Woj: Lawson to Houston

Laimbeer · Post #1 » by **Laimbeer** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:37 am

Kostas, Pablo Prigioni, Joey Dorsey, Nick Johnson and a protected first to Denver plus filler for Lawson and a second is the early story. The Rockets got him cheap.

Piston Pete · Post #2 » by **Piston Pete** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:41 am

If this ends up being true, it's a stupid deal from Denver's POV.

DetroitPistons · Post #3 » by **DetroitPistons** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:43 am

coordinator0 · Post #4 » by **coordinator0** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:43 am

Yeah, Houston got Lawson for peanuts. Denver must have really wanted him gone. It's no surprise Detroit was supposedly interested in him at that price.

sfballa13 · Post #5 » by **sfballa13** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:43 am

How did Houston even have the space to pull this deal off it doesn't work in the ESPN trade machine?

This is purely a salary dump, Dorsey is decent, Papa/Johnson/Prigioni could be parlayed into something else, pick is nice

Denver definitely blew it, they probably could have gotten a top 20 pick in this draft for Lawson but wanted multiple firsts lmao

Kilo · Post #6 » by **Kilo** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:48 am

Addition by subtraction. This is them cutting their Josh Smith basically. It's Mudiay's team now - no distractions, no veteran sulking or disrupting things.

Han Solo · Post #7 » by **Han Solo** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:51 am

Kilo wrote:Addition by subtraction. This is them cutting their Josh Smith basically. It's Mudiay's team now - no distractions, no veteran sulking or disrupting things.

Agreed.

mattao313 · Post #8 » by **mattao313** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:54 am

lol they got junk and most likely a bottom end 1st. I don't care if he has DUI and they have Mudiay Denver got bent over in that deal.

Todd3 · Post #9 » by **Todd3** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:05 am

coordinator0 wrote:Yeah, Houston got Lawson for peanuts. Denver must have really wanted him gone. It's no surprise Detroit was supposedly interested in him at that price.

Would you have traded a first rd pick for him because I wouldnt. I could see Stan doing Jennings but once HOU offered a first, Stan did the right thing not matching that offer.

Lawson wouldve been a great luxury to have added for nothing, but if we had to give a first its no longer a luxury move.

coordinator0 · Post #10 » by **coordinator0** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:11 am

Todd3 wrote:
coordinator0 wrote:Yeah, Houston got Lawson for peanuts. Denver must have really wanted him gone. It's no surprise Detroit was supposedly interested in him at that price.

Would you have traded a first rd pick for him because I wouldnt. I could see Stan doing Jennings but once HOU offered a first, Stan did the right thing not matching that offer.

Lawson wouldve been a great luxury to have added for nothing, but if we had to give a first its no longer a luxury move.

Depends on the protection. There hasn't been any word yet on what the rules are for Houston's pick. No if it's the kind of first round pick that Detroit traded to dump Ben Gordon (going from something like lottery to top 8 to top 1). Yes if it's the kind that ends up turning in second round picks if the conditions aren't met to trade it as a first round pick. I think Lawson would have more trade value than the latter description as long as he gets his head on straight off the court even in the role he would have had in Detroit. It would be a gamble, but one worth taking in my opinion.

Laimbeer · Post #11 » by **Laimbeer** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:14 am

Todd3 wrote:
coordinator0 wrote:Yeah, Houston got Lawson for peanuts. Denver must have really wanted him gone. It's no surprise Detroit was supposedly interested in him at that price.

Would you have traded a first rd pick for him because I wouldnt. I could see Stan doing Jennings but once HOU offered a first, Stan did the right thing not matching that offer.

Lawson wouldve been a great luxury to have added for nothing, but if we had to give a first its no longer a luxury move.

Yeah, we're not giving any of the top four. The only thing we could have done to beat that was a protected first of our own (which would have to be considered more valuable than the Rockets') and maybe Dinwiddie.

Post #12 » by **Snakebites** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:24 am

Yeah, time to shut the door on that rumor.

I was ambivalent on getting him anyway, so I'm good. A first rounder (even protected) carries too much value for us.

Todd3 · Post #13 » by **Todd3** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:31 am

Laimbeer wrote:
Todd3 wrote:
coordinator0 wrote:Yeah, Houston got Lawson for peanuts. Denver must have really wanted him gone. It's no surprise Detroit was supposedly interested in him at that price.

