Does this trade make sense for Utah?

[Narf]

Just a silly off season question, I had some time to kill.

For this trade, David Lee signs a contract with a declining salary (goes down 8% in 2010 and 8% 2011 on a 3 year contract) for the purpose of a sign-and-trade.

Utah:
Incoming: ($22,064,100)
David Lee ($8,250,000), Ryan Gomes ($3,867,500), Chucky Atkins ($3,480,000), Jared Jeffries($6,466,600)
Outgoing: ($28,147,765)
Andre Kirilenko ($16,451,250), Kyle Korver ($5,155,115), Matt Harpring ($6,500,000), NY's 1st round pick, Utah's 2nd round pick.
Utah simultaneously trades Boozer for a scoring wing with similar salary (I'm sure someone wants Boozer and his expiring contract this year, Charlotte seems as good a bet as any...so Boozer for Gerald Wallace?). If needed there are plenty of small salaries (1-3 million) that could be added to this trade.

Why Utah does it:
Not only does this save them a huge amount of money (about 9 mil after they cut Atkins), that team is much better this year. Add in the luxury tax savings and the $$ value goes closer to 15 mil. Utah has a legitimate shot to win a championship this year, and has more flexibility to resign guys they might want to keep next year or trade a big for a scoring wing. If they trade Boozer now they can take equal salary (and value) back in return rather than looking to dump him for nothing. As is, here is how they would stand:
C: Mehmet Okur/Kosta Koufos/Kyrylo Fesenko
PF: Paul Millsap/David Lee
SF: Ryan Gomes/C.J. Miles/Jared Jeffries
SG: Gerald Wallace?/Ronnie Brewer
PG: Deron Williams/Ronnie Price/Eric Maynor
Feel free to change Gerald Wallace to someone you think is more suitable. Or you can keep them out of it completely, this part of the trade is unimportant and easily rectified (Larry Hughes for Boozer is easy enough). I just evened out Utah's roster with a wing for a big that I felt was of similar value and attainable (and both injury prone). I'm pretty sure you could trade Jared Jefferies + Boozer to Milwaukee for Michael Redd as well if you wanted. There are multiple options, but that is more a question of what you can get for Boozer. What I want to know is, does Utah make this trade regardless of what you can get for Boozer (Larry Hughes would be the minimum)?

I'm fairly sure NY does this, and I'm a Wolves fan...so let's assume they are on board for it.

[QuantumMacgyver]

Not a good trade for the Jazz in any respect. The Jazz give up what could possibly be the second highest pick in franchise history for David Lee and Ryan Gomes?! Sub Ryan Gomes for 2 minnesota unprotected firsts and maybe it would start to turn some heads. The Jazz are not trading that pick unless the Knicks have a killer season... or if perhaps Orlando wants to unload Dwight... or if Satan and Hitler have to buy a condo in Miami because Hell freezes over.

[kebutah]

After the trade we have less talent and lower draft choices, not good for us at all.

[StocktonShorts]

Just a silly off season question

Yes it is.

[DelaneyRudd]

lol, Wouldn't do that if you took out the NY 1st.

[Narf]

Add up the cap space you'd get and the money you save paying luxury taxes, the 3 mil you get from luxury for being under the cap, and Utah gets quite a bit more money out of this. I guess I saw this from the money side as a no-brainer for Utah. You guys are looking at it from the talent side and saying "30 mil is nothing, we can keep that pick". I wonder if your ownership has the same opinion.

I would also disagree with people who think Utah, as is, is better than that team. Talent wise I think this is a small upgrade this year AND you would have much more flexibility in the future. This trade gives you Lee for cheap, takes away a ton of dead money, and gives you a solid scoring wing for Boozer + a very, very good backup SF in Gomes (who starts on 1/3 of the teams in the league and is a good defensive player).

