The Trade Thread

rmfc · Post #2141 » by **rmfc** » Thu May 22, 2014 5:32 pm

MotownMadness wrote:What about this, Phoenix has 3 first rounders (14,18,27) in this draft and alot of capspace with not many players to spend it on besides Bledsoe. I just want back in this first round because it is loaded and would be willing to trade a future first to do so if we can also dump Smith in the process.

Phoenix trades pick 14 for Smith and our 2016 1st rounder
Or
18 and 27 for Smith and our 2016 1st rounder and this years 2nd rounder (38)

You want to give up a first round pick just to get rid of Smith?

No. Just no.

Any trades that include any of our first round picks should not even be considered.

MotownMadness · Post #2142 » by **MotownMadness** » Thu May 22, 2014 5:37 pm

rmfc wrote:
MotownMadness wrote:What about this, Phoenix has 3 first rounders (14,18,27) in this draft and alot of capspace with not many players to spend it on besides Bledsoe. I just want back in this first round because it is loaded and would be willing to trade a future first to do so if we can also dump Smith in the process.

Phoenix trades pick 14 for Smith and our 2016 1st rounder
Or
18 and 27 for Smith and our 2016 1st rounder and this years 2nd rounder (38)

You want to give up a first round pick just to get rid of Smith?

No. Just no.

Any trades that include any of our first round picks should not even be considered.

What's the difference if were getting one back this year where we don't have one? This draft is loaded and I would rather take a player now then in 2016.

pistontr · Post #2143 » by **pistontr** » Thu May 22, 2014 5:45 pm

"Cavaliers Began Receiving Trade Calls Immediately After Lottery"

monroe and kcp for wiggins?

rmfc · Post #2144 » by **rmfc** » Thu May 22, 2014 5:46 pm

MotownMadness wrote:
rmfc wrote:
MotownMadness wrote:What about this, Phoenix has 3 first rounders (14,18,27) in this draft and alot of capspace with not many players to spend it on besides Bledsoe. I just want back in this first round because it is loaded and would be willing to trade a future first to do so if we can also dump Smith in the process.

Phoenix trades pick 14 for Smith and our 2016 1st rounder
Or
18 and 27 for Smith and our 2016 1st rounder and this years 2nd rounder (38)

You want to give up a first round pick just to get rid of Smith?

No. Just no.

Any trades that include any of our first round picks should not even be considered.

What's the difference if were getting one back this year where we don't have one? This draft is loaded and I would rather take a player now then in 2016.

I am sorry but Smith can actually play basketball despite how he looked last season.
And, no to giving up next year's pick for #14 this year. There are no guarantees on how this team is going to perform in the future. Why give up assets already? We are not the Heat. Did we learn anything at all....from what just happened in the lottery?

MotownMadness · Post #2145 » by **MotownMadness** » Thu May 22, 2014 5:50 pm

rmfc wrote:
MotownMadness wrote:
rmfc wrote:
You want to give up a first round pick just to get rid of Smith?

No. Just no.

Any trades that include any of our first round picks should not even be considered.

What's the difference if were getting one back this year where we don't have one? This draft is loaded and I would rather take a player now then in 2016.

I am sorry but Smith can actually play basketball despite how he looked last season.
And, no to giving up next year's pick for #14 this year. There are no guarantees on how this team is going to perform in the future. Why give up assets already? We are not the Heat. Have we learned anything from what just happened in the lottery?

I said two years from now and Smith with his contract is poison to us with Monroe and Drummond here. 14 in this draft will more then likely be better than where we pick in 2016. Your giving up a asset and a bad contract for a asset now. We would be crazy not to swap picks in a loaded draft and dump Smith which would give us a additional 13 mil in capspace. I'm not sure why you think that's so crazy.

rmfc · Post #2146 » by **rmfc** » Thu May 22, 2014 6:00 pm

MotownMadness wrote:
rmfc wrote:
MotownMadness wrote:
What's the difference if were getting one back this year where we don't have one? This draft is loaded and I would rather take a player now then in 2016.

I am sorry but Smith can actually play basketball despite how he looked last season.
And, no to giving up next year's pick for #14 this year. There are no guarantees on how this team is going to perform in the future. Why give up assets already? We are not the Heat. Have we learned anything from what just happened in the lottery?

I said two years from now and Smith with his contract is poison to us with Monroe and Drummond here. 14 in this draft will more then likely be better than where we pick in 2016. Your giving up a asset and a bad contract for a asset now. We would be crazy not to swap picks in a loaded draft and dump Smith which would give us a additional 13 mil in capspace. I'm not sure why you think that's so crazy.

