Official Trade Thread - Part XXVII

Post #1681 » by **miller31time** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:24 pm

FAH1223 wrote:He's gonna get hurt at the World Cup playing for Brazil

I can't even dispute this.

#sowizards

Dat2U · Post #1682 » by **Dat2U** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:29 pm

Asik & Dunleavy for cap space? Both Houston & Chicago are looking to potentially dump some salary. Just thinking of some alternatives to paying top dollar for Gortat & Ariza.

Induveca · Post #1683 » by **Induveca** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:23 am

Dat2U wrote:Asik & Dunleavy for cap space? Both Houston & Chicago are looking to potentially dump some salary. Just thinking of some alternatives to paying top dollar for Gortat & Ariza.

Our defense would suffer greatly. End of the day, Porter was just a horrible pick. It would have been infinitely better to hand over duties to Noel and let Gortat walk.

That being said, Gortat and Ariza are big parts of what we're doing. Resign them for market value, and if Porter shows life trade Ariza. Gortat actually seems to be teaching Wall some of Nash's tricks so not a horrible thing either.

TGW · Post #1684 » by **TGW** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:35 am

Induveca wrote:
Dat2U wrote:Asik & Dunleavy for cap space? Both Houston & Chicago are looking to potentially dump some salary. Just thinking of some alternatives to paying top dollar for Gortat & Ariza.

Our defense would suffer greatly.

Ehhh, I think if anything the defense stays about the same. Asik is a much better defender than Gortat.

nuposse04 · Post #1685 » by **nuposse04** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:46 am

TGW wrote:
Induveca wrote:
Dat2U wrote:Asik & Dunleavy for cap space? Both Houston & Chicago are looking to potentially dump some salary. Just thinking of some alternatives to paying top dollar for Gortat & Ariza.

Our defense would suffer greatly.

Ehhh, I think if anything the defense stays about the same. Asik is a much better defender than Gortat.

Yah Defense should remain the same but our offense wouldn't look all that better when we had Mek. Asik's only worth on offense is on put backs. You can't run offense for him, or through him. Glorified junk man. Which is ok if you have a legit scoring option at the 4, but we can't really count on Nene for a third of the season. Literally the only thing he was good at was dunks and tips last season. He shot 45% on layups! How does a center manage to fail that badly at lay ups?!

Post #1686 » by **nate33** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:51 am

Dat2U wrote:Asik & Dunleavy for cap space? Both Houston & Chicago are looking to potentially dump some salary. Just thinking of some alternatives to paying top dollar for Gortat & Ariza.

Hmmm. Very interesting. Asik will cost Ted $15M, but his cap hit is only $8.4M. Dunleavy is $3.3M and we might be able to pry the #19 pick from them as part of the transaction given their desperate need to scrape together a few more dollars for Melo's max contract. It's the Hinrich Maneuver all over again.

We have $18.8M in cap room if we buy out Miller. We probably won't though, so that leaves us with $16.2M in cap room. Add Asik and Dunleavy and we're down to $4.3M. A cap hold for the pick and it's $3M. Hopefully that's enough to retain Booker on a 1-year deal. It's only a modest step backwards but gets us a pick and keeps our options open in 2015. We'd be set up for about $18-19M in cap room next year even with Nene and Webster on the roster.

The only real downside is that it seems pretty darn cold-blooded. Dumping likeable, productive guys like Gortat and Ariza just to maintain cap flexibility might hurt team morale and ruin the sense that we're building something here. I might be overstating it though. This is basically what Dallas has done for years and what Houston does now.

mhd · Post #1687 » by **mhd** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:54 am

I don't see us as an Asik option. Toronto needs size, and they could offer Salmons (1 million guarunteed)+#20 for Asik for example.

Too many teams have cap space and/or trade exemptions.

mhd · Post #1688 » by **mhd** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:55 am

If GSW did Barnes+Klay+Lee for Martin+Love, they still have the trade exemption to go after replacements.

Martell for their Trade exemption works quite easily.

Post #1689 » by **nate33** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:55 am

mhd wrote:I don't see us as an Asik option. Toronto needs size, and they could offer Salmons (1 million guarunteed)+#20 for Asik for example.

Too many teams have cap space and/or trade exemptions.

Toronto has Valanciunas. They're not going to pay $15M out of pocket for a backup.

Post #1690 » by **nate33** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:59 am

mhd wrote:If GSW did Barnes+Klay+Lee for Martin+Love, they still have the trade exemption to go after replacements.

Martell for their Trade exemption works quite easily.

That makes a lot of sense. The only real problem is that if Love is locked up in Golden State, we would no longer be in dire need to shed contracts. I suppose it couldn't hurt to dump Webster just for the purposes of developing Porter.

mhd · Post #1691 » by **mhd** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:00 am

nate33 wrote:
mhd wrote:I don't see us as an Asik option. Toronto needs size, and they could offer Salmons (1 million guarunteed)+#20 for Asik for example.

