Trade Targets (postcript on yesterday-other teams)

wichmae · Post #6761 » by **wichmae** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:11 pm

dc634 wrote:
tski1972 wrote:could the Bucks have taken on McGee/1st?

Sure, but it wouldn't make as much sense for this team. McGee's salary would take place of Larry's and that would be pointless. The '6ers aren't going to be using that cap in FA as they are all in on the draft.

They could not have taken on McGee. We dont have 11 mil in space

Giannis Parker · Post #6762 » by **Giannis Parker** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:12 pm

EastSideBucksFan wrote:
Newz wrote:Can anyone explain to me why we want Ty Lawson?

I keep seeing people wanting to trade for him. Why? Why does anyone think that's a good move?

He's 2nd in the NBA in assists and averaging almost double assists what our starting point guard is averaging.

Bet Lawson drops 3-4 apg playing with the Bucks and their team system.

Post #6763 » by **humanrefutation** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:12 pm

TroyD92 wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:Randive is nuts. Let's go get DeMarcus.

Henson/Knight/Clips 1st/Bucks lotto-protected 2016 1st for Cousins.

Kings would laugh.

They should laugh at that, but I'd never put anything past Vivek.

Larry Hensen · Post #6764 » by **Larry Hensen** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:12 pm

No Lawson today boys

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Dcebucks11 · Post #6765 » by **Dcebucks11** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:12 pm

[tweet]https://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA/status/568457927989837824[/tweet]

good news

xTitan · Post #6766 » by **xTitan** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:13 pm

Newz wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:
Newz wrote:Can anyone explain to me why we want Ty Lawson?

I keep seeing people wanting to trade for him. Why? Why does anyone think that's a good move?

I think the rationale would be he'd be acquired to take Knight's place. He will cost less than Knight most likely and I think the chances of him being better the next two seasons after this one are well over 50%. I don't think he'd be the long-term answer, we'd still need to find a young one, but Lawson is 27, not 32. He'd be a 2.5 year stopgap and he's a top half of league starter.

I could be wrong. I think the plan would be to retain Knight and run with a Lawson/Knight backcourt.

Maybe I'm wrong though. If I am that plan isn't that bad, I guess. But it seems like adding a 2.5 year stop gap to inflate your win total is the exact opposite of what the owners promised to do and what I'd want to see.

That would be an awful backcourt, tiny, no defense....plus you would need a big time rim protector, especially if you throw Parker's defense in there. I just can't see Kidd, a 6'5" PG going with 2 little guys in the backcourt.

Post #6767 » by **humanrefutation** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:13 pm

Dcebucks11 wrote:[tweet]https://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA/status/568457927989837824[/tweet]

good news

So...unless they decide to make another trade, they won't make another trade?

Thanks, Woj.

GHOSTofSIKMA · Post #6768 » by **GHOSTofSIKMA** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:13 pm

Lawson is a good player signed to a good contract. a similar situation to the player we picked up in cassell. I think your overthinking things if you wouldn't want him.

HurricaneKid · Post #6769 » by **HurricaneKid** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:13 pm

He is a ball dominant PG that directly flies in the face of the way we play; he also has degenerative ankles (same as DWill). He will be terrible in 3 years when we will need a PG to lead us to the promise land. I'd rather just keep Knight and hope we can minimize his weaknesses. Makes no sense to our style and makes no sense to our window.

LUKE23 · Post #6770 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:14 pm

If the plan was to acquire Lawson and pair him with Knight, then I'd obviously be against it. My plan would be acquire Lawson, trade Knight, re-up Middleton.

emunney · Post #6771 » by **emunney** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:14 pm

The McGee deal is hilarious. Hinkie basically taking the money that would have been distributed among the 6ers and giving it all to McGee. Bet they're pleased.

Newz · Post #6772 » by **Newz** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:15 pm

LUKE23 wrote:If the plan was to acquire Lawson and pair him with Knight, then I'd obviously be against it. My plan would be acquire Lawson, trade Knight, re-up Middleton.

I do not think the organization is bluffing about being in love with Knight. I think they view him as part of the long-term core and a player they're willing to match anything to bring back.

SkilesTheLimit · Post #6773 » by **SkilesTheLimit** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:15 pm

LUKE23 wrote:If the plan was to acquire Lawson and pair him with Knight, then I'd obviously be against it. My plan would be acquire Lawson, trade Knight, re-up Middleton.

JayMKE · Post #6774 » by **JayMKE** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:16 pm

Newz wrote:
JayMKE wrote:
Newz wrote:Can anyone explain to me why we want Ty Lawson?

I keep seeing people wanting to trade for him. Why? Why does anyone think that's a good move?

pure point, lock up for few more years on a favorable contract, would force Knight to play off the ball?

Lawson is a sub-six foot PG whose game relies a lot on his speed. I agree we likely have him for the remainder of his good years and then he expires... but do you really think that the Lawson/Knight backcourt is a good idea? Our defensive system is based on length and that combination lacks length big time. In addition you are likely looking at one of the most ball dominant backcourts in the entire league.

So you give up assets to add Lawson for 2-3 years and then either lose him or give him a bad contract into his 30's because odds are he won't be much of a player in his later years given his size.

To me adding Lawson seems like the very definition of a Herb Kohl move UNLESS the idea is to trade Knight/let him go in free agency. Then we could use Lawson as a stop gap starter until we find a better option... and even then it still seems like a Herb Kohl move because you are just using a veteran to prop up your win total for a couple of years.

the idea would be to try to win now over the next few years, i'm pretty firmly in the camp that Knight sucks as a PG and don't think we can take it to the next level with him running our offense. After Lawson it would be important to get a guy at the 5 that can defend.

machu46 · Post #6775 » by **machu46** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:16 pm

Marc Stein: The Kings might not be done as they are still considering dealing Nik Stauskas and Jason Thompson, source said.

Ersan & Clippers pick!

M-C-G · Post #6776 » by **M-C-G** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:17 pm

machu46 wrote:Marc Stein: The Kings might not be done as they are still considering dealing Nik Stauskas and Jason Thompson, source said.

Ersan & Clippers pick!

That's got Arsen written all over it...Burn that sh*t to the ground Karl!

emunney · Post #6777 » by **emunney** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:17 pm

TroyD92 wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:Randive is nuts. Let's go get DeMarcus.

Henson/Knight/Clips 1st/Bucks lotto-protected 2016 1st for Cousins.

Kings would laugh.

Like derisive laughter or like MANIACAL NERO FIDDLING WHILE TRADING US DEMARCUS COUSINS FOR NO REASON laughter?

Frank Nova · Post #6778 » by **Frank Nova** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:19 pm

machu46 wrote:Marc Stein: The Kings might not be done as they are still considering dealing Nik Stauskas and Jason Thompson, source said.

Ersan & Clippers pick!

M-C-G · Post #6779 » by **M-C-G** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:19 pm

I don't think the Affalo deal was a big win for either team, but it does tell me that Mayo could be worth a first to someone (albeit heavily protected but still)

Newz · Post #6780 » by **Newz** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:19 pm

SkilesTheLimit wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:If the plan was to acquire Lawson and pair him with Knight, then I'd obviously be against it. My plan would be acquire Lawson, trade Knight, re-up Middleton.

What do you guys think the odds are that we acquire Lawson and trade Knight at the deadline are? I would say 0%.

Do you guys really think that we aren't sold on Knight long-term? Everything I have seen, heard and watched has led me to believe Knight is in the plans long-term.