RealGM

There have been debates about Bynum/Jefferson in the past, but with Al's recent play and the DWI Bynum is definitely more valuable

MN gives: Jefferson, Sessions, Hollins
MN gets: Bynum, Vujacic

Chi gives: Hinrich, Noah, Gibson
Chi gets: Jefferson, Sessions

LAL give: Bynum, Vujacic
LAL get: Hinrich, Noah, Gibson, Hollins
This would be done after 7/1 due to Bynum's BYC

MN: Jefferson doesn't fit anymore and we definitely need a C. This allows us to focus on wing scoring in the draft and free agency. Adds a tiny little bit of cap room for us.
Chi: Lose Noah, but get rid of Hinrich's contract while getting a very good backup in return and the low post scorer they have long coveted. In FA they get a defensive C and a star SG.
LAL: Hinrich would be a very good PG for them, but they didn't want him because of his contract. In this trade his contract is offset by Vujacic going out and that Noah and Gibson are underpaid.

Very interesting.

So what you're saying is you're a fan of buy high, sell low? How's your retirement fund working out for you?

If Chicago would trade those guys for Jefferson and Sessions, we would just cut LA out of the deal. Noah would be a perfect fit for what we are trying to build. Gibson would be a great bench guy and hinrich would start and move flynn to the bench.

so pi$$ off Lakers.

Noah - Darko - Hollins
Love - Gibson
Gay (FA) - Henry (char. pick)
Turner - Brewer - Ellington
Hinrich - Flynn

Nice trade. I hate the fact that I like it, but with all that's happened to Jefferson's value, I do.

I doubt Chicago would trade Noah and Gibson together. They'd want to team one of them up with Jefferson, since either of them fit nicely beside him. Jefferson and Hollins would be the only big men on their roster after this.

^^Exactly, Noah is pretty much untouchable (only dealt for top tier players) Bulls would not package him and Taj together

There's a lot I like in this trade. Hinrich going to CHI makes some sense. Many CHI posters (well, at least many of them the ones on the trade board) don't believe that he is overpaid. Sending him to LAL, imo, is a good move because it increases LAL's "win now" ability, and lately, they don't seem to care about salaries. Over the lux on five players, and they just keep re-upping them? I suppose if you get championship revenues, the lux doesn't matter, but its always been something CHI's ownership has respected, so this move creates trade value in the trade. I also like seeing Sessions slide into Hinrich's spot, and the fit is good. CHI definitely could use a low-post scorer, and MIN could definitely use a young center.

The problem comes from not the trade, but from the team's over-estimation of the value of the assets. In my view, if CHI could move two years of Hinrich using Noah, and getting both Jefferson + a reasonably priced back up to Rose in Sessions, that's a good deal -- but they won't accept.

For LAL, I actually think this is overpaying. Bynum hasn't done nearly enough to be worth $15 mil/year over the next three years in today's market. However, their fans will never admit it.

exchanging Hollins and Sessions for Vulva improves our cap position for next summer as well.

I went back and forth on this trade, which is usually a good sign. The things that make this perhaps worth while are

1- Bynum's history and great relationship with Rambis. I am not sure if this can get mentioned enough.

2.- Bynum's experience in the triangle. Finding a young big who actually understands this offense is rare.

3- This allows Love to start, and for the roster to be balanced. You could have a line-up of Bynum/Love/__/Brewer/Rubio in a couple years. That is a line up that has good length.

Is Bynum a defensive upgrade to Al? Many of his pts are assisted--would his scoring production increase or decline?

If pushed I would likely do this deal.

I am speaking just from a wolves perspective. Not sure why or if Chicago or LAL would do this.

I'd cut LA out too. Noah/Hinrich/Gibson > Bynum/crap to me

I disagree. I think those factors I listed with Bynum do not exist with Noah/Gibson/Hinrich. Also, I believe that we would look to move Al for a legit starter/star and not a package of players. Everyone thinks that Noah is a great defender, but his net production is nothing to be proud of at either the 4 or 5 and he does not have the crazy length we would want as a defensive stopper. I just think people overhype Noah.

if we could move this package for Noah and expirings that might be different, depending on how the team wants to use the cap space. But if we think Bynum is a legit player then you go for him.

Well since Gibson would have to be taken out of it before a deal like this even has a remote shot of happening, I would prefer to give Bynum a shot. I forget sometimes about the relationship he had with Rambis.

If Darko did come back, we would be looking at some serious length up front. A rotation of Bynum/Love/Darko seems risky, but could all solidfy our front court for years.

shrink wrote: The problem comes from not the trade, but from the team's over-estimation of the value of the assets. In my view, if CHI could move two years of Hinrich using Noah, and getting both Jefferson + a reasonably priced back up to Rose in Sessions, that's a good deal -- but they won't accept.

