DET possibly looking to trade Iverson

W_HAMILTON · Post #1 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:29 pm

Would we risk trading for him?

Is there any scenario where we could acquire him?

It sounds like DET would be content just with getting him off the roster, while still maintaing the type of salary cap relief that he would provide down the road.

I'm not a huge fan of his, but him and Brown were successful. If you can find a way to acquire him without giving up Okafor/Wallace/Diaw/Augustin, we'd have a starting lineup that could be a serious playoff contender. The one thing we lack right now is a true go-to player, and Iverson would definitely fill that need. He obviously has his problems, but I think him and Brown could work magic again.

Dexmor · Post #2 » by **Dexmor** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:41 pm

This is a moot point. They want to have a huge amount of money for 2010 and want another expiring contract this year or next. We can't offer that at all.
If we had expriring contracts they would consider them for the contracts and DJ with future picks which would be awesome.
It's to bad were not under the cap this year because like Webber said you need 4 robots to play with Iverson well we have the perfect team to put Iverson with, better then everybody if we went with

Mek-Were trying to get him to be a scorer but he would go perfect with AI to be a rebounder and shotblocker and get open looks from AI when AI is tripled and would never call for the ball
Diaw-Also perfect for AI because he wants to pass but can look for his own shot when Iverson needs somebody else to shoot.
Wallace-Mostly scores on garbadge points not on plays drawn for him and doesn't demand the ball so perfect for AI
Iverson
Bell-Bell can play the pg with Iverson and guard the sgs like Mckie did and only need open shots when the triple Iverson

The Bobcats are missing that go to guy and scorer and there almost none better then AI. We would be like the Sixers on steroids.

If they could get him it would be the absolute best fit possible for both teams. They even have the same coach but because of the money it won't happen.
Even if no team under the cap wanted to sign him to more then the midlevel which is unlikely he would only go to a contender even though he would do best here and he would instantly make us contenders and there would be 4 teams in the East that could come out of the East.

e4Nf6 · Post #3 » by **e4Nf6** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:52 pm

In theory I wouldn't mind, but I don't see how we get him without giving up Agustin/Diaw/Wallace/Mek. There is not much on the roster beyond that. They will probably want Crash, and that's a no for me.

A Crash/Iverson switch might even make us better but I'm not will to risk it with how well we've been playing lately.

W_HAMILTON · Post #4 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:56 pm

It's about time we get to pull the trigger on one of those trades where we get something really, really good in return for nothing, so, hey, why not now?

I figured it would have to be something like a 3-way deal. I figured out a deal that would work with DET, but they would have to take on Mohammed's contract, and they probably wouldn't want to do that. Also, Morrison doesn't count as an expiring contract this year, correct? Because we already picked up his option? I thought they said they did that because it would be easier to trade him, but it seems like it would be harder; if we hadn't picked up the option, we could use him as a reasonably-sized expiring contract (~5m). Felton + May would be another 6-7m or so.

thruthefire · Post #5 » by **thruthefire** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:04 pm

Dexmor wrote:This is a moot point. They want to have a huge amount of money for 2010 and want another expiring contract this year or next. We can't offer that at all.
If we had expriring contracts they would consider them for the contracts and DJ with future picks which would be awesome.
It's to bad were not under the cap this year because like Webber said you need 4 robots to play with Iverson well we have the perfect team to put Iverson with, better then everybody if we went with

Mek-Were trying to get him to be a scorer but he would go perfect with AI to be a rebounder and shotblocker and get open looks from AI when AI is tripled and would never call for the ball
Diaw-Also perfect for AI because he wants to pass but can look for his own shot when Iverson needs somebody else to shoot.
Wallace-Mostly scores on garbadge points not on plays drawn for him and doesn't demand the ball so perfect for AI
Iverson
Bell-Bell can play the pg with Iverson and guard the sgs like Mckie did and only need open shots when the triple Iverson

The Bobcats are missing that go to guy and scorer and there almost none better then AI. We would be like the Sixers on steroids.

If they could get him it would be the absolute best fit possible for both teams. They even have the same coach but because of the money it won't happen.
Even if no team under the cap wanted to sign him to more then the midlevel which is unlikely he would only go to a contender even though he would do best here and he would instantly make us contenders and there would be 4 teams in the East that could come out of the East.

Wow, this is getting ridiculous.

If Iverson came here, he would be coming off the bench, or atleast he should. Our starters are not robots. Our bench is full of robots. Our starting lineup is all about moving the ball, which has proven to be very effective, and Iverson is not about sharing the basketball. Starting him would only hurt us. I would love to have him come off the bench for us.

Larry Brown said in reference to Iverson, "it's hard to get the players to buy into being a team, when one guy takes all the shots."

