The Trade Thread

Laimbeer · Post #1661 » by **Laimbeer** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:15 pm

Trade forum idea -

Holiday for 8th, Jennings

Neptune · Post #1662 » by **Neptune** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:21 pm

Laimbeer wrote:Trade forum idea -

Holiday for 8th, Jennings

Oh Absolutely! This is coming from a Jennings fan too.

jakebernat · Post #1663 » by **jakebernat** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:25 pm

Laimbeer wrote:Trade forum idea -

Holiday for 8th, Jennings

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm pretty sure we need to take back a 1st rounder if we trade the 8th pick since rules state you can't be void of a 1st rounder two consecutive years.

bballnmike · Post #1664 » by **bballnmike** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:14 pm

jakebernat wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:Trade forum idea -

Holiday for 8th, Jennings

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm pretty sure we need to take back a 1st rounder if we trade the 8th pick since rules state you can't be void of a 1st rounder two consecutive years.

What if we make the pick, then package the rights to that guy with Jennings? Is something like that allowed?

The Penguin · Post #1665 » by **The Penguin** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:29 pm

bballnmike wrote:
jakebernat wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:Trade forum idea -

Holiday for 8th, Jennings

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm pretty sure we need to take back a 1st rounder if we trade the 8th pick since rules state you can't be void of a 1st rounder two consecutive years.

What if we make the pick, then package the rights to that guy with Jennings? Is something like that allowed?

Yes, that's allowed. As soon as we announce a guy we can trade him and it wouldn't count as trading back to back 1sts.

On a related note, isn't it time we kill the "can't trade back to back 1sts" rule? It was put in because of one guy 30 years ago and the league has shown it'll kill deals that "aren't in the best interest of the league". That one seems a little outdated given the current thinking with the value of 1sts.

Laimbeer · Post #1666 » by **Laimbeer** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:37 pm

Piston Prince wrote:
bballnmike wrote:
jakebernat wrote:Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm pretty sure we need to take back a 1st rounder if we trade the 8th pick since rules state you can't be void of a 1st rounder two consecutive years.

What if we make the pick, then package the rights to that guy with Jennings? Is something like that allowed?

Yes, that's allowed. As soon as we announce a guy we can trade him and it wouldn't count as trading back to back 1sts.

On a related note, isn't it time we kill the "can't trade back to back 1sts" rule? It was put in because of one guy 30 years ago and the league has shown it'll kill deals that "aren't in the best interest of the league". That one seems a little outdated given the current thinking with the value of 1sts.

Yeah but if it weren't for that rule the Knicks and Nets wouldn't have one for the next ten years or so.

sfballa13 · Post #1667 » by **sfballa13** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:45 pm

Laimbeer wrote:Trade forum idea -

Holiday for 8th, Jennings

Id even try to include Tyreke and send back Smith. Both teams get a redo from last offseason and the Pelicans get a top 10 pick.

Smith and Davis would look really nice together

Smith, Jennings, #8
for
JRue, Reke

It's not ideal but it's a starting point. The trade would work adding Jerebko and Ryan Anderson but doubt the Pelicans want to trade him as well.

JRue / Siva
KCP / Singler
Reke /
Monroe / Mitchell
Drummond / Harrelson

Post #1668 » by **theBigLip** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:33 pm

sfballa13 wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:Trade forum idea -

Holiday for 8th, Jennings

Id even try to include Tyreke and send back Smith. Both teams get a redo from last offseason and the Pelicans get a top 10 pick.

Smith and Davis would look really nice together

Smith, Jennings, #8
for
JRue, Reke

It's not ideal but it's a starting point. The trade would work adding Jerebko and Ryan Anderson but doubt the Pelicans want to trade him as well.

JRue / Siva
KCP / Singler
Reke /
Monroe / Mitchell
Drummond / Harrelson

If we're drafting 8, then we don't get a game changer. So a trade like this would work Getting rid of Jennings and Smith in the same trade? Priceless.

MotownMadness · Post #1669 » by **MotownMadness** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:08 pm

Laimbeer wrote:Trade forum idea -

Holiday for 8th, Jennings

Absolutely, I would love this.

