Trade Talk (Part Five)

[SO_MONEY]

The way I see it there are only a few real opportunities for trade in the lead up, but the most likely is a package of Okogie (Culver) and Layman for a protected first and a short-term junk player or a young player with potential and a waiveable contact. I think deals we are looking at this moment are ones to maintain the ability to sign JMac and target a FA. Otherwise I think they get ready in camp in a short window and don't self sabotage. They could always wait, sign the FA they like, have JMac as a 2-way and convert him the second they make an in season move, which they will. So long story longer I don't see a trade happening with high probability as a trade now might send out assets or combinations of assets you could use later. Whatever we would get would need to be worth it and not completely disrupt the team.

[KGdaBom]

I mean, since we are playing "positionless" basketball, I would say we currently need two out of three starting wings, we have one in Edwards, now need two bigger/taller/longer than him. Beasley could thrive in a 6th man role. Rubio will be a great backup PG. Reddish would be a perfect target for one of the wings, but doubt we have anything they want (realistically). Another wing that could be worth monitoring is actually on our team, I feel McDaniels could surprise some people with a good camp. I don't think he walks in as a starter, but can see him eating up a forward spot sooner rather than later too. Still would need another bigger F. I invision a KG type of size and athleticism to play the 4. (KG was obviously a once in a generation player, I said type). Long, lean, dialed in on boards and D, and can guard all 5, or at least 4 of 5. Used to see that physical profile in the draft pretty regularly, but has disappeared of late.

Edwards is big. I don't think we need to play two bigger with any regularity. One bigger is fine.

Edwards isn't that big. Big for a 2 sure. But we have established that that isn't the system we currently run. I agree that we can get away playing small time to time. I even agree that we could potentially be bigger than many other teams. Doesn't mean that we couldn't or shouldn't try to be bigger and more athletic

We were talking wings only. Not including the C/5 right?
It's always better to be bigger and more athletic than your opponents. That's why I like playing one bigger wing than Edwards. Some here are proposing we play no wings bigger. Edwards is likely to be bigger than the SF of the opposing team.

[KGdaBom]

The way I see it there are only a few real opportunities for trade in the lead up, but the most likely is a package of Okogie (Culver) and Layman for a protected first and a short-term junk player or a young player with potential and a waiveable contact. I think deals we are looking at this moment are ones to maintain the ability to sign JMac and target a FA. Otherwise I think they get ready in camp in a short window and don't self sabotage. They could always wait, sign the FA they like, have JMac as a 2-way and convert him the second they make an in season move, which they will. So long story longer I don't see a trade happening with high probability as a trade now might send out assets or combinations of assets you could use later. Whatever we would get would need to be worth it and not completely disrupt the team.

If you believe the rumors we could have had Okongwu for 17 and Culver. Doing that would have meant no Rubio Bolmaro or McDaniel. Would that have been worth it? I really don't know.

[SO_MONEY]

The way I see it there are only a few real opportunities for trade in the lead up, but the most likely is a package of Okogie (Culver) and Layman for a protected first and a short-term junk player or a young player with potential and a waiveable contact. I think deals we are looking at this moment are ones to maintain the ability to sign JMac and target a FA. Otherwise I think they get ready in camp in a short window and don't self sabotage. They could always wait, sign the FA they like, have JMac as a 2-way and convert him the second they make an in season move, which they will. So long story longer I don't see a trade happening with high probability as a trade now might send out assets or combinations of assets you could use later. Whatever we would get would need to be worth it and not completely disrupt the team.

If you believe the rumors we could have had Okongwu for 17 and Culver. Doing that would have meant no Rubio Bolmaro or McDaniel. Would that have been worth it? I really don't know.

It is debatable either way. Not sure what exactly it has to do with what I said, but I would not question that move, but I think I pick Deni.

[KGdaBom]

The way I see it there are only a few real opportunities for trade in the lead up, but the most likely is a package of Okogie (Culver) and Layman for a protected first and a short-term junk player or a young player with potential and a waiveable contact. I think deals we are looking at this moment are ones to maintain the ability to sign JMac and target a FA. Otherwise I think they get ready in camp in a short window and don't self sabotage. They could always wait, sign the FA they like, have JMac as a 2-way and convert him the second they make an in season move, which they will. So long story longer I don't see a trade happening with high probability as a trade now might send out assets or combinations of assets you could use later. Whatever we would get would need to be worth it and not completely disrupt the team.

If you believe the rumors we could have had Okongwu for 17 and Culver. Doing that would have meant no Rubio Bolmaro or McDaniel. Would that have been worth it? I really don't know.

It is debatable either way. Not sure what exactly it has to do with what I said, but I would not question that move, but I think I pick Deni.

Okongwu or Deni. Good point. One would give us everything we have been whining about not having. The other might be even better.

[Jedzz]

I can't believe I am entertaining your train wreck dialogue. Look at the disconnect between your post and my reasoning for him being "3rd string" to start the season. Like you don't even read my posts.

