Fake Trade Thread #5

[Liver_Pooty]

I wouldn't buy him out even if he wanted it.

If someone wants him, they need to trade for him.

He isn't going to cause any trouble, so I'd rather let him expire than to let someone else have him for free.

Owners don't think like that. If they can save a few million they will do it if a trade doesn't happen. I wouldn't blame them either.

[yosemiteben]

If no team will trade for him, why keep him to spite the teams that wouldn't trade for him?

[amcoolio]

i swear that the other 29 teams think that Kupchak and the Hornets are pushovers, dont respect their assets whatsoever, and honestly believe they can have anyone for free or at a huge discount. and i don’t blame them, we are the worst, poorest franchise in pro sports, so why not.

honestly impressive that there are 120+ pro sports teams and Charlotte has two of the bottom 5 right now. the only two i actively watch. Christ

[SWedd523]

If no team will trade for him, why keep him to spite the teams that wouldn't trade for him?

to spite the teams that wouldn't trade for him but want to sign him after being cut

[Riot Randolph]

No way you guys should buy him out … he’s looked like he has bounce in step…he’s looked solid this season … I would love Knicks to match expiring salaries and a couple 2nds

[Liver_Pooty]

No way you guys should buy him out … he’s looked like he has bounce in step…he’s looked solid this season … I would love Knicks to match expiring salaries and a couple 2nds

If we don't get a trade together or think we won't there's no reason not to. Let him go somewhere and be happy. It's a logical thing to do humane thing to do.

No one is trading anything worth a damn for an injury prone player out of his prime who is a free agent next year. Thats why the Raptors won't get anything close to what they want for Siakam and he's far better than Hayward right now.

[MPM]

Jeez. Principle (and reputation) matter. You choose to be the team that gives things away for free and you become known as the team that gives things away for free. Other teams expect it, wait for it, and you suffer in exchange. When you randomly buyout a 15/5/5 guy that any number of playoff teams would love to have, it echoes. It’s not just about Gordo. It’s about all future Gordos. This is not about now-cost efficient, it’s about future-expensive.

Btw - ‘humane?’ - god, that rings hollow. Letting Gordo earn his 31.5mm for a couple of months before signing with anyone he wants in the offseason doesn’t sound like torture.

[GoBobs]

I would never by anybody out. Why?

Hayward signed a contract and he is getting paid 30 million to play this season. If he wants to go play the 2nd half of the season for some other team, I would want at least half of that money back.

It is just better for the team to have a policy to never buy people out. If other teams know that is the case they will know they have to make a trade if they want somebody on your roster.

[luciano-davidwesley]

i think a buy out of hayward is 50/50
- possible they value expirings more than a player coming back on multi yr
- possible they cant find a team willing to send equal expiring salary & draft capital
- no point in keeping him on roster after trade deadline, might as well reach buyout, save money let gh sign with playoff team

It's pointless all you save is $800k or so. I'd rather keep him until the end of the year. Make him stick around if we're going to have to overpay him for sub optimal play and availability. Don't let him have his cake and eat it too.

Buying losers out has done nothing for us in the past so why keep doing it?

[luciano-davidwesley]

I wouldn't buy him out even if he wanted it.

If someone wants him, they need to trade for him.

He isn't going to cause any trouble, so I'd rather let him expire than to let someone else have him for free.

Yep this. You just keep setting a precedent for future contenders that they can just wait til you buy him out and they can pick players up for nothing but a vet minimum and don't have to give up anything for them at the trade deadline.

Also, we don't owe Hayward anything. He hasn't been a malcontent but he doesn't seem like he's really put in any extra for the cause or gone over and above at any time.

He hasn't struck me as much of a vet influence/leader either.

[luciano-davidwesley]

I wouldn't buy him out even if he wanted it.

If someone wants him, they need to trade for him.

He isn't going to cause any trouble, so I'd rather let him expire than to let someone else have him for free.

Owners don't think like that. If they can save a few million they will do it if a trade doesn't happen. I wouldn't blame them either.

Saving $800k to jeopardise future potential trade asset acquisition is textbook bad, cheap ownership.

[yosemiteben]

If no team will trade for him, why keep him to spite the teams that wouldn't trade for him?

to spite the teams that wouldn't trade for him but want to sign him after being cut

So we'll pay more money for a player we don't want to keep out of spite?

Seems like a pretty unwise strategy to me.

If a team wants him enough to give assets, they'll trade for him. If not, they won't. Not trading him and then not buying him out at a significant discount seems odd to me if we don't want to keep him for the rest of or after this season.

[JDR720]

The point isn't to spite other teams or anything to do with Gordon himself. It's asset management.

If we have something somebody else wants (Gordon) they should give us something for it.

