RealGM

I thought this deal was interesting, so I brought it over here for discussion.

SportsFan215 wrote:How about this:

Clippers Get: Green/Cardinal
Clippers Give: Kaman/'10 First from MIN returned

Wolves Get: Kaman/Collison/'10 First returned
Wolves Give: Love/Cardinal/Songaila

Thunder Get: Love/Songaila
Thunder Give: Green/Collison

I'm considering three versions:

1. Original
2. Cut Out LAC
3. Thunder keep Collison and give us cap space.

Just thinking aloud ..

OKC poster said that they didn't really consider Collison's deal bad (6,350,000 / 6,850,000). If OKC likes Collison, another option might be for OKC to keep him. and just use cap space to finish the deal.

LAC could be excluded, and a different third team that could use the space could be included. They would throw MIN some future assets for the savings. Teams that could really use $5 mil in 2009 raw cap space to get under the lux would include:

Houston $74,633,444
New York $74,051,149
Denver $73,589,693
New Orleans $73,581,295
Miami $72,216,178

The $5 mil in cap space would bet their owner $10-$13 mil.

If we were somehow getting Green instead of Kaman, I'd like it a bit more. So cutting out the Clippers could work.

Yeah I wouldnt take Kaman. Not sure he's the best fit, if we want Kaman we might as well just pay for Pekovic to come over next year. I dont think that returning our first round pick holds that much value.

Because of that I think LAC makes out great with that trade. Green/Expiring for injury-prone bad contract and a pick they wont get for another 1-2 years. Thats a great deal for the LAC.

Just curious what is the net effect on our cap space with the original deal?

As I have said I am all on board with using our cap space to take on 2010 contracts, but I dont really see any assets comin back.

Esohny wrote:If we were somehow getting Green instead of Kaman, I'd like it a bit more. So cutting out the Clippers could work.

+1

Don't know if I like any of the three options. Not really interested in Kaman at his current contract.

Not sure I'd do it, but perhaps combining 2 and 3 is worth considering : Love + Songalia for Green
I've got Love as a better prospect than Green, so we'd be paying to simultaneously get out of Songalia's contract and balance our roster.

Biff Cooper wrote:Don't know if I like any of the three options. Not really interested in Kaman at his current contract.

Not sure I'd do it, but perhaps combining 2 and 3 is worth considering : Love + Songalia for Green
I've got Love as a better prospect than Green, so we'd be paying to simultaneously get out of Songalia's contract and balance our roster.

I wouldn't mind a Love + Songalia for Green trade (maybe we could get Weaver as well since I really like him, or a lower 1st round pick, or even DJ White to give us some PF depth)

I hate the original trade.

I'd rather have Songalia than Collison cause he makes 2mil less in 2010.

So it becomes Kaman and a protected 1st for Love and Cardinal?

We take on WAY too much salary, Kaman can't play with a 1st option PF, and it makes us older. The 1st round pick we lose in the 2011 draft will be around 10-14, but we make up for it because we'll get the Bobcats pick, which could be around the same, if not better.

Love will be worth substantially more than Green in a few years.. I don't like it. Green is OK, but he's got a bit of Rudy Gay to him in that his superficial stats make him look better than he is because he's not very efficient. I know PER isn't the end-all be-all of measuring players and that we could use an atlhetic 3, but you're talking about a guy who put up an 18.5+ PER as a rookie vs. a guy whose PER was 9.9 and 14 for his first two years. Add to that that Love is an elite rebounder with potential to grow in other areas and that Green doesn't seem to do any one thing all that well and you have my reasons for not liking the deal. If there's a cap space aspect to it, then that's nice, but I still don't think it's worth the downgrade in talent from Love to Green..

I'm not seeing Green as anything special, he plays PF, don't see how having a PF play SF is better than pushing a PF to C.