Trade Thread (EPISODE VI: Can't we just put EVERYTHING in the TE?)

[winforlose]

So you’re here to admonish us fans for what the league rules are and how our front office has dealt with those parameters?

I think you misunderstood the context of the original post. I assumed you guys were in favor of trying to lower your tax bill. It’s one thing an owner is willing to spend crazy money to try and buy success he couldn’t get by following the norms (even its within the rules.) It clear the fan base would rather go near 3 times the league average in salary and win rather than risk losing by competing on an even playing field. You guys do you. It’s fair to point out 3 things before I go. 1, you are legitimately trying to play 4 max contracts with Green. 2, all the super teams are in big market cities. 3. While it’s true any team can do it, the fact that you guys are going to historic lengths and the Nets are chasing you up there says a lot.

With that I will consider my idea disapproved of by the majority of this board and move on.

Why would you assume that fans are concerned about the tax bill. That has nothing to do with fans. The cap matters, how contracts work with the cap matters, the tax doesn't matter to fans at all. Why should it?

It should matter on the basic principle of competing on an even playing field. Your first title win was awesome. I was so happy for you guys. You built a great system and helped spark a revolution in the game. Then you brought in KD and everything felt cheap. You tarnished what would have been outstanding dynasty by poaching another teams best player (one of the best in the league,) on a short term deal with a player option that got translated into even more money. That was the first asterisk. Now your putting an even bigger one by trying to buy it rather than build it the way normal teams do. Good teams rebuild and get better. You guys want to skip that step and honestly I thought your fan base would have more pride than that. I guess I overestimated you.

[killmongrel]

What happened to Wiseman on your roster? Heh. But yeah, I wouldn't do the deal because Lowry is expiring. Also, Klay is going to be out for a good portion of next season so we have to either have Wiggins or Oubre/his salary on this roster to start. If we're depending on a draft pick and an MLE player to keep us adrift for a couple months, we maybe in trouble.

lol holy **** i was so excited about the roster I forgot him

I'm actually fine with Poole taking the role, because I really feel it could fit him. And for everyone opining about his defense, maybe they oughta take a stroll down memory lane of Klay's 2nd year and how his defense was. Hell, how his offense was!

Either way, I think there's enough talent there to keep us afloat, and once Klay returns, that team not only is damned good, we still have ammo to make a trade for middling players. For example - if we did this kind of deal we could try and flip Looney for a temporary wing. Maybe sign a Wayne Ellington type..

But considering the amount of talent surrounding that wing, I'm not worried. We're starting Wiggins/Oubre/Looney right now and over .500

Respectfully, the team you put together is not a championship team. I'm as bullish on Poole as anybody here, but I'm not putting that kind of responsibility on a young player. I think that going into the off season, the FO has to make sure that:

We have a viable starting 2 playing next to Steph as well as a quality starting 3. If that involves either Wiggins or Oubre, we will see. I've suggested a few trade ideas before but I won't get into them again. Just gonna say that the FO has to decide if Wiseman or the possible player we get with the Minny pick is ideal going forward. And if either one or both is traded, we need to be put in a position where we have a legit starting 5 even without Klay being healthy yet.

[FNQ]

What happened to Wiseman on your roster? Heh. But yeah, I wouldn't do the deal because Lowry is expiring. Also, Klay is going to be out for a good portion of next season so we have to either have Wiggins or Oubre/his salary on this roster to start. If we're depending on a draft pick and an MLE player to keep us adrift for a couple months, we maybe in trouble.

lol holy **** i was so excited about the roster I forgot him

I'm actually fine with Poole taking the role, because I really feel it could fit him. And for everyone opining about his defense, maybe they oughta take a stroll down memory lane of Klay's 2nd year and how his defense was. Hell, how his offense was!

Either way, I think there's enough talent there to keep us afloat, and once Klay returns, that team not only is damned good, we still have ammo to make a trade for middling players. For example - if we did this kind of deal we could try and flip Looney for a temporary wing. Maybe sign a Wayne Ellington type..

But considering the amount of talent surrounding that wing, I'm not worried. We're starting Wiggins/Oubre/Looney right now and over .500

Respectfully, the team you put together is not a championship team. I'm as bullish on Poole as anybody here, but I'm not putting that kind of responsibility on a young player. I think that going into the off season, the FO has to make sure that:

We have a viable starting 2 playing next to Steph as well as a quality starting 3. If that involves either Wiggins or Oubre, we will see. I've suggested a few trade ideas before but I won't get into them again. Just gonna say that the FO has to decide if Wiseman or the possible player we get with the Minny pick is ideal going forward. And if either one or both is traded, we need to be put in a position where we have a legit starting 5 even without Klay being healthy yet.

lol if that's not a title team, then we arent getting one, period

if swapping Wiggins and Oubre out for Boucher and Horford, at the cost of moving down 5-6 picks, possibly less as the Raptors would get worse in the deal, isn't helpful.. then lets just rebuild, ****, what are we even doing here?

