2015-16 Fake Trade Thread

Post #341 » by **Diop** » Fri Jun 5, 2015 1:11 pm

I like Gibson, but its just too much to give up

LofJ · Post #342 » by **LofJ** » Fri Jun 5, 2015 1:32 pm

GimmeDat wrote:Maybe this is completely off-base and you guys would laugh it off, I guess it depends on how much you want to get rid of Lance and how much you value that #9 (and whether you can get a better deal for it).

Gibson + 22 for Stephenson, Zeller and #9.

Gibson, outside of being a stretch 4, is probably the ideal PF to have next to Jefferson - one of the best PF defenders in the league and with a dependable post and mid-range game on offense. Zeller goes to prevent a log-jam at PF, but it forces you guys to play Vonleh more, who probably deserved more time than what he got from the looks of things. With #22, you can go for a 3 and D guy like Justin Anderson. As for us, we free up more minutes for Mirotic and hope Lance doesn't destroy our locker room and actually contribute on the court, and we pray WCS drops and we develop our backup to Noah/future replacement.

Take out the draft picks and I think this would be a more agreeable deal.

Benjamin Linus · Post #343 » by **Benjamin Linus** » Fri Jun 5, 2015 2:16 pm

Kind of an odd trade idea / scenario... but I was thinking if Mudiay happens to fall to us, would you trade Kemba for Doug McDermott in some sort of package? We need the shooting and they could use another scoring PG to backup / fill in for Rose.

Mudiay-MKG-Doug-Vonleh would be a super young and huge lineup (6'5-6'7-6'8-6'11)

BeesWax · Post #344 » by **BeesWax** » Fri Jun 5, 2015 2:43 pm

Benjamin Linus wrote:Kind of an odd trade idea / scenario... but I was thinking if Mudiay happens to fall to us, would you trade Kemba for Doug McDermott in some sort of package? We need the shooting and they could use another scoring PG to backup / fill in for Rose.

Mudiay-MKG-Doug-Vonleh would be a super young and huge lineup (6'5-6'7-6'8-6'11)

Not sure you can make the value right to make it work.

Zeller and Kemba for Gibson, McDermott and Snell is in the correct range salary wise but seems light from our end.

They_Them_Hatin · Post #345 » by **They_Them_Hatin** » Fri Jun 5, 2015 11:35 pm

Sik Infant wrote:If Al opts in I'd do this deal.

Al+Marvin+Roberts for Johnson.

I'd consider doing this deal as much as I love Cody.

Stephenson+Zeller for West+S.Hill+#11

Would do both but Brooklyn wouldn't want Al since they have Lopez. Al would have to be sent to a team that gets them a back up center and point guard.
If WCS is off the board I can see the Pacers doing the next trade.

catch20two · Post #346 » by **catch20two** » Fri Jun 5, 2015 11:42 pm

Trade back from #9 to #14 with OKC and draft whichever high upside guy fall to the pick out of Oubre or Myles or even Cameron Payne. If neither are there then we could take one of Kaminsky, Portis, or Lyles.

Post #347 » by **yosemiteben** » Fri Jun 5, 2015 11:54 pm

catch20two wrote:Trade back from #9 to #14 with OKC and draft whichever high upside guy fall to the pick out of Oubre or Myles or even Cameron Payne. If neither are there then we could take one of Kaminsky, Portis, or Lyles.

What do you expect to get back from OKC to make that a trade worth doing?

Post #348 » by **JDR720** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 12:19 am

Wouldn't trade back with OKC, their future picks will be in the late 20's more than likely and their young players aren't very good outside of the bigs.

Also wouldn't do the Chicago deal. Gibson is about to be on the wrong side of 30 and i dont want to use assets like the 9 and Zeller to dump Lances expiring deal. just bench him if he sucks again and continue building up the core not trading some of it to dump him.

catch20two · Post #349 » by **catch20two** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 12:46 am

yosemiteben wrote:
catch20two wrote:Trade back from #9 to #14 with OKC and draft whichever high upside guy fall to the pick out of Oubre or Myles or even Cameron Payne. If neither are there then we could take one of Kaminsky, Portis, or Lyles.

