Den/CHI--Dunleavy for Chandler

Leto · Post #1 » by **Leto** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 2:45 am

CHI out: Dunleavy, Moore, Bairstow, Sac 1st round pick and the better of Chicago/CLE 1st round pick in 2015
Chi in: Wilson Chandler and the lesser of POR/CHI 2nd round pick to Chicago

Why for Chicago? They send two fist round picks to get this done, but its an upgrade to Dunleavy on the defensive side of the floor without losing much in shooting and still maintaining some depth by keeping Snell for spot minutes at SG.

Den out: Chandler and the lesser of POR/CHI 2nd round pick in 2015 via CLE.
Den in: Dunleavy, Moore, Bairstow, Sac 1st round pick and the better of Chicago/CLE 1st round pick in 2015

Why for Denver? They get two 1st round picks and a serviceable SF in Dunleavy who expires at the end of the season for Chandler. Bairstow and Moore are basically fillers.

http://basketball.realgm.com/tradecheck ... de/6531572

Caveat: This trade has to happen after Dec 18th.

nomansland · Post #2 » by **nomansland** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 4:29 am

If the Nugs blow it up (which I'm starting to think they should), I'd do it.

skywalker33 · Post #3 » by **skywalker33** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 4:47 am

Call the commish...get it done !!

drosestruts · Post #4 » by **drosestruts** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 5:25 am

This leaves us in the same position depth wise we're in now but we give up to picks.

It's debatable whether Chandler is even an upgrade, he's not worth 1st round picks.

Post #5 » by **loserX** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 5:31 am

Two first round picks for Wilson Chandler? Man, that seems a bit steep.

skywalker33 · Post #6 » by **skywalker33** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 6:11 am

loserX wrote:Two first round picks for Wilson Chandler? Man, that seems a bit steep.

Hey man, don't just dismiss the value of that really late 2nd..... :lol:

Leto · Post #7 » by **Leto** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 12:58 pm

loserX wrote:Two first round picks for Wilson Chandler? Man, that seems a bit steep.

You're probably right. Maybe just send them the Sac pick.

Post #8 » by **MoneyTalks41890** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 1:17 pm

Leto wrote:
loserX wrote:Two first round picks for Wilson Chandler? Man, that seems a bit steep.

You're probably right. Maybe just send them the Sac pick.

This is what I think.

Denver can then move AA for a young SG and a pick, and be in a pretty good spot.

Post #9 » by **JDR720** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 1:29 pm

Im no Dunleavy or Chandler expert....but im pretty sure the difference between the two of them is not worth 2 1st round picks

BadWolf · Post #10 » by **BadWolf** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 3:20 pm

what if you switch Dunleavey with McD? Take out Kings pick, not sure about the other one.

torotoe · Post #11 » by **torotoe** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 3:28 pm

I'd strongly consider this deal if I were the Nuggets GM, and If Chicago wanted Gee, he could be included too.

Leto · Post #12 » by **Leto** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 7:16 pm

torotoe wrote:I'd strongly consider this deal if I were the Nuggets GM, and If Chicago wanted Gee, he could be included too.

Can't do that because we don't have the outgoing salary to match. And we don't need him anyway.

King Ken · Post #13 » by **King Ken** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 7:21 pm

A great deal for Denver if they are rebuilding which they aren't.

Leto · Post #14 » by **Leto** » Tue Dec 9, 2014 11:12 pm

King Ken wrote:A great deal for Denver if they are rebuilding which they aren't.

I don't think rebuilding is a prerequisite for making a trade.

Leto · Post #15 » by **Leto** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:58 pm

Bump.

Post #16 » by **jbk1234** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:04 pm

Denver's GM gets real excited and then looks at the protections on the Sac pick. Essentially, this is a very late first and swapping around some second round picks.

Leto · Post #17 » by **Leto** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:10 pm

jbk1234 wrote:Denver's GM gets real excited and then looks at the protections on the Sac pick. Essentially, this is a very late first and swapping around some second round picks.

Essentially, that is some wild speculation on your part. It's just as likely, if not more so, to be a mid first and a late first plus a useful expiring and salary relief.

pipfan · Post #18 » by **pipfan** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:12 pm

The Sac pick will almost surely by 11-14 this year.

The 7 eastern lottery teams, plus LA, Utah and Minny will all finish below, Denver maybe. Bulls will get the pick this year

Post #19 » by **jbk1234** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:19 pm

Leto wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:Denver's GM gets real excited and then looks at the protections on the Sac pick. Essentially, this is a very late first and swapping around some second round picks.

Essentially, that is some wild speculation on your part. It's just as likely, if not more so, to be a mid first and a late first plus a useful expiring and salary relief.

It's protected 1-10 until 2017. The owner just fired the best coach they've had in a decade. OKC is healthy and the rest of the West is stacked. Dallas is the only old team. It's possible that Sacramento could get into that 11-13 range.

Leto · Post #20 » by **Leto** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:49 am

jbk1234 wrote:
Leto wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:Denver's GM gets real excited and then looks at the protections on the Sac pick. Essentially, this is a very late first and swapping around some second round picks.

Essentially, that is some wild speculation on your part. It's just as likely, if not more so, to be a mid first and a late first plus a useful expiring and salary relief.

It's protected 1-10 until 2017. The owner just fired the best coach they've had in a decade. OKC is healthy and the rest of the West is stacked. Dallas is the only old team. It's possible that Sacramento could get into that 11-13 range.

Yes. Top 10 protected. Right now the Bulls would get the #13 pick from them and its going to be really hard to be worse than Philly, Detroit, Minny, Utah, Indy, Orlando, Lakers, Charlotte, New York and Boston.