*Trade ideas thread*

[Case2012]

The thread title is pretty self-explanatory. Everyone pretty much agrees we need to free up cap space and get out of some of the deals Olshey dealt out 2 summers ago, but I haven't seen a lot of proposals of how to do that around.

https://basketball.realgm.com/tradechecker/saved_trade/6970174

The idea here is that Whiteside is just as good defensively as Nurk, in fact probably better, but also rebounds and scores much more efficiently. It also gets rid of Turner, which is great. People are down on him because of his morale, but the same was said about Nurk in Den and it's worked out pretty well for us so far, and Whiteside said Portland was his second choice.

For Miami, Nurkic is a great piece to build around and fits more in the timeline of a rebuild (which they should do already.) They take on Turner to make salaries work, but they gain another ball handler? I have no idea why anyone would want Turner based on his skillset, but it makes the trade possible soooo.... whatever. Maybe include Meyers and a protected first to bring over Waiters as a 6th man?

[DeBlazerRiddem]

I don't really care for Whiteside to be honest. I have yet to see proof his impact goes beyond the numbers because some of the on-off data I saw from last year was troublesome and he doesn't pass my eye test.

You are also right that Miami would have no interest in Turner. The deal is not bad for us value-wise because we dump Turner, but I think that kills any interest from their side. Heck if they are rebuilding they would probably prefer someone like Zach Collins to Nurkic, as it rarely makes sense for rebuilding teams to target RFA. Teams playing with RFA should really only be teams willing to overpay for that one last piece of a young core, with options 1 and 2 already in place.


This also does not free up any cap this year, and actually puts us 3.7 million further into the tax this year.

[d-train]

A restricted free agent (RFA) is another name for not a free agent. Sure, it also means the player will be off their rookie contract which is an arbitrary system of guaranteeing good players are underpaid.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

A restricted free agent (RFA) is another name for not a free agent. Sure, it also means the player will be off their rookie contract which is an arbitrary system of guaranteeing good players are underpaid.

It also guarantees a lot of not-so good players a fair bit of money.

[d-train]

A restricted free agent (RFA) is another name for not a free agent. Sure, it also means the player will be off their rookie contract which is an arbitrary system of guaranteeing good players are underpaid.

It also guarantees a lot of not-so good players a fair bit of money.

It doesn't guarantee not so good players anything. There is no guarantee buyers know what they are buying, but the unknown is part of calculating value.

[Norm2953]

I tend to favor trading Ed Davis for a pick. That would get us well under the tax line and free up some
PT for Zach Collins.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

A restricted free agent (RFA) is another name for not a free agent. Sure, it also means the player will be off their rookie contract which is an arbitrary system of guaranteeing good players are underpaid.

It also guarantees a lot of not-so good players a fair bit of money.

It doesn't guarantee not so good players anything. There is no guarantee buyers know what they are buying, but the unknown is part of calculating value.

My point was more along the lines of a guy like Zach Collins not playing enough minutes or having a big enough impact as a rookie to really justify his salary. 30 guys get picked every year for guanteed salaries and as often as not they don't play up to it.

[d-train]

It also guarantees a lot of not-so good players a fair bit of money.

It doesn't guarantee not so good players anything. There is no guarantee buyers know what they are buying, but the unknown is part of calculating value.

My point was more along the lines of a guy like Zach Collins not playing enough minutes or having a big enough impact as a rookie to really justify his salary. 30 guys get picked every year for guanteed salaries and as often as not they don't play up to it.

Approximately 500 players negotiated the pay of the 30 players selected. The 30 players did not have an opportunity to negotiate based on their individual value. And, the less those 30 players are paid, the more will be paid to the 500 players that decided the pay of the 30 players.

What is the rationale for denying any NBA player a chance to negotiate their own fair compensation? Rookies are people too. Why should rookies get paid less than their value so 5-10 year veterans can be paid more than their value?

Value isn't determined only by past performance. In fact, an estimation of future performance is what mostly determines value. Predicting future performance always involves risk and the amount of risk also affects value.

Why should 500 players be allowed to screw the next generation of NBA players out of their fair pay in order to fatten their own paychecks? It's a total bastardization of the collective bargaining process.

