Trade offers for Darius Garland?

[Mr Loggins]

To Pels: Garland + Allen + Minott

To Cavs: Towns + Ingram + Moore Jr.

To Wolves: Daniels + Herb + LeVert

Cavs get an awesome lineup.

Towns or Mobley
Mobley or Towns
Ingram
Strus
Mitchell

I like it, but I'm a lot higher on TOwns than most. I'm assuming the twolves do this due to financial reasons?

[HadAnEffectHere]

We keep saying things like team X can't trade for a star and then the Bucks get Dame and the Clippers get Harden. You can rule out the Lakers getting a good player(Garland and Lauri aren't what I would call stars anyway), but I won't. I know jbk hates it but players and agents do have influence on the process.

The Clippers traded an unprotected swap, an unprotected pick, and a top 3 protected swap for a heavily declined Harden who was going to demand a max contract after this season.

Yes, the Lakers COULD get Garland, but it would be a terrible idea for them to get Garland as they need more offball juice and more defense and the only way they could get Garland is by putting themselves deep into draft pick debt with huge downside risk.

Also, I don't understand the idea that Harden is a star and Lauri is not. Markkanen is just better than Harden who has declined badly and will decline rapidly after he gets his last ever NBA contract. Harden had like one year of 4 BPM play left, Markkanen probably has 5-6 years of 4 BPM play left.

[Texas Chuck]

Harden was definitely still a star. As was Dame.

And you have one year of Lauri. That's all you are trading for. You hope he wants to stay but course that's a 5 year max which may or may not be great for you.

But can LA get a player on his or Garland's level? Of course they can. So moving the goalposts is pointless.

Doesn't mean they will get Lauri. I expect he stays in Utah because I think Jazz fans are largely right on the asking price and largely wrong that teams will give up the farm for one year of him. So you can claim victory the Lakers didn't get him if you need to.

I just think we speak in way too many absolutes here.

[HadAnEffectHere]

Harden was definitely still a star. As was Dame.

And you have one year of Lauri. That's all you are trading for. You hope he wants to stay but course that's a 5 year max which may or may not be great for you.

But can LA get a player on his or Garland's level? Of course they can. So moving the goalposts is pointless.

Doesn't mean they will get Lauri. I expect he stays in Utah because I think Jazz fans are largely right on the asking price and largely wrong that teams will give up the farm for one year of him. So you can claim victory the Lakers didn't get him if you need to.

I just think we speak in way too many absolutes here.

I'm sorry, but how was James Harden better than Lauri Markkanen last year.

He was not.

And now the Clippers have to give Harden a three year max contract in which he may never produce above 2 BPM.

Markkanen actually being young old to not be likely to turn to dust in the next two years is very nice compared to Harden and Lillard (and Lillard already turned to dust this year...)

[Texas Chuck]

Star is different from level of play in one year. You do get this right? Kawhi is a star even when he misses much of the season.

I don't care to argue who is better. My point is LA can trade for a player on the level we are being told they cannot.

[HadAnEffectHere]

Star is different from level of play in one year. You do get this right? Kawhi is a star even when he misses much of the season.

I don't care to argue who is better. My point is LA can trade for a player on the level we are being told they cannot.

Okay, no, I think your method of valuing players is purely vibes based and there's no real methodology.

Like, this is in particular a REALLY BAD evaluation of Harden's value because we know Harden's value

The Rockets said "nah, we would prefer Fred Van Vleet" and no one else wanted to pay him.

Like, this just happened.

The Clippers massively overpaid the Thunder and 76ers for Harden (a player no one else in the NBA wanted and who was valued less than Fred Van Vleet by a team) and it looks horrible.

I don't view Kawhi as a star at all because I think his body is finished. If we're defining "star" as "has been talked about a lot" instead of anything about their future performance, well, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with how much trade value a player should or does have.

[Texas Chuck]

Gotcha. You know so much for certain. You know no other team wanted Harden despite him moving a number of times and always for good value. It's almost like NBA teams think he can help even though you want him to suck so you don't have to acknowledge that your overconfident Lakers can't possibly do this take is wrong because you will move the needle to a very narrow definition of who counts, which is apparently just the Jazz player for some odd coincidence.

But I'm just like vibes man.