You're poo-pooing it on the theoretical idea that that roster wouldn't be able to stay afloat without Klay.. while lamenting us not having a starting 2. Because Wiggins and Oubre are so vital to our record this year?

Because we lose the option to make a trade? Whereas Wiggins + MIN 1st (lets say #4 or 5) + GS 1st + Wiseman is our big offer now, our new big offer would be Horford + #10ish + GS 1st + Wiseman... after giving us a perfect complement at C..

Cmon you serious? What's our legit starting 5 after this season anyways?

Hell our trade package *after* the deal might be better than before it

[killmongrel]

lol holy **** i was so excited about the roster I forgot him

I'm actually fine with Poole taking the role, because I really feel it could fit him. And for everyone opining about his defense, maybe they oughta take a stroll down memory lane of Klay's 2nd year and how his defense was. Hell, how his offense was!

Either way, I think there's enough talent there to keep us afloat, and once Klay returns, that team not only is damned good, we still have ammo to make a trade for middling players. For example - if we did this kind of deal we could try and flip Looney for a temporary wing. Maybe sign a Wayne Ellington type..

But considering the amount of talent surrounding that wing, I'm not worried. We're starting Wiggins/Oubre/Looney right now and over .500

Respectfully, the team you put together is not a championship team. I'm as bullish on Poole as anybody here, but I'm not putting that kind of responsibility on a young player. I think that going into the off season, the FO has to make sure that:

We have a viable starting 2 playing next to Steph as well as a quality starting 3. If that involves either Wiggins or Oubre, we will see. I've suggested a few trade ideas before but I won't get into them again. Just gonna say that the FO has to decide if Wiseman or the possible player we get with the Minny pick is ideal going forward. And if either one or both is traded, we need to be put in a position where we have a legit starting 5 even without Klay being healthy yet.

lol if that's not a title team, then we arent getting one, period

if swapping Wiggins and Oubre out for Boucher and Horford, at the cost of moving down 5-6 picks, possibly less as the Raptors would get worse in the deal, isn't helpful.. then lets just rebuild, ****, what are we even doing here?

You're poo-pooing it on the theoretical idea that that roster wouldn't be able to stay afloat without Klay.. while lamenting us not having a starting 2. Because Wiggins and Oubre are so vital to our record this year?

Because we lose the option to make a trade? Whereas Wiggins + MIN 1st (lets say #4 or 5) + GS 1st + Wiseman is our big offer now, our new big offer would be Horford + #10ish + GS 1st + Wiseman... after giving us a perfect complement at C..

Cmon you serious? What's our legit starting 5 after this season anyways?

Hell our trade package *after* the deal might be better than before it

I don't want Oubre on this team, let's just make that clear. I've been wanting to trade him for months now when his value was at his highest. I'm just saying, we need to go forward knowing Klay is not playing a good portion of next season and hoping the front office makes a move where we can compete without Klay. And I don't think having Boucher and Horford on the team all of a sudden moves the needle especially when you want to depend on Poole to start and hoping we get something good with the MLE and/or our rookie is good enough to be a significant player already. Am I reading something wrong with what you're writing?

[Warriors Analyst]

What happened to Wiseman on your roster? Heh. But yeah, I wouldn't do the deal because Lowry is expiring. Also, Klay is going to be out for a good portion of next season so we have to either have Wiggins or Oubre/his salary on this roster to start. If we're depending on a draft pick and an MLE player to keep us adrift for a couple months, we maybe in trouble.

lol holy **** i was so excited about the roster I forgot him

I'm actually fine with Poole taking the role, because I really feel it could fit him. And for everyone opining about his defense, maybe they oughta take a stroll down memory lane of Klay's 2nd year and how his defense was. Hell, how his offense was!

Either way, I think there's enough talent there to keep us afloat, and once Klay returns, that team not only is damned good, we still have ammo to make a trade for middling players. For example - if we did this kind of deal we could try and flip Looney for a temporary wing. Maybe sign a Wayne Ellington type..

But considering the amount of talent surrounding that wing, I'm not worried. We're starting Wiggins/Oubre/Looney right now and over .500

In a teeny sample size, Poole is far ahead of Klay as a finisher in their second years. Poole will never reach those heights as a shooter, in part because he's a high variance gunner, in part because Klay is a 99th percentile shooter, but I appreciate that comparison.