[Case2012]

Soooo... I guess the other target would be for a small or power forward. Lottery protected 1st, Evan Turner and Zach Collins for Harrison Barnes?

[DeBlazerRiddem]

It doesn't guarantee not so good players anything. There is no guarantee buyers know what they are buying, but the unknown is part of calculating value.

My point was more along the lines of a guy like Zach Collins not playing enough minutes or having a big enough impact as a rookie to really justify his salary. 30 guys get picked every year for guanteed salaries and as often as not they don't play up to it.

Approximately 500 players negotiated the pay of the 30 players selected. The 30 players did not have an opportunity to negotiate based on their individual value. And, the less those 30 players are paid, the more will be paid to the 500 players that decided the pay of the 30 players.

What is the rationale for denying any NBA player a chance to negotiate their own fair compensation? Rookies are people too. Why should rookies get paid less than their value so 5-10 year veterans can be paid more than their value?

Value isn't determined only by past performance. In fact, an estimation of future performance is what mostly determines value. Predicting future performance always involves risk and the amount of risk also affects value.

Why should 500 players be allowed to screw the next generation of NBA players out of their fair pay in order to fatten their own paychecks? It's a total bastardization of the collective bargaining process.

Why am I paid much more after 5 years with my job than I did when I was entry level? Experience, responsibility and a track record.

I'm not going to try and argue the morality of the system - its a business transaction, not a moral dilemma - but my point was simply a counter-perspective that there are players who get a chance, who may not otherwise get a chance and are unlikely to pan out to anything good, because of the low-risk nature of the rookie scale. Without that incentive, teams would invest much less in rookies and we may see stymied player development.

I would venture a guess that forcing young players to take their lumps and pay their dues before they are full-fledged members of a community is not an unreasonable expectation in a business setting.

[Norm2953]

It's going to be interesting what Portland does if Vonleh recent production carries over for the
rest of the season. Likely it will force Portland into moving some contracts that extend beyond
this season. Let's see what a player averaging 8/8 is worth.

[Myth]

Soooo... I guess the other target would be for a small or power forward. Lottery protected 1st, Evan Turner and Zach Collins for Harrison Barnes?

That feels so spendy for an overpaid player. Don't get me wrong, he is an upgrade, but a 1st and Collins to get further into tax?

[Epicurus]

It's going to be interesting what Portland does if Vonleh recent production carries over for the
rest of the season. Likely it will force Portland into moving some contracts that extend beyond
this season. Let's see what a player averaging 8/8 is worth.

Recent production? Vonleh started this production after the All-Star break last season. After his first couple of games post injury, he has performed congurent with that previous period. I think this is the real Vonleh--low usage, low shooting, high rebounding, versitile defense, every good screening, fine garbage man. In short, a very good role player. Every team needs one.

[zzaj]

Soooo... I guess the other target would be for a small or power forward. Lottery protected 1st, Evan Turner and Zach Collins for Harrison Barnes?

That feels so spendy for an overpaid player. Don't get me wrong, he is an upgrade, but a 1st and Collins to get further into tax?

Lillard-- 28million
CJ--26.6million
Nurkic--19million?
Barnes--23.6million
Leonard--10.25million

That's a about 107.7 million for 5 players...assuming Nurkic only gets 19/per. I have a suspicion he's going to end up getting more like 21-22/per. But assuming 19/per, and assuming the Cap projections stay as they are for 2018 (108million), that leaves about $300,000 to pay 10 players.

So yes, that would certainly qualify as "further into the tax".

Edit: forgot about Nicholson's stretched money. The Blazers would already be over the salary cap with the above 5 players. Would the Blazers be a better team with Barnes instead of Turner? Almost certainly. They would also almost certainly be easily the most expensive team in NBA history.

[Fitz303]

If the season continues the way it has, and we're playing fantasy GM....

