Trade Ideas Thread

[hugepatsfan]

My question is when can we get back in the ring chasers game like we were in 08-2011 or so? The team looks pretty good right now and there is no one I want to trade. Easy places to improve would be a better back up point than Wannamaker and another Center. With Waters Fall Williams and Edwards we might have the help we need already, but they might not be quite ready next year. So a vet pg and Center for 1 year would make a lot of sense to me.

When we have team that can win a ring...when we are a veterans best chance to win it all. Few years from that. Clips, lakers, bucks all will get them over us

One thing we have going for us is that we can actually offer playing time. LAC and MIL are already very deep teams. The players who are still good enough to play big roles usually like to go somewhere they can. We can offer legitimate rotation roles to people, not just scraps for playing time. Lakers roster is very meh so agree with you there.

[Ernest]

My question is when can we get back in the ring chasers game like we were in 08-2011 or so? The team looks pretty good right now and there is no one I want to trade. Easy places to improve would be a better back up point than Wannamaker and another Center. With Waters Fall Williams and Edwards we might have the help we need already, but they might not be quite ready next year. So a vet pg and Center for 1 year would make a lot of sense to me.

When we have team that can win a ring...when we are a veterans best chance to win it all. Few years from that. Clips, lakers, bucks all will get them over us

One thing we have going for us is that we can actually offer playing time. LAC and MIL are already very deep teams. The players who are still good enough to play big roles usually like to go somewhere they can. We can offer legitimate rotation roles to people, not just scraps for playing time. Lakers roster is very meh so agree with you there.

Yeah, I wanted to say basically the same thing. But the real question is who are those vets? Maybe we get them or LA does or whomever, but who are they? Who is the PJ Brown of 12- wow 12- years ago?

[Dogen]

When we have team that can win a ring...when we are a veterans best chance to win it all. Few years from that. Clips, lakers, bucks all will get them over us

One thing we have going for us is that we can actually offer playing time. LAC and MIL are already very deep teams. The players who are still good enough to play big roles usually like to go somewhere they can. We can offer legitimate rotation roles to people, not just scraps for playing time. Lakers roster is very meh so agree with you there.

Yeah, I wanted to say basically the same thing. But the real question is who are those vets? Maybe we get them or LA does or whomever, but who are they? Who is the PJ Brown of 12- wow 12- years ago?

Giannis perhaps? Just thinking out loud here.

[SmartWentCrazy]

I dont know where else to out this, but I think theres a real chance Hayward could opt out this summer. I could see a team like Phoenix tampering with him and offering him a max this summer to be there missing piece that gets them to the playoffs— he would be a massive upgrade over Oubre, whom they could then deal for other assets [to GS or Atlanta?]

[RickyDizzle]

If Hayward opts out, think we can get Millsap to sign for MLE? Getting older and role is shrinking in Denver. Kemba, Jb, JT, Milsap, Theis... Hope Romeo can take on more minutes and playmaking, maybe keep Semi around.

[bucknersrevenge]

I dont know where else to out this, but I think theres a real chance Hayward could opt out this summer. I could see a team like Phoenix tampering with him and offering him a max this summer to be there missing piece that gets them to the playoffs— he would be a massive upgrade over Oubre, whom they could then deal for other assets [to GS or Atlanta?]

Why Phoenix? Hayward at this stage of his career seems fairly provincial. Boston's allure is a promising team that he doesn't have to carry (contrary to belief of some, I don't think he WANTS to the be "the man" on a team) and the familiarity of a coach that knows him. Beyond that, being either IN Indiana or at least closer to it might matter to him because all of his and I believe Robyn's family are there. Phoenix seems like it would take him so much farther away. I feel like Detroit or Chicago might interest him more, especially if they offered him enough money.

[SmartWentCrazy]

I dont know where else to out this, but I think theres a real chance Hayward could opt out this summer. I could see a team like Phoenix tampering with him and offering him a max this summer to be there missing piece that gets them to the playoffs— he would be a massive upgrade over Oubre, whom they could then deal for other assets [to GS or Atlanta?]

