Stop making up trades that will never happen. The Cavs are not trading Drummond. And why would they add another guard? Do some research before you post.
Stop making up trades that will never happen. The Cavs are not trading Drummond. And why would they add another guard? Do some research before you post.
Woahhhhhhhh there Oscar the Grouch!
Ease back on the attacks!
Attacks? It wasn't an attack. The Cavs are not in the picture. The Cavs don't need a guard. They are fine.... Drummond would be great but he's not being traded. Especially for Rozier.
You all need to look at the other teams needs, not just the Hornets needs.
Not sure whether the idea has already been posted here previously, but Chuck over on the trade board suggested something with this structure:
CHA sends out Batum and Zeller and brings back Hayward and Horford OKC sends out Horford to CHA for pick stuff BOS sends out Hayward and pick stuff to OKC for a huge TPE
If we come out of this essentially getting Hayward and Horford in exchange for Batum and Zeller, I'll feel pretty dang good about that.
yosemiteben wrote:Not sure whether the idea has already been posted here previously, but Chuck over on the trade board suggested something with this structure:
CHA sends out Batum and Zeller and brings back Hayward and Horford OKC sends out Horford to CHA for pick stuff BOS sends out Hayward and pick stuff to OKC for a huge TPE
If we come out of this essentially getting Hayward and Horford in exchange for Batum and Zeller, I'll feel pretty dang good about that.
That would leave us capped out for three years with zero all-stars on the team and no chance of winning a playoff series or getting a high pick.
yosemiteben wrote:Not sure whether the idea has already been posted here previously, but Chuck over on the trade board suggested something with this structure:
CHA sends out Batum and Zeller and brings back Hayward and Horford OKC sends out Horford to CHA for pick stuff BOS sends out Hayward and pick stuff to OKC for a huge TPE
If we come out of this essentially getting Hayward and Horford in exchange for Batum and Zeller, I'll feel pretty dang good about that.
That would leave us capped out for three years with zero all-stars on the team and no chance of winning a playoff series or getting a high pick.
I get not being on board, but I personally don't agree with this assessment.
yosemiteben wrote:Not sure whether the idea has already been posted here previously, but Chuck over on the trade board suggested something with this structure:
CHA sends out Batum and Zeller and brings back Hayward and Horford OKC sends out Horford to CHA for pick stuff BOS sends out Hayward and pick stuff to OKC for a huge TPE
If we come out of this essentially getting Hayward and Horford in exchange for Batum and Zeller, I'll feel pretty dang good about that.
Why would OKC be the ones getting picks?
That Horford contract is really, really bad and they shouldn't get rewarded for getting out from under it IMO.
yosemiteben wrote:Not sure whether the idea has already been posted here previously, but Chuck over on the trade board suggested something with this structure:
CHA sends out Batum and Zeller and brings back Hayward and Horford OKC sends out Horford to CHA for pick stuff BOS sends out Hayward and pick stuff to OKC for a huge TPE
If we come out of this essentially getting Hayward and Horford in exchange for Batum and Zeller, I'll feel pretty dang good about that.
Why would OKC be the ones getting picks?
That Horford contract is really, really bad and they shouldn't get rewarded for getting out from under it IMO.
Because they don't care about holding a bad contract and they want picks.
yosemiteben wrote:Not sure whether the idea has already been posted here previously, but Chuck over on the trade board suggested something with this structure:
CHA sends out Batum and Zeller and brings back Hayward and Horford OKC sends out Horford to CHA for pick stuff BOS sends out Hayward and pick stuff to OKC for a huge TPE
If we come out of this essentially getting Hayward and Horford in exchange for Batum and Zeller, I'll feel pretty dang good about that.
Why would OKC be the ones getting picks?
That Horford contract is really, really bad and they shouldn't get rewarded for getting out from under it IMO.
Because they don't care about holding a bad contract and they want picks.
But if they want picks then they have to give up something that warrants having picks sent to them.
I don't think Horford's contract (+ his recent play + his age) doesn't really warrant that. If anything they should give up picks to give another team incentive to take that contract on.
yosemiteben wrote:Not sure whether the idea has already been posted here previously, but Chuck over on the trade board suggested something with this structure:
CHA sends out Batum and Zeller and brings back Hayward and Horford OKC sends out Horford to CHA for pick stuff BOS sends out Hayward and pick stuff to OKC for a huge TPE
If we come out of this essentially getting Hayward and Horford in exchange for Batum and Zeller, I'll feel pretty dang good about that.
