Hawks | Spurs | Pelicans | Cavs

[Wolveswin]

Could cut out a team but seems every team is getting the player they want in the deal. Assuming Mitchell is staying in Cleveland.

Spurs Trade:
Vassell + Some Combo Hawks Picks + 2025 Owed 1st
FOR
Garland
Why= PG they seek, assuming prefer over Trae or Murray.

Hawks Trade:
Murray
FOR
Vassell + At Least One Hawks 1st Returned (make it Johnson if Hawks prefer more own capital back)
Why= refresh backcourt with some returned capital.

Pelicans Trade:
Ingram + Herb Jones
FOR
Murray + Allen
Why= get their PG and C trading via position of depth. Assume prefer Murray over Garland.

Cavs Trade:
Garland + Allen
FOR
Ingram + Herb + 2025 Spurs owed 1st
Why= reshuffle lineup around Mitchell.

[HadAnEffectHere]

This is TERRIBLE for the Pels.

[Colbinii]

I don't like trading Herb Jones to address a different position. New Orleans has a wealth of picks. They have a wealth of salary [McCollum and Ingram]. They can use those assets and players to acquire the Center or PG they need.

[psman2]

IF I am SA I am taking Murray for cheaper than adding picks to Vassell for Garland. I think Atlanta and SA swapping Murray for Vassell is where this trade stops if SA is willing to play ball, likely no additional picks needed.

[DrModesty]

I just don't think I want to trade away Herb Jones if I am the Pelicans.

[louc1970]

I just don't think I want to trade away Herb Jones if I am the Pelicans.

I see many posters mention they do not want to trade away a specific player. What does holding onto Jones do for NO?
It is the same with SA fans and Vassell, or Rockets and Eason.

From my perspective, the players are a bargain at their current salary. But once resigning hits and each is making $20M+ (except Jones) are they still a bargain at the same production?

Eason and Jones are going to be backups as long as Williamson and Smith are playing their positions.

Just curious as to why you would not trade someone if the team could improve (or perhaps you do not think it improves the team)?

[jbk1234]

IF I am SA I am taking Murray for cheaper than adding picks to Vassell for Garland. I think Atlanta and SA swapping Murray for Vassell is where this trade stops if SA is willing to play ball, likely no additional picks needed.

The Spurs had Murray and elected to trade him. Unless the Hawks are ready to move him for cheap, and not just cheaper, then it seems unlikely anything he's done since joining the Hawks would make them change their initial evaluation. Also, everyone has some imagined cheaper price for Murray, but Murray is still on the Hawks roster after they took calls on him all last year.

[Texas Chuck]

This is TERRIBLE for the Pels.

You need to provide reasons why. Just ALL CAPS yelling its bad helps nobody move forward. Please do not respond when you have nothing to add to the conversation. You have a bad habit of doing this in OP's that are not your own. Other posters show you the respect of telling you why they like or dislike your ideas. Please extend the same courtesy.

[psman2]

I just don't think I want to trade away Herb Jones if I am the Pelicans.

I see many posters mention they do not want to trade away a specific player. What does holding onto Jones do for NO?
It is the same with SA fans and Vassell, or Rockets and Eason.

From my perspective, the players are a bargain at their current salary. But once resigning hits and each is making $20M+ (except Jones) are they still a bargain at the same production?

Eason and Jones are going to be backups as long as Williamson and Smith are playing their positions.

Just curious as to why you would not trade someone if the team could improve (or perhaps you do not think it improves the team)?

Herb has basically been a starting from day one there and likely not changing soon. Murphy is the one that comes off the bench more. But if you move Ingram for a G then both are likely starters with CJ playing a 6th man role if he is not moved.

[Texas Chuck]

The main issue here is the Spurs are overpaying which makes the value look better for other teams, but without that overpay it becomes clear.

We've beat the Pels/Cavs deal into the ground at this point so nothing new to add there.

[jbk1234]

I just don't think I want to trade away Herb Jones if I am the Pelicans.

I see many posters mention they do not want to trade away a specific player. What does holding onto Jones do for NO?
It is the same with SA fans and Vassell, or Rockets and Eason.

From my perspective, the players are a bargain at their current salary. But once resigning hits and each is making $20M+ (except Jones) are they still a bargain at the same production?

Eason and Jones are going to be backups as long as Williamson and Smith are playing their positions.

Just curious as to why you would not trade someone if the team could improve (or perhaps you do not think it improves the team)?

Vassell is going to make $30M next season.

[psman2]

IF I am SA I am taking Murray for cheaper than adding picks to Vassell for Garland. I think Atlanta and SA swapping Murray for Vassell is where this trade stops if SA is willing to play ball, likely no additional picks needed.

The Spurs had Murray and elected to trade him. Unless the Hawks are ready to move him for cheap, and not just cheaper, then it seems unlikely anything he's done since joining the Hawks would make them change their initial evaluation. Also, everyone has some imagined cheaper price for Murray, but Murray is still on the Hawks roster after they took calls on him all last year.

