Schroder's gone

[DetroitSho]

Wtf

Does he fit into our TPE we'd get? I would not be cool with dealing Stew for him though

It's just dumb speculation for engagement-farming purposes from an unreliable Twitter source who likes to pretend that he's on the inside. He broke entirely speculative "news" about Schroder on the basis of zero substantive evidence because he wanted to be first on the scene in his efforts toward establishing himself as a news source.

All he says here is that the Pistons are "an intriguing team that could emerge" as such a suitor; he words it as if he knows something without outright claiming that he knows something. Needless to say, it's hogwash; the Pistons will not be trading Stewart for a washed-up, 35-year-old Vucevic.

The overall moral of this story is that Weinbach sucks as a source and nobody should listen to him.

With that said, fans have to stop even paying attention to these types of things. What ends up happening is a whole back and forth debate on here about something that was never even remotely a possibility, and then the chatter dies. Trade deadline comes and we're discussing potential trade targets and somebody comes in, "there was talk of a potential deal for Vuc (or said player) back in the summer, maybe the two sides re-engage discussions" when that never was even a thing. It's a terrible cycle.

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[Snakebites]

Yep agreed, committing $20m/yr the next 3 years (not looking at team/player options offhand) for a redundant player would have been a poor shortsighted move.

If he's a flippable asset I think I might be receptive to it. But if he were the Kings would have traded him and got something by now. There's no market for Malik Monk.

The point isn’t to get something for monk. The point is to have some salary on the books to use in a trade. He wouldn’t be the “value” part. We aren’t going to be under the cap again, so we need some moveable contracts.

Acquiring a guy with three years left as a “movable” contract is generally considered bad cap management.

Teams prefer expiring deals as salary ballast.

[Crymson]

The Kings have had trouble finding a buyer for Monk at all. The notion that he could simply be flipped at any time with what would still be two seasons under contract at a not-insignificant salary without the Pistons needing to enrich the offer from their side strikes me as far-fetched.

[tmorgan]

If you’re a pawn shop, you buy things from people at a price you’re nearly 100% sure you can make a profit on. You don’t buy a box of nice-looking lettuce, keep it on the shelf a few months, and then try to sell when it’s rotten.

Monk is lettuce on the Pistons. He wouldn’t play anywhere near as many minutes. His value would drop. And his contract is the price we paid to get him. We’d be screwing outselves.

(unless, of course, a second deal is lined up already… but that seems unlikely, given what we’re seeing)

[Billl]

If he's a flippable asset I think I might be receptive to it. But if he were the Kings would have traded him and got something by now. There's no market for Malik Monk.

The point isn’t to get something for monk. The point is to have some salary on the books to use in a trade. He wouldn’t be the “value” part. We aren’t going to be under the cap again, so we need some moveable contracts.

Acquiring a guy with three years left as a “movable” contract is generally considered bad cap management.

Teams prefer expiring deals as salary ballast.

Of course. But that isn’t an option available to us. The option for us is losing the salary slot entirely and having to start bundling a lot of guys to get up to a big contract

[theBigLip]

Agree with everyone’s comments on Monk. Pistons actually have no bad contracts. None. No reason to start w Monk.

[DetroitSho]

The point isn’t to get something for monk. The point is to have some salary on the books to use in a trade. He wouldn’t be the “value” part. We aren’t going to be under the cap again, so we need some moveable contracts.

Acquiring a guy with three years left as a “movable” contract is generally considered bad cap management.

Teams prefer expiring deals as salary ballast.

Of course. But that isn’t an option available to us. The option for us is losing the salary slot entirely and having to start bundling a lot of guys to get up to a big contract

And that's BETTER than taking Monk. Duncan Robinson and Levert are the contract bundle players you're speaking of, not Monk. I'd rather have no lettuce than rotten lettuce.

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[Snakebites]

It’s really strange to me that we have folks who have somehow become convinced that taking on BAD contracts is good.

[tmorgan]

Was just looking at the Pistons salary table on Spotrac (no, the new DR-Caris-Reed details are not there yet) and noticed something interesting that I like:

Zero player options on the roster, now or in the future. Seems to be a clear effort to maintain salary projection and control.

[theBigLip]

Was just looking at the Pistons salary table on Spotrac (no, the new DR-Caris-Reed details are not there yet) and noticed something interesting that I like:

Zero player options on the roster, now or in the future. Seems to be a clear effort to maintain salary projection and control.

There is a “pending” section at the top. Just noticed that today.

[tmorgan]

Was just looking at the Pistons salary table on Spotrac (no, the new DR-Caris-Reed details are not there yet) and noticed something interesting that I like:

Zero player options on the roster, now or in the future. Seems to be a clear effort to maintain salary projection and control.

There is a “pending” section at the top. Just noticed that today.

Pending, yes, but speculation on the contract breakdowns. I think they assume standard raises to reach the reported contract numbers.

They also have Robinson’s contract as fully guaranteed, which reportedly isn’t true.

[NYPiston]

The point isn’t to get something for monk. The point is to have some salary on the books to use in a trade. He wouldn’t be the “value” part. We aren’t going to be under the cap again, so we need some moveable contracts.

How does adding a bad salary make it a more tradeable asset?
The Pistons already have a couple of match level salaries to add in a trade in Harris and Stewart to a lesser extent if they wanted to go big fish hunting so I don't understand the logic of adding a bad contract and call it moveable in adding anything meaningful in which the Pistons are likely adding assets to move it if Monk gets lost in the rotation.

[DetroitSho]

I'm one of the handful of people that wasn't in some crazy hurry to exile Simone off the team for underperforming. Dude had 1 year at $8 mil remaining and people couldn't wait to get rid of his salary. Potentially, some of the same people have advocated for Monk. The irony of it all.

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[LaSheed]

I doubt we use the TPE but much rather that than Monk.

[Canadafan]

Soooo, did we operate as an over the cap team to use our bird rights to sign and trade Shröder?
Then Miami signed and traded Robinson to us? Then we used MLE on Levert and BAE on Reed?

[MotownMadness]

Read on Twitter

?s=46

[MotownMadness]

Read on Twitter

?s=46

[Snakebites]

I'm guessing given the wording of Seigel's tweet is that the 2026 Second round pick we're getting is protected into non existence.

Why did we give up a second rounder to generate a TPE? I'd like to think it's because we have a plan for that TPE, but if we did wouldn't it just be a three team trade?

Color me confused/unimpressed by the asset management here. I had fully come to terms with the fact that we likely weren't getting anything substantial for this, but why give up a second rounder to generate this TPE which there's a solid chance won't get used?

No biggie, I'm just confused.

[tmorgan]

Nice. We’ve never really used TPE’s, but it appears we finally have a GM with actual financial sense, so maybe that changes.

[tmorgan]

I'm guessing given the wording of Seigel's tweet is that the 2026 Second round pick we're getting is protected into non existence.

Why did we give up a second rounder to generate a TPE? I'd like to think it's because we have a plan for that TPE, but if we did wouldn't it just be a three team trade?

Color me confused/unimpressed by the asset management here. I had fully come to terms with the fact that we likely weren't getting anything substantial for this, but why give up a second rounder to generate this TPE which there's a solid chance won't get used?

No biggie, I'm just confused.

We essentially paid to create the TPE to keep our future options open.