Why Phoenix? Hayward at this stage of his career seems fairly provincial. Boston's allure is a promising team that he doesn't have to carry (contrary to belief of some, I don't think he WANTS to the be "the man" on a team) and the familiarity of a coach that knows him. Beyond that, being either IN Indiana or at least closer to it might matter to him because all of his and I believe Robyn's family are there. Phoenix seems like it would take him so much farther away. I feel like Detroit or Chicago might interest him more, especially if they offered him enough money.

1) a 4 year max is a ton of guaranteed money
2) he’d have a much bigger role
3) It takes him closer to SD, where he and Robyn used to live.

[bucknersrevenge]

I dont know where else to out this, but I think theres a real chance Hayward could opt out this summer. I could see a team like Phoenix tampering with him and offering him a max this summer to be there missing piece that gets them to the playoffs— he would be a massive upgrade over Oubre, whom they could then deal for other assets [to GS or Atlanta?]

Why Phoenix? Hayward at this stage of his career seems fairly provincial. Boston's allure is a promising team that he doesn't have to carry (contrary to belief of some, I don't think he WANTS to the be "the man" on a team) and the familiarity of a coach that knows him. Beyond that, being either IN Indiana or at least closer to it might matter to him because all of his and I believe Robyn's family are there. Phoenix seems like it would take him so much farther away. I feel like Detroit or Chicago might interest him more, especially if they offered him enough money.

1) a 4 year max is a ton of guaranteed money
2) he’d have a much bigger role
3) It takes him closer to SD, where Robyn used to live.

Maybe my read on him is off. It's a possibility. I just don't get the feeling he craves that bigger role. At least not more than family comfort. He's gonna leave the bubble to see the birth of his 4th kid. Robyn's kinda outnumbered when he goes on the road with 4 young precocious kids and she's kinda doin it by herself. I think maybe he feels that. Being closer to family in Indy might help lighten the load. If Robyn's family is indeed in SD and that would make it easier for them to come down and help, I might can get behind that idea. But I still wonder if being closer to his family in Indy would win out. I think he'd like to get paid and he'd like to win. But I just don't think he cares about increased responsibility. In fact, I think he'd rather do his job, play a few video games, hang out with his family and have fewer team responsibilities, not more.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Why Phoenix? Hayward at this stage of his career seems fairly provincial. Boston's allure is a promising team that he doesn't have to carry (contrary to belief of some, I don't think he WANTS to the be "the man" on a team) and the familiarity of a coach that knows him. Beyond that, being either IN Indiana or at least closer to it might matter to him because all of his and I believe Robyn's family are there. Phoenix seems like it would take him so much farther away. I feel like Detroit or Chicago might interest him more, especially if they offered him enough money.

1) a 4 year max is a ton of guaranteed money
2) he’d have a much bigger role
3) It takes him closer to SD, where Robyn used to live.

Maybe my read on him is off. It's a possibility. I just don't get the feeling he craves that bigger role. At least not more than family comfort. He's gonna leave the bubble to see the birth of his 4th kid. Robyn's kinda outnumbered when he goes on the road with 4 young precocious kids and she's kinda doin it by herself. I think maybe he feels that. Being closer to family in Indy might help lighten the load. If Robyn's family is indeed in SD and that would make it easier for them to come down and help, I might can get behind that idea. But I still wonder if being closer to his family in Indy would win out. I think he'd like to get paid and he'd like to win. But I just don't think he cares about increased responsibility. In fact, I think he'd rather do his job, play a few video games, hang out with his family and have fewer team responsibilities, not more.

To correct my mistype— they used to live there. I believe Robyn would stay during the season in SD for extended stretches as well when they were in Utah. FWIW, they did move here full time, but I’d more than understand the desire to move back lol.

[100proof]

Hayward, imo, more than anyone kjows that a career can be over in the blink of an eye. I cannot see him not going after money at this point.

He should have been traded.

[hugepatsfan]

No way should we have traded Hayward at the deadline. We have no realistic way of replacing him with a comparable talent. And before the unforeseen COVID situation it's not like keeping him was too much of a financial burden. Wouldn't have even had to go into the repeater tax to do so.

Now that COVID potentially has changed that, it makes sense to consider trading him if the finances don't work, whether that's through him opting in or participating in a S&T if he opts out. But then again, we're a team pushing to make the finals. There's also something to be said for just keeping him and making another run with him on board next year.

