RealGM

Cavs give Wolves 2009 1st and cash


Minnesota Timberwolves

Incoming Players
Wally Szczerbiak
Wally Szczerbiak
Salary: $13,775,000 Years Remaining: 1
PTS: 7.3 REB: 1.1 AST: 0.6 PER: 11.72
Sasha Pavlovic
Sasha Pavlovic
Salary: $4,500,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 1.5 REB: 1.3 AST: 0.3 PER: 5.23

Outgoing Players: Mike Miller, Brian Cardinal, Mark Madsen
Cleveland Cavaliers

Incoming Players
Mike Miller
Mike Miller
Salary: $9,028,575 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 14.8 REB: 4.3 AST: 3.7 PER: 15.58
Brian Cardinal
Brian Cardinal
Salary: $6,300,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 0.0 REB: 1.0 AST: 0.0 PER: 3.03
Mark Madsen
Mark Madsen
Salary: $2,630,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 0.0 REB: 4.0 AST: 2.0 PER: 11.60

Outgoing Players: Wally Szczerbiak, Sasha Pavlovic

Yeah we've seen many similar trades come from Cleveland. We have zero interest in Wally coming back and little to know interest in dumping Miller for another late first, since it's possible we may have four first rounders next year already (ours, miami's, utah's, and Boston's). Good try though.

I'd do this deal, and if you'd like to keep Sasha, I'd consider Kinsey's smaller expiring with a TPE instead.

If this deal was on the table, I think it'd be hard to talk around the fact that we would in effect, be paying Miller $19 mil next season, and there's no way our young growing team can justify that much expenditure. It provides a safety net to having all our eggs in the competitive 2010 Free Agency basket, by clearing enough 2009 cap space to offer a max deal against probably less desirable free agent sites (MEM and OKC), though a few other teams could join if they sacrifice some competitiveness this year and keep their expiring (POR, MIA, ATL maybe).

Of course, I'd make sure that Mike Miller realized this was entirely a business move, and that we'd welcome him back in free agency in 2010, when our team was more developed around him.

shrink wrote:I'd do this deal, and if you'd like to keep Sasha, I'd consider Kinsey's smaller expiring with a TPE instead.

If this deal was on the table, I think it'd be hard to talk around the fact that we would in effect, be paying Miller $19 mil next season, and there's no way our young growing team can justify that much expenditure. It provides a safety net to having all our eggs in the competitive 2010 Free Agency basket, by clearing enough 2009 cap space to offer a max deal against probably less desirable free agent sites (MEM and OKC), though a few other teams could join if they sacrifice some competitiveness this year and keep their expiring (POR, MIA, ATL maybe).

Of course, I'd make sure that Mike Miller realized this was entirely a business move, and that we'd welcome him back in free agency in 2010, when our team was more developed around him.

Agreed.

I'm not against moving him but we need to get more for Miller than a late first and a bit of cap relief.

Perhaps a draft day trades, like what Portland has been doing.

GopherIt! wrote:I'm not against moving him but we need to get more for Miller than a late first and a bit of cap relief.

Perhaps a draft day trades, like what Portland has been doing.

but if we wait to the draft, we couldn't take on any expiring contracts like wally is; the only way to get cap relief would be to trade miller to teams that have cap space, and we then wouldn't get as much for him.

Also, I'm in favor of miller, cardinal, madsen for wally, 09 cle 1st, kinsey or other small filler; since as shrink says that would save us like 19 million next year. also maybe we could package a few firsts and move up in the draft or at the very least have cap space next year to sign someone since I don't think there will be many buyers next year as everyone waits for 2010.

^
Yeah, waiting would kill the cap relief idea (if that's the goal.) I was thinking we could possibly get a late lotto pick for him if we wait until draft day and packaged him with one of our lesser picks.

I'm not necessarily against going for the cap space if that's what others like. I'm just concerned that
if we take a late pick like CLE's and the expirings we are gambling we will be able to sign an FA better than Miller. I know about 2010-11, but who is going to be available this coming offseason? (not rhetorical, I simply don't know off the top of my head who we'd target)

My thinking is that Miller's a solid GF to have in our rotation and fits our teams needs as well as anyone we could add via free agency this off season (at least among those players that would actually want to play here.) Now if we are talking about adding someone like Diop, who diminishes our 2010-11 cap space I think this CLE deal appeals to me more.

I don't disagree with anything you've said GopherIt, and the difference is just opinion, determining whether we can use the 2009 cap space more effectively than just continueing to roll with what we have, and hoping we can add something in 2010. Both seem dangerous to me, but I like the trade because I want two chances, and as I said, I'd have no problem even bringing Mike Miller back if we can't find something effective in 2010. In addition, keep in mind that MIN has been able to do effective trades with cap space (well, TPE's) the last two years, and a big chunk of cap space could provide even more opportunities. Its far more valuable than expirings, as evidenced by recent trades for Camby straight up, cap space and a pick for Jason Richardson, and Kurt Thomas (exp) and two late firsts. We'd also have the ability to trade it for a a big name player on a deal going past 2010 if another team started to fail and wanted to start an immediate rebuild. If we only were talking free agents, here's the list:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/stor ... ents-09-10

I didn't mention it before, but cap space in 2009 would also allow us to have the $ to bring Pekovic over.

