RealGM

Denver out: MPJ, Saric, Tyson
SAS out: Vassell, Barnes

Why for Denver: get 2 role players for one and save money next year when gordons extension kicks in
Why for SAS: improve shooting next to Wemby and add size to starting lineup

Godaddycurse wrote:Denver out: MPJ, Saric, Tyson
SAS out: Vassell, Barnes

Why for Denver: get 2 role players for one and save money next year when gordons extension kicks in
Why for SAS: improve shooting next to Wemby and add size to starting lineup

Spurs want no part of this. Switch out MPJ for Gordon though and I could see them having interest.

Or make it Keldon, Branham, and Wesley. That looks much fairer.

I'm not against an MPJ trade, but I don't see why Saric and Tyson are in the deal. The Spurs don't have a lot of extra roster spots.

Chinook wrote:I'm not against an MPJ trade, but I don't see why Saric and Tyson are in the deal. The Spurs don't have a lot of extra roster spots.

Denver need to send out More money rhan incoming... Can pay cash for you to cut tyson i guess?

Godaddycurse wrote:

Chinook wrote:I'm not against an MPJ trade, but I don't see why Saric and Tyson are in the deal. The Spurs don't have a lot of extra roster spots.

Denver need to send out More money rhan incoming... Can pay cash for you to cut tyson i guess?

20 roster spots in an off-season and every team save maybe OKC has trivially easy waives. This continues to be one of the more baffling reasons to turn down a trade you otherwise believe a team would make.

I'd turn it down for the Spurs on the main points, but if I felt like Chinook and liked it, I'd not worry about a couple insignificant pieces. That can be so easily deal with.

Texas Chuck wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

Chinook wrote:I'm not against an MPJ trade, but I don't see why Saric and Tyson are in the deal. The Spurs don't have a lot of extra roster spots.

Denver need to send out More money rhan incoming... Can pay cash for you to cut tyson i guess?

20 roster spots in an off-season and every team save maybe OKC has trivially easy waives. This continues to be one of the more baffling reasons to turn down a trade you otherwise believe a team would make.

I'd turn it down for the Spurs on the main points, but if I felt like Chinook and liked it, I'd not worry about a couple insignificant pieces. That can be so easily deal with.

Honestly, Chuck, I don't why you're baffled by my concern. You know full well that taking on $7.5 Million in extra salary for guys who might not have spots on the 15-man roster isn't trivial. It's an extra element to this trade that's being thrown in when it's not necessary.

There are two main frameworks for an MPJ-to-SAS deal: Johnson and Barnes or Vassell and Branham/Wesley. Both of those frameworks require no additional player coming from Denver. I'm not against either of those deals if the idea is to either save money long term (Vassell) or raising the ceiling at the PF position (Johnson). But once you add in taking on more contracts to be waived and losing both Vassell and Barnes, it moves to the point where I'd want the Spurs to be compensated. Vassell can't be thought of as a negative contract here, because he doesn't need to be in the deal to make the numbers work. Devin being in the deal is not doing the Spurs a favor

Chinook wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:
Denver need to send out More money rhan incoming... Can pay cash for you to cut tyson i guess?

20 roster spots in an off-season and every team save maybe OKC has trivially easy waives. This continues to be one of the more baffling reasons to turn down a trade you otherwise believe a team would make.

I'd turn it down for the Spurs on the main points, but if I felt like Chinook and liked it, I'd not worry about a couple insignificant pieces. That can be so easily deal with.

Honestly, Chuck, I don't why you're baffled by my concern. You know full well that taking on $7.5 Million in extra salary for guys who might not have spots on the 15-man roster isn't trivial. It's an extra element to this trade that's being thrown in when it's not necessary.

There are two main frameworks for an MPJ-to-SAS deal: Johnson and Barnes or Vassell and Branham/Wesley. Both of those frameworks require no additional player coming from Denver. I'm not against either of those deals if the idea is to either save money long term (Vassell) or raising the ceiling at the PF position (Johnson). But once you add in taking on more contracts to be waived and losing both Vassell and Barnes, it moves to the point where I'd want the Spurs to be compensated. Vassell can't be thought of as a negative contract here, because he doesn't need to be in the deal to make the numbers work. Devin being in the deal is not doing the Spurs a favor

i thought SAS prefers to keep JOhnson over Vassell due to the former being better able to play SF (they have a glut of guards needing 30+ min w/ harper/fox/castle). I also like how johnson and mpj's contracts will both expire at same time

Spurs likely prefer Vassell over Keldon.