Let me put it like this, if we traded one of our picks this year for a rental player, would anyone complain? I think most would be excited to push some chips in and try to make a real run. Same logic applies to Hayward. Sure, we could maybe move him for a pick or a cheaper (but lesser) player. But by the same logic of giving up a pick for a rental to "win now" we could forgo that return for one more year of having Hayward on board for a run.

If there's something that makes sense then do a deal. But don't do it just to do it.

[MagicBagley18]

No way should we have traded Hayward at the deadline. We have no realistic way of replacing him with a comparable talent. And before the unforeseen COVID situation it's not like keeping him was too much of a financial burden. Wouldn't have even had to go into the repeater tax to do so.

Now that COVID potentially has changed that, it makes sense to consider trading him if the finances don't work, whether that's through him opting in or participating in a S&T if he opts out. But then again, we're a team pushing to make the finals. There's also something to be said for just keeping him and making another run with him on board next year.

Let me put it like this, if we traded one of our picks this year for a rental player, would anyone complain? I think most would be excited to push some chips in and try to make a real run. Same logic applies to Hayward. Sure, we could maybe move him for a pick or a cheaper (but lesser) player. But by the same logic of giving up a pick for a rental to "win now" we could forgo that return for one more year of having Hayward on board for a run.

If there's something that makes sense then do a deal. But don't do it just to do it.

That’s exactly why all the trades made to cut cost and avoid tax while losing a player like Hayward and getting a lesser player back are nonsense. Stevens loves Hayward, Danny loves Hayward and he’s played great. The finances will work themselves out but they aren’t going to make a lateral move

[hugepatsfan]

No way should we have traded Hayward at the deadline. We have no realistic way of replacing him with a comparable talent. And before the unforeseen COVID situation it's not like keeping him was too much of a financial burden. Wouldn't have even had to go into the repeater tax to do so.

Now that COVID potentially has changed that, it makes sense to consider trading him if the finances don't work, whether that's through him opting in or participating in a S&T if he opts out. But then again, we're a team pushing to make the finals. There's also something to be said for just keeping him and making another run with him on board next year.

Let me put it like this, if we traded one of our picks this year for a rental player, would anyone complain? I think most would be excited to push some chips in and try to make a real run. Same logic applies to Hayward. Sure, we could maybe move him for a pick or a cheaper (but lesser) player. But by the same logic of giving up a pick for a rental to "win now" we could forgo that return for one more year of having Hayward on board for a run.

If there's something that makes sense then do a deal. But don't do it just to do it.

That’s exactly why all the trades made to cut cost and avoid tax while losing a player like Hayward and getting a lesser player back are nonsense. Stevens loves Hayward, Danny loves Hayward and he’s played great. The finances will work themselves out but they aren’t going to make a lateral move

Well I think it's kind of "bury your head in the sand" to just say that the finances will work themselves out. It's a legitimate numbers crunch. Before COVID reports were we wanted to keep Hayward. And with minor moves this offseason we would have been able to keep him on his option and stay under the tax for another year, therefore avoiding any repeater tax down the line. Barring any extreme changes to the CBA in response to COVID, that equation has drastically changed. Keeping Gordon Hayward long term without paying repeater tax down the line is impossible with serious cost consciousness this offseason. That just is what it is. Wyc is either willing to pay the repeater taxes down the line or he's not. If he is, great. If he's not, then there is no "work itself out". Hayward has to go after next season if that's the case.

So if that's the situation, you definitely have to consider trades. Maybe the deal returns a lesser player, but fits into a multi-year window. If keeping Hayward long-term isn't feasible you have to weigh that against just keeping Hayward for a year. So it's a balancing act with multiple considerations. But Hayward is a great piece so even if a guy could stick around for multiple years you have to weight if it's worth giving up even just 1 year of Hayward.

[MagicBagley18]

No way should we have traded Hayward at the deadline. We have no realistic way of replacing him with a comparable talent. And before the unforeseen COVID situation it's not like keeping him was too much of a financial burden. Wouldn't have even had to go into the repeater tax to do so.

Now that COVID potentially has changed that, it makes sense to consider trading him if the finances don't work, whether that's through him opting in or participating in a S&T if he opts out. But then again, we're a team pushing to make the finals. There's also something to be said for just keeping him and making another run with him on board next year.