What do you expect to get back from OKC to make that a trade worth doing?

Jeremy Lamb, Perry Jones, and Mitch McGrary or Steven Adams while we'll send them Hendo and whatever.

Post #350 » by **GimmeDat** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 1:08 am

How's about this variation - Taj/Snell/22 for Lance/9.

Thanks for the responses by the way.

Post #351 » by **BigSlam** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 1:15 am

GimmeDat wrote:How's about this variation - Taj/Snell/22 for Lance/9.

Thanks for the responses by the way.

Doesn't Gibson have a pretty unattractive contract?

I just don't see the incentive to drop from the top 9 (in a pretty good top 10 draft year) to the bottom 8 (in a pretty weak second half of the first round draft year) for this package.

Heck, we might be able to keep the #9, buy back into the mid/late 1st round, pick up Montrezl Harrell and have our own version of Gibson at a fraction of the price and without having to give up assets.

Liver_Pooty · Post #352 » by **Liver_Pooty** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 1:20 am

GimmeDat wrote:How's about this variation - Taj/Snell/22 for Lance/9.

Thanks for the responses by the way.

Yes, absolutely. I like Snell.

On second thought I don't know. Good proposal

Post #353 » by **GimmeDat** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 1:24 am

BigSlam wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:How's about this variation - Taj/Snell/22 for Lance/9.

Thanks for the responses by the way.

Doesn't Gibson have a pretty unattractive contract?

I just don't see the incentive to drop from the top 9 (in a pretty good top 10 draft year) to the bottom 8 (in a pretty weak second half of the first round draft year) for this package.

Heck, we might be able to keep the #9, buy back into the mid/late 1st round, pick up Montrezl Harrell and have our own version of Gibson at a fraction of the price and without having to give up assets.

That's fine if you think that, as an opposing fan I can only really look at a trade for the other team in a vacuum, as opposed to what else they could do with those assets. That said, if Harrell was a Gibson, I'm sure he'd be going higher than 20-25, so I think that's a bit of a stretch, and looking at the #9 pick, it feels on an awkward fringe between the enticing prospects and the mediocre end of lottery (Booker, Dekker, Johnson, Turner).

That's my take on it anyway, I guess it depends on if you have a guy you're high on. If I was you, I'd be having fingers crossed on getting Hezonja, he seems like the only prospect in your range that can fill a big need, but unfortunately I don't see him falling past Denver or so.

As for Gibson's contract, I think he's got a few years left at 8 mil or so. Considering the cap going up I think that's a pretty bargain figure, and you won't fall into the trap of giving him another expensive contract on the end of his prime (he'll probably have aged enough that you can get him on a cheaper deal by the time he expires).

Post #354 » by **JDR720** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 1:45 am

I more than likely wouldn't do that either. IMO Charlotte shouldn't trade lottery picks for older win now players like Taj. We still need to find at least one young star player and the 9th pick is a pretty good spot to do that. Basically im picking win in the future over win now. we dont usually get good results when we trade for Chicago PF's anyway :wink:

a few recent 9th picks

Kemba (2011)
Vonleh (2014)
Drummond (2012)
Hayward (2010)
DeRozan (2009)
Noah (2007)
Iguodala (2004)

Post #355 » by **BigSlam** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 1:57 am

GimmeDat wrote:
BigSlam wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:How's about this variation - Taj/Snell/22 for Lance/9.

Thanks for the responses by the way.

Doesn't Gibson have a pretty unattractive contract?

I just don't see the incentive to drop from the top 9 (in a pretty good top 10 draft year) to the bottom 8 (in a pretty weak second half of the first round draft year) for this package.

Heck, we might be able to keep the #9, buy back into the mid/late 1st round, pick up Montrezl Harrell and have our own version of Gibson at a fraction of the price and without having to give up assets.