[jayjaysee]

Actual trades that happened don’t count when determining value, just our opinions. Actual trades that happened don’t matter, because GM’s stupid

[jbk1234]

Harden was definitely still a star. As was Dame.

And you have one year of Lauri. That's all you are trading for. You hope he wants to stay but course that's a 5 year max which may or may not be great for you.

But can LA get a player on his or Garland's level? Of course they can. So moving the goalposts is pointless.

Doesn't mean they will get Lauri. I expect he stays in Utah because I think Jazz fans are largely right on the asking price and largely wrong that teams will give up the farm for one year of him. So you can claim victory the Lakers didn't get him if you need to.

I just think we speak in way too many absolutes here.

There is a possibilty that a team makes an offer for Garland that is higher than your evaluation of his trade value, and then no, the Lakers cannot trade for him. Reaves is the best player they can offer. Two of the three picks they can trade won't hold much value.

[ejftw]

Actual trades that happened don’t count when determining value, just our opinions. Actual trades that happened don’t matter, because GM’s stupid

I mean, I'd say Frank is pretty stupid for making the trade for Harden. I said it when it happened, wasn't worth giving up control of all firsts until the year before it's frozen and dropped due to this CBA that Donald Sterling would have loved, for a player that isn't moving the needle if both 2-13 aren't healthy, and, if both are healthy, there wouldn't be much of a needle to be moved.

[jayjaysee]

Actual trades that happened don’t count when determining value, just our opinions. Actual trades that happened don’t matter, because GM’s stupid

I mean, I'd say Frank is pretty stupid for making the trade for Harden. I said it when it happened, wasn't worth giving up control of all firsts until the year before it's frozen and dropped due to this CBA that Donald Sterling would have loved, for a player that isn't moving the needle if both 2-13 aren't healthy, and, if both are healthy, there wouldn't be much of a needle to be moved.

And the other times Harden has been traded?

But I mean, LAC was all in on the idea of the trio. The trio was great together.. I love watching them play together.

As a Dallas fan, it is kind of difficult to feel bad about the way this season ended. But I do want to see them try again and hopefully Dallas doesn’t match up with them til the WCF..

[Wolveswin]

To Pels: Garland + Allen + Minott

To Cavs: Towns + Ingram + Moore Jr.

To Wolves: Daniels + Herb + LeVert

Cavs get an awesome lineup.

Towns or Mobley
Mobley or Towns
Ingram
Strus
Mitchell

I like it, but I'm a lot higher on TOwns than most. I'm assuming the twolves do this due to financial reasons?

Correct. But if Daniels can mentoree from Conley and Herb be a fixture with McDaniels - not a bad outcome from trading the better player.

[Texas Chuck]

There is a possibilty that a team makes an offer for Garland that is higher than your evaluation of his trade value, and then no, the Lakers cannot trade for him.

Of course.

But my point is not the Lakers will trade for Garland. Nor Lauri. I get you guys get mad at the thought of your player getting traded for less than premium value. So it won't be your player. Or his.

I am just saying the Lakers have the assets to trade for a borderline all-star player. And I know you guys evaluate your player much higher than that and that's fine, but based on their actual careers to date, this is what they each are.

That's it. I know its fruitless for many posters to consider a value for their players lower than full retail with a mandatory 25% tip for their current jersey.

So you guys value Garland and Lauri as high as you want. cool. My point is not about those two players specifcially. Pick Murrary. Pick Siakam(much more decorated career btw than either who went for less fwiw--though again jay is right deals that actually happen we ignore for our feelings.)

[hugepatsfan]

Would this be a fun spin the wheel 3-teamer…

BRK swaps Bridges for Garland. Before Mitchell was traded to CLE, when Garland had his own team, he was a really good offensive initiator both scoring and passing. Made the all star team even. Garland would do more with that roster than Bridges can because they need shot creation, and Bridges is out of his element there. He’s more expensive than Bridges, but he’s younger and locked in for 4 years vs 2 so the contract will age well.

CLE swaps Garland for Jaylen Brown. They address their roster imbalance and add one of Mitchell’s supposed good friends in the league. They diversify their skill sets here.

Boston trades Brown for Bridges. Downgrade in shot creation, but they figure they can rely on Porzingis/White/Holiday for more of that. This deal makes their long term payroll more feasible of course, which is the primary benefit.