It is trivial though. So I'm going to say its trivial. If the Spurs are on board with MPJ for Vassell/Barnes those two players aren't holding it up. Maybe the Spurs take them and waive them or someone else. Maybe they get dumped on a 3rd team with one or both teams helping to pay for it as necessary(wouldn't cost much at all).

We are so bad on this board about finding reasons to hate deals. It's super negative all the time and then its negative if you express any opinion different from a fan base. We should work a lot harder to look at what matters in the deal and see if the little things can be fixed with just a little imagination.

In this case obviously they can.

I kind of like Vassell for MPJ. I think SAS is getting the better player and roster fit there, and DEN gets a decent piece with extra salary matching room.

Lots of deals on here with BOS's Sam Hauser going to a TPE/MLE for salary savings or DAL's Martin or Marshall going into TPE/MLE to facilitate a deal. If DEN worked out a deal with SAS of MPJ for Vassell, they could use the extra salary to essentially make a MLE/TPE to be the team getting one of those guys to lengthen their rotation.

Spurs would probably be happy to send Keldon, Branham, & Wesley. How about that.

Texas Chuck wrote:It is trivial though. So I'm going to say its trivial.

You saying it's trivial doesn't make it trivial. Whole deals exist where teams eat $7.5 Million for compensation. You post such deals all the time talking about how they're realistic deals this forum often overlooks. But you're overlooking it here. In real life, teams don't just eat millions of dollars. You know that, but because it's not the point of the argument you're making, you're overlooking it.

We are so bad on this board about finding reasons to hate deals. It's super negative all the time and then its negative if you express any opinion different from a fan base. We should work a lot harder to look at what matters in the deal and see if the little things can be fixed with just a little imagination.

In reality most proposed deals aren't good. We all know this. You and the other mods hard to try to keep the forum from devolving into the squabbling the subject matter trends toward. I appreciate that. But when you bowl over my counter offer to complain that folks aren't trying to hash out the details, it doesn't feel like a substantive criticism.

I'm not against an MPJ trade. If the Spurs were to pull one off, I wouldn't hate it. But that doesn't mean the deal as the OP laid out was something I'd want the Spurs to accept. I gave my reasons why and proposed to alternate solution. That that can baffle you while simultaneously being indicative of the board nowadays is, well, baffling.

One_and_Done wrote:Spurs would probably be happy to send Keldon, Branham, & Wesley. How about that.

well they'd need to send out more salaries to match

Chinook wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:It is trivial though. So I'm going to say its trivial.

You saying it's trivial doesn't make it trivial. Whole deals exist where teams eat $7.5 Million for compensation. You post such deals all the time talking about how they're realistic deals this forum often overlooks. But you're overlooking it here. In real life, teams don't just eat millions of dollars. You know that, but because it's not the point of the argument you're making, you're overlooking it.

We are so bad on this board about finding reasons to hate deals. It's super negative all the time and then its negative if you express any opinion different from a fan base. We should work a lot harder to look at what matters in the deal and see if the little things can be fixed with just a little imagination.

In reality most proposed deals aren't good. We all know this. You and the other mods hard to try to keep the forum from devolving into the squabbling the subject matter trends toward. I appreciate that. But when you bowl over my counter offer to complain that folks aren't trying to hash out the details, it doesn't feel like a substantive criticism.

I'm not against an MPJ trade. If the Spurs were to pull one off, I wouldn't hate it. But that doesn't mean the deal as the OP laid out was something I'd want the Spurs to accept. I gave my reasons why and proposed to alternate solution. That that can baffle you while simultaneously being indicative of the board nowadays is, well, baffling.

I'm absolutely not overlooking it. I'm saying it can be solved in a dozen or more ways. We can go over them in detail but then you will find little things to nitpick about them. But Denver can include cash and 2nd and the Spurs waive them or someone else or fill empty roster spots for them.

Or a 3rd team is found who gets a cash and a 2nd and the teams decide who owes the value.

What doesn't happen is a main deal both teams like(your take not mine btw) isn't held up by something this minor. When my entire deal is the $7M salary dump, yes I need to have it strictly defined. When its part of a deal much bigger like this, and we all know how easy it is to solve, we don't rule the trade out over it.

