RealGM

If GSW's trade yesterday to free up the 1st to trade for Amare is true, then MIN can be a good intermediary to see that the deal gets done. Atkins' partially guaranteed deal is eligible to be combined in trade on Friday, and PHO can get extra value in an Amare team that gets them under the lux.

PHO IN: Biedrins + Atkins (partially guaranteed deal) + Ellington ($13.48)
PHO OUT: Amare ($16.39)

GSW IN: Amare ($16.39)
GSW OUT: Biedrins + Claxton + GSW 1st ($14.21)

MIN IN: Claxton + GSW 1st ($5.21)
MIN OUT: Atkins + Ellington ($4.48)

WHY FOR PHO: Biedrins may not be the star that Amare is, but this is a great return. Biedrins is very good, and locked into a decent, $9 mil/yr contract through 2014. Wayne Ellington is a late 1st round rookie that can score - Nash will make him look good. He's locked into a reasonable rookie deal. Roster spots go from 13 to 14.

Best of all, Atkins partially guaranteed deal means that they can waive him and save $2.72 mil. Coupled with $2.91 savings from the deal, this saves PHO $5.63. Overall this means:

$2.72 Atkins 2009 Waive
$2.91 Trade Savings (2009 TPE)
$4.80 Lux Penalties recovered
$3.00 Lux Share Recovered (estimate)
$13.43 SAVINGS in 2009
$7.6 SAVINGS in 2010

$21 mil in TOTAL SAVINGS

WHY FOR GSW: Amare Stoudemire. They add a potential superstar for Biedrins and a pick. I assume they talk with Amare to make sure he's happy with the trade so they can expect a reasonable extension next year. GSW is not a big market team, so getting a superstar there is tough except by trade, even if they didn't have to wait a long time for cap space. Amare is very familiar with the up-tempo game. The Warriors don't waste $5 mil this season on Claxton's unproductive salary, and they open up a roster space. Amare's addition makes this pick (and probably the 2012 one they owe the Nets) worth less. Amare makes them competitive with other good teams in the West.

WHY FOR MIN: MIN can serve as the financial piece that makes Sarver consider moving Amare. The Wolves aren't competing, so they don't mind adding Claxton this year. Atkins 2009 salary reduction is only cash to them - its worth far more elsewhere. They have high hopes for Ellington, but they gamble that an unprotected pick in next year's deeper draft is worth more.

I don't see Phoenix parting with Stoudemire until the trade deadline.

Realistically, I think GS would have to be VERY confident that Amare would re-sign in order to give up not only Andris Biedrins, whom they rightly love, but also a 1st round pick as well.

Doesn't Phoenix add salary in 2010 in the form of Biedrins and Ellington, while Amare is an UFA?

I would think Phoenix needs singificantly more in this deal, and from GSW.. esp. since I think GSW does this deal under the assumption that Amare would resign, or be extended prior to the deal.


My take would be

PHO
Amare, J-Rich, Amundson, #2
4
Biedrins, SJax, B.Wright, Atkins, Ellington, $7m TPE

GS
Biedrins, SJax, B.Wright, Claxton, #1
4
Amare, J-Rich, Amundson, #2

MIN
Atkins, Ellington
4
Claxton, GS #1

I should probably mention that that the unprotected GSW pick should be valued as the GSW pick WITH AMARE.

Its really hard to make a guess right now where that pick would land, but if I was to guess, I figure there's liek an 80% chance they make the play-offs, and the pick is around #22, as they jump in front of all but perhaps 3 east coast teams

There's still a chance they could falter, but its hard to see them being worse than last year, so perhaps there's a 20% chance they miss the play-offs, and the pick is like #13-14.

If Im GS I do the deal. Phoenix would be getting a potential All Star center for a PF who would be option #2 for the Knicks. if they can't get LeBron in case get nothing for a top 20 player.

Ray Allen Iverson wrote:I don't see Phoenix parting with Stoudemire until the trade deadline.

By the time the mid-season trade deadline rolls around next February, Amare's primary value will be his $16 million expiring contract. Unless Amare is willing to guarantee he will sign an extension with a specific team, flushing long term assets down the toilet in a trade for a two month rental would not be a good idea for most any NBA team. Amare's agent has previously informed Golden State's front office Stoudemire is not interested in playing in Oakland especially at center which is exactly what the Warriors have in mind assuming Biedrins is a part of the outgoing trade package.

I would probably make the deal for GS.

don nelson wrote:

Ray Allen Iverson wrote:I don't see Phoenix parting with Stoudemire until the trade deadline.

By the time the mid-season trade deadline rolls around next February, Amare's primary value will be his $16 million expiring contract. Unless Amare is willing to guarantee he will sign an extension with a specific team, flushing long term assets down the toilet in a trade for a two month rental would not be a good idea for most any NBA team.

