Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
Moderators: MoneyTalks41890, HartfordWhalers, Texas Chuck, BullyKing, Andre Roberstan, loserX, Trader_Joe, Mamba4Goat, pacers33granger
Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,741
- And1: 1,477
- Joined: May 20, 2018
-
Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
Just trying to figure a way for Butler to Milwaukee without moving Middleton..
Bucks in Butler
Bucks out Lopez, Portis, Connaughton, Johnson, Beauchamp, Wright, Prince
Miami in Ingram, Portis, Beauchamp
Miami out Butler
Lakers in Lopez, Wright
Lakers out Vincent, Vanderbilt, 2028 FRP (Top 4 protected)
Pelicans in Johnson, Vincent, Connaughton, Vanderbilt, Prince, LAL 2028 FRP (Top 4 protected)
Pelicans out Ingram
Why Bucks? They go all in replacing Brook with Jimmy in their starting lineup (which immediately makes them more athletic with Giannis becoming a C) at the cost of most of their depth to make it financially work.
Lillard/Rollins
Jackson/Green
Butler/Trent
Middleton/Livingston
Giannis/Smith
Why Miami? They split Butler into Ingram and Portis who fit Herro/Bam timeline better and round up their starting 5 with Rozier. They also take a look into a former FRP (Beauchamp).
Why Lakers? They balance their roster replacing Vanderbilt with Brook. They get out of more future money moving Vincent and replacing him with a minimum defensive minded backup PG (Wright).
Why Pelicans? They take some future money to maximise Ingram’s value in a trade. They get a future FRP and a current FRP (Johnson) while adding some depth pieces. Pels will need to cut some players.
Bucks in Butler
Bucks out Lopez, Portis, Connaughton, Johnson, Beauchamp, Wright, Prince
Miami in Ingram, Portis, Beauchamp
Miami out Butler
Lakers in Lopez, Wright
Lakers out Vincent, Vanderbilt, 2028 FRP (Top 4 protected)
Pelicans in Johnson, Vincent, Connaughton, Vanderbilt, Prince, LAL 2028 FRP (Top 4 protected)
Pelicans out Ingram
Why Bucks? They go all in replacing Brook with Jimmy in their starting lineup (which immediately makes them more athletic with Giannis becoming a C) at the cost of most of their depth to make it financially work.
Lillard/Rollins
Jackson/Green
Butler/Trent
Middleton/Livingston
Giannis/Smith
Why Miami? They split Butler into Ingram and Portis who fit Herro/Bam timeline better and round up their starting 5 with Rozier. They also take a look into a former FRP (Beauchamp).
Why Lakers? They balance their roster replacing Vanderbilt with Brook. They get out of more future money moving Vincent and replacing him with a minimum defensive minded backup PG (Wright).
Why Pelicans? They take some future money to maximise Ingram’s value in a trade. They get a future FRP and a current FRP (Johnson) while adding some depth pieces. Pels will need to cut some players.
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
- SkyHook
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,073
- And1: 3,389
- Joined: Jun 24, 2002
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
slos wrote:Just trying to figure a way for Butler to Milwaukee without moving Middleton..
Bucks in Butler
Bucks out Lopez, Portis, Connaughton, Johnson, Beauchamp, Wright, Prince
Miami in Ingram, Portis, Beauchamp
Miami out Butler
Lakers in Lopez, Wright
Lakers out Vincent, Vanderbilt, 2028 FRP (Top 4 protected)
Pelicans in Johnson, Vincent, Connaughton, Vanderbilt, Prince, LAL 2028 FRP (Top 4 protected)
Pelicans out Ingram
Why Bucks? They go all in replacing Brook with Jimmy in their starting lineup (which immediately makes them more athletic with Giannis becoming a C) at the cost of most of their depth to make it financially work.
Lillard/Rollins
Jackson/Green
Butler/Trent
Middleton/Livingston
Giannis/Smith
Why Miami? They split Butler into Ingram and Portis who fit Herro/Bam timeline better and round up their starting 5 with Rozier. They also take a look into a former FRP (Beauchamp).
Why Lakers? They balance their roster replacing Vanderbilt with Brook. They get out of more future money moving Vincent and replacing him with a minimum defensive minded backup PG (Wright).