Players that get bought out are usually players that get sent TO bad teams as filler or a money dump or something, and there is no reason for the team to keep them.

Like Westbrook to Utah last season. Or when we bought out Reggie Jackson. Or when a player isn't playing but has a big contract, like Love with Cleveland.

So the team may as well buy them out and let them go somewhere else, saves some money for a player they don't want and the player gets to go somewhere that wants them.


Not players that are already on bad teams, and are one of the better players on that bad team. Gordon, if he's ever healthy, is probably our 3/4th best player.

If he gets bought out, he'd have almost all the playoff teams trying to sign him as a key contributor. If one of them want him, give us something for him. If they try to wait for a buyout, don't do it.

It's just waiting game to see who blinks first. Someone caves and gives us something for him, or we cave and buy him out?

[yosemiteben]

If he's not moved at the deadline and we have the ability to save in a buyout and don't want him on the roster, what is the justification for keeping him?

I get that teams "should" pay if they want him. If the deadline passes and a trade hasn't happened, then it seems obvious that no team wanted him enough to give assets to make sure they get him, so for me that's not a relevant consideration.

[SWedd523]

If no team will trade for him, why keep him to spite the teams that wouldn't trade for him?

to spite the teams that wouldn't trade for him but want to sign him after being cut

So we'll pay more money for a player we don't want to keep out of spite?

Seems like a pretty unwise strategy to me.

If a team wants him enough to give assets, they'll trade for him. If not, they won't. Not trading him and then not buying him out at a significant discount seems odd to me if we don't want to keep him for the rest of or after this season.

Seems pretty unwise to sit on an asset too long and not be able to get anything for it.

Seems pretty unwise to pay a guy $30mil for one year of basketball and then cut him at the end of the season so you can save a fraction of it, especially when the team is playing G League backups for lack of useable bodies.

Was unwise to give him the contract to begin with, so it seems totally on brand to completely mismanage it by the time it finally matures into an asset.

The fact that we're sitting here even discussing it as a likelihood so far before the trade deadline speaks volumes to the pathetic (in)ability of our FO to do anything useful.

[JDR720]

Even if nobody is willing to trade for him directly, he's still a large expiring contract and can be used in a multi-team trade. And we get back something for helping out.

He can be the main salary going back for Siakam, for example.

[MasterIchiro]

Tobias for Hayward helps Sixers under the tax and gives Embiid and Maxey an added playmaker.

Positive value. Tax savings equates to 2 of those 4 offered inconsequential 2nd rounders.

Any talks with the Sixers should end there.

But the Philly fan had to get greedy and try to poach PJ Washington on top of it.

Just take your tax savings and keep the other 2 second rounders.

Ta ta.

[MasterIchiro]

Skybox the Magic fan presented a fair offer for Rozier. I think the hangup is Richards. Only God knows why. He's redundant with Mark Williams.

So a compromise would remove Richards and insert Thor (inconsequential even without WCJ) and Bryce (another 2nd round dream that won't come to fruition).

WCJ can play the 4 or 5. He adds flexibility fielding offers down the road for PJ or Nick. He's on a longterm deal cheaper than PJ's and he's better, and still young.

Sorry if this pushes Nick Richards the practice dummy to C3. That's where he belongs in the first place.

If they want Terry, the deal doesn't collapse on account of Nick Richards who doesn't do anything that stands out and frankly has been massacred lately by guys like Andre Drummond.

[HornetJail]

I wouldn't buy him out even if he wanted it.

If someone wants him, they need to trade for him.

He isn't going to cause any trouble, so I'd rather let him expire than to let someone else have him for free.

I'd rather have his Bird Rights in the offseason than some pointless 2nd rounder anyway. I don't expect him to be a buyout candidate. This is Jake Fischer pulling stuff out of his rear, as usual

[yosemiteben]

to spite the teams that wouldn't trade for him but want to sign him after being cut

So we'll pay more money for a player we don't want to keep out of spite?

Seems like a pretty unwise strategy to me.

If a team wants him enough to give assets, they'll trade for him. If not, they won't. Not trading him and then not buying him out at a significant discount seems odd to me if we don't want to keep him for the rest of or after this season.

Seems pretty unwise to sit on an asset too long and not be able to get anything for it.

Seems pretty unwise to pay a guy $30mil for one year of basketball and then cut him at the end of the season so you can save a fraction of it, especially when the team is playing G League backups for lack of useable bodies.

Was unwise to give him the contract to begin with, so it seems totally on brand to completely mismanage it by the time it finally matures into an asset.

The fact that we're sitting here even discussing it as a likelihood so far before the trade deadline speaks volumes to the pathetic (in)ability of our FO to do anything useful.

Ok?

None of that is a reason for us to refuse to buy him out if we can't move him at the deadline.