If as you lay out Beasley is such a good NBA player on the court, he will have no trouble earning his way back. Which hint, hint, the reason he needs to earn his way back in the first place, has nothing to do with his on court play. Try reading my posts before this one for your answer.

Great surprise you will address my writing form and not explain your reasoning to your stance yet again. Defray, run away. So glad I bothered.

[Jedzz]

If you believe the rumors we could have had Okongwu for 17 and Culver. Doing that would have meant no Rubio Bolmaro or McDaniel. Would that have been worth it? I really don't know.

It is debatable either way. Not sure what exactly it has to do with what I said, but I would not question that move, but I think I pick Deni.

Okongwu or Deni. Good point. One would give us everything we have been whining about not having. The other might be even better.

One may or may not give you some of the things some people have been whining about not having.
The other might giving you something completely different, because he is completely different, or might give you nothing.

These are draft players, not automatic performers as projected with a score in 2k.

[Jedzz]

I mean, since we are playing "positionless" basketball, I would say we currently need two out of three starting wings, we have one in Edwards, now need two bigger/taller/longer than him. Beasley could thrive in a 6th man role. Rubio will be a great backup PG. Reddish would be a perfect target for one of the wings, but doubt we have anything they want (realistically). Another wing that could be worth monitoring is actually on our team, I feel McDaniels could surprise some people with a good camp. I don't think he walks in as a starter, but can see him eating up a forward spot sooner rather than later too. Still would need another bigger F. I invision a KG type of size and athleticism to play the 4. (KG was obviously a once in a generation player, I said type). Long, lean, dialed in on boards and D, and can guard all 5, or at least 4 of 5. Used to see that physical profile in the draft pretty regularly, but has disappeared of late.

Edwards is big. I don't think we need to play two bigger with any regularity. One bigger is fine.

Edwards isn't that big. Big for a 2 sure. But we have established that that isn't the system we currently run. I agree that we can get away playing small time to time. I even agree that we could potentially be bigger than many other teams. Doesn't mean that we couldn't or shouldn't try to be bigger and more athletic

The GM is choosing who they are.

Also, this team isn't potentially bigger than many other teams just because you see Edwards being the first player this team has with any meat on his bones. I'm not going to count them but many teams are playing with many players his size or larger. If anything I feel like the team is just trying to flood the team with 6'5/6'6 guys as something they maybe see as ideal size for what their scheme is and flexibility in lineups.

[shrink]

One concept I like to use when I think about trades is whether a player is in the top 30 or top 60 at his “position.” It’s a vague way of looking at it, not just because “position” is vague, but because GM’s will use other factors than on-court production to determine playing time (like youth/development/potential, and investment/picks/contract). In addition, different teams will focus on different aspects. So for me, it comes down to the question of whether there are teams out there where our players would have more opportunity. This seems certain for our guard situation.

Russell, top 30, starter
Rubio, top 30, starter
JMac, 31-60, 2nd string
Beasley, top 30? Certainly top 60. Borderline starter
Edwards, as the #1 pick, top 30, or certainly top 60. Borderline starter.
Culver, as last year’s high lottery pick, top 30, or certainly top 60. Borderline starter
Okogie, proved enough to be 31-60, 2nd string.

(Meanwhile, at PF, we probably have 2nd string, 31-60 players).

Now, even if we find some minutes for Culver or Edwards at SF, we simply don’t have the minutes or roles for all this talent. Minutes are critical, not just for developing younger players, but it creates production that raises the trade value of the players that get the minutes.

I like JMac, and we certainly have the inside track to sign him at a reasonable price, but unless we have injuries, he won’t get minutes and his trade value (and career) will suffer. Hopefully we have trade ideas for when CBA trade restrictions lessen.


Last point: Even with multiple players cresting the 30 player borderline, we have only one player who is top 15 at his position ... KAT. Talent is asymptotically, so there is a big gap between Towns and the center 10 spots below, while there isn’t a big gap between anyone else and a player 10 spots below him. These are the crucial players, where your team finds huge advantages. We really need a consolidation trade with these guards, though they are usually hard to find, and may require an overpay.

[Jedzz]

One concept I like to use when I think about trades is whether a player is in the top 30 or top 60 at his “position.” It’s a vague way of looking at it, not just because “position” is vague, but because GM’s will use other factors than on-court production to determine playing time (like youth/development/potential, and investment/picks/contract). In addition, different teams will focus on different aspects. So for me, it comes down to the question of whether there are teams out there where our players would have more opportunity. This seems certain for our guard situation.

Russell, top 30, starter
Rubio, top 30, starter
JMac, 31-60, 2nd string
Beasley, top 30? Certainly top 60. Borderline starter
Edwards, as the #1 pick, top 30, or certainly top 60. Borderline starter.
Culver, as last year’s high lottery pick, top 30, or certainly top 60. Borderline starter
Okogie, proved enough to be 31-60, 2nd string.