The flip side of this is another team takes on 30 mil in cap from you, you save 5 million in luxury taxes + get 3 mil simply from being under the lux. Not only that, but the Knicks with Lee and Robinson are not a bottom 5 team, they are a bottom 10 team. That gives you the #6 or #7 pick next year. It's only after Minnesota takes on a huge amount of your salary and we rip the talent off of NY's team that it becomes a top 5 pick guaranteed. The Knicks are playing to win this year, they have no incentive to lose. Do you really want to bet that they will be worse than the dogmeat teams of the NBA? Or do you want an influx of young talent + a MUCH better cap situation + a LOT more money. Whether you see it or not, your owner does not have infinite funds. He's going to give away Boozer+ for cap space, that's a pretty big downgrade in talent for nothing.

[Narf]

I forgot you guys don't know this. Atkin's contract is only guaranteed for 3/4 of a million dollars. And Gomes has a buyout next year, so you could cut him as well (but he's easily worth his salary IMO, he's a solid all around player). So you are getting non-guaranteed contracts out of this. Atkins contract saves you something like 2.5 million dollars in addition to the cap savings.

[loserX]

If Utah were that worried about the tax, we could have

1) let Miles walk last year
2) let Fesenko walk this year
3) let Millsap walk this year
4) sold our draft pick
5) let Okur walk next year.

Instead, we have

1) matched Miles' offer sheet
2) picked up Fesenko's option
3) matched Millsap's offer sheet
4) drafted Maynor and added his guaranteed salary to the books
5) given Okur a two-year extension.

Everything the Jazz has done shows that we are willing to pay in order to keep guys we like. So I find it highly unlikely that we will give up the NYK pick to drop expirings like Harpring and Korver.

And as I said in the other thread, we are not going to pay Lee that much money to be a backup behind Millsap, whom we are paying less than that.

[HolyToledo]

Ny knicks dont do it as guaranteed contracts like AK-47 doesnt help them get Lebron. Jazz want to get rid of AK-47 but David Lee is dupilcate of Millsap. If Jazz could get gerald wallace right now they would but cant as bobcats dont want boozer. Simply not one team would do this trade.

[Narf]

Ny knicks dont do it as guaranteed contracts like AK-47 doesnt help them get Lebron. Jazz want to get rid of AK-47 but David Lee is dupilcate of Millsap. If Jazz could get gerald wallace right now they would but cant as bobcats dont want boozer. Simply not one team would do this trade.

Your knicks do it. You are not taking AK47, the Wolves are. And we're taking Eddie Curry's contract as well. In all you'd have about 12 million more in cap space next year and trade Eddie Curry for Songalia.

The whole trade was huge, and I thought it was rude to post that giant thing on here. I'll copy and paste it below for everyone who wants to see the whole thing. In essense the Knicks are giving up Curry and Lee and a protected 2012 pick and taking back Songalia and a bunch of expiring cap space. The Wolves facilitate this by using their huge amount of cap space next year and taking some of Utah's cap space this year.

[schneiderjazz]

Narf, the second trade, Boozer for Wallace would be an yes for most Jazz fans I believe. But the first one is horrible, no matter how you try to look at it. Like loserX said, the Jazz had plenty of chances of saving money and opted to try improving the team instead. If it was a move only to save money, it wouldn't be a very good one either, because we'd be in a bad situation next year again. Instead of having Boozer, Harp and Korver expire, we'd have to pay Gomez (4 million), Lee (9 million), Jeffries (7 million) and Wallace (10 million). So, we save money this year, but next year, we're a worse team with no picks in the draft and a pretty horrible financial situation (assuming Brewer re-signs at a starting salary of 6.5 million, our payroll would be at about 77 million dollars with 12 players under contract).

[Fido]

I went and looked at the trade on the Timberwolves board and nobody over there likes it either.

If the Jazz wanted to blow up their team to save money, they would have done it by now. As overpaid as AK is, he is still a part of the main rotation as the 6th man. This trade helps the Jazz out this year, but dooms them for the next few. I think they are more interested in eating the cost this year, and then dropping below the luxury tax next season when all these expiring deals come off the books.