Wrong. It would be a bad idea for any non-contending team. Lots of contending teams could willingly sacrifice long-term assets for a short-term gain. (Now if you're arguing that you already know that the Warriors are so bad that they won't be contenders even with Amare next year, that's a perfectly valid opinion. But don't generalize it to the rest of the league.)

don nelson wrote:Amare's agent has previously informed Golden State's front office Stoudemire is not interested in playing in Oakland especially at center which is exactly what the Warriors have in mind assuming Biedrins is a part of the outgoing trade package.

I am sure that the Warriors could figure something out. If they have an Amare deal in place but shoot it down because they refuse to play Turiaf or Wright at C instead of Amare, then they're in rough shape.

don nelson wrote:

Ray Allen Iverson wrote:I don't see Phoenix parting with Stoudemire until the trade deadline.

By the time the mid-season trade deadline rolls around next February, Amare's primary value will be his $16 million expiring contract. Unless Amare is willing to guarantee he will sign an extension with a specific team, flushing long term assets down the toilet in a trade for a two month rental would not be a good idea for most any NBA team. Amare's agent has previously informed Golden State's front office Stoudemire is not interested in playing in Oakland especially at center which is exactly what the Warriors have in mind assuming Biedrins is a part of the outgoing trade package.

This is the RATIONAL view. Amare has declined any Sign With GSW already,so a cross your fingers kind of deal would be foolhardy.

I really don't see Ellington as >> an unprotected pick. So.....Minny's role here isn't needed.

The Warriors have to make that pick unprotected...and may not be on the hook for Claxton's entire salary anyway. Minnesota probably gets cut out if this is all they're offering.

[/quote="don nelson"]

Ray Allen Iverson wrote:I don't see Phoenix parting with Stoudemire until the trade deadline.

By the time the mid-season trade deadline rolls around next February, Amare's primary value will be his $16 million expiring contract. Unless Amare is willing to guarantee he will sign an extension with a specific team, flushing long term assets down the toilet in a trade for a two month rental would not be a good idea for most any NBA team.[/quote]

Wrong. It would be a bad idea for any non-contending team. Lots of contending teams could willingly sacrifice long-term assets for a short-term gain. (Now if you're arguing that you already know that the Warriors are so bad that they won't be contenders even with Amare next year, that's a perfectly valid opinion. But don't generalize it to the rest of the league.)

don nelson wrote:Amare's agent has previously informed Golden State's front office Stoudemire is not interested in playing in Oakland especially at center which is exactly what the Warriors have in mind assuming Biedrins is a part of the outgoing trade package.

Yes..a bona fide contender may sacrafice SOME assets...NOT a real good young starting C plus an unprotected #1. If GSW is well above .500 at the midway point....maybe they'd prefer tobuild on the progress made rather than do a reboot and have to come up with a new plan later.
Would the Blazers give Oden for an unsigned Amare at mid season?

Sounds pretty good to me. The risk of the one-year deal is offset somewhat by Phoenix getting less in the deal (no Curry, no Wright) than they had bargained for this summer. By switching out Amare for Biedrins, getting a healthy Monta back, internal development of Randolph and Morrow, as well as not losing any of their other pieces, I think the Warriors should be a very good team. And if they have a very good team, running up and down the court, and can pay Amare more than any other team, I don't know why he wouldn't want to stay.

And if they suck with Amare, well at least they'll have a big expiring, s&t to work with.

You have to make bold moves in order to compete in this League.

However I don't know that anyone will give out unprotected 1st round picks these days, there undoubtedly would have to be at least some protection.

I'm not sure that Minny really needs to be involved though, GS would seem to have the young talent, pick, expirings, and matching salaries to make this work.

Atkins gone...

Twinkie defense wrote:However I don't know that anyone will give out unprotected 1st round picks these days, there undoubtedly would have to be at least some protection.

The Warriors can't protect the pick at all. You're not allowed to make trades wherein two future consecutive picks could even conceivably be transferred. Since the Warriors' 2012 pick is in hock, they can't protect the 2010 pick (since that could result in both the 2011 and 2012 picks being transferred if the 2010 pick falls into a protected zone). So any trade the Warriors make using that 2010 pick will require it to be completely unprotected (unless they get a different first rounder back).

loserX wrote:The Warriors have to make that pick unprotected...and may not be on the hook for Claxton's entire salary anyway. Minnesota probably gets cut out if this is all they're offering.

Everyone looks at Ellington, but its Atkins that MIN is bringing to the table.