[Warriors Analyst]

Funny how the people who get the unnatural advantage never seem to mind it. Just like Yankee fans never seem to mind it. SMH.

Why did you really come over to our board?

I came to suggest a deal which gives you two pieces to combine to get a legit star. Beasley plus Oubre is worth a max and is revenue neutral. Instead everyone is telling me they want to trade Wiseman and a pick to increase your cap even more. Also on your board is the idea to artificially extend your cap even more by trading Oubre for any multi year player. I find it insane that some of you are okay with this discrepancy actually growing. I just don’t get it.

If your team ever has a top 25 player of all time in his late prime and you want to win championships, you'll understand why we want... to keep winning.

There's nothing artificial about what the Warriors did. They played within the league rules and they're paying a historical tax bill for a very mediocre team. And you know what? I'm fine with it, so long as Lacob is fine with footing the bill.

If we hadn't traded for Oubre or someone else in that salary range, we'd have very few realistic paths to improvement. As a tax-paying team, our MLE is $5 million. Say we don't get your 2021 FRP and we keep ours. In the scenario you've laid out in which the Warriors don't take every possible avenue to improvement, this is our roster next year:

Curry / FA / Mannion
Klay / Poole / Lee
Wiggins / Bazeore maybe? / our FRP
Green / Paschall / JTA
Wiseman / Looney / Chriss

That's a not great team that's still super expensive. The indignity of us wanting more from our management in Steph's late prime!

[winforlose]

Why did you really come over to our board?

I came to suggest a deal which gives you two pieces to combine to get a legit star. Beasley plus Oubre is worth a max and is revenue neutral. Instead everyone is telling me they want to trade Wiseman and a pick to increase your cap even more. Also on your board is the idea to artificially extend your cap even more by trading Oubre for any multi year player. I find it insane that some of you are okay with this discrepancy actually growing. I just don’t get it.

If your team ever has a top 25 player of all time in his late prime and you want to win championships, you'll understand why we want... to keep winning.

There's nothing artificial about what the Warriors did. They played within the league rules and they're paying a historical tax bill for a very mediocre team. And you know what? I'm fine with it, so long as Lacob is fine with footing the bill.

If we hadn't traded for Oubre or someone else in that salary range, we'd have very few realistic paths to improvement. As a tax-paying team, our MLE is $5 million. Say we don't get your 2021 FRP and we keep ours. In the scenario you've laid out in which the Warriors don't take every possible avenue to improvement, this is our roster next year:

Curry / FA / Mannion
Klay / Poole / Lee
Wiggins / Bazeore maybe? / our FRP
Green / Paschall / JTA
Wiseman / Looney / Chriss

That's a not great team that's still super expensive. The indignity of us wanting more from our management in Steph's late prime!

That is an honest take and I respect your opinion. I just cannot agree with the method. Any time any one team is spending so much more than any other the imbalance equals injustice. I don’t even like when my team goes into the tax. I guess we will see what happens with it.

[Warriors Analyst]

I came to suggest a deal which gives you two pieces to combine to get a legit star. Beasley plus Oubre is worth a max and is revenue neutral. Instead everyone is telling me they want to trade Wiseman and a pick to increase your cap even more. Also on your board is the idea to artificially extend your cap even more by trading Oubre for any multi year player. I find it insane that some of you are okay with this discrepancy actually growing. I just don’t get it.

If your team ever has a top 25 player of all time in his late prime and you want to win championships, you'll understand why we want... to keep winning.

There's nothing artificial about what the Warriors did. They played within the league rules and they're paying a historical tax bill for a very mediocre team. And you know what? I'm fine with it, so long as Lacob is fine with footing the bill.

If we hadn't traded for Oubre or someone else in that salary range, we'd have very few realistic paths to improvement. As a tax-paying team, our MLE is $5 million. Say we don't get your 2021 FRP and we keep ours. In the scenario you've laid out in which the Warriors don't take every possible avenue to improvement, this is our roster next year:

Curry / FA / Mannion
Klay / Poole / Lee
Wiggins / Bazeore maybe? / our FRP
Green / Paschall / JTA
Wiseman / Looney / Chriss

That's a not great team that's still super expensive. The indignity of us wanting more from our management in Steph's late prime!

That is an honest take and I respect your opinion. I just cannot agree with the method. Any time any one team is spending so much more than any other the imbalance equals injustice. I don’t even like when my team goes into the tax. I guess we will see what happens with it.

I appreciate the understanding.