Why Pelicans? They take some future money to maximise Ingram’s value in a trade. They get a future FRP and a current FRP (Johnson) while adding some depth pieces. Pels will need to cut some players.
Setting everything else aside, a seven-for-one trade midseason is never going to happen.
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world...
... NO, YOU MOVE."
... NO, YOU MOVE."
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
- Scoot McGroot
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 44,773
- And1: 14,041
- Joined: Feb 16, 2005
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
slos wrote:Just trying to figure a way for Butler to Milwaukee without moving Middleton..
Bucks in Butler
Bucks out Lopez, Portis, Connaughton, Johnson, Beauchamp, Wright, Prince
Miami in Ingram, Portis, Beauchamp
Miami out Butler
Lakers in Lopez, Wright
Lakers out Vincent, Vanderbilt, 2028 FRP (Top 4 protected)
Pelicans in Johnson, Vincent, Connaughton, Vanderbilt, Prince, LAL 2028 FRP (Top 4 protected)
Pelicans out Ingram
Why Bucks? They go all in replacing Brook with Jimmy in their starting lineup (which immediately makes them more athletic with Giannis becoming a C) at the cost of most of their depth to make it financially work.
Lillard/Rollins
Jackson/Green
Butler/Trent
Middleton/Livingston
Giannis/Smith
Why Miami? They split Butler into Ingram and Portis who fit Herro/Bam timeline better and round up their starting 5 with Rozier. They also take a look into a former FRP (Beauchamp).
Why Lakers? They balance their roster replacing Vanderbilt with Brook. They get out of more future money moving Vincent and replacing him with a minimum defensive minded backup PG (Wright).
Why Pelicans? They take some future money to maximise Ingram’s value in a trade. They get a future FRP and a current FRP (Johnson) while adding some depth pieces. Pels will need to cut some players.
I don’t think Milwaukee can backfill the 6 required roster spots to be filled for less than the $2m in space under the hard cap at the apron they’d create by aggregating salary.
Can’t imagine this could legally work and it wouldn’t get approved by the league.
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,360
- And1: 6,652
- Joined: Jul 28, 2013
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
Isn't Milwauke a 2nd apron team? I thought those teams were prohibited from combining players salaries in trades.
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 18,049
- And1: 12,874
- Joined: Jul 15, 2013
- Location: Ogden, UT
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
DaddyCool19 wrote:Isn't Milwauke a 2nd apron team? I thought those teams were prohibited from combining players salaries in trades.
Yep they would be hard capped at the second apron if they aggregate.
In this scenario they couldnt fill 6 roster spots and stay under the apron. Trade doesn’t work.
Jordan Walsh > Lonnie Walker
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,741
- And1: 1,477
- Joined: May 20, 2018
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
brackdan70 wrote:DaddyCool19 wrote:Isn't Milwauke a 2nd apron team? I thought those teams were prohibited from combining players salaries in trades.
Yep they would be hard capped at the second apron if they aggregate.
In this scenario they couldnt fill 6 roster spots and stay under the apron. Trade doesn’t work.
I had Bucks saving 6 mil in this trade which leaves them 2 mil breathing space under the 2nd apron to convert some of their two ways (Rollins etc) into standard contracts.
But now I see that Middleton has some extra unlikely incentives. Do they also count against the cap? It’s about 2.3 mil which definitely kills this path.
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- King of the Trade Board
- Posts: 20,834
- And1: 7,802
- Joined: Aug 05, 2012
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
Why wouldn’t it just be Middleton based though?
Feels like a lot of extra steps. You can probably build legal trade around Lopez, Middleton, and Conn for Butler and a backup center. Leave Portis around ..
I don’t know if it’s a good idea to get older, while needing to add your last asset to do so, but it would be fun to watch for a couple years.
Feels like a lot of extra steps. You can probably build legal trade around Lopez, Middleton, and Conn for Butler and a backup center. Leave Portis around ..
I don’t know if it’s a good idea to get older, while needing to add your last asset to do so, but it would be fun to watch for a couple years.
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,658
- And1: 5,065
- Joined: Jan 07, 2012
- Location: Atl
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
Bucks need to add their own draft capital. Lakers taking Ingram at that price.