Blkbrd671 · Post #1670 » by **Blkbrd671** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:10 am

Brandon Jennings+#8

for

Carl Landry,Quincy Acy+#7(Smart)

Why for Sac?

Many of us have them taking smart, simply because the values there, however they currently have Isiah T. and R. Macollum , so PG is necessarily a need for them. The incentive is they turn Landry's 3 year contract into Jennings 2 year contract. i would guess jennings would play the role of 6th man

Why for Detroit?
We secure our PG of the future, and rid our selves of no defense jennings. We lose some financial flexibility however Landry's a decent big off the bench and Quincy Acy is a hustle type big man.

Laimbeer · Post #1671 » by **Laimbeer** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:14 am

sfballa13 wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:Trade forum idea -

Holiday for 8th, Jennings

Id even try to include Tyreke and send back Smith. Both teams get a redo from last offseason and the Pelicans get a top 10 pick.

Smith and Davis would look really nice together

Smith, Jennings, #8
for
JRue, Reke

It's not ideal but it's a starting point. The trade would work adding Jerebko and Ryan Anderson but doubt the Pelicans want to trade him as well.

JRue / Siva
KCP / Singler
Reke /
Monroe / Mitchell
Drummond / Harrelson

A screaming steal with Smith/Reke, too good to be true with Jerebko/Anderson, too. Don't think NO touches it.

ImHeisenberg · Post #1672 » by **ImHeisenberg** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:18 am

Can we re-name this the "bad trade thread"? 8-)

Laimbeer · Post #1673 » by **Laimbeer** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:29 am

Blkbrd671 wrote:Brandon Jennings+#8

for

Carl Landry,Quincy Acy+#7(Smart)

Why for Sac?

Many of us have them taking smart, simply because the values there, however they currently have Isiah T. and R. Macollum , so PG is necessarily a need for them. The incentive is they turn Landry's 3 year contract into Jennings 2 year contract. i would guess jennings would play the role of 6th man

Why for Detroit?
We secure our PG of the future, and rid our selves of no defense jennings. We lose some financial flexibility however Landry's a decent big off the bench and Quincy Acy is a hustle type big man.

Interesting. I have the sense their fanbase is as desperate to unload Landry as we are Jennings. But another power forward?

Neptune · Post #1674 » by **Neptune** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:57 am

sfballa13 wrote:Smith, Jennings, #8
for
JRue, Reke

No

Blkbrd671 wrote:Brandon Jennings+#8

for

Carl Landry,Quincy Acy+#7(Smart)

Pistons definitely won't do it. Monroe more than likely doesn't want to play with a rookie PG and if we pick Smart he'll play the 2 and part-time 1.

DCintheD · Post #1675 » by **DCintheD** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:46 am

ImHeisenberg wrote:Can we re-name this the "bad trade thread"?

For real. These are terrible. Jennings plus 8 in a deep draft for Holliday?? C'mon maaaan!!

Notanoob · Post #1676 » by **Notanoob** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:55 am

Blkbrd671 wrote:Brandon Jennings+#8

for

Carl Landry,Quincy Acy+#7(Smart)

Why for Sac?

Many of us have them taking smart, simply because the values there, however they currently have Isiah T. and R. Macollum , so PG is necessarily a need for them. The incentive is they turn Landry's 3 year contract into Jennings 2 year contract. i would guess jennings would play the role of 6th man

Why for Detroit?
We secure our PG of the future, and rid our selves of no defense jennings. We lose some financial flexibility however Landry's a decent big off the bench and Quincy Acy is a hustle type big man.

While I doubt that they have interest in taking back Jennings, there is no way that we need to give them the 8th pick if we're taking on Landry's contract. That contract is terrible. If anything, it should be expiring contracts for Landry and 7. Maybe we take on Terry and buy him out so that they save enough cash short term to keep Thomas, or at least sign-and-trade him. The fans (not sure about the GM, who was dumb enough to sign Landry in the first place) are desperate to move on from Landry, who is a seriously overpaid backup PF at best who is on the wrong side of 30 and recently injured. We might have to add a little value to make them feel better about dumping a pick to move on from a mistake, but it shouldn't be too much. Landry is a really bad deal.

