Trading down (with Portland)

MN Die Hard · Post #1 » by **MN Die Hard** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:35 pm

Any thoughts on this from MN's perspective?

MN Die Hard wrote:If Minnesota doesnt land a top-2 pick...

MN's pick (#3 or below)
Jaric
Walker

for

Lafrenz
Portland 2008 #1
Portland 2010 #1

For Portland - you get your high pick.

MN saves about $3 million next year, gets out of Jaric's deal, and opens up a roster spot for one of its 2nd rounders. Also, MN drafts for need (Thabeet, Hibbert, or Hardin) rather than taking a player at #3 or #4 that might create a log jam. MN also adds a future pick.

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=769443

Post #2 » by **Basti** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:46 pm

depends on what the lottery for POR will bring. if they get the #14 pick I wouldn't do it but if they get a bit lucky and get #10-12 I might consider it. how long is raef's contract running? next offseason?

MN Die Hard · Post #3 » by **MN Die Hard** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:50 pm

Just next season for Raef.

Wolves save $3.2 million next season, then $7.1m and $7.6m the following two.

Plus getting the Blazer's 2010 pick, which still might be ok. They are obviously improving but with the West so tough, there are no guarantees.

deeney0 · Post #4 » by **deeney0** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:03 pm

Yeah, 3 or bellow that's definitely a consideration - no way for 1 or 2 though. Blazers want to move up for Bayless I imagine, and Wolves trade down for Hibbert or Thabeet, pick up an extra pick and cut salary. I think I like that more than any other trade down scenario I've seen.

Does Portland do it?

MN Die Hard · Post #5 » by **MN Die Hard** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:09 pm

deeney0 wrote:Does Portland do it?

This is the only response so far...

NBAMAN2006 wrote:Blazers absolutley do that deal. I would love to expand it to include Craig Smith though. If the Blazers added Webster would Minnesota include Smith?

Either way, Blazers do it.

Post #6 » by **C.lupus** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:35 pm

I like it.

I must admit I don't know Webster very well but Smith doesn't seem to be a great fit here so I would probably do it either way.

MN Die Hard · Post #7 » by **MN Die Hard** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:39 pm

Another positive reponse from Portland, with even more sweetner to get it done. With this I'd pull the trigger for sure...

Wizenheimer wrote:I agree, the Blazers would do that deal although they'd likely have to cut Walker just because they'd overload their roster.

I'm guessing the Blazers...and Paul Allen...would even be willing to sweeten the deal for Minnesota. Break the trade up into 2 trades, The first would have portland send Lafrentz and 3 million cash for Jaric and Walker. The second would have portland send the 2 first round picks and 3 million cash for Minnesota's first round pick.

That way, Minnesota would get an initial savings on the contracts exchanged and the lower rookie scale deal. They would save long term on the jaric contract. They would have an extra 6 million in cash. And they would get a 2 million+ trade exception.

deeney0 · Post #8 » by **deeney0** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:39 pm

I wouldn't want to include Smith for Webster. Would it kill the deal for me? Not sure.

PeeDee · Post #9 » by **PeeDee** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:41 pm

I don't think we should deal with Portland whatsoever. In my mind, they are the team to beat in the future so why would we want to help them get better?

funkatron101 · Post #10 » by **funkatron101** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:46 pm

I fully expect Portland to be a playoff powerhouse by 2010. So this is a tough one for me.

PeeDee · Post #11 » by **PeeDee** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:58 pm

funkatron101 wrote:I fully expect Portland to be a playoff powerhouse by 2010. So this is a tough one for me.

Which is why it'd be dumb to give them another top tier player.

Post #12 » by **Klomp** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:01 pm

PeeDee wrote:I don't think we should deal with Portland whatsoever. In my mind, they are the team to beat in the future so why would we want to help them get better?

Wasn't Boston supposedly the team to beat when we dealt them KG?

I for sure would do this deal.

deeney0 · Post #13 » by **deeney0** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:03 pm

klomp44 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Wasn't Boston supposedly the team to beat when we dealt them KG?

I for sure would do this deal.

Boston's not in our division.

This deal may give Portland another young player, but it takes away their ability to sign a 2009 max FA, which is when the Wolves are targeting cap space if they make this deal (since w/o Marko, the Wolves can offer someone a max deal).

MN Die Hard · Post #14 » by **MN Die Hard** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:04 pm

funkatron101 wrote:I fully expect Portland to be a playoff powerhouse by 2010. So this is a tough one for me.

I share that concern, although with the West the way it is you just cant count on anyone making a jump or sliding, IMO. I think Utah, NO, and the Lakers are young enough to be around for a few years. Phoenix might slip and maybe Dallas. SA, Denver, and GS might find a way to retool and stay competitive. Same with Houston. MN might even be contenders in our division in two years.

PeeDee · Post #15 » by **PeeDee** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:25 pm

klomp44 wrote:Wasn't Boston supposedly the team to beat when we dealt them KG? I for sure would do this deal.

I was referring to when the Wolves are ready to make a playoff run (hopefully 3-4 years). By then, I'm sure anyone would agree Portland will be very good. Why make them better? I feel this trade would hurt us more than help us.

Post #16 » by **Worm Guts** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:32 pm

klomp44 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Wasn't Boston supposedly the team to beat when we dealt them KG?

Come on now. Boston is old and in another conference. Portland is young and in the same division.

Post #17 » by **C.lupus** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:44 pm

I understand the concern here but it's not like dealing KG to LA (pairing 2 HOFers for an almost guaranteed championship). Portland is good and has a bright future but there is no guarantee that adding Bayless or Mayo or Gordon will push them over the top. It could just as easily backfire on them. There are too many unkowns. This deal helps the Wolves by filling a HUGE need at center and providing financial flexibility to add a FA in the future. I would focus on that and not on what it might do for Portland.

deeney0 · Post #18 » by **deeney0** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:53 pm

Worm Guts wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Come on now. Boston is old and in another conference. Portland is young and in the same division.

What are your thoughts on this? I figure you to be against trading down in principal, but you've also been a proponent of getting as much 2009 cap space as possible.

PeeDee · Post #19 » by **PeeDee** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:58 pm

Why wouldn't we be concerned? Right now I feel like we have to position ourselves to compete with who will be the best teams of the future. Helping one of the most potent ones out shouldn't be on the radar.

And it doesn't really matter if they'll be able to sign a FA, with Oden, LMA, Roy and a top draft pick, would they really need one? I bet they could easily sign quality vets for the minimum just for a chance to win.

If you really want to make a deal like this, I'm sure there are other teams that would bite. Teams that we wouldn't have to deal with in the playoffs as much.

Post #20 » by **Worm Guts** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:13 pm

deeney0 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

What are your thoughts on this? I figure you to be against trading down in principal, but you've also been a proponent of getting as much 2009 cap space as possible.

I really don't know. I wouldn't totally be against trading down from #3 (definitely not from #1 or #2 though). My first instinct was to do it but the talent gap between #3 and and #12-13 might be too big. When you're drafting as high as the Wolves are you have opportunity to get really good player. I'd hate to see the Wolves screw it up.