Godaddycurse wrote:

Chinook wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
20 roster spots in an off-season and every team save maybe OKC has trivially easy waives. This continues to be one of the more baffling reasons to turn down a trade you otherwise believe a team would make.

I'd turn it down for the Spurs on the main points, but if I felt like Chinook and liked it, I'd not worry about a couple insignificant pieces. That can be so easily deal with.

Honestly, Chuck, I don't why you're baffled by my concern. You know full well that taking on $7.5 Million in extra salary for guys who might not have spots on the 15-man roster isn't trivial. It's an extra element to this trade that's being thrown in when it's not necessary.

There are two main frameworks for an MPJ-to-SAS deal: Johnson and Barnes or Vassell and Branham/Wesley. Both of those frameworks require no additional player coming from Denver. I'm not against either of those deals if the idea is to either save money long term (Vassell) or raising the ceiling at the PF position (Johnson). But once you add in taking on more contracts to be waived and losing both Vassell and Barnes, it moves to the point where I'd want the Spurs to be compensated. Vassell can't be thought of as a negative contract here, because he doesn't need to be in the deal to make the numbers work. Devin being in the deal is not doing the Spurs a favor

i thought SAS prefers to keep JOhnson over Vassell due to the former being better able to play SF (they have a glut of guards needing 30+ min w/ harper/fox/castle). I also like how johnson and mpj's contracts will both expire at same time

Vassell plays a lot of SF, so I don't think that is a motivating factor for them. They may want to keep Johnson because of how important Keldon is to the locker room. But if the rumblings have been true, the Spurs have been resisting having Devin in trade discussions so far. That's massively unsubstantiated, but we might see Devin survive a lot of trade talks, or if he is dealt that he's dealt as a positive-value piece rather than ballast.

Texas Chuck wrote:

Chinook wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:It is trivial though. So I'm going to say its trivial.

You saying it's trivial doesn't make it trivial. Whole deals exist where teams eat $7.5 Million for compensation. You post such deals all the time talking about how they're realistic deals this forum often overlooks. But you're overlooking it here. In real life, teams don't just eat millions of dollars. You know that, but because it's not the point of the argument you're making, you're overlooking it.

We are so bad on this board about finding reasons to hate deals. It's super negative all the time and then its negative if you express any opinion different from a fan base. We should work a lot harder to look at what matters in the deal and see if the little things can be fixed with just a little imagination.

In reality most proposed deals aren't good. We all know this. You and the other mods hard to try to keep the forum from devolving into the squabbling the subject matter trends toward. I appreciate that. But when you bowl over my counter offer to complain that folks aren't trying to hash out the details, it doesn't feel like a substantive criticism.

I'm not against an MPJ trade. If the Spurs were to pull one off, I wouldn't hate it. But that doesn't mean the deal as the OP laid out was something I'd want the Spurs to accept. I gave my reasons why and proposed to alternate solution. That that can baffle you while simultaneously being indicative of the board nowadays is, well, baffling.

I'm absolutely not overlooking it. I'm saying it can be solved in a dozen or more ways. We can go over them in detail but then you will find little things to nitpick about them. But Denver can include cash and 2nd and the Spurs waive them or someone else or fill empty roster spots for them.

Or a 3rd team is found who gets a cash and a 2nd and the teams decide who owes the value.

What doesn't happen is a main deal both teams like(your take not mine btw) isn't held up by something this minor. When my entire deal is the $7M salary dump, yes I need to have it strictly defined. When its part of a deal much bigger like this, and we all know how easy it is to solve, we don't rule the trade out over it.

In his defense he did provide counter offers that he likes better, which i appreciate and used in another thread.

Godaddycurse wrote:In his defense he did provide counter offers that he likes better, which i appreciate and used in another thread.

He did. And I agree that follow up post was a good post. But in his original post he didn't which is the one I had responded to.

We are all good here. I like Chinook. He's smart, he's reasonable and level headed. We disagree a ton on Spurs stuff but that's cool.

Mpj only has two years left on that deal and is pretty good. If it was Vassell and Keldon, that’s a yes IMO if there’s nothing better in the works this offseason. Vassell and Barnes probably a no, but close.

I would also try to get herb jones for barnes, 14, maybe something else.

Fox / Harper
Castle / Harper
Jones / Champagnie
MPJ / Sochan
Wemby

You could also keep keldon out of it and do Vassell / Branham or Wesley for MPJ - may not give Denver the depth they’re looking for, but might be a fit and save a little $.