We don't need him in our starting lineup. I refuse to involve Okafor, Diaw, Wallace, Felton, or Augustin in a trade for Iverson. He will likely be one and done anyway.

And what do you mean "Bell can play the pg with Iverson".....um, no he can't.

W_HAMILTON · Post #6 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:18 pm

Brown and Iverson had their turbulent times, but it seems like they eventually put their differences aside for the sake of the team.

Since it's apparent Bonnell reads this board and steals all our ideas anyway so he can come up with something to post in his blog, he should ask Brown if he would be receptive to coaching Iverson again.

I'd be interested in hearing the answer. I imagine he would be receptive to the idea.

As for the starting lineup being about moving the ball, I agree, but that is the same sort of thing that will most likely hurt us. Outside of maybe Wallace, we don't have anyone that is willing and able to be a go-to scorer for us.

Assuming Brown could control Iverson once again, I think it could be a perfect match.

Dexmor · Post #7 » by **Dexmor** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:44 am

Bell can handle the ball enough when all you need is a guy to bring up the ball and not make plays because Iverson is a guy with the ball in his hands that also brings the ball up and isn't a guy who gets passed to for an open shot coming off a screen he dominates the ball and add that with Diaw and Bell can get away with being the pg just like Mckie did.
There not robots now but they are all the types of guys that would give up shots no problem and do all of the other things. Your telling me Mek wouldn't give up shots and just play D? same with Bell and Wallace get the garbadge points which he does. Diaw wouldn't be ok with being mostly a passer.
This is not redicoulus. Thinking we can get him would be.
Thinking he would come off our bench when he just put Rip to the bench is just flat out dumb. No coach would start Bell or Felton over Iverson. Come on RIp just went to the bench for him.

It doesn't matter cause he is not coming here anyway.

thruthefire · Post #8 » by **thruthefire** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:48 am

Dexmor wrote:Bell can handle the ball enough when all you need is a guy to bring up the ball and not make plays because Iverson is a guy with the ball in his hands that also brings the ball up and isn't a guy who gets passed to for an open shot coming off a screen he dominates the ball and add that with Diaw and Bell can get away with being the pg just like Mckie did.
There not robots now but they are all the types of guys that would give up shots no problem and do all of the other things. Your telling me Mek wouldn't give up shots and just play D? same with Bell and Wallace get the garbadge points which he does. Diaw wouldn't be ok with being mostly a passer.
This is not redicoulus. Thinking we can get him would be.
Thinking he would come off our bench when he just put Rip to the bench is just flat out dumb. No coach would start Bell or Felton over Iverson. Come on RIp just went to the bench for him.

It doesn't matter cause he is not coming here anyway.

And now they are trying to trade him. What does that tell you? Chauncey goes to Denver and they get better, Iverson goes to Detriot and they get worse.

Post #9 » by **Paydro70** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:23 am

Nowadays Iverson damn near cries when he talks about Larry Brown, he loves him. Personally I think it would work fantastically... Iverson handles it most of the time and penetrates, DJ becomes more of a jump shooter, Crash and Emeka exert all their energy on defense and the boards... the only real sticking point is how well Diaw tolerates it. He might be a little too C-Webb and want the ball more than it can happen.

As for trading for him... Iverson is himself an enormous expiring. I don't think Detroit would want to trade him for OTHER expirings, they would want young talent to try and win a title with. For me, the reality is that Iverson is probably going to walk at the end of the season, so we'd be doing a deal as much for cap space as anything, and I don't see how that helps us. I don't know what players we'd offer them that would upgrade them besides Okafor, and that one's definitely not happening. So in closing, I just don't see any potential for this to actually go down, even if I do think Iverson would work with the squad and coach we have.

One last thing, to thruthefire: "Our starting lineup is all about moving the ball, which has proven to be very effective" is patently false... we are among the worst offensive teams in the league, and turn the ball over constantly. If anything we need LESS ball movement, what is happening right now is not working at all.

Dexmor · Post #10 » by **Dexmor** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:16 pm

Exactly. There is a difference in great ball movement and needing to pass because you have nobody who can create.

Post #11 » by **rsavaj** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:40 pm

They're not going to trade him unless they get a similar expiring back, but I think Charlotte is PERFECT for AI. A bunch of defensive-minded role-players, spot up shooters, all surrounding AI? Sounds a lot like that Philly team that went to the Finals.

Liver_Pooty · Post #12 » by **Liver_Pooty** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:54 pm

I was reading a rumor board that Detroit might also be receptive in moving Prince. It would be an interesting blockbuster deal if we could pry both Prince, and Iverson away from Detroit, but of course we would have to give up quite a bit to do that.