I do think though, that your take is rather naive. The reason you don't like the Warriors going into the tax is because most other teams
don't. Every other team has the option to spend the tax. Other team's unwillingness to do so is not injustice. It's simply inaction. I suspect you'd feel differently on this subject if a majority of teams spent the tax. I'd bet good money that you'd feel a lot differently if Towns evolved into a championship level #1 option.

[winforlose]

If your team ever has a top 25 player of all time in his late prime and you want to win championships, you'll understand why we want... to keep winning.

There's nothing artificial about what the Warriors did. They played within the league rules and they're paying a historical tax bill for a very mediocre team. And you know what? I'm fine with it, so long as Lacob is fine with footing the bill.

If we hadn't traded for Oubre or someone else in that salary range, we'd have very few realistic paths to improvement. As a tax-paying team, our MLE is $5 million. Say we don't get your 2021 FRP and we keep ours. In the scenario you've laid out in which the Warriors don't take every possible avenue to improvement, this is our roster next year:

Curry / FA / Mannion
Klay / Poole / Lee
Wiggins / Bazeore maybe? / our FRP
Green / Paschall / JTA
Wiseman / Looney / Chriss

That's a not great team that's still super expensive. The indignity of us wanting more from our management in Steph's late prime!

That is an honest take and I respect your opinion. I just cannot agree with the method. Any time any one team is spending so much more than any other the imbalance equals injustice. I don’t even like when my team goes into the tax. I guess we will see what happens with it.

I appreciate the understanding.

I do think though, that your take is rather naive. The reason you don't like the Warriors going into the tax is because most other teams
don't. Every other team has the option to spend the tax. Other team's unwillingness to do so is not injustice. It's simply inaction. I suspect you'd feel differently on this subject if a majority of teams spent the tax. I'd bet good money that you'd feel a lot differently if Towns evolved into a championship level #1 option.

If the league custom was to spend into the tax then I would be more comfortable with the tax. But then assume any team (I don’t care who you put in there,) doubles or triples the new normal, I would object again. It makes it too easy to turn the sport into a spending contest and big money clubs will always have the advantage. Think of it like taking steroids. One player doing it really puts pressure on others to do it. I know the example isn’t great because steroids aren’t legal and what your doing is, but it’s the easiest way to express the concept of imbalance and peer pressure.

[watch1958]

That is an honest take and I respect your opinion. I just cannot agree with the method. Any time any one team is spending so much more than any other the imbalance equals injustice. I don’t even like when my team goes into the tax. I guess we will see what happens with it.

I appreciate the understanding.

I do think though, that your take is rather naive. The reason you don't like the Warriors going into the tax is because most other teams
don't. Every other team has the option to spend the tax. Other team's unwillingness to do so is not injustice. It's simply inaction. I suspect you'd feel differently on this subject if a majority of teams spent the tax. I'd bet good money that you'd feel a lot differently if Towns evolved into a championship level #1 option.

If the league custom was to spend into the tax then I would be more comfortable with the tax. But then assume any team (I don’t care who you put in there,) doubles or triples the new normal, I would object again. It makes it too easy to turn the sport into a spending contest and big money clubs will always have the advantage. Think of it like taking steroids. One player doing it really puts pressure on others to do it. I know the example isn’t great because steroids aren’t legal and what your doing is, but it’s the easiest way to express the concept of imbalance and peer pressure.

Would this deal put Minny into the tax?

[DevinVassell]

Having a soft cap is like having no cap at all. It's all mumbojumbo spin, bending the rules because you can NewYork Yankie BS.

Have a hard cap, no exemptions and be done with it.

[winforlose]

I appreciate the understanding.

I do think though, that your take is rather naive. The reason you don't like the Warriors going into the tax is because most other teams
don't. Every other team has the option to spend the tax. Other team's unwillingness to do so is not injustice. It's simply inaction. I suspect you'd feel differently on this subject if a majority of teams spent the tax. I'd bet good money that you'd feel a lot differently if Towns evolved into a championship level #1 option.

If the league custom was to spend into the tax then I would be more comfortable with the tax. But then assume any team (I don’t care who you put in there,) doubles or triples the new normal, I would object again. It makes it too easy to turn the sport into a spending contest and big money clubs will always have the advantage. Think of it like taking steroids. One player doing it really puts pressure on others to do it. I know the example isn’t great because steroids aren’t legal and what your doing is, but it’s the easiest way to express the concept of imbalance and peer pressure.

Would this deal put Minny into the tax?

Only if we don’t make a second move to dump Rubio. At that point we don’t want to take anyone back for him. Maybe a rookie and an expiring. Maybe package it with our second and get Juancho out. I only posted the part of my overall plan that involved GSW. But you are correct that my idea and no further action does put us in the tax, though I am not sure by how much (probably 1-2 mil.)