I really really don't want to give up assets for Horford and lose Zeller at the same time. I guess it might be better than eating the 9 million, but I think this should be one of the last options we consider.
JMAC3 wrote:OKC has the trade exception, this is the cleanest way to get the deal done.
Boston in: TPE
Hornets in: Hayward
Thunder in: Batum, two seconds from Boston, 1 second from Hornets
Only question is that enough for Thunder?
Someone suggested Batum + Zeller for Horford. If you subtract their salaries you're left paying Horford about 13 million per year over three years. The move creates 15 million cap this year as compensation for taking Horford's deal.
Then we're able to deliver the largest ever TPE to the Celtics if we agree to sign-and-trade Hayward. The question is what would Ainge pay for a 30 million TPE possibly more if we front load the Hayward deal?
This is an asset (s) we can use with other pieces to maybe make a run at an Oladipo trade down the road.
MasterIchiro wrote:Someone suggested Batum + Zeller for Horford. If you subtract their salaries you're left paying Horford about 13 million per year over three years. The move creates 15 million cap this year as compensation for taking Horford's deal.
Both of the contracts we'd be sending out are expiring, so we would be losing 27 million the next two years and there is no one worthwhile left to sign with the extra cap it creates this season.
Horford is still a net positive player for at least another season and I was totally down with taking on his contract for draft assets when we didn't have 30 million committed over the next four years for Hayward and we all thought we'd pretty much be tanking for a couple more years, but he is 34 and hasn't been an all-star in three years (he was borderline even when he was). Taking on Horford right now seems like one of the worst possible things we could do.
Having one bad contract can be manageable as long as the player is still useful, but there is very little room for error with the rest of your cap. You can't just start loading up on bad contracts. Hayward is our bad contract, so we shouldn't be looking to add more.
yosemiteben wrote:Not sure whether the idea has already been posted here previously, but Chuck over on the trade board suggested something with this structure:
CHA sends out Batum and Zeller and brings back Hayward and Horford OKC sends out Horford to CHA for pick stuff BOS sends out Hayward and pick stuff to OKC for a huge TPE
If we come out of this essentially getting Hayward and Horford in exchange for Batum and Zeller, I'll feel pretty dang good about that.
Why would OKC be the ones getting picks?
That Horford contract is really, really bad and they shouldn't get rewarded for getting out from under it IMO.
Because they don't care about holding a bad contract and they want picks.
I haven't looked at their roster in a few days, what is their cap situation going forward? I mean I could see them wanting the Batum expiring over the Horford contract. They can probably clear enough cap to go after 2 max contract all stars in a loaded free agent year. If you add 2 all stars to SGA and all of those picks, OKC could build something special real quick.
MasterIchiro wrote:Someone suggested Batum + Zeller for Horford. If you subtract their salaries you're left paying Horford about 13 million per year over three years. The move creates 15 million cap this year as compensation for taking Horford's deal.
Both of the contracts we'd be sending out are expiring, so we would be losing 27 million the next two years and there is no one worthwhile left to sign with the extra cap it creates this season.
Horford is still a net positive player for at least another season and I was totally down with taking on his contract for draft assets when we didn't have 30 million committed over the next four years for Hayward and we all thought we'd pretty much be tanking for a couple more years, but he is 34 and hasn't been an all-star in three years (he was borderline even when he was). Taking on Horford right now seems like one of the worst possible things we could do.
Having one bad contract can be manageable as long as the player is still useful, but there is very little room for error with the rest of your cap. You can't just start loading up on bad contracts. Hayward is our bad contract, so we shouldn't be looking to add more.
Horford is 33 and will turn 37 in the final year of his contract. Nash was an All-Star at 37. Carey Jr. needs at least 3 years to develop into a starter. Hayward was the most efficient player in basketball. I don't see what's wrong with winning now when you keep all picks and prospects, and they have room for further improvement.
The 15 million cap isn't about signing other players this year. It's about fitting and structuring Hayward's deal as a front loaded contract and about not stretching Batum. Do we want to give a max contract to Gobert next off-season? Pay 20 million for Jarrett Allen? What do the Pacers demand for Turner?
I think Horford has 3 years of good basketball left. And like I said, I'd do this deal because it enables us to deliver a full TPE to Boston, so it's like getting a pick and Horford for 38 million bucks after subtracting Batum's money and Zeller's money from the total owed Horford.
We can use Boston's asset(s) towards trading for Oladipo.