Also Im not so sure on Iverson to begin with. Hes an UFA after this season, and hes going to be looking for his last big paycheck.

Interesting possibilities, though.

Dexmor · Post #13 » by **Dexmor** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:38 pm

Guys it's not gonna happen.

The Prince rumor was for a free agent Steven Jackson
They want an expiring for AI and he would never resign with us.
This topic should be dead by now.

Hendrix · Post #14 » by **Hendrix** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:31 pm

It looks like you guys have turned into a pretty solid defensive group, and you have a good amount of guys that don't necisarily need the ball in their hands on offense. Pretty much the recipe to some of the 76'rs best teams with Iverson, and generally the type of team I think he fits best on.

Not really any of the teams tha thave cap space next year would be a good destination for Iverson (OKC, Blazers, Memphis, Pistons, Minny), so basically means MLE money. But there's not many current contenders that could easily fit in his style of player either, unless he came off the bench.

Anyways, I thought he'd look good on the Cats, not sure about LB though. thoughts?

W_HAMILTON · Post #15 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:11 pm

I'd be interested in trading for him.

I wouldn't give up anything of real value for him, however. That means no Okafor/Wallace/Diaw/Augustin.

I would be receptive to trading just about anything else for him. Talent-wise, it won't be fair for Detroit. But if they believe he has killed their chemistry and is just looking to unload him and get back some young talent and/or expiring contracts, something could be worked out.

If Detroit really wants to trade him, it seems like they are in a tough position. Iverson's value is probably at an all-time low. He has a huge expiring contract which is valuable, but only if you are willing to take back a likely large, non-expiring contract; Detroit seemed to want to trade for Iverson mainly for his expiring contract, so would they be willing to do this? I don't know. The other option would be to trade expiring contracts for one another, but I don't know many teams that would be that receptive to doing that.

If I were the GM, it's definitely a situation I would look into. As I said before, I think Brown and Iverson could have some success together again. And Iverson, even though he has his negatives, is a type of player that would fit in well with the other players we have assembled.

But again, I wouldn't give up any of our best players for him. Given the situation, it's just not necessary. Iverson on this team loses a lot of its luster if it causes us Okafor, or Wallace, or somebody like that. I think if we had to give up talent like that, the negatives would outweigh the postives.

But if we could get him for Felton and May (~7m in expirings this year) + Morrison and Mohammed (~12 in expirings for 2010), and maybe take back a couple of their undesirable contracts in return, I would do it. They'd get some young talent which they could either let go off and gain cap space, or if they work out, retain their services.

spectre_ · Post #16 » by **spectre_** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:24 pm

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-player- ... m/Pistons/

Detroit doesn't have any undesirable contracts. Pretty sure Hamilton has a new longer deal than that being shown on DE, but I doubt Dumars would consider that bad since he just gave him that this past summer.

I see no way we get Iverson unless we'd be willing to part with something good...and that would probably start and end with Mek.

W_HAMILTON · Post #17 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:52 pm

Undesirable doesn't have to mean a 10m/year, six-year contract for a player that sits on the bench and flicks boogers at his teammates. In this situation, it would be a player that Detroit has no use for, who has a contract lasting longer than this season.

Kwame Brown's contract looks undesirable (do they even play him?). He has a player option for next season that you would think he would pick up.

There are some other guys that I don't know about or haven't heard much about lately, but I don't know whether they have the Rodney Stuckey view of those guys, or whether they are trash.

spectre_ · Post #18 » by **spectre_** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:26 pm

The other guys are their 1st round picks...and DET holds an option on them next year. Kwame is the only "undesirable" and that's just 4 million, and there is Sharpe at 700k.

We only have Felton and May as expirings. To get within the 125% rule we'd have to send out 16.6 million (20 million if we're taking Kwame)...which leaves us 8 million short. Ammo certainly isn't an incentive, and Nazr ain't happening. I guess we could include Raja if this is done right before the trade deadline, but we're still short and DET is up to 16 players.

It's not feasible even without adding another contract.

Instead of taking "like" contracts" without any incentive it'd be in their best interests to just let AI's 21 million expire. It wouldn't surprise me if Boozer ends up in Detroit next year.

Hendrix · Post #19 » by **Hendrix** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:22 am

spectre_ wrote:
I see no way we get Iverson unless we'd be willing to part with something good...and that would probably start and end with Mek.

Why not just try and throw the MLE at him next year and see what happens?

I think most conteders would want him off the bench so he doesn't sqrew up the chemistry, but he takes pride in never having came off the bench, and doesn;t want too. So if he thought you guys were a better fit, he might take it.

Get into the playoffs with defence, and Iverson and anything can happen imo.