "getting cute with picks" and filling a real need for all teams involved is better than keeping it simple and add a 3rd pick in 1 year for a team with 8 players on rookie scale contracts...

Mavrelous wrote:I think "getting cute with picks" and filling a real need for all teams involved is better than keeping it simple and add a 3rd pick in 1 year for a team with 8 players on rookie scale contracts...

Oh I agree the value isn't in the ideal format for Utah. But there are easier fixes than all of this. But we disagree on making deals super complicated and thats okay.

Mavrelous wrote:

brackdan70 wrote:Celtics need to reduce 26/27 Salary. This increases it significantly.
If they had already accomplished a deal that addressed 26/27 and this didn’t push them back into the Tax that year then I could see it.

They need to reduce both 25/26 and 26/27
This trade drops them below the 2nd Apron this year, they can continue the salary saving with Hauser and Holiday.

They are 20 million over the 2nd Apron with 12 players signed for 2025/26. This trade doesn’t get them there ( though it gets them close) and increases 2026/27 by 12 million. After this trade they would need to cut 26 million in 26/27 to get under the tax. That becomes pretty difficult.
I don’t t think the Celtics would entertain any proposal that adds Salary for 2026/27.
Replace Vanderbilt with an expiring and it makes sense. Otherwise it’s a no go.

brackdan70 wrote:

Mavrelous wrote:

brackdan70 wrote:Celtics need to reduce 26/27 Salary. This increases it significantly.
If they had already accomplished a deal that addressed 26/27 and this didn’t push them back into the Tax that year then I could see it.

They need to reduce both 25/26 and 26/27
This trade drops them below the 2nd Apron this year, they can continue the salary saving with Hauser and Holiday.

They are 20 million over the 2nd Apron with 12 players signed for 2025/26. This trade doesn’t get them there ( though it gets them close) and increases 2026/27 by 12 million. After this trade they would need to cut 26 million in 26/27 to get under the tax. That becomes pretty difficult.
I don’t t think the Celtics would entertain any proposal that adds Salary for 2026/27.
Replace Vanderbilt with an expiring and it makes sense. Otherwise it’s a no go.

Celtics can use their pick (28 and 32) to outright dump him, but this deal drops 20M w/o any capital...

i wouldn't mind Charlotte being that 4th team and then flipping Martin/other players and a combo of #32, #33, #34 to actually fill our team needs.