MIN-PHO-GSW (Amare/Biedrins)

shrink · Post #1 » by **shrink** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:52 pm

If GSW's trade yesterday to free up the 1st to trade for Amare is true, then MIN can be a good intermediary to see that the deal gets done.

PHO IN: Biedrins + Atkins (partially guaranteed deal) + Ellington ($13.48)
PHO OUT: Amare ($16.39)

GSW IN: Amare ($16.39)
GSW OUT: Biedrins + Claxton + GSW 1st ($14.21)

MIN IN: Claxton + GSW 1st ($5.21)
MIN OUT: Atkins + Ellington ($4.48)

WHY FOR PHO: Biedrins may not be the star that Amare is, but this is a great return. Biedrins is very good, and locked into a decent, $9 mil/yr contract through 2014. Wayne Ellington is a late 1st round rookie that can score - Nash will make him look good. He's locked into a reasonable rookie deal. Roster spots go from 13 to 14.

Best of all, Atkins partially guaranteed deal means that they can waive him and save $2.72 mil. Coupled with $2.91 savings from the deal, this saves PHO $5.63. Overall this means:

$2.72 Atkins 2009 Waive
$2.91 Trade Savings (2009 TPE)
$4.80 Lux Penalties recovered
$3.00 Lux Share Recovered (estimate)
$13.43 SAVINGS in 2009
$7.6 SAVINGS in 2010

$21 mil in TOTAL SAVINGS

WHY FOR GSW: Amare Stoudemire. They add a potential superstar for Biedrins and a pick. I assume they talk with Amare to make sure he's happy with the trade so they can expect a reasonable extension next year. GSW is not a big market team, so getting a superstar there is tough except by trade, even if they didn't have to wait a long time for cap space. Amare is very familiar with the up-tempo game. The Warriors don't waste $5 mil this season on Claxton's unproductive salary, and they open up a roster space. Amare's addition makes this pick (and probably the 2012 one they owe the Nets) worth less. Amare makes them competitive with other good teams in the West.

WHY FOR MIN: MIN can serve as the financial piece that makes Sarver consider moving Amare. The Wolves aren't competing, so they don't mind adding Claxton this year. Atkins 2009 salary reduction is only cash to them - its worth far more elsewhere. They have high hopes for Ellington, but they gamble that an unprotected pick in next year's deeper draft is worth more.

shrink · Post #2 » by **shrink** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:58 pm

Let me add that if I was negotiating, I'd start off by using OPec in the deal instead of Ellington, but I'd probably do Ellington. OPec works, and there's a decent chance PHO would do the deal for Biedrins + the $20 mil in savings, and adding a tiny asset like Ellington wouldn't be the difference between a yes or a no.

This comes down to the value of the GSW pick .. WITH AMARE on the team. I'm just guessing here, but if the Warriors make the play-offs, the pick probably comes in around #22. If they miss, its probably #13-14. Ellington's worth a look, but I've heard the 2010 draft is deep, and either scenario might bring a better player. The pick gives us one year longer on the rookie deal over Ellington, but its cap hold vs Ellington may reduce our raw cap space slightly.

john2jer · Post #3 » by **john2jer** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:05 pm

This would be a steal for the Wolves. Golden State's 1st in a MUCH deeper draft as opposed to the 28th pick in a weak draft, I like it.

I'd assume Phoenix would want the 1st, though, since they lose theirs to OKC.

the_bruce · Post #4 » by **the_bruce** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:07 pm

Not enough value for me even if it was opec swapped in for ellington.

Biff Cooper · Post #5 » by **Biff Cooper** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:10 pm

How does Amare's trade kicker work into the deal? Does his salary increase 15% to GSW?
Since GSW owe their 2012 pick, they probably can't put much on the deal for protection?

I seem to remember Claxton being insured when he was with Atl. Assume he still is. There may need to be some cash leaving G. Taylors pocket in the deal as well because of this, but overall it looks like a decent deal all around. The TWolves may be making out the best in the deal, but that's the way I like it.

Winter Wonder · Post #6 » by **Winter Wonder** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:17 pm

Here I was about to post something like what J2J did but I too looked at it and figured GSW would be a lottery pick immediately without really thinking.

But it is hard to predict where the GSW pick will be with Amare. Originally I thought lottery and figured MN should add the worst of their first round picks if the pick is beyond 20 or a 2nd rounder (though those are usually over valued when trying to throw them into deals to "balance" them). But, if GSW does make the playoffs (ironically could be battling with PHX for one of the last two spots) the GSW 1st becomes much less desirable.

I still think MN should have to throw in a late 1st or early 2nd to balance, but it is depended upon where the GSW pick is (Lottery and add pick or mid-late first and not so much). Interesting though and I think fairly plausible.

SpencerBusch · Post #7 » by **SpencerBusch** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:25 pm

I would do this trade. Im assuming its a unprotected pick. If its not then this post of mine is worthless because i would only do the trade with a unprotected pick. I could see the Warriors as a Top Ten pick. Which means the Twolves would possibly have 2 top ten picks in the draft which could improve our team for years to come!

Ellington is interesting though. He is quite a good defender in my opinion and has the potential to be a good NBA scorer. I think if he works hard and grows to his full potential he is a 12-15/6/4-5
type of guy.