The Spurs were in a different position than than are now. If the Spurs are ready to hit the gas then I don't think they will be much hesitancy on their part to bring him back if they can find a deal they like. More likely rather trade picks than Vassell though, so would likely need a 3rd team for win now talent back to Atlanta. I have kept my evaluation rather consistent on Murray, but I think his contract extension did increase his value some.

[Chinook]

The Spurs aren't trading Vassell for Garland. They wouldn't do it straight up, and it's a non-starter than they'd add unprotected picks to that. Devin isn't for sale, and being "low" on him doesn't change that.

And there's zero evidence the Spurs are trying to add a young "star" PG. I get that fans look at it and assume it make sense, even though it doesn't. But you can't use that assumption as self-evidence to justify an extreme price.

[jbk1234]

IF I am SA I am taking Murray for cheaper than adding picks to Vassell for Garland. I think Atlanta and SA swapping Murray for Vassell is where this trade stops if SA is willing to play ball, likely no additional picks needed.

The Spurs had Murray and elected to trade him. Unless the Hawks are ready to move him for cheap, and not just cheaper, then it seems unlikely anything he's done since joining the Hawks would make them change their initial evaluation. Also, everyone has some imagined cheaper price for Murray, but Murray is still on the Hawks roster after they took calls on him all last year.

The Spurs were in a different position than than are now. If the Spurs are ready to hit the gas then I don't think they will be much hesitancy on their part to bring him back if they can find a deal they like. More likely rather trade picks than Vassell though, so would likely need a 3rd team for win now talent back to Atlanta. I have kept my evaluation rather consistent on Murray, but I think his contract extension did increase his value some.

I think the type of PG Murray is didn't mesh with the type of offense Pop wants to run and that's even more the case now with Wemby. I also think his defensive reputation has taken a hit since joining the Hawks and drawing the harder assignment.

[wemby]

This is insane. I wouldn't trade Vassell or the Hawks picks or Spurs own ´25 pick for Dejounte or Garland, let alone all of those combined. People have a fixation with plugging whatever overrated PG their team wants to move, and the Spurs are always the dumb buyer to bridge the gap between reality and some poster's wet dreams. Gets tiring, and whenever a deal goes through people are going to get a healthy dose of reality on those valuations.

[Euphonetiks]

I just don't think I want to trade away Herb Jones if I am the Pelicans.

I see many posters mention they do not want to trade away a specific player. What does holding onto Jones do for NO?
It is the same with SA fans and Vassell, or Rockets and Eason.

From my perspective, the players are a bargain at their current salary. But once resigning hits and each is making $20M+ (except Jones) are they still a bargain at the same production?

Eason and Jones are going to be backups as long as Williamson and Smith are playing their positions.

Just curious as to why you would not trade someone if the team could improve (or perhaps you do not think it improves the team)?

In very large part due to Herb Jones, the Pels had the 6th rated defense with Jonas/Larry at C while starting 3 neutral to bad defenders in Zion/CJ/Ingram.

I guess I just don’t see how exchanging Herb for Allen helps the defense that much (considering Cleveland was 7th behind the Pels). On offense, it adds a guy who operates in the same space as Zion and complicates roster building. I would rather keep Herb and pair him with WCJ, Okongwu, or Stewart than move Herb for Allen.

[wemby]

Vassell is going to make $30M next season.

Vassell last year: 19.5 PPG (on 47.2 / 37.2 / 80.1 splits, with 6.6 3PA), 4.1 APG, 3.8 RPG
Garland last year: 18 PPG (on 44.6 / 37.1 / 83.4 splits, with 6.2 3PA), 6.5 APG, 2.7 RPG

Salary comparison:
Garland (24 y.o., 6' PG): 4 years left at 36.4, 39.4, 42.2, 44.9
Vassell (23 y.o., 6'5" wing): 5 years left at 29.3, 27, 27, 24.7, 27
So Garland starts at 26% of the cap and ends at 24%, while Vassell starts at 21% and ends at 13%. The Spurs have absolutely no worry about Vassell's salary next season, it goes down to 17% of the cap as early as its 2nd year of his 5 year deal.

At their respective contracts and positions, I'd rather have Vassell than Garland TBH. Just use no. 8 on Dillingham or Sheppard and get it over with.

[Wolveswin]

This is TERRIBLE for the Pels.

You need to explain this.

Murray > Ingram. Beaten to death. Ingram is expiring.

So, you think Herb > Allen to the point of TERRIBLE?

[Wolveswin]

This is insane. I wouldn't trade Vassell or the Hawks picks or Spurs own ´25 pick for Dejounte or Garland, let alone all of those combined. People have a fixation with plugging whatever overrated PG their team wants to move, and the Spurs are always the dumb buyer to bridge the gap between reality and some poster's wet dreams. Gets tiring, and whenever a deal goes through people are going to get a healthy dose of reality on those valuations.

Spurs aren’t needed in Deal. Many teams would value Garland odiously.

If Spurs do and it needs to be Johnson, as said in OP, not a deal breaker either.

[HadAnEffectHere]

This is TERRIBLE for the Pels.

You need to explain this.

Murray > Ingram. Beaten to death. Ingram is expiring.

So, you think Herb > Allen to the point of TERRIBLE?

I do not like Murray at all as a player. But Herb's positional value is well above JA.