RealGM

Charlotte trade: Pat C, Sexton, NSJ, 3 future 2nds
Charlotte receive: Simons, Gafford

Boston trade: Simons
Boston receive: Pat C, Martin

Dallas trade: Gafford, Martin
Dallas receive: Sexton, Reath, 2 future 2nds

Portland trade: Reath
Portland receive: NSJ, future 2nd

Why for Portland: get a small asset for their 4th C
Why for Boston: save money
Why for Charlotte: add a starting C and replace sexton with a similar offense only guard
Why for Dallas: improve scoring

Add/adjust 2nd(s) as needed

I like this assuming its a bit into the season and Yang has proven to be capable of filling in a bit when RWIII is down.

Most teams dont need 4 centers, but most teams dont have RWIII as 1 of the 4 - his injury history basically necessitates a 4th C.

Very interesting deal, I'm game for Dallas.

So the market proved Sexton has negative value and he himself proven he's not conducive to winning basketball, but Dallas gives up Gaff for him? No thanks

It’s ok if Wang is ready for real minutes and POR doesn’t mind another young pg.

daoneandonly wrote:So the market proved Sexton has negative value and he himself proven he's not conducive to winning basketball, but Dallas gives up Gaff for him? No thanks

I'm of the camp that Utah paid Sexton and 2nd as incentive for Charlotte to not trade down and let them draft Bailey. I dont think Sexton has negative value.

I'm good with this as there likely isn't a big difference between Simons/Sexton, if any at all. Gafford is a big enough difference maker for the next year or two at C

Doesn’t save enough 2025/26 money to make it worthwhile for Boston, Martin for a couple more years doesn’t excite me.
I’d rather Gafford goes to the Celtics and Boston adds some 2nds. Otherwise just hold Simons.

Hornets don't have a roster spot for Gafford even if they're cutting Pat.

Rather have Sexton for 18 than Simons for 27.

And I wouldn't trade Sexton for Gafford.

MasterIchiro wrote:Hornets don't have a roster spot for Gafford even if they're cutting Pat.

Rather have Sexton for 18 than Simons for 27.

And I wouldn't trade Sexton for Gafford.

but would you rather have Sexton or Simons AND Gafford? to me, that's pretty straight forward.

a front office with one functioning brain cell between them, would make room for Gafford. Gafford means you can cut your losses on the stupid Plumlee signing, he's not needed with 3 other Cs on the team.

brackdan70 wrote:Doesn’t save enough 2025/26 money to make it worthwhile for Boston, Martin for a couple more years doesn’t excite me.
I’d rather Gafford goes to the Celtics and Boston adds some 2nds. Otherwise just hold Simons.

you can dump Pat C for a couple 2nds elsewhere. Figure Martin gives them wing depth while Tatum is out

Godaddycurse wrote:

brackdan70 wrote:Doesn’t save enough 2025/26 money to make it worthwhile for Boston, Martin for a couple more years doesn’t excite me.
I’d rather Gafford goes to the Celtics and Boston adds some 2nds. Otherwise just hold Simons.

you can dump Pat C for a couple 2nds elsewhere. Figure Martin gives them wing depth while Tatum is out

They don’t need wing depth for when Tatum is out. Have plenty of wings. They need a center for when Tatum is back. Flexibility is more important than just filler. Why would they want to use picks to dump salary

HornetJail wrote:

MasterIchiro wrote:Hornets don't have a roster spot for Gafford even if they're cutting Pat.

Rather have Sexton for 18 than Simons for 27.

And I wouldn't trade Sexton for Gafford.

but would you rather have Sexton or Simons AND Gafford? to me, that's pretty straight forward.

a front office with one functioning brain cell between them, would make room for Gafford. Gafford means you can cut your losses on the stupid Plumlee signing, he's not needed with 3 other Cs on the team.

We are paying to clear a roster spot in the aftermath, likely a first to send Green into an MLE somewhere.

So no, I'd prefer Sexton at his cost 10 million cheaper than Simons and prefer the first to Gafford.

Not close.

MasterIchiro wrote:

HornetJail wrote:

MasterIchiro wrote:Hornets don't have a roster spot for Gafford even if they're cutting Pat.

Rather have Sexton for 18 than Simons for 27.

And I wouldn't trade Sexton for Gafford.

but would you rather have Sexton or Simons AND Gafford? to me, that's pretty straight forward.

a front office with one functioning brain cell between them, would make room for Gafford. Gafford means you can cut your losses on the stupid Plumlee signing, he's not needed with 3 other Cs on the team.

We are paying to clear a roster spot in the aftermath, likely a first to send Green into an MLE somewhere.

So no, I'd prefer Sexton at his cost 10 million cheaper than Simons and prefer the first to Gafford.

Not close.

theres no 1st involved in OP..

Godaddycurse wrote:

MasterIchiro wrote:

HornetJail wrote:
but would you rather have Sexton or Simons AND Gafford? to me, that's pretty straight forward.

a front office with one functioning brain cell between them, would make room for Gafford. Gafford means you can cut your losses on the stupid Plumlee signing, he's not needed with 3 other Cs on the team.

We are paying to clear a roster spot in the aftermath, likely a first to send Green into an MLE somewhere.

So no, I'd prefer Sexton at his cost 10 million cheaper than Simons and prefer the first to Gafford.

Not close.

theres no 1st involved in OP..

But the roster spot would cost a 1st to move Green.

Green + 2nds for Gafford is fine though.

MasterIchiro wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

MasterIchiro wrote:
We are paying to clear a roster spot in the aftermath, likely a first to send Green into an MLE somewhere.

So no, I'd prefer Sexton at his cost 10 million cheaper than Simons and prefer the first to Gafford.

Not close.

theres no 1st involved in OP..

But the roster spot would cost a 1st to move Green.

Green + 2nds for Gafford is fine though.

Why does green have to move? Just drop jeffries? Or Plumlee?

Cost a 1st to turn green into Gafford, hence green also not in OP

Godaddycurse wrote:

MasterIchiro wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:
theres no 1st involved in OP..

But the roster spot would cost a 1st to move Green.

Green + 2nds for Gafford is fine though.

Why does green have to move? Just drop jeffries?

I didn't forget Jeffries. Even if the Hornets cut him, while buying out Pat and NSJ they're at 15.

You have 2 players incoming for 1 of those 15.

MasterIchiro wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

MasterIchiro wrote:
But the roster spot would cost a 1st to move Green.

Green + 2nds for Gafford is fine though.

Why does green have to move? Just drop jeffries?

I didn't forget Jeffries. Even if the Hornets cut him, while buying out Pat and NSJ they're at 15.

You have 2 players incoming for 1 of those 15.

Then cut one of dinwiddie or plumlee. No need to pay a first to dump green

Godaddycurse wrote:

MasterIchiro wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:
Why does green have to move? Just drop jeffries?

I didn't forget Jeffries. Even if the Hornets cut him, while buying out Pat and NSJ they're at 15.

You have 2 players incoming for 1 of those 15.

Then cut one of dinwiddie or plumlee. No need to pay a first to dump green

We won't cut PG or C right now. Surplus is guards/Green. And you have us sending out Sexton, a guard I prefer to keep over Green.

I’d happily cut all of Jeffries and Plumlee if it meant getting Simons/Gaff for Sexton.. feels like a pretty easy call there to me. Maybe I’m missing another player, but that seems to get them to 15 players with bringing in the two second round picks?

I like the OP for all four teams.