Jazz definitely say no to the deal.

[StocktonShorts]

Narf, the second trade, Boozer for Wallace would be an yes for most Jazz fans I believe. But the first one is horrible, no matter how you try to look at it. Like loserX said, the Jazz had plenty of chances of saving money and opted to try improving the team instead. If it was a move only to save money, it wouldn't be a very good one either, because we'd be in a bad situation next year again. Instead of having Boozer, Harp and Korver expire, we'd have to pay Gomez (4 million), Lee (9 million), Jeffries (7 million) and Wallace (10 million). So, we save money this year, but next year, we're a worse team with no picks in the draft and a pretty horrible financial situation (assuming Brewer re-signs at a starting salary of 6.5 million, our payroll would be at about 77 million dollars with 12 players under contract).

^^^^
What he said

[Narf]

As promised, for those who want it, here's the updated version of the trade in totality.

The first premise is that David Lee signs a contract with a declining salary (goes down 8% in 2010 and 2011 on a 3 year contract) for the purpose of a sign-and-trade.

The second premise is that NY gives Minnesota and Utah each 3 million dollars, and Utah gives Minnesota 3 million dollars, for a net gain of 6 million dollars to the Timberwolves from the Knicks. Remember that every dollar spent in cap space is 2 dollars to the Knicks, meaning they would rather pay Minnesota to take a bad contract than take that contract themselves.

Utah:
Incoming: ($22,064,100)
David Lee ($8,250,000), Ryan Gomes ($3,867,500), Chucky Atkins ($3,480,000 w/$760,000 buyout), Jared Jeffries ($6,466,600)
Outgoing: ($28,147,765)
Andre Kirilenko ($16,451,250), Kyle Korver ($5,155,115), Matt Harpring ($6,500,000), NY's 1st round pick, Utah's 2nd round pick.
Utah simultaneously trades Boozer for a scoring wing with similar salary (I'm sure someone wants Boozer and his expiring contract this year, Charlotte seems as good a bet as any...so Boozer for Gerald Wallace?). I did not add Boozer's salary and the salary you would get back as it is not part of the deal. For the purpose of this trade, I just assumed you would get equal value back (Boozer is paid $12,657,233).


Minnesota:
Incoming: ($36,978,548)
Eddie Curry ($10,500,423), AK47 ($16,451,250), Al Harrington ($10,026,875), NY's 2010 1st round pick, NYs 2012 1st round pick (top 10 protected in 2012, top 5 in 2013, top 3 in 2014, then unprotected).
Outgoing: ($31,433,640)
Ryan Gomes ($3,867,500), Mark Blount ($7,962,500), Brian Cardinal ($6,750,000), Chucky Atkins ($3,480,000), Oleksiy Pecherov ($1,547,640), Darius Songalia ($4,526,000), Damien Wilkins ($3,300,000), both 2010 2nd round picks.

New York:
Incoming: ($35,741,255)
Mark Blount ($7,962,500), Brian Cardinal ($6,750,000), Oleksiy Pecherov ($1,547,640), Kyle Korver ($5,155,115), Matt Harpring ($6,500,000), Darius Songalia ($4,526,000), Damien Wilkins ($3,300,000) Utah and Minnesota's 2nd round picks (giving them 4 total).
Outgoing: ($35,179,798)
Eddie Curry ($10,500,423), David Lee ($8,185,900), Jared Jeffries ($6,466,600), Al Harrington ($10,026,875), and NYs 2012 protected 1st round pick.