To make the math work, BRK probably has to send Schroeder to BOS and CLE sends them LeVert. The math is slightly off there since those guys make like $1M more than BOS takes back due to the 2nd apron. So I think you’d have to pull in a 4th team that BOs can flip Schroeder and levert to for someone making less than $26.3M.

[B Mac]

Pels heavily chased Allen by offering Jonas’ expiring and picks, not Herb or Trey or Zion or Ingram. You think I may be surprised at the value of Allen and I think you may be surprised at the value of Ingram.

Yes to expiring and picks but no to Jonas being the headliner. We’ll see if the Cavs change their mind now or if a different deal pops up instead, but they weren’t interested at the time.

Not sure what else to even say on it. I didn’t decide to post for the first time in years without being aware of what I was talking about.

If you’re going to insinuate you’re an insider, don’t be coy. Name the Pels trade offer you heard.

Sorry. I wasn’t trying to be coy and thought I made it clear. The Pels offered Herb plus expiring/picks for Allen. The Cavs declined.

[Mr Loggins]

Before Mitchell was traded to CLE, when Garland had his own team, he was a really good offensive initiator both scoring and passing..

People seem to have forgot how good Garland is.

Even last year with Mitchell he was a 22-7 guy with good efficiency, Plus he’s only 24 and signed to a sub-max contract.

This was a tough year for him, but as other have noted getting your jaw broke, losing a bunch of weight (and the strength and conditioning that comes with that) is a huge mitigating factor.

I think cavs will get more than those on this board think

[bgrep14]

Lakers: Rui, Reaves, Wood, Vincent, Vanderbilt

Cavs: Garland, Niang, Jerome, Jones, Merrill

[wolves_89]

Given Minnesota is going to be a second apron team next year and Reid's ascension, do the T'Wolves entertain something like:

Darius Garland
Dean Wade

for

KAT

Saves Minnesota $7M in cap space while distributing KAT's salary into savings (used in free agency), a viable backup forward (allowing Naz to step into the starting role), and a future PG to pair with Ant (while Conley's salary is still a very affordable 3rd guard)..

Garland, Ant, McDaniels, Reid, Gobert with Conley, NAW, Wade, FA and first round pick sounds a little more sustainable yet still balanced, no?

For the Cavs, KAT and Mobley would be an ideal pairing and allows them to ship Allen off for a wing to build around Mitchell.

I see no chance that the Wolves would move KAT for Garland. Garland is a really poor fit in Minnesota due to needing the ball in his hands to be effective and being subpar on the defensive end.

[YayBasketball]

Before Mitchell was traded to CLE, when Garland had his own team, he was a really good offensive initiator both scoring and passing..

People seem to have forgot how good Garland is.

Even last year with Mitchell he was a 22-7 guy with good efficiency, Plus he’s only 24 and signed to a sub-max contract.

This was a tough year for him, but as other have noted getting your jaw broke, losing a bunch of weight (and the strength and conditioning that comes with that) is a huge mitigating factor.

I think cavs will get more than those on this board think

Assuming he's only traded if Mitchell extends and commits to the Cavs-- how much will Klutch's trade demand leak affect the trade value?

It changes the leverage from "We can always just keep him on our team" to -- "Okay, we have to take best offer among interested teams."

Doubt they want to go into next season with Klutch trade demand looming, and other teams know that.

[jbk1234]

Before Mitchell was traded to CLE, when Garland had his own team, he was a really good offensive initiator both scoring and passing..

People seem to have forgot how good Garland is.

Even last year with Mitchell he was a 22-7 guy with good efficiency, Plus he’s only 24 and signed to a sub-max contract.

This was a tough year for him, but as other have noted getting your jaw broke, losing a bunch of weight (and the strength and conditioning that comes with that) is a huge mitigating factor.

I think cavs will get more than those on this board think

Assuming he's only traded if Mitchell extends and commits to the Cavs-- how much will Klutch's trade demand leak affect the trade value?

It changes the leverage from "We can always just keep him on our team" to -- "Okay, we have to take best offer among interested teams."

Doubt they want to go into next season with Klutch trade demand looming, and other teams know that.

Klutch has already ruined Simmons career with that nonsense. They really can't afford to do it twice. The Cavs will bring him back before they take a bath on a trade (they haven't even publicly signaled an openness to trading him) and he'll report.