Good trade Shrink!
I dont normally post here often i usually just read and lately you have been one of my favorite posters on this board to read the trades that you like to cook up!

john2jer · Post #8 » by **john2jer** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:39 pm

Winter Wonder wrote:Here I was about to post something like what J2J did but I too looked at it and figured GSW would be a lottery pick immediately without really thinking.

But it is hard to predict where the GSW pick will be with Amare. Originally I thought lottery and figured MN should add the worst of their first round picks if the pick is beyond 20 or a 2nd rounder (though those are usually over valued when trying to throw them into deals to "balance" them). But, if GSW does make the playoffs (ironically could be battling with PHX for one of the last two spots) the GSW 1st becomes much less desirable.

I still think MN should have to throw in a late 1st or early 2nd to balance, but it is depended upon where the GSW pick is (Lottery and add pick or mid-late first and not so much). Interesting though and I think fairly plausible.

Not that GSW TRIES to play defense, but this would make their defense completely non-existent, with no chance of ever happening. And I have complete faith in the Warriors finding a way to screw things up. :-)

Winter Wonder · Post #9 » by **Winter Wonder** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:52 pm

john2jer wrote:
Winter Wonder wrote:Here I was about to post something like what J2J did but I too looked at it and figured GSW would be a lottery pick immediately without really thinking.

But it is hard to predict where the GSW pick will be with Amare. Originally I thought lottery and figured MN should add the worst of their first round picks if the pick is beyond 20 or a 2nd rounder (though those are usually over valued when trying to throw them into deals to "balance" them). But, if GSW does make the playoffs (ironically could be battling with PHX for one of the last two spots) the GSW 1st becomes much less desirable.

I still think MN should have to throw in a late 1st or early 2nd to balance, but it is depended upon where the GSW pick is (Lottery and add pick or mid-late first and not so much). Interesting though and I think fairly plausible.

Not that GSW TRIES to play defense, but this would make their defense completely non-existent, with no chance of ever happening. And I have complete faith in the Warriors finding a way to screw things up.

Well they do still have that Don Nelson guy involved in stuff. Point taken on screwing things up.

And what's wrong with the bull fighter's " Ole' " defense, it just means they get the ball back faster on offense coach.

john2jer · Post #10 » by **john2jer** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:26 pm

Winter Wonder wrote:
john2jer wrote:
Winter Wonder wrote:Here I was about to post something like what J2J did but I too looked at it and figured GSW would be a lottery pick immediately without really thinking.

But it is hard to predict where the GSW pick will be with Amare. Originally I thought lottery and figured MN should add the worst of their first round picks if the pick is beyond 20 or a 2nd rounder (though those are usually over valued when trying to throw them into deals to "balance" them). But, if GSW does make the playoffs (ironically could be battling with PHX for one of the last two spots) the GSW 1st becomes much less desirable.

I still think MN should have to throw in a late 1st or early 2nd to balance, but it is depended upon where the GSW pick is (Lottery and add pick or mid-late first and not so much). Interesting though and I think fairly plausible.

Not that GSW TRIES to play defense, but this would make their defense completely non-existent, with no chance of ever happening. And I have complete faith in the Warriors finding a way to screw things up.

Well they do still have that Don Nelson guy involved in stuff. Point taken on screwing things up.

And what's wrong with the bull fighter's " Ole' " defense, it just means they get the ball back faster on offense coach.

True... Hmm, never thought about that. You just might have changed my coaching philosophy.

Marc · Post #11 » by **Marc** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:30 pm

Atkins is gone. :rofl2:

B Calrissian · Post #12 » by **B Calrissian** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:36 am

Marc wrote:Atkins is gone.

Why so funny?

john2jer · Post #13 » by **john2jer** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:11 am

B Calrissian wrote:
Marc wrote:Atkins is gone.

Why so funny?

Why so serious?

B Calrissian · Post #14 » by **B Calrissian** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:32 am

john2jer wrote:
B Calrissian wrote:
Marc wrote:Atkins is gone.

Why so funny?

Why so serious?

Why so curious?
I just don't see Atkins being traded as funny. I like humor as much as the next guy and apparently I am missing out on some.

john2jer · Post #15 » by **john2jer** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:46 am

john2jer · Post #16 » by **john2jer** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:47 am

It's not funny.

B Calrissian · Post #17 » by **B Calrissian** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:59 am

john2jer wrote:It's not funny.

I didn't get your batman reference. Only saw the movie once after hearing it be praised by everyone and their momma. What a disappointment..
Speaking of movies, I saw Miami Vice the other night. Worse movie I have seen since The Wicker Man.

Boat scene (no dialogue), sex scene (a little dialogue), making tough faces scene (no dialogue), fight scene (a little dialogue), repeat..

john2jer · Post #18 » by **john2jer** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:04 am

There's a Miami Vice movie out? I need to get TV again just so I can see movie previews.

Narf · Post #19 » by **Narf** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:34 am

john2jer wrote:There's a Miami Vice movie out? I need to get TV again just so I can see movie previews.

No john, it's not the good Miami Vice. It's the "For the love of all that's holy, how could you do that?" Miami Vice.

Esohny · Post #20 » by **Esohny** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:03 pm

I know, I know, it's tough to accept that Colin Farrell FINALLY made a terrible film, but I'm afraid it's true.

On a semi-serious note, the movie would have been 10% better if the only change they made was Crockett and Tubbs were wearing Ice Cream colors and loafers with no socks.