Why Utah does it:
Not only does this save them a huge amount of money (about 9 mil after they cut Atkins), that team is much better this year. Add in the luxury tax savings and the $$ value goes way up. Utah has a legitimate shot to win a championship this year, and has more flexibility to resign guys they might want to keep next year or trade a big for a scoring wing. If they trade Boozer now they can take equal salary (and value) back in return rather than looking to dump him for nothing. As is, here is how they would stand:
C: Mehmet Okur/Kosta Koufos/Kyrylo Fesenko
PF: Paul Millsap/David Lee
SF: Ryan Gomes/C.J. Miles/Jared Jeffries
SG: Gerald Wallace?/Ronnie Brewer
PG: Deron Williams/Ronnie Price/Eric Maynor
Feel free to change Gerald Wallace to someone you think is more suitable. Or you can keep them out of it completely, this part of the trade is unimportant and easily rectified (Larry Hughes for Boozer is easy enough). I just evened out Utah's roster with a wing for a big that I felt was of similar value and attainable (and both injury prone). I'm sure they could trade Jared Jefferies + Boozer to Milwaukee for Michael Redd as well. Lots of options, similar overall results.



Why NY does it:
Everyone going to NY is an expiring except Songalia. Essentially, they would have another $12 million in cap space in 2010 (Curry has an $11.28 million player option next year and Jefferies has a $6.88 mil player option next year) and a solid bench player in Songalia (rather than Eddie Curry). They can also sign the 4 second round picks next year to fill out the roster for cheap. In addition, they would be giving their young guys a "trial run" which gives them valuable experience for next year. They could viably sign any 3 of LeBron, Wade, Joe Johnson, Bosh, Nowitzki, and Boozer next year with all that cap space. As a bonus, they would GET RID OF Eddie Curry, the PR disaster. Not so bad for a protected 2012 lottery pick. Considering that every cap dollar they spend is worth 2 dollars (after the luxury tax), it's much less expensive to pay Minnesota to take on that salary for them rather than take on additional contracts this year.

Further more, Songalia is not a hard person to move in 2010. NY could agree to pay 3 million dollars of his 2010 salary and trade him to multiple teams. If they do keep him, he's a solid backup PF. And because the Knicks have raw cap space, they could trade Songalia + 3 million dollars for a high priced player which is as good as signing a high priced player. Dallas, for instance, might not mind trading Josh Howard for Songalia + 3 mil in a sign in trade.



Why the Wolves do it:
While NY might not be giving up their first round pick, with THAT team it would be guaranteed to be one of the worst records in the league. While this isn't exactly bad for NY (they'd have the #31 pick overall) this is huge for the Wolves. The Wolves take on 2 huge contracts in 2010 for 26 million and give out 1 solid starting player in Ryan Gomes in order to get that unprotected 1st round pick (with a future 1st thrown in). But it only hits their cap for 1 year (2010) and then they're in the black again. Andre Kirilenko might be a terrible contract, but he's only 28, he's better in a running system, and he would probably enjoy a new start with the Wolves.

[StocktonShorts]

I still don't see how trading Boozer, AK and Korver for David Lee, Gerald Wallace (or some other unnamed player) and Ryan Gomes gets the Jazz closer to a championship.

If you sold this as a cost-cutting measure I might buy it, but the Jazz aren't better on-court with this deal.

[Narf]

Clearly the consensus here is that this is not a good trade from your perspective. And just so everyone knows, I do appreciate your responses even though you disagreed with me. But I want to be clear, this sentiment is not true.

I went and looked at the trade on the Timberwolves board and nobody over there likes it either.

In fact, several people thought Utah would love this deal.

Some agreed with me, others did not. That generally says the value is about right even if it's not a good fit. Like I said, I feel like this deal leaves Utah with as much talent as they had this year, a better cap situation next year, and 30 million dollars in savings. Here are the 2 teams as they stand:
Now:
Okur/Koufos
Millsap/Boozer
Kirilenko/Miles
Brewer/Korver
Williams/Price/Maynor

After trade:
Okur/Koufos
Millsap/Lee
Wallace??/Gomes
Brewer/Miles
Williams/Price/Maynor
30 million in cash

You guys are 12 million over the luxury tax from what I can tell. Lee and Gomes are young, very solid players, and the Knicks look like they are about the 7th or 8th worst team in the NBA before this trade (and the worst team in the NBA after it, but that doesn't hurt you).