You know how some people on the internet love to prove people wrong? Well, let me show what an idiot that shrink is! Here's an exchange from the trade board by a couple Bulls fans:

DanTown8587 wrote:Hinrich, Noah, Chicago #1 2011
TOTAL Salary 2010: 12.128536 million
for
Andrew Bynum, Memphis #2, LA #2
TOTAL Salary 2010: 13.7 million

...

I will say this a disclaimer: MANY Bulls fans would not do this deal. They will point to Bynum's numbers, but I have watched him play a lot of games: he is a different player when he doesn't start next to Gasol. He is more aggressive, get's more touches, finishes at the rim more. It's just not indicative of what type of player he is.

dafunky1 wrote:As a Bulls fan, I like that deal, but the Lakers will never go for it, even tho its fair for both sides Imo.It helps both teams

[quote="john2jer"]So what you're saying is you're a fan of buy high, sell low? How's your retirement fund working out for you?[/quote]

Funny comment. I actually deal with investments for a living and my retirement fund is doing just fine. You also need to recognize the right time to sell assets as well. You can't blindly hold onto them thinking that they are bound to reach their full value again. Remember what happened to Lehman Brothers and Fannie Mae stockholders?

If you want to compare to current markets I would compare it to the current real estate market. Many have lost a ton of money on their houses, but markets have rebounded a little bit. Most people are in a payment situation that has them losing a lot of money each month such as renting out properties. The past high prices won't cause a big rebound in the housing market anytime soon and with higher interest rates in the future plus potential changes in the tax treatment of real estate mortgage interest the near future would actually be a good time to sell. Also, the government is running huge deficits and can't sustain the real estate market in perpetuity.

Sometimes you have to realize that an asset was previously valued too high which I think all of us were with Jefferson. His value will continue to decline especially for the Timberwolves since he doesn't fit our system and the losing has gotten to him. He has even said a number of times that he is not the leader of this team. With all that has happened to this team he is our greatest talent and already one of the older people on our team. He has even said that he wants to lead this team, by him saying he isn't the leader of this team he is essentially trying to deflect any responsibility for their current losing ways. That is being a coward. A leader not only takes credit for success, but failure as well. Losing can be tough on the best of them, but it is definitely time for both to move on.

Narf wrote:I'd cut LA out too. Noah/Hinrich/Gibson > Bynum/crap to me

Love-Noah front court would be awful, you want to put Noah next to Jefferson, not Love. Bynum can't create in the post like Al Jefferson can, but he's better than Noah.

If given the choice I'd go for Bynum over Noah if the team is giving up Jefferson

A Bynum/Love frontcourt would be great especially given Rambis' relationship with Bynum. I think LA and MN would love that deal but no way Chicago does it. If they deal for Jefferson, the goal would be to pair him with Noah, not replace him.

post0115 wrote: Sometimes you have to realize that an asset was previously valued too high which I think all of us were with Jefferson. His value will continue to decline especially for the Timberwolves since he doesn't fit our system and the losing has gotten to him.

I am concerned that the macroeconomics here will hurt Jefferson's value. Until last year, NBA teams generally added about $100 mil/year in salaries, mostly through raises, extensions, and free agent signings. However, last year we saw the owners respond to declining revenues, and we had a $140 mil U-turn. With less money in the system, and perhaps even less next year, many good players, who's salaries seemed fine before, will appear too expensive.

Fortunately for the Wolves, if they decided to trade Jefferson, it would be a microeconomics problem, and they may be able to swim against a sea of macro buyers. MIN would only need to find one buyer for Al to bid against us keeping him. Many posters are frustrated to see that a number of teams cleared extra cap space to be able to go after a max deal free agent, which they see as competition from us buying one. However, there are a limited number of elite free agents, so most of these front office's are going to have to go back to their fans/customers and say, "We sacrificed some talent thinking we could get a great player, but we struck out. Please buy our season tickets anyway." For teams like that, demand for a player like Al Jefferson will be very high.

A big man who can score and rebound will always .. always .. have value in the NBA. Last summer, Zach Randolph's career had him on many people's "worst contracts" list. He'd score and rebound, but provide nothing else, and he was due two more years at $17 mil .. including the dreaded 2010-11 season. He was the minimum Al Jefferson could be, if Al didn't care, and Jefferson was superior to Zach in every way. Still, Zach's price ended up being half expiring and half raw cap space. Jefferson is clearly worth more than that, even now.

The best scenario for the Wolves is that Al comes back from this break refreshed and healthy, and puts up 25-12, with moments of improved defense for the last 19 games of the season. He could remind NBA teams, and our own fanbase, of the player he is, and what more he could still become. This summer after the first couple weeks of free agency determines homes for the 4-6 top free agents, the trade offers will come.

Then the Wolves would have to make a decision. These offers could be the highest price we'd get for Al the rest of the way. Do we trade him now at that price, or decide he is an integral and valuable part of the team, and that we want him here for three years? Can he grow and fit the new team? Would we be awful without him? The decision will need to be made in the next four months.