If you really think that the #14 this year = Josh Smith + a first rounder, then we just have to agree to disagree.
Josh is a misfit on this roster....not a "poison contract".

MotownMadness · Post #2147 » by **MotownMadness** » Thu May 22, 2014 6:05 pm

rmfc wrote:
MotownMadness wrote:
rmfc wrote:
I am sorry but Smith can actually play basketball despite how he looked last season.
And, no to giving up next year's pick for #14 this year. There are no guarantees on how this team is going to perform in the future. Why give up assets already? We are not the Heat. Have we learned anything from what just happened in the lottery?

I said two years from now and Smith with his contract is poison to us with Monroe and Drummond here. 14 in this draft will more then likely be better than where we pick in 2016. Your giving up a asset and a bad contract for a asset now. We would be crazy not to swap picks in a loaded draft and dump Smith which would give us a additional 13 mil in capspace. I'm not sure why you think that's so crazy.

If you really think that the #14 this year = Josh Smith + a first rounder, then we just have to agree to disagree.
Josh is a misfit on this roster....not a "poison contract".

A bad fit with that contract is poison and yes 14 in this draft could be like a top 8 pick in most drafts. So yes I do it without hesitation.

c-dot · Post #2148 » by **c-dot** » Thu May 22, 2014 7:32 pm

Why dont we just do Smith for E. Gordon straight up? Sounds like it makes sense for both teams.

Neptune · Post #2149 » by **Neptune** » Thu May 22, 2014 7:45 pm

MotownMadness wrote:Phoenix trades pick 14 for Smith and our 2016 1st rounder
Or
18 and 27 for Smith and our 2016 1st rounder and this years 2nd rounder (38)

No

There's no need to attach a first rounder to Smith when he doesn't suck. It's disrespectful how short you guys sell Smith.

c-dot wrote:Why dont we just do Smith for E. Gordon straight up? Sounds like it makes sense for both teams.

Why trade a player who's perfectly healthy(Smith) for a guy who can't stay healthy(Gordon)?

MotownMadness · Post #2150 » by **MotownMadness** » Thu May 22, 2014 8:12 pm

Neptune wrote:
MotownMadness wrote:Phoenix trades pick 14 for Smith and our 2016 1st rounder
Or
18 and 27 for Smith and our 2016 1st rounder and this years 2nd rounder (38)

No

There's no need to attach a first rounder to Smith when he doesn't suck. It's disrespectful how short you guys sell Smith.

c-dot wrote:Why dont we just do Smith for E. Gordon straight up? Sounds like it makes sense for both teams.

Why trade a player who's perfectly healthy(Smith) for a guy who can't stay healthy(Gordon)?

Like I didnt attach a first rounder in a loaded draft thats about a month away coming back to us in the deal.

504ByrdGang · Post #2151 » by **504ByrdGang** » Thu May 22, 2014 8:40 pm

c-dot wrote:Why dont we just do Smith for E. Gordon straight up? Sounds like it makes sense for both teams.

Why would they do that when EG has one year left with a player option and has been unhappy in his situation since day 1. Also they have Anderson and Davis at the 4.

c-dot · Post #2152 » by **c-dot** » Thu May 22, 2014 8:54 pm

504ByrdGang wrote:
c-dot wrote:Why dont we just do Smith for E. Gordon straight up? Sounds like it makes sense for both teams.

Why would they do that when EG has one year left with a player option and has been unhappy in his situation since day 1. Also they have Anderson and Davis at the 4.

That player option is for 15 million, he's not turning that down. And they have Evans, Holiday and Rivers, all Combos like Gordon. I think they rather have 3 bigs than 4 combos.

504ByrdGang · Post #2153 » by **504ByrdGang** » Thu May 22, 2014 8:59 pm

c-dot wrote:
504ByrdGang wrote:
c-dot wrote:Why dont we just do Smith for E. Gordon straight up? Sounds like it makes sense for both teams.

Why would they do that when EG has one year left with a player option and has been unhappy in his situation since day 1. Also they have Anderson and Davis at the 4.

That player option is for 15 million, he's not turning that down. And they have Evans, Holiday and Rivers, all Combos like Gordon. I think they rather have 3 bigs than 4 combos.

If you have a superstar in the making like AD your not trying to sign anyone else to take his minutes. Gordon may opt out he will only be 25 and if he was to stay healthy this season I'm sure he would rather take a chance for a longer contract rather than risk his career for a last pay day.

