Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVII

[Village Idiot]

I would guess the only players that would get traded would be Ariza or Green to someone that needs them in the playoffs, no?

Green to Portland for Anfernee Simons?

[payitforward]

Trade for players underused.

Jake Layman...

POR is not giving away Layman....

Layman's stats are good almost solely because of his 65.2% on 2's - which isn't sustainable, imo.

For sure it's not sustainable -- don't see too many players other than Centers with a 60%+ over much of their career.

But, this year, Layman has been up pretty much across the board -- he's been an above average rebounder, esp. on the offensive end, & better than average in steals, fouls, turnovers, & blocks. His 3 pt. % has also gone way up, though it's still not good.

So, you can either think he's made a big jump as a player, or you can think that, as Ruz says, it's not sustainable. & given how many different improvements would have to be sustained... I'm with Ruz.

[payitforward]

From Bleacher Report. Hypotheticals and more realistic
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2814470-imagining-every-nba-teams-trade-deadline-whiteboard#slide30
Washington Wizards
30 OF 30

1. Duck the Luxury Tax

Put aside everything else going on with Washington right now. Forget about who's injured, who might get traded, who should be traded and all of that.

No matter how the Wizards play the rest of this season, they should make damn sure they don't finish it in the luxury tax. This year's product won't be worth that price tag even if they make the playoffs, and Washington has to worry about footing tax bills as John Wall's extension kicks in next season and subsequently ages.

Less than $7 million separates the Wizards from the escape hatch. Getting a team to take on the injured Markieff Morris brings them beneath the tax, they can try coming up with a lopsided Trevor Ariza trade, or they can move a mix of Sam Dekker, Dwight Howard (still injured) and Tomas Satoransky.

2. Trade Trevor Ariza

Spades are spades, which means bringing back Ariza was a bad idea. He hasn't galvanized the defense and is shooting under 29 percent from downtown. He always made the most sense beside a healthy John Wall, but giving up on Kelly Oubre Jr. to facilitate his arrival was always a shortsighted move.

Ariza cannot be traded in combination with another player, but that's barely problematic. His $15 million salary is large enough on its own. The Wizards aren't turning him into a prospect with Oubre's stature—which says something—but a second-round pick and cap relief is better than nothing.

3. Gauge Trade Value for Bradley Beal, Otto Porter Jr.

Washington doesn't have to stage a full-tilt deconstruction. A roster built around Wall, Bradley Beal and Otto Porter can rebound to make some noise in the East next season.

Heck, this year isn't even over yet. The Wizards are a junkshow, but they're 3.5 games back of eighth place. They don't need to wave any profound white flags, even if they do throw in the towel on this season. But they'd be smart to see what's out there.

Dumping the final two years of Porter's contract could put them in line to make more cost-effective moves to deepen the roster during free agency. And if Beal can bring back a top-end pick and prospect, plus cap relief, the Wizards would have all the trimmings to begin a semi-quick turnaround. Or they could go boom, trade almost everyone, find a new home for Wall over the summer or next season and start from scratch.

Full-on surrender is neither a given nor altogether endorsed. But whatever the Wizards do next should begin with a thorough probe into all of their options, nuclear or otherwise.

This isn't much of an analysis, to tell the truth. Trading Dekker &/or Satoransky would be idiotic. Ariza for lux tax relief & any kind of forward-facing asset (a R2 pick) is clearly the most beneficial move -- any idiot can see that! & his point #3 (they might still make the playoffs) contradicts his point #1 (it's foolish for them to try to make the playoffs).

[payitforward]

I would guess the only players that would get traded would be Ariza or Green to someone that needs them in the playoffs, no?

Green to Portland for Anfernee Simons?

You want to trade the guy you picked in R1 6 months ago for a rental of a veteran minimum player?? Wow...!

[Ruzious]

How bout this one: Washington trades Jeff Green to Milwaukee for Christian Wood. Milwaukee gets extra depth for the playoffs, and Washington gets a young big who's dominated the G League. They make the same money. Then Washington extends Wood for 3 seasons.

[dckingsfan]

I would guess the only players that would get traded would be Ariza or Green to someone that needs them in the playoffs, no?

Green to Portland for Anfernee Simons?

You want to trade the guy you picked in R1 6 months ago for a rental of a veteran minimum player?? Wow...!

Yep, there is some cost savings there - so I would do that.

[dckingsfan]

How bout this one: Washington trades Jeff Green to Milwaukee for Christian Wood. Milwaukee gets extra depth for the playoffs, and Washington gets a young big who's dominated the G League. They make the same money. Then Washington extends Wood for 3 seasons.