Blkbrd671 · Post #1677 » by **Blkbrd671** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:54 am

Neptune wrote:
sfballa13 wrote:Smith, Jennings, #8
for
JRue, Reke

No

Blkbrd671 wrote:Brandon Jennings+#8

for

Carl Landry,Quincy Acy+#7(Smart)

Pistons definitely won't do it. Monroe more than likely doesn't want to play with a rookie PG and if we pick Smart he'll play the 2 and part-time 1.

i don't pretend to know what Monroe does or doesn't want. I do know that we need a change at PG, and at #7-8. Smart is tremendous value. we need a player who is effective with the ball in his hands, smart is that player, he's also has the skill set to defend effectively in this league. and yes he can play the 2.

Like to remind you that we had a similar record with a developing pg in Knight and less talent surrounding him.

Blkbrd671 · Post #1678 » by **Blkbrd671** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:59 am

Notanoob wrote:
Blkbrd671 wrote:Brandon Jennings+#8

for

Carl Landry,Quincy Acy+#7(Smart)

Why for Sac?

Many of us have them taking smart, simply because the values there, however they currently have Isiah T. and R. Macollum , so PG is necessarily a need for them. The incentive is they turn Landry's 3 year contract into Jennings 2 year contract. i would guess jennings would play the role of 6th man

Why for Detroit?
We secure our PG of the future, and rid our selves of no defense jennings. We lose some financial flexibility however Landry's a decent big off the bench and Quincy Acy is a hustle type big man.
While I doubt that they have interest in taking back Jennings, there is no way that we need to give them the 8th pick if we're taking on Landry's contract. That contract is terrible. If anything, it should be expiring contracts for Landry and 7. Maybe we take on Terry and buy him out so that they save enough cash short term to keep Thomas, or at least sign-and-trade him. The fans (not sure about the GM, who was dumb enough to sign Landry in the first place) are desperate to move on from Landry, who is a seriously overpaid backup PF at best who is on the wrong side of 30 and recently injured. We might have to add a little value to make them feel better about dumping a pick to move on from a mistake, but it shouldn't be too much. Landry is a really bad deal.

SAC wouldn't make that trade, i don't think they want smith. Landry is not worth 6.5 mil per, but i think is better than any current back up PF we currently have

Blkbrd671 · Post #1679 » by **Blkbrd671** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:00 am

Laimbeer wrote:
Blkbrd671 wrote:Brandon Jennings+#8

for

Carl Landry,Quincy Acy+#7(Smart)

Why for Sac?

Many of us have them taking smart, simply because the values there, however they currently have Isiah T. and R. Macollum , so PG is necessarily a need for them. The incentive is they turn Landry's 3 year contract into Jennings 2 year contract. i would guess jennings would play the role of 6th man

Why for Detroit?
We secure our PG of the future, and rid our selves of no defense jennings. We lose some financial flexibility however Landry's a decent big off the bench and Quincy Acy is a hustle type big man.

Interesting. I have the sense their fanbase is as desperate to unload Landry as we are Jennings. But another power forward?

I would assume we dump smith for expiring and sign moose

Notanoob · Post #1680 » by **Notanoob** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:30 am

Blkbrd671 wrote:SAC wouldn't make that trade, i don't think they want smith. Landry is not worth 6.5 mil per, but i think is better than any current back up PF we currently have

I didn't suggest sending them Smith. And Landry is not better than Moose or Smith, whoever you send to the bench. He's a below average backup, who's aging, hurt, declining, and on a long term deal getting paid over $6 million a year. That's a very bad contract. Sure, it isn't a gigantic part of a team's salary cap, but you are getting pretty much no value from it, especially the Kings, who have Williams, Thompson and Evans at PF already. I don't know if they'd accept Landry+7 for our expiring contracts, but I know we don't need to send them #8 to get #7 if we're taking on Landry. There's a thread about this on the T&T board, although I don't think that it's still on the first page anymore.