RealGM

I don't know what all their new contracts would look like but Charlotte's got plenty of capspace and I think Minnesota should be alright for capspace but I'm not sure.

Minnesota Outgoing

Minnesota 2009 1st (maybe high lotto) Ricky Rubio? B.J. Mullens?

Craig Smith= nba.com has him listed 6'8'' 270, scores 90% of his points in the paint, doesn't really have any jumper but has a floater he uses alot close to the basket, not very mobile on defense, could put up 17 and 8 type numbers with starter minutes, and Jared Dudley and Smith were Boston College teammates.

Sebastian Telfair= bad reputation but hasn't had any issues in minnesota so far, probably one of the fastest guys in the nba with a yo-yo handle, can't finish or shoot worth anything, averaging about 10 and 6 assists right now.

Michael Doleac= Decent expiring contract.

Charlotte Outgoing

Emeka Oakafor= great fit at Center next to Al Jefferson at pf.


Why for Minnesota= this way Minnesota doesn't have to worry about Mchale taking a big risk in Roy Hibbert or a guy whom might bust like Deandre Jordan and take something proven like Oakafor. The sacrifice would be the 2009 pick which could also be high lotto.

Why for Charlotte= 2009 lotto pick could bring in Ricky Rubio or a stud center like B.J. Mullens. Bobcats need post offense and minnesota has too much post offense so they trade away Craig Smith. Sebastian Telfair will be a big upgrade at back-up point guard for the Bobcats over Jeff McGinnis. Doleac gives them a decent expiring.


Minnesota Lineup

Emeka Oakafor/ Chris Richard
Al Jefferson/ Ryan Gomes
Corey Brewer/ Marko Jaric
Rashad McCants/ Randy Foye
Derrick Rose/ Randy Foye

Charlotte Lineup

2009 pick (Rubio, Mullens, something else)

Nazr Mohammed/ Primoz Brezec
Craig Smith / Jermareo Davidson
Gerald Wallace/ Dudley
Jason Richardson/ Matt Carroll
Raymond Felton/ Sebastian Telfair

Wolves would only trade for Okafor in a s&t in the offseason - no reason to give up anything right now if he can just walk away. A s&t, with Walker and Buckner's expirings going back to Charlotte along with similar value pieces to what you're proposing, sounds good to me.

Minnesota cannot trade their pick in 2009 specifically because we owe LAC a protected pick. What MN can do is offer the Miami pick or the Boston pick we have for the future.

Added to Denney's logic above and we could do a walker/Buckner (expiring) plus the Miami or Bos pick and maybe even a signed C.Smith if you can do a double S/t.

I think your logic makes sense.

Remember that he can't walk away -- he's a restricted free agent.

Also, how does Minnesota trade its pick and end up with Rose?

Maritimer wrote:Remember that he can't walk away -- he's a restricted free agent.

Also, how does Minnesota trade its pick and end up with Rose?

Trade next year's pick and keep this year's.

Oops, sorry, misread.

Herculi wrote:Minnesota 2009 1st (maybe high lotto) Ricky Rubio? B.J. Mullens?.....

Why for Minnesota= this way Minnesota doesn't have to worry about Mchale taking a big risk in Roy Hibbert or a guy whom might bust like Deandre Jordan and take something proven like Oakafor. The sacrifice would be the 2009 pick which could also be high lotto.

COULD be high lotto????? We have the worst record in the league, trading for Okafor wont make us that much better now. The worst pick we can end up with is the #4 pick. MIN declines.

Maybe if we swap 1st round picks and you throw in Jared Dudley or Sean May, but if we are trading Smith i dont see the point of taking back May. MAYBE MIN will touch this then, still doubt it.

[quote="4ho5ive"]-= original quote snipped =-



COULD be high lotto????? We have the worst record in the league, trading for Okafor wont make us that much better now. The worst pick we can end up with is the #4 pick. MIN declines.[quote]

I'm saying Minnesota should take Rose with this year's pick and trade next year's pick to Charlotte in a package for Oakfor.

4ho5ive wrote:COULD be high lotto????? We have the worst record in the league, trading for Okafor wont make us that much better now. The worst pick we can end up with is the #4 pick. MIN declines.

For the record, he's talking about the 2009 pick. Minny keeps this year's.

deeney0 wrote:Wolves would only trade for Okafor in a s&t in the offseason - no reason to give up anything right now if he can just walk away. A s&t, with Walker and Buckner's expirings going back to Charlotte along with similar value pieces to what you're proposing, sounds good to me.

As Martimer said, Mek is a restricted FA...and as far as I know we're not looking for expirings.

The orginal deal doesn't do anything for me...rather just keep Mek.

OH I see. Sorry i jumped the gun. didnt even see that, blind rage I guess. I still dont think this happens.

Does that RFA status come with him if he's traded to Minnesota? Regardless, I think it would have to be a s&t to keep MN under the lux so they can get those expirings off the books.

revprodeji wrote:Minnesota cannot trade their pick in 2009 specifically because we owe LAC a protected pick.

Actually, the cba only requires that you keep "A" pick, not necessarily your own. Since we own the BOS pick in 2009, we could deal either one.

shrink wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Actually, the cba only requires that you keep "A" pick, not necessarily your own. Since we own the BOS pick in 2009, we could deal either one.

But Minnesota can't trade it's 2008 pick until they've mathematically secured a top 10 pick this year (interesting tangent - I wonder can they secure this before the deadline?) because of what they owe the Clippers.

EDIT: Oops deeney .. you're right. MIN can't trade their 2008, because it might be owned by LAC if its outside the top ten.

However, the MIN 2009 is tradable.

Larry Coon wrote: In addition, teams are restricted from trading away future first round draft picks in consecutive years. This is called the "Ted Stepien Rule." Stepien owned the Cavs from 1980-83, and made a series of bad trades that cost the Cavs several years' first round picks. As a result of Stepien's ineptitude, teams are now prevented from making trades which might leave them without a future first-round draft pick in consecutive years.

This rule applies only to future first round picks. For example, if this is the 2005-06 season, then teams can trade their 2006 first round pick without regard to whether they had a 2005 pick, since their 2005 pick is no longer a future pick. But they can't trade away both their 2006 and 2007 picks, since both are future picks. Teams sometimes work around this rule by trading first round picks in alternate years.

In addition, teams are required to have only a first round pick, and not necessarily their first round pick. So teams may trade away their own future picks in consecutive years if they have another team's first round pick in one of those years.

i'd think the bobcats would want this years pick not next

shrink wrote:I don't think that's right. Regardless of what happens with their pick this year and next, they'd still have the BOS pick, so they wouldn't be trading ahead and not have two consecutive years without a first round pick.

But they can't trade the 2008 pick right now because it still has a chance of being not top 10, so it would go to the Clips. That doesn't have anything to do with the two consecutive year rule.

LOL -- you beat me before I edited. You're right.