MasterIchiro wrote:Someone suggested Batum + Zeller for Horford. If you subtract their salaries you're left paying Horford about 13 million per year over three years. The move creates 15 million cap this year as compensation for taking Horford's deal.
Both of the contracts we'd be sending out are expiring, so we would be losing 27 million the next two years and there is no one worthwhile left to sign with the extra cap it creates this season.
Horford is still a net positive player for at least another season and I was totally down with taking on his contract for draft assets when we didn't have 30 million committed over the next four years for Hayward and we all thought we'd pretty much be tanking for a couple more years, but he is 34 and hasn't been an all-star in three years (he was borderline even when he was). Taking on Horford right now seems like one of the worst possible things we could do.
Having one bad contract can be manageable as long as the player is still useful, but there is very little room for error with the rest of your cap. You can't just start loading up on bad contracts. Hayward is our bad contract, so we shouldn't be looking to add more.
Horford is 33 and will turn 37 in the final year of his contract.
Horford is 34.5. He was born June 1986.
Nash was an All-Star at 37.
So? Horford hasn't been an all-star since the 2017/2018, was a borderline all-star guy at his peak, and is coming off his worst season in a decade. Nash peaked as an MVP
Hayward was the most efficient player in basketball.
He ranked 46th in true shooting % last season.
I don't see what's wrong with winning now when you keep all picks and prospects, and they have room for further improvement.
I don't consider completely sabotaging your salary cap situation to get bounced in the first round winning.
The 15 million cap isn't about signing other players this year. It's about fitting and structuring Hayward's deal as a front loaded contract and about not stretching Batum.
Fair enough, but we only need to clear around 7 million to sign Hayward. Being able to front load his deal would be preferable, but not at the expense of torpedoing our cap for space for the foreseeable future and there are other options to explore to make the Hayward signing possible that don't do that.
We can use Boston's asset(s) towards trading for Oladipo.
I don't think Boston is giving us enough to get Oladipo and it would probably be a one year rental anyways.
Braggins wrote:Both of the contracts we'd be sending out are expiring, so we would be losing 27 million the next two years and there is no one worthwhile left to sign with the extra cap it creates this season.
Horford is still a net positive player for at least another season and I was totally down with taking on his contract for draft assets when we didn't have 30 million committed over the next four years for Hayward and we all thought we'd pretty much be tanking for a couple more years, but he is 34 and hasn't been an all-star in three years (he was borderline even when he was). Taking on Horford right now seems like one of the worst possible things we could do.
Having one bad contract can be manageable as long as the player is still useful, but there is very little room for error with the rest of your cap. You can't just start loading up on bad contracts. Hayward is our bad contract, so we shouldn't be looking to add more.
Horford is 33 and will turn 37 in the final year of his contract.
Horford is 34.5. He was born June 1986.
Nash was an All-Star at 37.
So? Horford hasn't been an all-star since the 2017/2018, was a borderline all-star guy at his peak, and is coming off his worst season in a decade. Nash peaked as an MVP
Hayward was the most efficient player in basketball.
He ranked 46th in true shooting % last season.
I don't see what's wrong with winning now when you keep all picks and prospects, and they have room for further improvement.
I don't consider completely sabotaging your salary cap situation to get bounced in the first round winning.
The 15 million cap isn't about signing other players this year. It's about fitting and structuring Hayward's deal as a front loaded contract and about not stretching Batum.
Fair enough, but we only need to clear around 7 million to sign Hayward. Being able to front load his deal would be preferable, but not at the expense of torpedoing our cap for space for the foreseeable future and there are other options to explore to make the Hayward signing possible that don't do that.
We can use Boston's asset(s) towards trading for Oladipo.
I don't think Boston is giving us enough to get Oladipo and it would probably be a one year rental anyways.
Lol
(Not at you, but with you)
I still can't believe what seems like 75% of this board is cool with topping out as a capped out 7-10 seed punching bag every 3-4 years.
Have the Hornets been bad for so long that we measure success by being first round fodder?
If they traded for Horford and didn't salary dump Rozier that would be 92-94 million (depending on how Haywards deal is structured) in committed salary next offseason once you factor in Graham's cap hold (2 million) and empty roster spot cap holds. If the salary cap stays the same then just picking up Monk's cap hold would put us almost at the cap line. The year after that Roziers contract would come off the books, but that would just barely get us back under the cap if we resign Graham and we'd still be over if we also resigned Monk and we'd still have a decision on Miles extension to deal with.
