RealGM

I've been playing with the $3 mil, and using the constraint that we will sacrifice 2009 wins (and Taylor's 2009 cash), to improve our team for 2010. Basically, MIN will take on bigger non-productive expirings for their expirings, create TPE for other teams, if they can get future assets.

I have a few deals to show you, and I'll start here, redesigning the attempt to get the WAS pick they said they wanted to trade:

MIN GETS: OPech + Crit
WAS GETS: $3 mil 2009 cap space

MIN GETS: Etan + Ridnour +#5
WAS GETS: Mike Miller + Telfair + #18 or future UTA 1st (top 14-16 protected) + 1.44 TPE
MIL GETS: Mike James

WHY FOR WAS? This gives WAS talent this year, defers a pick so there is no additional salary, and includes $5.44 of 2009 raw cap space, plus $3 mil for the #5. Saving $8.4 on the books actually saves Pollin about $17 mil, and makes them more competitive this year.

I understand that without moving Stevenson or Songalia, WAS has difficulty keeping Mike Miller in 2010-11 (depending on his price), but those contracts are even more detrimental to MIN next year than to WAS, and MIN would have to charge too much to make a trade worthwhile.

WHY FOR MIN? Its about getting the #5. They'll have to slug out their roster issues .. perhaps buying out Cardinal and trading the MIA and BOS picks for future picks, but the players MIN gets back (PG's and C's) can actually help them. However, having the #5 and #6 in this draft is key.

So essentially $17 million for the #5 pick..... I think this is an interesting possibility. But is acquiring another top draft pick the best use of our financial position? Or is going in the "Paul" direction the better option? Meaning, that while Paul may not be obtainable the idea of using our position to acquire a meaningful veteran the better route than going after another high-end rookie.

Well, its $17 mil and an upgraded starting SG from Pollin's point of view, since he's over the lux.

For us, we're paying $4.44 plus the pick's salary ($3 mil) for it, plus we reduce Mike Miller.

To me, that seems like a good move for both teams, but I can't guarantee that either team couldn't find better deals.

As for a longshot New Orleans deal, this trade doesn't hurt that at all. These deals are basically salary neutral after this year (expirings for expirings), and in fact, we get a little bigger expirings to use for the Hornet's financial bail-out. The #5 might be a cheap young asset they'd like in the trade, far more than Mike Miller.

financially very solid

Oh you send them bassy though. Which could be a problem as you chew up more of their 2010 capspace.

bruceallen61 wrote:financially very solid

Oooh baby .. you know that kind of talk turns me on...!

bruceallen61 wrote:Oh you send them bassy though. Which could be a problem as you chew up more of their 2010 capspace.

That's true. I was thinking that since I removed Mike James and Crit, they could use a cost-effective back-up at the PG. With the big contracts, I don't think they need $6 mil back-ups like James (even though he played surprisingly well for them). However, the big question here I think is how long is Pollin's time frame here, and how willing would he be to go over the lux for the first time. If he intends to re-sign Miller in 2010, then even Telfair's contract might make things tough.

If they don't want Telfair, Craig Smith would work, and give them $0.2 mil more cap space.

I like the way you think. Anyone else's mouths watering over the idea of Harden/Evans or Harden/Derozan. Sign me up

Does Wash have enough ball handling without James and Crit? Miller and Arenas can both do it to a degree, but they wouldn't have a prototypical PG on their roster anymore. They could pick up Ollie or someone similar to help them out on occasion, I guess.

Biff Cooper wrote:Does Wash have enough ball handling without James and Crit? Miller and Arenas can both do it to a degree, but they wouldn't have a prototypical PG on their roster anymore. They could pick up Ollie or someone similar to help them out on occasion, I guess.

That crossed my mind as well. I put Telfair in the original proposal, but if they felt comfortable, I'd have no trouble using Craig Smith instead

My bad Shrink. I knew you had Telfair in there, but I must've glossed over it.

If Wash really is trying to make a playoff run next year, they probably wouldn't want to be relying on Telfair as a FT player. He could be a pretty solid 15-20 min/game player for them though to take some pressure off Miller and Arenas.