Too many teams have cap space and/or trade exemptions.

Toronto has Valanciunas. They're not going to pay $15M out of pocket for a backup.

Yeah, but they have been rumored to go after rim protectors. If Houston wants to deal him East, for example, than Atlanta could offer pure cap space, the Celtics could offer that Bogans contract (instant savings) and a pick swap at #17 with Houston's 1st rounder for example. Philly might want to get a center to ease Noel in.

I don't think we have the incentives to get Asik.

mhd · Post #1692 » by **mhd** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:01 am

nate33 wrote:
mhd wrote:If GSW did Barnes+Klay+Lee for Martin+Love, they still have the trade exemption to go after replacements.

Martell for their Trade exemption works quite easily.

That makes a lot of sense. The only real problem is that if Love is locked up in Golden State, we would no longer be in dire need to shed contracts. I suppose it couldn't hurt to dump Webster just for the purposes of developing Porter.

Yeah, I guess the incentives to dump Martell is to develop Porter & Rice. Ideally, if Love goes to GSW, we could trade Martell for a 3rd big. At best, Jason Thompson makes some sense, as his last year is only 1 million garunteed.

gambitx777 · Post #1693 » by **gambitx777** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:24 am

Nate let me ask you something? how can the lakers not buy Miller out for the 2 that guaranteed if we trade him before the 30th ?
Plus maybe they would be fine buying him out over paying Nash to leave. and maybe they would be fine with having webster. Maybe they would do that? then if we get nash to leave we get a bit more room.

Induveca · Post #1694 » by **Induveca** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:47 am

TGW wrote:
Induveca wrote:
Dat2U wrote:Asik & Dunleavy for cap space? Both Houston & Chicago are looking to potentially dump some salary. Just thinking of some alternatives to paying top dollar for Gortat & Ariza.

Our defense would suffer greatly.

Ehhh, I think if anything the defense stays about the same. Asik is a much better defender than Gortat.

Ariza is a superb defender....Porter/Dunleavy would be disastrous.

End of the day, we'll know what we have in Porter come Summer League. If he's not kicking some ass after a year of practicing against Ariza/Webster I don't have much hope for him. He wasn't just a disappointment, he was putrid.

dckingsfan · Post #1695 » by **dckingsfan** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:24 am

Could OKC just amnesty Perkins?

FAH1223 · Post #1696 » by **FAH1223** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:01 am

dckingsfan wrote:Could OKC just amnesty Perkins?

They can but Clay Bennett is a cheap owner.

verbal8 · Post #1697 » by **verbal8** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:14 am

nate33 wrote:
mhd wrote:If GSW did Barnes+Klay+Lee for Martin+Love, they still have the trade exemption to go after replacements.

Martell for their Trade exemption works quite easily.

That makes a lot of sense. The only real problem is that if Love is locked up in Golden State, we would no longer be in dire need to shed contracts. I suppose it couldn't hurt to dump Webster just for the purposes of developing Porter.

If the Martell for TPE deal was packaged with a Miller/Nash& 7th pick swap, that saves the Lakers luxury tax payments and allows them to free up $7 million in cap space for the offseason if they waive Miller in time - could that be combined with the stretch provision so his cap hit would be less than 700K?

stevemcqueen1 · Post #1698 » by **stevemcqueen1** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:46 pm

Beal + Nene for DeMarcus Cousins + Ben McLemore. Thoughts?

Post #1699 » by **nate33** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:39 pm

gambitx777 wrote:Nate let me ask you something? how can the lakers not buy Miller out for the 2 that guaranteed if we trade him before the 30th ?
Plus maybe they would be fine buying him out over paying Nash to leave. and maybe they would be fine with having webster. Maybe they would do that? then if we get nash to leave we get a bit more room.

From Larry Coon:

When the trade deadline has passed. Teams are free to make trades again once their season has ended, but cannot trade players whose contracts are ending or could end due to an option or ETO.

I'm pretty sure the team option on Miller's final year must be exercised before he can be traded.

gambitx777 · Post #1700 » by **gambitx777** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:27 pm

nate33 wrote:
gambitx777 wrote:Nate let me ask you something? how can the lakers not buy Miller out for the 2 that guaranteed if we trade him before the 30th ?
Plus maybe they would be fine buying him out over paying Nash to leave. and maybe they would be fine with having webster. Maybe they would do that? then if we get nash to leave we get a bit more room.

From Larry Coon:
When the trade deadline has passed. Teams are free to make trades again once their season has ended, but cannot trade players whose contracts are ending or could end due to an option or ETO.

I'm pretty sure the team option on Miller's final year must be exercised before he can be traded.

From my understanding it's not a team option or an ETO is it? It's just that only 2 mil of that 4.5 hes owed is guaranteed, so if he stays on the team he get's the full amount, if a team cuts him he does not get the full 4.5, the team only has to pay him 2. That's how I understand it as I am reading the details of the contract, or am I misunderstanding it?