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 57,320
- And1: 18,438
- Joined: Jun 23, 2001
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
jayjaysee wrote:Why wouldn’t it just be Middleton based though?
Feels like a lot of extra steps. You can probably build legal trade around Lopez, Middleton, and Conn for Butler and a backup center. Leave Portis around ..
I don’t know if it’s a good idea to get older, while needing to add your last asset to do so, but it would be fun to watch for a couple years.
Why would Miami touch that? They don't have assets. Portis is, at least, good.
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- King of the Trade Board
- Posts: 20,834
- And1: 7,802
- Joined: Aug 05, 2012
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
BBallFreak wrote:jayjaysee wrote:Why wouldn’t it just be Middleton based though?
Feels like a lot of extra steps. You can probably build legal trade around Lopez, Middleton, and Conn for Butler and a backup center. Leave Portis around ..
I don’t know if it’s a good idea to get older, while needing to add your last asset to do so, but it would be fun to watch for a couple years.
Why would Miami touch that? They don't have assets. Portis is, at least, good.
Really depends what you build the deal up to be right?
But “2031 first and Johnson” is value. No idea if Brolo still has value or Midds is a negative or neutral etc.
But there’s a legal deal there. The OP is not a legal deal. Better to flesh out a legal deal than think about an illegal one is all..
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
- Laimbeer
- RealGM
- Posts: 42,955
- And1: 15,114
- Joined: Aug 12, 2009
- Location: Cabin Creek
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
kobe_vs_jordan wrote:Bucks need to add their own draft capital. Lakers taking Ingram at that price.
Have to remember dumping Vanderbilt is going to cost.
Comments to rationalize bad contracts -
1) It's less than the MLE
2) He can be traded later
3) It's only __% of the cap
4) The cap is going up
5) It's only __ years
6) He's a good mentor/locker room guy
1) It's less than the MLE
2) He can be traded later
3) It's only __% of the cap
4) The cap is going up
5) It's only __ years
6) He's a good mentor/locker room guy
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,658
- And1: 5,065
- Joined: Jan 07, 2012
- Location: Atl
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
Laimbeer wrote:kobe_vs_jordan wrote:Bucks need to add their own draft capital. Lakers taking Ingram at that price.
Have to remember dumping Vanderbilt is going to cost.
People act like he has a 20 million a year contract. He over paid by a 5 million imo.
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 58,807
- And1: 35,895
- Joined: Dec 22, 2010
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
Yeah, this is pretty bad for the Lakers and Pelicans who are providing the lion's share of the value while the Bucks walk away with Butler. Any time trades are structured that way, it means the team leaching value will end up getting cut out.
cbosh4mvp wrote:
Jarret Allen isn’t winning you anything. Garland won’t show up in the playoffs. Mobley is a glorified dunk man. Mitchell has some experience but is a liability on defense. To me, the Cavs are a treadmill team.
Jarret Allen isn’t winning you anything. Garland won’t show up in the playoffs. Mobley is a glorified dunk man. Mitchell has some experience but is a liability on defense. To me, the Cavs are a treadmill team.
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
- Scoot McGroot
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 44,773
- And1: 14,041
- Joined: Feb 16, 2005
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
slos wrote:brackdan70 wrote:DaddyCool19 wrote:Isn't Milwauke a 2nd apron team? I thought those teams were prohibited from combining players salaries in trades.
Yep they would be hard capped at the second apron if they aggregate.
In this scenario they couldnt fill 6 roster spots and stay under the apron. Trade doesn’t work.
I had Bucks saving 6 mil in this trade which leaves them 2 mil breathing space under the 2nd apron to convert some of their two ways (Rollins etc) into standard contracts.
But now I see that Middleton has some extra unlikely incentives. Do they also count against the cap? It’s about 2.3 mil which definitely kills this path.
ALL incentives count against the apron salary totals. Only like/earned incentives count against the cap/tax.
So this deal would leave about $2m under the 2nd apron for Milwaukee to fill 5 spots, I believe.
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
- Scoot McGroot
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 44,773
- And1: 14,041
- Joined: Feb 16, 2005
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
kobe_vs_jordan wrote:Laimbeer wrote:kobe_vs_jordan wrote:Bucks need to add their own draft capital. Lakers taking Ingram at that price.
Have to remember dumping Vanderbilt is going to cost.
