Larry_Russell wrote:hugepatsfan wrote:Porzingis to CHA for Nurkic and Okogie with CHA chipping in 2nds to dump Okogie elsewhere. Nurkic to LAL for Vandy and one of Kleber/Vincent, LAL and us each chip in a 2nd to dump Kleber/Vincent somewhere else.
Jrue to DAL in a deal that sends back Klay and dumps all the other pieces elsewhere, whether it's Gafford/Marshall/Martin/Hardy/etc.
Salary dump Hauser into a TPE somewhere.
End result is Porzingis/Holiday/Hauser for Klay/Vandy/minimum signing to backfill extra roster spot. Klay and Vandy obviously huge downgrades but they're playable players. We duck the tax.
Next year you have Klay's expiring deal to attach picks to and Vandy on a 2 year, $25M deal that's multi year but still very usable in trades (like when we traded Theis' 2 year deal in the Brogdon deal). We'd be below the tax by a couple million, and there'd be incentive to stay under another year to reset repeater rates, but we don't HAVE to. With picks attached you could probably turn Vandy's 2 year dela and Klay's expiring deal for a combined $30M of salary into better pieces still staying under, We'd be eligible to do S&Ts, as an example. We also CAN go over the tax if ownership/front office think it's worth it so it's not hard rule to stay under.
This isn't fun, this isn't sexy, but IMO it's the best direction. Preserves all of our main assets in terms of picks and players (Brown, White, Pritchard) while saving tons of money and leaving tons of flexibility to build another contender around Tatum/Brown/White.
Would rather keep Gafford and MArshal and Vandy in that scenario.
That equals about 73 million out and returning only about 35 million that moves the team out of not only the 2nd but the first apron.
White/Pritchard
Brown/Scheierman
Marshall/Walsh
Vanderbilt/Horford
Gafford/Kornet
I am pretty high on Marshall and Gafford potential as great role players beside a WHite/BRown/Tatum trio
So presumably we're both saying the Jrue to DAL deal is Klay/Gafford/Marshall, right?
The issue with your swap, from a trade value standpoint, is that while I think Gafford and Marshall can be moved into TPEs/MLEs for free, I think if we keep those guys and instead look to move Klay's 2 year bloated deal into a TPE somewhere or through a series of deals turn it into nothing, then I think you're looking at having to include 1-2 1sts. All the reasons no one here wants him are the reasons no one else will. 1-2 1sts is substantially all of our future draft capital based on how that 2029 1st from the Jrue trade falls into
While I agree that Gafford and Marshall are good role players, I don't think they're suitable #4/5 players on a championship team. They're more like #6/#7. But if we have to use the 1-2 1sts to move Klay per above, we're kind of locked into them as that since we won't have tradable picks left to upgrade them.
And then on the cap sheet, 1st apron is meaningless really. There's no repeater rates or basketball penalties associated with it really. It just opens up some trade flexibility and MLE stuff that, based on the deal as you have it, we won't actually be able to use anyway. We can't actually use the MLE we open up by getting under it without going back over. We don't have room to take back extra salary in a trade without going back over. In the overall context, it's just kind of a meaningless distinction. Also, if Gafford re-signs, good chance your team is back over the 2nd apron again next year (26-27) and back to facing repeater penalties down the line because those come when you're over 3 out of 4 years.
Obviously I like your version is better for the team this year, but I believe it comes at a cost that basically eliminates all the future flexibility the purpose of the trades is to create. If they're going to say screw flexibility like you have them saying, they should be doing it for better players than Gafford/Marshall/Vandy so it's just an entirely different conversation. I feel like your scenario is a pointless middle ground and how you actually become locked into a middle of the pack team.