CJ and Vonleh for Blake Griffin. Follow up with Turner and whatever else is necessary (Swanigan?) for Wes Matthews

Dame/ Napier
Matthews/ Connaughton
Aminu/ Layman
Griffin/ Harkless
Nurkic/Davis

[wongdongfu]

I would push for Jonathan Simmons from the Magic - I do not think he can be traded until January ... but I think he would be a good fit - I would move anyone that is not the "big 3" -

if you can find a way to move Turner in the deal I would throw in a lottery protected 1st - Simmons has as much or more production as any of our 2/3 men - he can guard 2 through 4 (on occasion the 1) - he is cheaper then almost everyone on the team that is not on a rookie contract - and he just seems to make plays. if there is some kind of loose ball ... it ends up in his hands.

[d-train]

My point was more along the lines of a guy like Zach Collins not playing enough minutes or having a big enough impact as a rookie to really justify his salary. 30 guys get picked every year for guanteed salaries and as often as not they don't play up to it.

Approximately 500 players negotiated the pay of the 30 players selected. The 30 players did not have an opportunity to negotiate based on their individual value. And, the less those 30 players are paid, the more will be paid to the 500 players that decided the pay of the 30 players.

What is the rationale for denying any NBA player a chance to negotiate their own fair compensation? Rookies are people too. Why should rookies get paid less than their value so 5-10 year veterans can be paid more than their value?

Value isn't determined only by past performance. In fact, an estimation of future performance is what mostly determines value. Predicting future performance always involves risk and the amount of risk also affects value.

Why should 500 players be allowed to screw the next generation of NBA players out of their fair pay in order to fatten their own paychecks? It's a total bastardization of the collective bargaining process.

Why am I paid much more after 5 years with my job than I did when I was entry level? Experience, responsibility and a track record.

I'm not going to try and argue the morality of the system - its a business transaction, not a moral dilemma - but my point was simply a counter-perspective that there are players who get a chance, who may not otherwise get a chance and are unlikely to pan out to anything good, because of the low-risk nature of the rookie scale. Without that incentive, teams would invest much less in rookies and we may see stymied player development.

I would venture a guess that forcing young players to take their lumps and pay their dues before they are full-fledged members of a community is not an unreasonable expectation in a business setting.

The NBA is a business not a community. NBA owners are doing business individually and collectively. And, every individual NBA owner has a common interest (lower payroll). I want the NBA and its owners to be subject to the same laws the rest of us are, including labor laws. I'm fine with collective bargaining in the private sector as long as labor has a single collective interest the union can represent without conflict of interest. The NBPA and the CBA is a textbook example of a union with a conflict of interest. It's not possible to represent LeBron James (and similar superstars) and Jake Layman (and similar end-of benchers). The same union especially can't represent the average NBA players like Crabbe and Turner, and also represent superstars and rookies.

I don't know anything about you DeBlazerRiddem, but for the purpose of this discussion I will assume you are the average Joe. There is no comparison between how you are valued and how NBA players are valued. The greatest truck driver in the world makes his boss about the same amount of money as the worst truck driver in the world does. Most people have jobs where they perform duties that have market value but the proficiency that they perform their jobs doesn't greatly affect the value of the job. When you hire a plumber to fix your toilet, you are paying for a fixed toilet. You don't pay more for the best toilet fixer on the planet to do the job that any plumber can do.

If you are being paid more than you got 5 years ago, it might be you are now doing a job that has more value. Or, maybe you are doing a job that requires expensive training and your boss values keeping experienced employees rather than training new employees. The point is, if the average Joe earns more after 5 years because of free market forces, that is a good thing. Or, maybe you are paid more after 5 years because those are the terms of a union contract. This isn't necessarily a market force but I'm fine with it as long as everyone effected at the bargaining table is having their interests represented.

[JasonStern]

just thinking out loud, but Davis and Layman for Okafor shaves $2,670,022 in salary and would give Olshey another dumpster dive reclamation project.

[Blazinaway]

Harkless for Mirotic? costs us 2.5 mil more this yr but Mirotic is basically an expiring as he has a team option for next yr.

[Roy The Natural]

Harkless for Mirotic? costs us 2.5 mil more this yr but Mirotic is basically an expiring as he has a team option for next yr.

I'm down... I'd trade away Harkless for a bag of chips right now.