People act like he has a 20 million a year contract. He over paid by a 5 million imo.
Right now, it's moreso the 4 guaranteed years, especially if the knee continues to be "balky".
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,587
- And1: 4,419
- Joined: Jun 19, 2012
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
Lakers say NO ...
Lakers not giving up a first for Lopez and Write...
Also once again, I don't see Lakers trading Vando or any team to take on his contract, especially since injured
Lakers not giving up a first for Lopez and Write...
Also once again, I don't see Lakers trading Vando or any team to take on his contract, especially since injured
My Go Team
Magic, Jordan, Pippen, Duncan, Shaq
My Counter
Stockton, Kobe, Bird, Rodman, Dirk
Today's Team
Luka, SGA, Tatum, Giannis, Wemby
Magic, Jordan, Pippen, Duncan, Shaq
My Counter
Stockton, Kobe, Bird, Rodman, Dirk
Today's Team
Luka, SGA, Tatum, Giannis, Wemby
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,658
- And1: 5,065
- Joined: Jan 07, 2012
- Location: Atl
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
Scoot McGroot wrote:kobe_vs_jordan wrote:Laimbeer wrote:
Have to remember dumping Vanderbilt is going to cost.
People act like he has a 20 million a year contract. He over paid by a 5 million imo.
Right now, it's moreso the 4 guaranteed years, especially if the knee continues to be "balky".
He not out with a knee injury this time. Recently started ramping up.
He can have injury woes for the next 4 years or reach his upside. Who knows.
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 57,320
- And1: 18,438
- Joined: Jun 23, 2001
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
jayjaysee wrote:BBallFreak wrote:jayjaysee wrote:Why wouldn’t it just be Middleton based though?
Feels like a lot of extra steps. You can probably build legal trade around Lopez, Middleton, and Conn for Butler and a backup center. Leave Portis around ..
I don’t know if it’s a good idea to get older, while needing to add your last asset to do so, but it would be fun to watch for a couple years.
Why would Miami touch that? They don't have assets. Portis is, at least, good.
Really depends what you build the deal up to be right?
But “2031 first and Johnson” is value. No idea if Brolo still has value or Midds is a negative or neutral etc.
But there’s a legal deal there. The OP is not a legal deal. Better to flesh out a legal deal than think about an illegal one is all..
Where are the 2031 first and Johnson, though? Not in the original and not in your revision. I think adding details of the deal could make a difference, no?
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
- Scoot McGroot
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 44,773
- And1: 14,041
- Joined: Feb 16, 2005
-
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
kobe_vs_jordan wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:kobe_vs_jordan wrote:People act like he has a 20 million a year contract. He over paid by a 5 million imo.
Right now, it's moreso the 4 guaranteed years, especially if the knee continues to be "balky".
He not out with a knee injury this time. Recently started ramping up.
He can have injury woes for the next 4 years or reach his upside. Who knows.
Vanderbilt's journey back to the court has been lengthy (and filled with bad luck). Multiple foot surgeries during the summer followed his mid-foot sprain against Boston last February. Earlier this month it was released that the young forward experienced a fluid buildup in his left knee during his injury rehabilitation, delaying his return.
But yes. Either good stuff or bad stuff could happen. But teams are going to value Vanderbilt based on his current and recent play. Of which, there is none, and he's been injured.

Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
-
- King of the Trade Board
- Posts: 20,834
- And1: 7,802
- Joined: Aug 05, 2012
Re: Jimmy to Milwaukee with NOP and LAL (no Midds)
BBallFreak wrote:jayjaysee wrote:BBallFreak wrote:Why would Miami touch that? They don't have assets. Portis is, at least, good.
Really depends what you build the deal up to be right?
But “2031 first and Johnson” is value. No idea if Brolo still has value or Midds is a negative or neutral etc.
But there’s a legal deal there. The OP is not a legal deal. Better to flesh out a legal deal than think about an illegal one is all..
Where are the 2031 first and Johnson, though? Not in the original and not in your revision. I think adding details of the deal could make a difference, no?
Yeah, I wouldn’t call what I made a revision.
Just making a legal trade for Milwaukee. But wasn’t a legal trade for Miami. So definitely not fleshed out.
Return to Trades and Transactions