(Meanwhile, at PF, we probably have 2nd string, 31-60 players).

Now, even if we find some minutes for Culver or Edwards at SF, we simply don’t have the minutes or roles for all this talent.

Culver listed as "top30, or certainly top60 and borderline starter" here. negatron!

On another topic I just made a brief comparison of Culver's numbers to Kelan Martin's last season on the whim of two people disagreeing which one is better and one person claiming it's not close. Au contraire, their per36 numbers are very very close. Which is strange, because the numbers are not great for Martin but I give him a bit of a pass since he was a two way contract, with limited to no team practice getting 16 minutes a game. He would often enough walk into games cold, with team mates he basically sees on game days and be expected to perform alongside them. Culver on the other hand was more part of the team, in fact starting over 30 of 63 games and playing avg of 23 minutes in all games. So what is the excuse for Culver's numbers to be that close to Martin's, an undrafted player on a two way, now competing for the last spot with the Pacers? Culver should be rated as none of those things yet, except if you are allowing past draft slot to breach logic in determining best production of the team.

I'll wait for the great Culver of imaginations so far to produce on the court at that level before I would give him anything resembling even 20 minutes again. He's got to show it. He was a large factor in the destruction of last season...the decision to move into his signifcant development minutes/roles- even starting so much - and write off the season to prepare for large trade deadline moves. Furthermore all it did is destroy any perceived trade asset value he had from his prior draft slot value. He showed he had no business being at those minutes yet. I expect the team to handle itself better now with a better set of actual starter and near starter players in hand.

[IceManBK1]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

We should offer MLE to Batum and sign RHJ to shore up defense at SF..plus RHJ can defend some 4s..

[minimus]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

We should offer MLE to Batum and sign RHJ to shore up defense at SF..plus RHJ can defend some 4s..

Man... We dont have room to give MLE to Batum, and we have only one free spot. Plus RHJ is a С in our system.

[Mattya]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

We should offer MLE to Batum and sign RHJ to shore up defense at SF..plus RHJ can defend some 4s..

For the MLE no. For the minimum on a prove you can still play deal, then sure. JMac should be the priority free agent. Would need to make moves to add other players.

[TheProdigy]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

We should offer MLE to Batum and sign RHJ to shore up defense at SF..plus RHJ can defend some 4s..

For the MLE no. For the minimum on a prove you can still play deal, then sure. JMac should be the priority free agent. Would need to make moves to add other players.

Sounds like Batum is going to sign with the Clippers.

[Mattya]

Culver, Layman for PJ Tucker and Blazers protected 1st. Sign JMac. Then go after one of Batum or RHJ.

DLo/Rubio/JMac
Beasley/Edwards/Nowell
Tucker/Okogie/McDaniels
Juancho/Vanderbilt/RHJ
Towns/Reid/Davis

[old school 34]

Culver, Layman for PJ Tucker and Blazers protected 1st. Sign JMac. Then go after one of Batum or RHJ.

DLo/Rubio/JMac
Beasley/Edwards/Nowell
Tucker/Okogie/McDaniels
Juancho/Vanderbilt/RHJ
Towns/Reid/Davis

I've hoped that Culver for Tucker & a 1st is like....if we can't get anything bigger done...then that's our fall back & it gives HOU time to see if they can change their minds stars? Think once HOU moves one of the big two, then...they're very much okay with something like this?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

[KGdaBom]

Culver, Layman for PJ Tucker and Blazers protected 1st. Sign JMac. Then go after one of Batum or RHJ.

DLo/Rubio/JMac
Beasley/Edwards/Nowell
Tucker/Okogie/McDaniels
Juancho/Vanderbilt/RHJ
Towns/Reid/Davis

I've hoped that Culver for Tucker & a 1st is like....if we can't get anything bigger done...then that's our fall back & it gives HOU time to see if they can change their minds stars? Think once HOU moves one of the big two, then...they're very much okay with something like this?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

In my mind PJ Tucker is 60 million years old and had a pet dinosaur when he was growing up. Per Basketball reference he is 35 years 209 days old as of today. I question how much he has left in the tank. I'm not a big fan of pursuing him, but he might make us better this year.

[minimus]

A Nowell trade for 2nd round pick makes some sense now.

[Norseman79]

I am sure this is probably way off base, but given Beasley's apparent off court stuff recently, when is he available for a trade? The Knicks were rumored to be interested...would Barret and Knox be acceptable? I liked Beasley, but the gun stuff and now the Pippen stuff is quickly changing my view

[NebWolvesFan]

I am sure this is probably way off base, but given Beasley's apparent off court stuff recently, when is he available for a trade? The Knicks were rumored to be interested...would Barret and Knox be acceptable? I liked Beasley, but the gun stuff and now the Pippen stuff is quickly changing my view

At the end of the first half, I believe.