Trade that Works for Nitro Nate and Ryan Gomes (2 Versions)

Jammer · Post #1 » by **Jammer** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:52 am

Real GM Trade ID 5341051

If, as a Minnesota poster recently told us, the Wolves would like a prospect and a late
First Round Pick for Ryan Gomes, because they want cap room;

then, this trade works:

Minnesota sends Ryan Gomes to Boston,
and Minnesota waives Jason Hart, their 3rd string PG whose contract is not guaranteed

Knicks send Nate Robinson to Boston

Boston sends Marquis Daniels to New York

Boston sends Brian Scalabrine, JR Giddens, and 2010 First Round Pick to Minnesota

Celtics are left with 14 players

Bill Lumbergh · Post #2 » by **Bill Lumbergh** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:40 am

Don't think Danny would do this, but I do think Nate would make a better backup PG than Eddie (who is clearly a pint sized 2), and Gomes is a better player than Scal, but Marquis (when healthy) is a pretty good 2-3 backup, and I don't know that I'm comfortable with relying on TA, much less JR or Walker to back up PP and Ray. I realize Gomes could play the 3 effectively against big power 3's. Against quicker 3's he'd struggle I think. This just requires too much blind faith in TA/JR/Walker for my tastes (but I kind of like it anyway. I think I'd like it better if we skipped the NY part of it and just did the trade for Gomes (though Danny is loathe to give up picks, because he usually does pretty well with them, though he missed on JR). Still, Gomes is better than Scal, JR won't play anyway, so it boils down to... is Gomes worth a late first? Probably so, in my view, particularly since we're built to win now, and presumably a late first probably wouldn't contribute on a championship contender, at least not as soon as we'd need him to. I'd be tempted to do the Minny part of your trade. Gomes could help us this year. We could plug him in at the 4 to play a small ball lineup too, ala Posey. Then again, who knows if Danny might not see better stuff on the horizon. Still, this was an interesting idea. Then when Quis comes back, if we still need a backup PG, we'd still have TA's contract to move to get one. We just need TA to stay healthy til Marquis gets back.

Hemingway · Post #3 » by **Hemingway** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:07 am

No deals involving MD unless is is an absolute steal.

Scalamental · Post #4 » by **Scalamental** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:43 am

I try to hold my tongue about these nate trade ideas, because I'm not a big fan of his tude. But hypothetically, if a deal was done, I'd have more confidence in Doc than anyone to work with this kid. On the other hand, Rondo is probably not mature enough to handle nates ish.

Jammer · Post #5 » by **Jammer** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 12:20 pm

I just realized an alternate version works,

substituting Tony Allen for Marquis Daniels (to New York) AND (note the AND, meaning both)
Bill Walker for JR Giddens (to Minnesota).

The trade then becomes (Real GM Trade ID 5341337)

Minnesota sends Ryan Gomes to Boston
Minnesota waives Jason Hart, their 3rd string PG whose contract is NOT Guaranteed

Knicks send Nate Robinson to Boston

Boston sends Tony Allen to New York

Boston sends Brian Scalabrine, Bill Walker and 2010 First Round Pick to Minnesota

BOSsportsfan34 · Post #6 » by **BOSsportsfan34** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:09 pm

I'd love to get Gomes back. The problem is that you can't give up 1st round picks 2 years on a row (they gave their 1st rounder to Minny last yearas part of the KG deal). Unless they'd accept a 2011 1st rounder, the C's would have to trade to pick up one in this upcoming draft.

As for Nate? I don't want him at all. I'll take House in the backup PG/Undersized SG role over him any day of the week.

Bill Lumbergh · Post #7 » by **Bill Lumbergh** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:11 pm

BOSsportsfan34 wrote:...
As for Nate? I don't want him at all. I'll take House in the backup PG/Undersized SG role over him any day of the week.

He is a despicable little rascal. I don't want him either.

Jammer · Post #8 » by **Jammer** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 6:03 pm

BOSsportsfan34 wrote:I'd love to get Gomes back. The problem is that you can't give up 1st round picks 2 years on a row (they gave their 1st rounder to Minny last yearas part of the KG deal). Unless they'd accept a 2011 1st rounder, the C's would have to trade to pick up one in this upcoming draft.

As for Nate? I don't want him at all. I'll take House in the backup PG/Undersized SG role over him any day of the week.

About a year and half ago someone (maybe Sully) clarified that the rule on
trading consecutive picks is actually consecutive future picks.

The difference is significant. Since the 2009 draft is past, the Celtics are free to
trade their 2010 First Round Pick. At least, that's the way I remember the clarification.

shrink · Post #9 » by **shrink** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 6:21 pm

Jammer wrote:
BOSsportsfan34 wrote:I'd love to get Gomes back. The problem is that you can't give up 1st round picks 2 years on a row (they gave their 1st rounder to Minny last yearas part of the KG deal). Unless they'd accept a 2011 1st rounder, the C's would have to trade to pick up one in this upcoming draft.

As for Nate? I don't want him at all. I'll take House in the backup PG/Undersized SG role over him any day of the week.

About a year and half ago someone (maybe Sully) clarified that the rule on
trading consecutive picks is actually consecutive future picks.

The difference is significant. Since the 2009 draft is past, the Celtics are free to
trade their 2010 First Round Pick. At least, that's the way I remember the clarification.

That's correct. Its the Stepien Rule, if you want to look further, and it says that you can't make a trade where you won't have any future 1sts coming for the next two drafts. MIN would certainly rather have the 2011, btw, because a 2010 carries a $1 mil cap hold that reduces their available cap space. However, they don't need any 2009 talent in the deal, so you can include you most unproductive expiring in the deal, and that's fine for them. With completely opposite goals for the season, MIN and BOS make good trade partners.

I thnk if you ran the Gomes deal on the MIN board, you'd probably get about 50% approval, which is very high considering that many fans are unwilling to sacrifice the best player in the deal for iffy future prospects. If it was the 2011 pick, it might move to 75%. Some want to keep Gomes because he's a good player on a good long-term contract, and even the pro-trade posters can't deny that.

Zin5 · Post #10 » by **Zin5** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 6:26 pm

Maybe if we can sub House in for Daniels, no if we can't. I'd rather just go for only Gomes if all we had to give up was Scal, JR, and a pick and leave Robinson off the team.

threrf23 · Post #11 » by **threrf23** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:41 pm

I think I would do this trade, personally.

I'm not sure if NY sees Marquis Daniels of being of any use. They might be more concerned with giving their younguns more minutes (and they've got Larry Hughes on the team as is. Plus D'Antoni likes shooters.

bc legends · Post #12 » by **bc legends** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:48 pm

Zin5 wrote:Maybe if we can sub House in for Daniels, no if we can't. I'd rather just go for only Gomes if all we had to give up was Scal, JR, and a pick and leave Robinson off the team.

threrf23 · Post #13 » by **threrf23** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:44 am

I would give up Marquis Daniels before I gave up House. Giving up House would leave us too reliant on Nate Robinson - who I feel is underrated but at this best he is streaky. Giving up Marquis Daniels, you have Tony Allen in the wings (who is a similar player in respects, albeit less consistent he is at times better), you also have guys like House/Nate/maybe even Hudson who are capable of playing minutes @ SG (Rondo could guard the SG if needed), and you have PP who can play minutes there alongside Ryan Gomes @ SF in the right situation...plus House has been an integral part of our roster over the past few seasons...