This trade depends on getting a solid wing for Boozer, and there would be some small adjustment for money depending on who you get (you would have to take back an expiring role player like Damien Wilkens for 3 mil if you got Wallace, as he's paid less than Boozer...but that's not really important). But from a management standpoint, do you really turn down 30 million in savings, have no bad contracts next year, and get some solid young players back to have the #7 pick in next year's draft with a chance at a top 3 pick?

You guys seem certain it's a bad deal for Utah, and you know your team better than me. So I'll trust your judgment. Utah nixes the deal.

[QuantumMacgyver]

The Knicks are playing to win this year, they have no incentive to lose.

What?

And note that the Knicks don't have Lee and/or Nate on their roster. So as it stands now they are a top 5 pick.

[Narf]

The Knicks are playing to win this year, they have no incentive to lose.

What?

And note that the Knicks don't have Lee and/or Nate on their roster. So as it stands now they are a top 5 pick.

Lee has reportedly agreed to sign a 1 year deal with the Knicks for high money if they can't work out a sign-and-trade for an expiring + assets because he can't get a better deal elsewhere. I'm guessing Nate will as well, no one else will pay him close to what the Knicks will this year. It's not a sure thing, but that's what has been reported with Lee anyway.

[schneiderjazz]

Narf, if we can get a solid wing for Boozer, we will. We don't have to do the 1st trade you suggested in order to do that. The first trade is an easy no from the Jazz. It might still be a no even if you take out the NY pick.
And I don't exactly see how it improves our cap situation next year, since we'd be giving up 18 million next year (AK's contract) and getting back 28 million (Gomez, Wallace, Jeffries, Lee). And like HappyProle pointed out, I don't see how Jeffries, Wallace, Gomez, Lee is better than Boozer, AK, Korver, Harp.

[Narf]

Narf, if we can get a solid wing for Boozer, we will. We don't have to do the 1st trade you suggested in order to do that. The first trade is an easy no from the Jazz. It might still be a no even if you take out the NY pick.
And I don't exactly see how it improves our cap situation next year, since we'd be giving up 18 million next year (AK's contract) and getting back 28 million (Gomez, Wallace, Jeffries, Lee). And like HappyProle pointed out, I don't see how Jeffries, Wallace, Gomez, Lee is better than Boozer, AK, Korver, Harp.

Wallace is younger, cheaper, and better than AK and signed for years, I hope you guys see that.
Gomes is significantly better than Korver, I hope you guys see that too.
Lee is younger and healthier than Boozer, Boozer the better defensive player. Boozer at his best is better but Lee should improve marginally next year and is paid much less.

You keep talking about salary, but you won't have Boozer and Korver next year where as you'll have Lee on a declining contract, Gomes on a non-guaranted contract, and Wallace next year. All 3 of those guys are worth every dollar they are paid, which makes them easy to trade. They are solid players, and if you decide you don't want Lee next year you can move him for someone else.

You are talking about having more money next year in contracts, but you have more good players signed for that money. You can't compare Lee to Boozer next year unless you resign Boozer. That alone makes up the difference. You don't have any cap space next year, so Boozer and the MLE would be all you could sign. If you matched Boozer and an equivilant SF to Lee and Gomes next year, you wouldn't have any savings.

Also, Gomes would only count 1 mil against you cap if you buy him out. But you wouldn't want to though, he's a solid 3 point shooter, a solid defender at SF, a solid post player, and a very high character guy. We love him in Minny. Gomes has a lot of value in a trade both because you can cut him and because he's worth his paycheck. If a team needs 3 million more in cap space, you might get a call and a good deal for him.

Jeffries, of course, sucks. I got nothing for that one. He's just an add on that you have to take and hold for a year. He's a good defensive player, but not worth the money he's paid. But his dead money is all you would have.