GSW can't get PHO under the lux without some giant Amare + Jason Richardson deal, which both teams would be reluctant to gamble on. If you cut out MIN, PHO's savings drops from $13.43 to $5.82 mil, and they don't get Ellington. Its hard for me to believe Sarver wouldn't prefer the cash, considering the odds of where the pick will come in once GSW adds Amare to their team.

loserX wrote:

don nelson wrote:

Ray Allen Iverson wrote:I don't see Phoenix parting with Stoudemire until the trade deadline.

By the time the mid-season trade deadline rolls around next February, Amare's primary value will be his $16 million expiring contract. Unless Amare is willing to guarantee he will sign an extension with a specific team, flushing long term assets down the toilet in a trade for a two month rental would not be a good idea for most any NBA team.

Wrong. It would be a bad idea for any non-contending team. Lots of contending teams could willingly sacrifice long-term assets for a short-term gain. (Now if you're arguing that you already know that the Warriors are so bad that they won't be contenders even with Amare next year, that's a perfectly valid opinion. But don't generalize it to the rest of the league.

I am responding to the poster's statement that Amare would not be traded until the mid-season deadline next February 2010. At that point there should only be a limited number of teams who would consider trading the kind of highly valuable long term assets the Suns are demanding to move Amare. Trading for Amire makes the most sense if Stoudemire is the final piece that literally puts the acquiring team over the top and into prime position to win the NBA title next June. For the other teams trading for Stoudemire would realistically amount to a two month rental when Amare chooses to sign with another team during his free agency in the summer of 2010.

loserX wrote:

don nelson wrote:Amare's agent has previously informed Golden State's front office Stoudemire is not interested in playing in Oakland especially at center which is exactly what the Warriors have in mind assuming Biedrins is a part of the outgoing trade package.

I am sure that the Warriors could figure something out. If they have an Amare deal in place but shoot it down because they refuse to play Turiaf or Wright at C instead of Amare, then they're in rough shape.

Golden State will have a serious problem if the Warriors trade for Amare but Stoudemire refuses to play center. Turiaf is strictly a backup center who is not a great rebounder and will be less effective if he is required to play big minutes as the Warriors starting center. Anthony Randolph and Brandan Wright are both very slight of build by NBA standards even at power forward. Trying to play either Randolph or Wright big minutes at center would be impractical. That leaves the 33 year old 225 pound Mikki Moore as the remaining option on the Warriors roster to start at center. Given the fact Golden State was 30th in the NBA in both average number of points scored by opposing teams and average rebounding differential last season, I am not as confident as you are that "the Warriors could figure something out" if Golden State trades Biedrins hoping and praying the Warriors might somehow be able to convince Amare to resign in Oakland long term.

I think the Suns would consider this, as they would still have some pretty good players and prospects in the front-court.

don nelson wrote:

loserX wrote:

don nelson wrote:By the time the mid-season trade deadline rolls around next February, Amare's primary value will be his $16 million expiring contract. Unless Amare is willing to guarantee he will sign an extension with a specific team, flushing long term assets down the toilet in a trade for a two month rental would not be a good idea for most any NBA team.

Wrong. It would be a bad idea for any non-contending team. Lots of contending teams could willingly sacrifice long-term assets for a short-term gain. (Now if you're arguing that you already know that the Warriors are so bad that they won't be contenders even with Amare next year, that's a perfectly valid opinion. But don't generalize it to the rest of the league.

I am responding to the poster's statement that Amare would not be traded until the mid-season deadline next February 2010. At that point there should only be a limited number of teams who would consider trading the kind of highly valuable long term assets the Suns are demanding to move Amare. Trading for Amire makes the most sense if Stoudemire is the final piece that literally puts the acquiring team over the top and into prime position to win the NBA title next June. For the other teams trading for Stoudemire would realistically amount to a two month rental when Amare chooses to sign with another team during his free agency in the summer of 2010.

Exactly. So despite your first statement, Amare's value is "primarily an expiring" for those teams trying to tank...it's really only non-contenders who would not trade long-term assets for short-term gain. Your statement sounded overly general; best to focus on the Warriors and the fact that you do not expect them to be good enough to contend, instead of suggesting that Amare is not an asset that the Suns can trade.

I would NOT expect GSW suddenly goes from #23 to #1...with or without Amare. Amare didn't take a veteran Suns team all the way, and he's not gonna be given to GSW for whatever GSW may dump for an expiring. The Warriors can't be doing deals that will NOT result in a better team in 2011 or 2012.
The Warriors can't bet a long shot when the stakes are potentially VERY high. Mistakes in the NBA can't be patched up quick. You get set back YEARS.

i expect the Warriors can be good enough to contend,in a few years. They have no margin for error,need to be careful to not backslide,careful to not waste opportunity. I'm not saying I'm optimistic...or pessimistic. As a Warrior fan, I have seen a LOT of what does not work...decades of it.