Let me put it like this, if we traded one of our picks this year for a rental player, would anyone complain? I think most would be excited to push some chips in and try to make a real run. Same logic applies to Hayward. Sure, we could maybe move him for a pick or a cheaper (but lesser) player. But by the same logic of giving up a pick for a rental to "win now" we could forgo that return for one more year of having Hayward on board for a run.

If there's something that makes sense then do a deal. But don't do it just to do it.

That’s exactly why all the trades made to cut cost and avoid tax while losing a player like Hayward and getting a lesser player back are nonsense. Stevens loves Hayward, Danny loves Hayward and he’s played great. The finances will work themselves out but they aren’t going to make a lateral move

Well I think it's kind of "bury your head in the sand" to just say that the finances will work themselves out. It's a legitimate numbers crunch. Before COVID reports were we wanted to keep Hayward. And with minor moves this offseason we would have been able to keep him on his option and stay under the tax for another year, therefore avoiding any repeater tax down the line. Barring any extreme changes to the CBA in response to COVID, that equation has drastically changed. Keeping Gordon Hayward long term without paying repeater tax down the line is impossible with serious cost consciousness this offseason. That just is what it is. Wyc is either willing to pay the repeater taxes down the line or he's not. If he is, great. If he's not, then there is no "work itself out". Hayward has to go after next season if that's the case.

So if that's the situation, you definitely have to consider trades. Maybe the deal returns a lesser player, but fits into a multi-year window. If keeping Hayward long-term isn't feasible you have to weigh that against just keeping Hayward for a year. So it's a balancing act with multiple considerations. But Hayward is a great piece so even if a guy could stick around for multiple years you have to weight if it's worth giving up even just 1 year of Hayward.

There will be small ancillary moves to get under not drastic Moves like losing Hayward for a **** salad in return. They will keep Hayward at all costs. The biggest threat to Hayward leaving is him opting out and some team gives him a 4 year max and it’s too good to pass up.

Like I said it will work itself out.

[100proof]

At this point it is 1 of three things.

Massive tax bills
Trade hayward if he does opt out
Trade kemba if hayward doesnt opt out.

This team as constructed will not win a championship imo therefore it is not worth paying big tax bills for.

[hugepatsfan]

That’s exactly why all the trades made to cut cost and avoid tax while losing a player like Hayward and getting a lesser player back are nonsense. Stevens loves Hayward, Danny loves Hayward and he’s played great. The finances will work themselves out but they aren’t going to make a lateral move

Well I think it's kind of "bury your head in the sand" to just say that the finances will work themselves out. It's a legitimate numbers crunch. Before COVID reports were we wanted to keep Hayward. And with minor moves this offseason we would have been able to keep him on his option and stay under the tax for another year, therefore avoiding any repeater tax down the line. Barring any extreme changes to the CBA in response to COVID, that equation has drastically changed. Keeping Gordon Hayward long term without paying repeater tax down the line is impossible with serious cost consciousness this offseason. That just is what it is. Wyc is either willing to pay the repeater taxes down the line or he's not. If he is, great. If he's not, then there is no "work itself out". Hayward has to go after next season if that's the case.

So if that's the situation, you definitely have to consider trades. Maybe the deal returns a lesser player, but fits into a multi-year window. If keeping Hayward long-term isn't feasible you have to weigh that against just keeping Hayward for a year. So it's a balancing act with multiple considerations. But Hayward is a great piece so even if a guy could stick around for multiple years you have to weight if it's worth giving up even just 1 year of Hayward.

There will be small ancillary moves to get under not drastic Moves like losing Hayward for a **** salad in return. They will keep Hayward at all costs. The biggest threat to Hayward leaving is him opting out and some team gives him a 4 year max and it’s too good to pass up.

Like I said it will work itself out.

Again, you're burying your head in the sand. We are at close to $150M in guaranteed salary next year. The tax line in the most optimistic projections is expected to be be held flat to this year at about $132M. Shedding $18M will not be ancillary moves.It's going to take moving Kanter, Poirier and others. Moving $10M of salary for none in return will cost picks to do. It's also going to take Hayward opting out and re-signing for less money next year, which means he would need to be overpaid in the future to compensate.

If the plan is to keep Hayward long term but get under the tax next year is required to do so then ancillary/minor moves won't do the trick. That's just not taking into account what the numbers actually are.