I would definitely do that!

[nate33]

How bout this one: Washington trades Jeff Green to Milwaukee for Christian Wood. Milwaukee gets extra depth for the playoffs, and Washington gets a young big who's dominated the G League. They make the same money. Then Washington extends Wood for 3 seasons.

Of what advantage is it to have Woods already on the roster if the point is to extend him? Why not just sign him in the offseason? It's not like we need his Larry Bird rights. If there's luxtax room available after signing Bryant and Sato, we will have the MLE exception as a vehicle to pay him.

[dckingsfan]

How bout this one: Washington trades Jeff Green to Milwaukee for Christian Wood. Milwaukee gets extra depth for the playoffs, and Washington gets a young big who's dominated the G League. They make the same money. Then Washington extends Wood for 3 seasons.

Of what advantage is it to have Woods already on the roster if the point is to extend him? Why not just sign him in the offseason? It's not like we need his Larry Bird rights. If there's luxtax room available after signing Bryant and Sato, we will have the MLE exception as a vehicle to pay him.

1) helps the tank
2) tryout for next year
3) See if he plays well next to Bryant
4) $2,393,887 vs. $1,512,601 this year (would assume this would be in addition to other moves to get us below the cap)

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

I would guess the only players that would get traded would be Ariza or Green to someone that needs them in the playoffs, no?

Green to Portland for Anfernee Simons?

You want to trade the guy you picked in R1 6 months ago for a rental of a veteran minimum player?? Wow...!

Ernie would do it

[payitforward]

How bout this one: Washington trades Jeff Green to Milwaukee for Christian Wood. Milwaukee gets extra depth for the playoffs, and Washington gets a young big who's dominated the G League. They make the same money. Then Washington extends Wood for 3 seasons.

Nifty....

[Ruzious]

How bout this one: Washington trades Jeff Green to Milwaukee for Christian Wood. Milwaukee gets extra depth for the playoffs, and Washington gets a young big who's dominated the G League. They make the same money. Then Washington extends Wood for 3 seasons.

Of what advantage is it to have Woods already on the roster if the point is to extend him? Why not just sign him in the offseason? It's not like we need his Larry Bird rights. If there's luxtax room available after signing Bryant and Sato, we will have the MLE exception as a vehicle to pay him.

Because they can sign him for a helluvalot less if they don't wait till he's a free agent. This is what Philadelphia did with Covington, and they had him for 4 years for minimum dollars. And why do you think he would come to Washington in the offseason if they never showed any interest in him before? We'd be just one of 30 teams.

[nate33]

How bout this one: Washington trades Jeff Green to Milwaukee for Christian Wood. Milwaukee gets extra depth for the playoffs, and Washington gets a young big who's dominated the G League. They make the same money. Then Washington extends Wood for 3 seasons.

Of what advantage is it to have Woods already on the roster if the point is to extend him? Why not just sign him in the offseason? It's not like we need his Larry Bird rights. If there's luxtax room available after signing Bryant and Sato, we will have the MLE exception as a vehicle to pay him.

Because they can sign him for a helluvalot less if they don't wait till he's a free agent. This is what Philadelphia did with Covington, and they had him for 4 years for minimum dollars. And why do you think he would come to Washington in the offseason if they never showed any interest in him before? We'd be just one of 30 teams.

I don't understand. He's a free agent this summer whether or not he finished out the season in Milwaukee or Washington. Why do you think we'd get some kind of discount to sign him if he finished out his final 35 games in Washington? Surely, he's going to go for the biggest contract he can get from anywhere.

I like Woods, but I just don't see why this helps Washington at all. We are sacrificing a potential trade assset (Green) and getting nothing for it. With or without the trade, we have the ability to sign Woods in the summer. Better to trade Green to a contender for a 2nd round pick, and then try and sign Woods in the offseason (if Woods is someone we want). That way, we end up with Woods AND a 2nd round pick.

[Ruzious]

Of what advantage is it to have Woods already on the roster if the point is to extend him? Why not just sign him in the offseason? It's not like we need his Larry Bird rights. If there's luxtax room available after signing Bryant and Sato, we will have the MLE exception as a vehicle to pay him.

Because they can sign him for a helluvalot less if they don't wait till he's a free agent. This is what Philadelphia did with Covington, and they had him for 4 years for minimum dollars. And why do you think he would come to Washington in the offseason if they never showed any interest in him before? We'd be just one of 30 teams.

I don't understand. He's a free agent this summer whether or not he finished out the season in Milwaukee or Washington. Why do you think we'd get some kind of discount to sign him if he finished out his final 35 games in Washington? Surely, he's going to go for the biggest contract he can get from anywhere.