Would you have traded a first rd pick for him because I wouldnt. I could see Stan doing Jennings but once HOU offered a first, Stan did the right thing not matching that offer.

Lawson wouldve been a great luxury to have added for nothing, but if we had to give a first its no longer a luxury move.

Yeah, we're not giving any of the top four. The only thing we could have done to beat that was a protected first of our own (which would have to be considered more valuable than the Rockets') and maybe Dinwiddie.

Any first from us would be no go for me. I understand HOU doing it because its a late pick and they are getting a starter, but for us it would have been a mid first for a backup PG. At that point it makes more sense to just gamble on Jennings than double down a first on Lawson. Especially when you add in his alcohol problem.

Laimbeer · Post #14 » by **Laimbeer** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:33 am

coordinator0 wrote:Yeah, Houston got Lawson for peanuts. Denver must have really wanted him gone. It's no surprise Detroit was supposedly interested in him at that price.

My guess is SVG was sniffing around and wanted to do something closer to a Morris or Ilyasova type of deal.

MrBigShot · Post #15 » by **MrBigShot** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:42 am

Massive upgrade at PG for Houston from a talent standpoint.

Blkbrd671 · Post #16 » by **Blkbrd671** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:50 am

Snakebites wrote:Yeah, time to shut the door on that rumor.

I was ambivalent on getting him anyway, so I'm good. A first rounder (even protected) carries too much value for us.

PER ellis the rumors started because SVG had been making inquiries in case Jennings wasn't ready, as soon as we got blake, Lawson was out of the picture

ripper3264 · Post #17 » by **ripper3264** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:49 am

Woj reports that Prigioni will either be waived or traded by the Nuggets. Does anyone see Prigioni as a better backup than Blake? Obviously there isn't much we can do about it now but IMO Prig would be the better option

313 Professor · Post #18 » by **313 Professor** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:56 am

This move might put Houston over the top. Harden needed another ball-handler to help him create and let him play off-ball more. Lawson, Harden, Howard + role players is a very solid nucleus. I'm real excited to watch them next year now.

And at that price I might have flipped.... KCP, Steve Blake, and Martin for him. I don't care about current roster construction that's CHEAP talent. As a team that can't draw talent in FA we can't pass up on talent that cheap.

1: Lawson / Jennings / Dinwiddie
2: Jackson / Meeks / Dinwiddie / Hilliard
3: Morris / Stanley / Hilliard

Sucks having 2 pure 1's in Lawson and Jennings, AND Jackson getting pushed over, AND the defensive downgrade but let the minutes sort themselves out. Competition. We don't get enough opportunities at talent for guys like Jackson, expirings like Jennings, etc, to be entitled to roles. If you're the better player earn it..... BUT I'm bringing in this talent. I'm higher on Hilliard than most and between Hilliard, Meeks, and Stanley I think KCP is effectively replaced and then some.

mattao313 · Post #19 » by **mattao313** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:02 am

313 Professor wrote:This move might put Houston over the top. Harden needed another ball-handler to help him create and let him play off-ball more. Lawson, Harden, Howard + role players is a very solid nucleus. I'm real excited to watch them next year now.

And at that price I might have flipped.... KCP, Steve Blake, and Martin for him. I don't care about current roster construction that's CHEAP talent. As a team that can't draw talent in FA we can't pass up on talent that cheap.

1: Lawson / Jennings / Dinwiddie
2: Jackson / Meeks / Dinwiddie / Hilliard
3: Morris / Stanley / Hilliard

Sucks having 2 pure 1's in Lawson and Jennings, AND Jackson getting pushed over, AND the defensive downgrade but let the minutes sort themselves out. Competition. We don't get enough opportunities at talent for guys like Jackson, expirings like Jennings, etc, to be entitled to roles. If you're the better player earn it..... BUT I'm bringing in this talent. I'm higher on Hilliard than most and between Hilliard, Meeks, and Stanley I think KCP is effectively replaced and then some.

Can you give me a explanation on why you are so "high" on Hilliard? Cause he doesn't look better than KCP, KCP was a better college player as well.

Todd3 · Post #20 » by **Todd3** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:11 am

ripper3264 wrote:Woj reports that Prigioni will either be waived or traded by the Nuggets. Does anyone see Prigioni as a better backup than Blake? Obviously there isn't much we can do about it now but IMO Prig would be the better option

No way Blake is much better imo. I havent seen Blake play lately though so that could have changed but Prigioni is 38 and was never better to begin with.