Trade idea what do you think

AingesBurner · Post #1 » by **AingesBurner** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:22 am

Not going to put reasonings for why because I dont have time but I will add LAC sends their pick to Utah and Boston sends their 1st and 2nd to New Orleans.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=bcdu7jv

Cappsy11 · Post #2 » by **Cappsy11** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:38 am

Sorry to say mate but what garbage that trade is, especially when the Jazz would get 2 players who dont want to be here in Pierce and Odom. they dont fit in.
Jefferson actually wants to stay here so unless we get someone with complete upside rather than 2 old past there prime players .. No deal

dr0welf · Post #3 » by **dr0welf** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:53 am

I can see the Clippers doing this but I don't see any of the other teams involved excited to pull the trigger. Utah is a definate no as Pierce and Odom like Casppsy said are opposite of the youth movement we are going for. And to trade our 2 top scorers for aging players makes no sense. Nothing against Pierce, but how many more years is he able to stay at his current level? Not many.

And the Clippers to get Garnett and Jefferson, which one of those 2 do you think is willing to come off the bench? I don't see that happening. And the Celtics are seriously blowing up their team in this trade. Pretty drastic and they aren't even getting a Garnett type player back in the deal.

kebutah · Post #4 » by **kebutah** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:58 am

This the the type of trade that gets GMs fired.

The59Sound · Post #5 » by **The59Sound** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:57 am

I love and want to acquire Grievous Vasquez, but this particular trade is pretty bad for us. Odom would never suit up, and Pierce definitely wouldn't want to play here, in addition to his being out-of-sync with our youth movement.

EDIT: And Danny Ainge is rolling over in his grave.

AingesBurner · Post #6 » by **AingesBurner** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:54 am

The59Sound wrote:I love and want to acquire Grievous Vasquez, but this particular trade is pretty bad for us. Odom would never suit up, and Pierce definitely wouldn't want to play here, in addition to his being out-of-sync with our youth movement.

EDIT: And Danny Ainge is rolling over in his grave.

I really was looking at Odom is going to be a FA, Pierce is partially guaranteed next year but if he was cool with playing for the Jazz he could help develop Hayward and Burks more, which is an added bonus. Pierce is a pro, he would honor is contract (offseason trade bait?); he is a better SF than Williams, Williams would play back up PF.
Jazz also get a pick in this trade.

AingesBurner · Post #7 » by **AingesBurner** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:55 am

dr0welf wrote:I can see the Clippers doing this but I don't see any of the other teams involved excited to pull the trigger. Utah is a definate no as Pierce and Odom like Casppsy said are opposite of the youth movement we are going for. And to trade our 2 top scorers for aging players makes no sense. Nothing against Pierce, but how many more years is he able to stay at his current level? Not many.

And the Clippers to get Garnett and Jefferson, which one of those 2 do you think is willing to come off the bench? I don't see that happening. And the Celtics are seriously blowing up their team in this trade. Pretty drastic and they aren't even getting a Garnett type player back in the deal.

I honestly think that KG is coming of the bench but in another ring hunt he would be ok with that.

RyanStorm · Post #8 » by **RyanStorm** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:52 am

Jefferson isn't worth trading, not when you don't have a centerpiece after he is gone, or no centerpiece to replace him. If the worst thing to happen to us is Kanter rides bench for the next 2-3 years, it wouldn't be a bad thing at all. At least as long as Jefferson continues to progress and form his game around this team and jazz basketball. He is completely capable of being a 20-10 every night with +50% shooting.

Millsap has run his days, and has nothing left for us, while still having something that other teams need. I think everyone can agree Favors is ready to take Millsaps spot, over Kanter being ready to take Jeffersons spot. I personally think Kanter could take Jeffersons place, but when it comes to those situations, he isn't ready in terms of experience. Both Kanter and Favors are naturally talented beyond just being bench.

Then again, if the worst thing to happen to us is we let Marvin, Paul and Al walk away, and Favors, Kanter and Hayward take start roles, then I think that might end up being the best thing for us in terms of the long run, assuming we can do a package deal for Marvin, Paul and Al and get some extra 1st round picks.

This Year: Next Year:
Tins-Foye-Marvin-Millsap-Jefferson ---> Draft-Foye-Hayward-Favors-Jefferson

Burks-Hayward-Carroll-Evans-Kanter ----> Tins-Burks-Carroll-Draft-Kanter

Gone: Mo, Marvin, Bell, Millsap and Watson = 30.8 million in assets

Neon Black · Post #9 » by **Neon Black** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:33 am

Underkanter wrote: Pierce is partially guaranteed next year but if he was cool with playing for the Jazz he could help develop Hayward and Burks more, which is an added bonus.

I disagree with the notion that Hayward needs to develop more. Hayward should be getting 9-10 more minutes a game right now. We are significantly worse without him, and his play and stats scream that he's ready for more minutes - whether that's in a starting role or off the bench doesn't matter.

If Hayward and Paul George swapped teams, it would be the exact same thing. Gordon would be averaging 36 minutes in Indiana and having a breakout year, while George would be limited to 26 mpg on our bench due to his "youth".

Neon Black · Post #10 » by **Neon Black** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:33 am

Underkanter wrote: Pierce is partially guaranteed next year but if he was cool with playing for the Jazz he could help develop Hayward and Burks more, which is an added bonus.

I disagree with the notion that Hayward needs to develop more. Hayward should be getting 9-10 more minutes a game right now. We are significantly worse without him, and his play and stats scream that he's ready for more minutes - whether that's in a starting role or off the bench doesn't matter.

If Hayward and Paul George swapped teams, it would be the exact same thing. Gordon would be averaging 36 minutes in Indiana and having a breakout year, while George would be limited to 26 mpg on our bench due to his "youth".

TheStig15 · Post #11 » by **TheStig15** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:09 am

Neon Black wrote:
Underkanter wrote: Pierce is partially guaranteed next year but if he was cool with playing for the Jazz he could help develop Hayward and Burks more, which is an added bonus.

I disagree with the notion that Hayward needs to develop more. Hayward should be getting 9-10 more minutes a game right now. We are significantly worse without him, and his play and stats scream that he's ready for more minutes - whether that's in a starting role or off the bench doesn't matter.

If Hayward and Paul George swapped teams, it would be the exact same thing. Gordon would be averaging 36 minutes in Indiana and having a breakout year, while George would be limited to 26 mpg on our bench due to his "youth".

I totally agree

TheStig15 · Post #12 » by **TheStig15** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:09 am

Neon Black wrote:
Underkanter wrote: Pierce is partially guaranteed next year but if he was cool with playing for the Jazz he could help develop Hayward and Burks more, which is an added bonus.

I disagree with the notion that Hayward needs to develop more. Hayward should be getting 9-10 more minutes a game right now. We are significantly worse without him, and his play and stats scream that he's ready for more minutes - whether that's in a starting role or off the bench doesn't matter.

If Hayward and Paul George swapped teams, it would be the exact same thing. Gordon would be averaging 36 minutes in Indiana and having a breakout year, while George would be limited to 26 mpg on our bench due to his "youth".

I totally agree