MotownMadness · Post #2154 » by **MotownMadness** » Thu May 22, 2014 9:08 pm

504ByrdGang wrote:
c-dot wrote:
504ByrdGang wrote:Why would they do that when EG has one year left with a player option and has been unhappy in his situation since day 1. Also they have Anderson and Davis at the 4.

That player option is for 15 million, he's not turning that down. And they have Evans, Holiday and Rivers, all Combos like Gordon. I think they rather have 3 bigs than 4 combos.

If you have a superstar in the making like AD your not trying to sign anyone else to take his minutes. Gordon may opt out he will only be 25 and if he was to stay healthy this season I'm sure he would rather take a chance for a longer contract rather than risk his career for a last pay day.

Dont be to sure, Dumars is rumored as a possibility to become GM of the Pelicans right now.

504ByrdGang · Post #2155 » by **504ByrdGang** » Thu May 22, 2014 9:09 pm

MotownMadness wrote:
504ByrdGang wrote:
c-dot wrote:
That player option is for 15 million, he's not turning that down. And they have Evans, Holiday and Rivers, all Combos like Gordon. I think they rather have 3 bigs than 4 combos.

If you have a superstar in the making like AD your not trying to sign anyone else to take his minutes. Gordon may opt out he will only be 25 and if he was to stay healthy this season I'm sure he would rather take a chance for a longer contract rather than risk his career for a last pay day.

Dont be to sure, Dumars is rumored as a possibility to become GM of the Pelicans right now.

That would be idiotic he just ruin one organization so they would hire him to ruin another.

Neptune · Post #2156 » by **Neptune** » Thu May 22, 2014 9:59 pm

MotownMadness wrote:Like I didnt attach a first rounder in a loaded draft thats about a month away coming back to us in the deal.

I know you want to dump Smith, but it's rare we'll find equal talent compared to Smith at 14 or 18+27. Then on top of that, we're trading a future 1st rounder( :-?

). Maybe there's some sleepers in the draft, but I don't see the entire 2014 1st round deep with starting caliber talent like that.

c-dot · Post #2157 » by **c-dot** » Thu May 22, 2014 10:05 pm

504ByrdGang wrote:
MotownMadness wrote:
504ByrdGang wrote:If you have a superstar in the making like AD your not trying to sign anyone else to take his minutes. Gordon may opt out he will only be 25 and if he was to stay healthy this season I'm sure he would rather take a chance for a longer contract rather than risk his career for a last pay day.

Dont be to sure, Dumars is rumored as a possibility to become GM of the Pelicans right now.

That would be idiotic he just ruin one organization so they would hire him to ruin another.

What organization did Dumars ruin?

Q00 · Post #2158 » by **Q00** » Thu May 22, 2014 11:38 pm

Hypothetical:

Lets say MIN trades Love for the Celtics/Lakers pick and then has money to spend in FA on a big man to replace him, and they target Monroe to pair with Dieng longterm.

They offer him the max at 14.5 mil/yr (essentially giving him Love's salary slot). But because they will no longer need Pekovic if signing Monroe, and would like to get out of his contract if possible, they offer him back in a S&T deal.

The Pistons then have the option to match and keep Monroe at 14.5 mil/yr over 4 years, or get Pekovic at 12 mil/yr over 4 years.

Which would you choose?

2014 stats

Monroe: 15 pts, 9 rebs on 50% FG in 33 mpg

Pekovic: 18 pts, 9 rebs on 54% FG in 31 mpg

rmfc · Post #2159 » by **rmfc** » Thu May 22, 2014 11:50 pm

Q00 wrote:Hypothetical:

Lets say MIN trades Love for the Celtics/Lakers pick and then has money to spend in FA on a big man to replace him, and they target Monroe to pair with Dieng longterm.

They offer him the max at 14.5 mil/yr (essentially giving him Love's salary slot). But because they will no longer need Pekovic if signing Monroe, and would like to get out of his contract if possible, they offer him back in a S&T deal.

The Pistons then have the option to match and keep Monroe at 14.5 mil/yr over 4 years, or get Pekovic at 12 mil/yr over 4 years.

Which would you choose?

2014 stats

Monroe: 15 pts, 9 rebs on 50% FG in 33 mpg

Pekovic: 18 pts, 9 rebs on 54% FG in 31 mpg

Pekovic is a C. Why would we need him? (4/12 for Pek is a good deal, though)

mercury · Post #2160 » by **mercury** » Fri May 23, 2014 12:22 am

I think c-dot is on the right track... if you get a 3rd team involved it could work for all sides.
I'd take my chances with KCP splitting time between SG/SF... a healthy Gordon (removing Smith's salary) is a definite asset.