That said, if Harrell was a Gibson, I'm sure he'd be going higher than 20-25, so I think that's a bit of a stretch

I don't completely remember, but what position was Gibson drafted?

As for Gibson's contract, I think he's got a few years left at 8 mil or so. Considering the cap going up I think that's a pretty bargain figure, and you won't fall into the trap of giving him another expensive contract on the end of his prime (he'll probably have aged enough that you can get him on a cheaper deal by the time he expires).

And speaking of age (and considering he was home schooled for while making him a very, very mature rookie) isn't he already 30 or 31 years old??

Post #356 » by **bondom34** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 1:59 am

Lance and 9 for Waiters, Novak, Lamb and 14?

Liver_Pooty · Post #357 » by **Liver_Pooty** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 2:16 am

bondom34 wrote:Lance and 9 for Waiters, Novak, Lamb and 14?

You're on the right board if you're looking to trade Lamb. There are quite a few posters on here that would more than likely Trade the 9 straight up for Lamb.

BeesWax · Post #358 » by **BeesWax** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 2:41 am

Liver_Pooty wrote:
bondom34 wrote:Lance and 9 for Waiters, Novak, Lamb and 14?

You're on the right board if you're looking to trade Lamb. There are quite a few posters on here that would more than likely Trade the 9 straight up for Lamb.

I am not a go get Lamb guy but this trade isn't bad. Lamb and Novack are useful and flip Waiters for whatever scraps you can get. Draft Grant or Payne at 14 and be happy.

Liver_Pooty · Post #359 » by **Liver_Pooty** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 2:41 am

jdm3 wrote:
Liver_Pooty wrote:
bondom34 wrote:Lance and 9 for Waiters, Novak, Lamb and 14?

You're on the right board if you're looking to trade Lamb. There are quite a few posters on here that would more than likely Trade the 9 straight up for Lamb.

I am not a go get Lamb guy but this trade isn't bad. Lamb and Novack are useful and flip Waiters for whatever scraps you can get. Draft Grant or Payne at 14 and be happy.

I think its a solid trade, and to be honest I would do it.

BeesWax · Post #360 » by **BeesWax** » Sat Jun 6, 2015 2:45 am

GimmeDat wrote:
BigSlam wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:How's about this variation - Taj/Snell/22 for Lance/9.

Thanks for the responses by the way.

Doesn't Gibson have a pretty unattractive contract?

I just don't see the incentive to drop from the top 9 (in a pretty good top 10 draft year) to the bottom 8 (in a pretty weak second half of the first round draft year) for this package.

Heck, we might be able to keep the #9, buy back into the mid/late 1st round, pick up Montrezl Harrell and have our own version of Gibson at a fraction of the price and without having to give up assets.

That's fine if you think that, as an opposing fan I can only really look at a trade for the other team in a vacuum, as opposed to what else they could do with those assets. That said, if Harrell was a Gibson, I'm sure he'd be going higher than 20-25, so I think that's a bit of a stretch, and looking at the #9 pick, it feels on an awkward fringe between the enticing prospects and the mediocre end of lottery (Booker, Dekker, Johnson, Turner).

That's my take on it anyway, I guess it depends on if you have a guy you're high on. If I was you, I'd be having fingers crossed on getting Hezonja, he seems like the only prospect in your range that can fill a big need, but unfortunately I don't see him falling past Denver or so.

As for Gibson's contract, I think he's got a few years left at 8 mil or so. Considering the cap going up I think that's a pretty bargain figure, and you won't fall into the trap of giving him another expensive contract on the end of his prime (he'll probably have aged enough that you can get him on a cheaper deal by the time he expires).

Gibson is a little old and not near enough to move up from 22 to 9. He was also picked at 26 so you can find gems late and Harrell reminds me a lot of Gibson. This is just not good value for the 9 pick. If there was not a good fit for us there I am sure we could get better value than this for whoever is left.