[hugepatsfan]

At this point it is 1 of three things.

Massive tax bills
Trade hayward if he does opt out
Trade kemba if hayward doesnt opt out.

This team as constructed will not win a championship imo therefore it is not worth paying big tax bills for.

Totally disagree with you. I think this team has 6 of the rotation pieces locked in out of the 8 we realistically need to win it all:

Kemba / Smart
Brown
Hayward / ???
Tatum
??? / Theis

The question marks are 1) a legitimate wing off the bench and 2) a center with size to guard the bigger matchups.

Between all of the young players, picks and free agent exceptions we have it's extremely plausible to me we can fill those two spots. Langford/Williams could feasibly develop into them. We have all of our firsts to trade. Getting a bench wing with the MLE is extremely plausible.

The luxury tax bills don't have to be huge. It just takes some trade off next year. I've posted numerous plans where we can get under the tax. If they're willing to make a 1 year sacrifice on the bench to do it then it works. And then in '21-22 and '22-23 you can go all out with MLE before Kemba and an extended Hayward walk after that, allowing us to sign a new younger max player for the future.

Trading away the core pieces here shouldn't be a consideration unless the Hayward financials don't work.

[djFan71]

Well I think it's kind of "bury your head in the sand" to just say that the finances will work themselves out. It's a legitimate numbers crunch. Before COVID reports were we wanted to keep Hayward. And with minor moves this offseason we would have been able to keep him on his option and stay under the tax for another year, therefore avoiding any repeater tax down the line. Barring any extreme changes to the CBA in response to COVID, that equation has drastically changed. Keeping Gordon Hayward long term without paying repeater tax down the line is impossible with serious cost consciousness this offseason. That just is what it is. Wyc is either willing to pay the repeater taxes down the line or he's not. If he is, great. If he's not, then there is no "work itself out". Hayward has to go after next season if that's the case.

So if that's the situation, you definitely have to consider trades. Maybe the deal returns a lesser player, but fits into a multi-year window. If keeping Hayward long-term isn't feasible you have to weigh that against just keeping Hayward for a year. So it's a balancing act with multiple considerations. But Hayward is a great piece so even if a guy could stick around for multiple years you have to weight if it's worth giving up even just 1 year of Hayward.

There will be small ancillary moves to get under not drastic Moves like losing Hayward for a **** salad in return. They will keep Hayward at all costs. The biggest threat to Hayward leaving is him opting out and some team gives him a 4 year max and it’s too good to pass up.

Like I said it will work itself out.

Again, you're burying your head in the sand. We are at close to $150M in guaranteed salary next year. The tax line in the most optimistic projections is expected to be be held flat to this year at about $132M. Shedding $18M will not be ancillary moves.It's going to take moving Kanter, Poirier and others. Moving $10M of salary for none in return will cost picks to do. It's also going to take Hayward opting out and re-signing for less money next year, which means he would need to be overpaid in the future to compensate.

If the plan is to keep Hayward long term but get under the tax next year is required to do so then ancillary/minor moves won't do the trick. That's just not taking into account what the numbers actually are.

I'm pretty sure they'll pay the tax, Danny has said something along the lines of "it's my job to build a team good enough to warrant the tax". But, they would obviously like to minimize it, or avoid if possible.

It's conceivable you save somewhere ~$5-10M in 2021 salary with a Hayward opt-out/extend (depending on years/guarantees).
Then you need the rest in shedding moves. You've made moves to shed $8-10M. So, it's doable. I just don't know that it's the main goal. I made 732,451 trades before the 2019 deadline to get an asset for Mook and duck the tax. We were SOOOOO close. But didn't. It still annoys me since it counts as a year for the repeater tax if we're over for the next couple. But, alas, they weren't concerned about it.

[djFan71]

My guess is they figure they'll pay the tax in 2021. That's 2 of 3 years. But repeater kicks in at 3 of 4. So, probably Hayward just opts in and they worry about a new deal / the tax the next year. Stay under if they can, but if they're in contention, pay it. Gonna be real decisions then as I don't see how you get Hayward back and Tatum's max kicking in, etc, and still duck the tax.

[zoyathedestroya]

Trade Idea: Carsen Edwards, Vincent Poirier, and the 2020 MIL pick should demand a trade to another team.