It's actually probably more useful to ship Miller + MIA pick for filler for better pick.

or...
Maybe something like Utah pick + miller for pick in late lotto gets us into the 9-13 range? Then use that and the MIA pick to move up a little.

Most Cav fans are set on Mike Miller.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=849202&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

I don't think the value of what this trade will bring in is greater than a deal on draft day would provide, unless the FO was willing to spend some of that saved money to pick up some extra draft picks and move up in the draft.

Let's just guess miller's value is a late lotto pick 14? The #3 pick last year cost late lotto pick + 5. Essentially making the gap in talent and price to move up absurd. The price would be a bit less once you got passed pick 7 this year.

The value to get into a meaningful place and snatch up the player this team needs would be to great a price. Just as a guess I'd say two picks in the 13-19 range would be needed to get you in the 8-10 range. You'd need to keep jumping fences and trading up a few spots 1 draft pick at a time to make the other teams bite. I think the wolves would need to get to the #6 spot to get a player that would give the necessary impact.
e.g.
17 + 14 for the 10
x + 10 for the 6

After thinking it but never checking looking at that link has confirmed that next years FA's suck.

Odom,Marion,Artest,Boozer and Turk are ok but don't fit or won't want to come and the rest is a collection mostly of people who you couldn't identify if you had a team photo in front of you.

Wait for 2010.

andyhop wrote:After thinking it but never checking looking at that link has confirmed that next years FA's suck.

Odom,Marion,Artest,Boozer and Turk are ok but don't fit or won't want to come and the rest is a collection mostly of people who you couldn't identify if you had a team photo in front of you.

Wait for 2010.

So who do you think we're going to get in 2010, when other teams are competing for the top free agents? Compare apples to apples.

This move isn't all about free agents. If we found a good one for ourselves, sure that'd be nice. More likely would be acquiring a free agent on a good contract (remember, not a lot of buyers), that we could deal. The two plans you could compare are:

2009 - wait for 2010. 2010 use the cap space.
2009 - sign a useful free agent. Either keep him or trade him for expirings PLUS talent. 2010 use THE SAME cap space.

Next, cap space alone is a valuable trading commodity, as I mentioned previously in the thread.

If we do nothing, we have worst of all worlds. We spend $20 mil on $10 mil of talent, and end up just above the cap, facing all the restrictions of a team over the cap, while we still are operating with a $10-$15 mil less talent than the teams we face.

Lastly, this is about paying massive amounts of money to watch Mike Miller in the short run. In 2010, he's an unrestricted free agent. Anyone could offer up to a max deal, so bird rights don't really matter. I like Miller as much as the next guy, but on a team as bad as ours, he's wasted right now. Bring him back in 2010. Think of it as sub-letting your apartment for 18 months, where the lessee desperately needs to live in your neighborhood, and is willing to pay you double your rent.

bruceallen61 wrote:It's actually probably more useful to ship Miller + MIA pick for filler for better pick.

or...
Maybe something like Utah pick + miller for pick in late lotto gets us into the 9-13 range? Then use that and the MIA pick to move up a little.

The problem here is that the teams that have the most use for Mike Miller, and where it would make sense for them to offer the most, are high caliber teams that are trying to get a ring, like CLE and LAL. They don't have lottery picks to trade, but what they can offer is loads of less productive cap space.

What I think the most likely scenario is that we'd be able to deal the cap space, and maybe a couple small incentives to pick up a player that fits us from a team that struggles, and wants to rebuild. We don't know who those teams will be, but they come up every year.

For example, we are already hearing rumblings of Chris Kaman being on the market after LAC's bad start. If we were trying to hold onto Mike Miller, we don't have the big salary chunk to deal to make a deal fly, as we almost always see in these big deals that include big expirings. LAC wouldn't want to trade Kaman for McCants + Telfair + Craig Smith + Carney + UTA pick + BOS pick. They want salary relief in either an expiring or a far more desired TPE/cap space, so they can replace their player with a younger version and have salary available for their other needs. A more desirable deal would be $10 mil in cap space and the MIA pick. They got Camby for an almost identical deal in straight cap space, but with no pick whatsoever.

Now, its impossible to say which team is going to struggle. Maybe its Kaman. Maybe its CHA, who finally gets that's of Okafor's salary drama over the last year. Maybe MIL decides Bogut isn't the answer for them. Dalembert is supposedly not fitting with Brand. WAS off to a really bad start. My point is, that SOMEbody is going to try to start rebuilding, prior to 2010. I want to be in a position to take advantage of those opportunities when they arise, which I think are far more likely than some miracle free agent choosing us in 2010 to save our franchise.