I like Woods, but I just don't see why this helps Washington at all. We are sacrificing a potential trade assset (Green) and getting nothing for it. With or without the trade, we have the ability to sign Woods in the summer. Better to trade Green to a contender for a 2nd round pick, and then try and sign Woods in the offseason (if Woods is someone we want). That way, we end up with Woods AND a 2nd round pick.

Didn't I just answer your question in my previous post? If they trade for him, what's to stop them from signing him to an extension before he becomes a free agent? This is a guy who couldn't get an NBA contract till after the season started, and he's been sent to the G League several times already this season by Milwaukee. Why wouldn't he jump at the chance to get an extension as soon as it's offered?

[nate33]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You believe that we stand to save some significant amount of money by signing him to an extension right now. I just don't see it. Woods' agent is probably pretty secure in the knowledge that somebody will sign him to a minimum salary contract next year at the very least. He's not going to sign for us for a mere minimum salary just because we'll extend it right now. We will need to offer more.

And once we start offering more money, then I don't see how negotiating with him would be any different than negotiating with anybody else. His agent probably has a better idea of what Woods' value is than Ernie Grunfeld does. His agent has a number in his head that it will take to get Woods to commit to a deal right now. That number is not going to be a bargain. It's going to be, at best, a fair market price based on the Woods' agent's assessment of the market. If it's going to take a fair market value to sign him, then why not do it in the offseason?

That bottom line is that whatever infinitesimal advantage we gain in signing Woods by trading for him now isn't going to be nearly as valuable as other things we should be able to get with Green's contract.

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

From Bleacher Report. Hypotheticals and more realistic
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2814470-imagining-every-nba-teams-trade-deadline-whiteboard#slide30
Washington Wizards
30 OF 30

1. Duck the Luxury Tax

Put aside everything else going on with Washington right now. Forget about who's injured, who might get traded, who should be traded and all of that.

No matter how the Wizards play the rest of this season, they should make damn sure they don't finish it in the luxury tax. This year's product won't be worth that price tag even if they make the playoffs, and Washington has to worry about footing tax bills as John Wall's extension kicks in next season and subsequently ages.

Less than $7 million separates the Wizards from the escape hatch. Getting a team to take on the injured Markieff Morris brings them beneath the tax, they can try coming up with a lopsided Trevor Ariza trade, or they can move a mix of Sam Dekker, Dwight Howard (still injured) and Tomas Satoransky.

2. Trade Trevor Ariza

Spades are spades, which means bringing back Ariza was a bad idea. He hasn't galvanized the defense and is shooting under 29 percent from downtown. He always made the most sense beside a healthy John Wall, but giving up on Kelly Oubre Jr. to facilitate his arrival was always a shortsighted move.

Ariza cannot be traded in combination with another player, but that's barely problematic. His $15 million salary is large enough on its own. The Wizards aren't turning him into a prospect with Oubre's stature—which says something—but a second-round pick and cap relief is better than nothing.

3. Gauge Trade Value for Bradley Beal, Otto Porter Jr.

Washington doesn't have to stage a full-tilt deconstruction. A roster built around Wall, Bradley Beal and Otto Porter can rebound to make some noise in the East next season.

Heck, this year isn't even over yet. The Wizards are a junkshow, but they're 3.5 games back of eighth place. They don't need to wave any profound white flags, even if they do throw in the towel on this season. But they'd be smart to see what's out there.

Dumping the final two years of Porter's contract could put them in line to make more cost-effective moves to deepen the roster during free agency. And if Beal can bring back a top-end pick and prospect, plus cap relief, the Wizards would have all the trimmings to begin a semi-quick turnaround. Or they could go boom, trade almost everyone, find a new home for Wall over the summer or next season and start from scratch.

Full-on surrender is neither a given nor altogether endorsed. But whatever the Wizards do next should begin with a thorough probe into all of their options, nuclear or otherwise.

This isn't much of an analysis, to tell the truth. Trading Dekker &/or Satoransky would be idiotic. Ariza for lux tax relief & any kind of forward-facing asset (a R2 pick) is clearly the most beneficial move -- any idiot can see that! & his point #3 (they might still make the playoffs) contradicts his point #1 (it's foolish for them to try to make the playoffs).

He says we don't have to do a full deconstruction then in the same breath says trade Beal. What? Any trade involving Beal is full rebuild not matter Wall's relation to this team. He's too good at this point. His improved play making, craftiness, and ability to get to the rim have really changed my outlook on him.

[payitforward]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You believe that we stand to save some significant amount of money by signing him to an extension right now. I just don't see it. Woods' agent is probably pretty secure in the knowledge that somebody will sign him to a minimum salary contract next year at the very least. He's not going to sign for us for a mere minimum salary just because we'll extend it right now. We will need to offer more.

And once we start offering more money, then I don't see how negotiating with him would be any different than negotiating with anybody else. His agent probably has a better idea of what Woods' value is than Ernie Grunfeld does. His agent has a number in his head that it will take to get Woods to commit to a deal right now. That number is not going to be a bargain. It's going to be, at best, a fair market price based on the Woods' agent's assessment of the market. If it's going to take a fair market value to sign him, then why not do it in the offseason?

That bottom line is that whatever infinitesimal advantage we gain in signing Woods by trading for him now isn't going to be nearly as valuable as other things we should be able to get with Green's contract.

Wouldn't the first conversation be with his agent right now? "We like CW & want him as part of our future. We contemplate trading for him & extending -- here's what we had in mind...."

If that could be worked out, then trade for him. If not, compete in the off-season at what you think is the right price. No?

[payitforward]

I took Ruz's point to be more in regard of being pro-active than about the savings.

As well, though he didn't specifically mention the fact, I also took him to be looking at Milwaukee & thinking that they will see themselves as having a terrific shot at the ec title -- i.e. a chance to win a championship -- & therefore be willing to sacrifice a piece of the future in order to up their chance.

If that were true, & given that the first step would be a conversation w/ CW's agent about extending him upon acquisition, it makes sense. Certainly it's an idea worth pursuing.

OTOH, Milwaukee might not bite, & it would also be nice to get a R2 pick for Green. It's not common, I don't think, to be able to trade a vet minimum guy for a forward-looking asset. Am I wrong about that?

I suppose it goes without saying that neither of these directions have any precedent in the Ernie Grunfeld playbook?

[nate33]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You believe that we stand to save some significant amount of money by signing him to an extension right now. I just don't see it. Woods' agent is probably pretty secure in the knowledge that somebody will sign him to a minimum salary contract next year at the very least. He's not going to sign for us for a mere minimum salary just because we'll extend it right now. We will need to offer more.

And once we start offering more money, then I don't see how negotiating with him would be any different than negotiating with anybody else. His agent probably has a better idea of what Woods' value is than Ernie Grunfeld does. His agent has a number in his head that it will take to get Woods to commit to a deal right now. That number is not going to be a bargain. It's going to be, at best, a fair market price based on the Woods' agent's assessment of the market. If it's going to take a fair market value to sign him, then why not do it in the offseason?

That bottom line is that whatever infinitesimal advantage we gain in signing Woods by trading for him now isn't going to be nearly as valuable as other things we should be able to get with Green's contract.

Wouldn't the first conversation be with his agent right now? "We like CW & want him as part of our future. We contemplate trading for him & extending -- here's what we had in mind...."

If that could be worked out, then trade for him. If not, compete in the off-season at what you think is the right price. No?

First of all, we can't really have that conversation because of tampering rules. Secondly, I'm still not seeing how we should trade away a valuable asset to obtain this "leverage" to make such a deal. We're talking about a guy who has managed to play less than 150 minutes in Milwaukee. He's going to be available in the offseason. As long as we offer $1 dollar more than the vet minimum, Milwaukee won't be able to match because they're worried about conserving their cap space for other things.

Hmmm. I see on Sportrac.com, Woods is on a 2-year deal with the 2nd year non guaranteed. (Basketball reference has him on an expiring deal.) If he is indeed under contract next year, then I would consider Ruzious' idea. It would mean we'd have him locked in for next year at $1.6M. The alternative is to hope that Milwaukee needs every last dollar of their cap to sign other guys and are therefore willing to let him go. That seems unlikely to me.

The only real downside is that I'd really like to retain Jeff Green next year, more than I want Woods as a backup center. I think Green is a real stabilizing influence at a position of need. I don't know what kind of relationship the team has with him, but if it's good, maybe they can lure him back next summer after renting him to Milwaukee for a playoff run.

[Village Idiot]

Green to Portland for Anfernee Simons?

You want to trade the guy you picked in R1 6 months ago for a rental of a veteran minimum player?? Wow...!

Ernie would do it

Both our GM and coach are under enormous pressure to win a playoff series. Simons is a year away from being a year away and given the teams goals is stuck behind McCollum, Turner, Curry and Stauskas in the rotation. Green is a smart vet who has a lot of experience and he's cheap. With Harkless gimpy and mercurial it makes some sense for the Blazers.