[winforlose]

Having a soft cap is like having no cap at all. It's all mumbojumbo spin, bending the rules because you can NewYork Yankie BS.

Have a hard cap, no exemptions and be done with it.

That would probably be better. Football is more competitive than baseball with cycles of growth and rebuild because they have a hard cap. Young teams grow tough then the expensive vets leave and the cycle starts over.

[watch1958]

Having a soft cap is like having no cap at all. It's all mumbojumbo spin, bending the rules because you can NewYork Yankie BS.

Have a hard cap, no exemptions and be done with it.

That would probably be better. Football is more competitive than baseball with cycles of growth and rebuild because they have a hard cap. Young teams grow tough then the expensive vets leave and the cycle starts over.

How is football more competitive than baseball? Seems like lots of turnover in baseball champs.

[winforlose]

Having a soft cap is like having no cap at all. It's all mumbojumbo spin, bending the rules because you can NewYork Yankie BS.

Have a hard cap, no exemptions and be done with it.

That would probably be better. Football is more competitive than baseball with cycles of growth and rebuild because they have a hard cap. Young teams grow tough then the expensive vets leave and the cycle starts over.

How is football more competitive than baseball? Seems like lots of turnover in baseball champs.

The big money teams are there almost every year. Every once in a while small market teams strike gold with their development system and bring in the right mix of hitting and fielding (the Twins the last few years are a good example,) but Yankees, Dodgers, Redsox, ect... are always a threat because they always have the deepest pockets. Football is different because the cycle is more consistent. You draft well make some good free agent moves or trades and ride the high years until you get old and then need to rebuild. There are outliers like GB going from one superstar QB to another and of course the patriots with Brady, but for the most part the life cycle is consistent.

[FNQ]

Respectfully, the team you put together is not a championship team. I'm as bullish on Poole as anybody here, but I'm not putting that kind of responsibility on a young player. I think that going into the off season, the FO has to make sure that:

We have a viable starting 2 playing next to Steph as well as a quality starting 3. If that involves either Wiggins or Oubre, we will see. I've suggested a few trade ideas before but I won't get into them again. Just gonna say that the FO has to decide if Wiseman or the possible player we get with the Minny pick is ideal going forward. And if either one or both is traded, we need to be put in a position where we have a legit starting 5 even without Klay being healthy yet.

lol if that's not a title team, then we arent getting one, period

if swapping Wiggins and Oubre out for Boucher and Horford, at the cost of moving down 5-6 picks, possibly less as the Raptors would get worse in the deal, isn't helpful.. then lets just rebuild, ****, what are we even doing here?

You're poo-pooing it on the theoretical idea that that roster wouldn't be able to stay afloat without Klay.. while lamenting us not having a starting 2. Because Wiggins and Oubre are so vital to our record this year?

Because we lose the option to make a trade? Whereas Wiggins + MIN 1st (lets say #4 or 5) + GS 1st + Wiseman is our big offer now, our new big offer would be Horford + #10ish + GS 1st + Wiseman... after giving us a perfect complement at C..

Cmon you serious? What's our legit starting 5 after this season anyways?

Hell our trade package *after* the deal might be better than before it

I don't want Oubre on this team, let's just make that clear. I've been wanting to trade him for months now when his value was at his highest. I'm just saying, we need to go forward knowing Klay is not playing a good portion of next season and hoping the front office makes a move where we can compete without Klay. And I don't think having Boucher and Horford on the team all of a sudden moves the needle especially when you want to depend on Poole to start and hoping we get something good with the MLE and/or our rookie is good enough to be a significant player already. Am I reading something wrong with what you're writing?

Easiest players to find on the cheap are wings. Hell you could probably have Damian Lee in there as a placeholder. Bazemore. My point is, we dont have that SF right now either. We should assume, currently, that Oubre is gonezo at year's end. So who's slated to step in now? Wiggins can't play both wing positions..

So no matter what, someone like Poole is going to be there to fill the gap. And with a 40% chance that we don't even see the Minnesota pick this year, that player is either going to be a product of a Wiseman trade/MIN 1st trade - that likely involves Wiggins anyways for salary ballast (again, assuming we stand PAT) or will be a rookie that we draft. But then we'd also be drafting for need in that situation unless who we draft is a wing, and even then most of them are pretty raw, and definitely unfamiliar with our system.

So in short, what I'm saying is.. the above deal doesnt make our situation any worse, because that same situation exists regardless. And if you don't like it because we don't trade for a star or cash out on Wiseman, I posed this question: which package has more value: Wiggins (2-60), Wiseman, MIN 1st 2021, GS 1st 2021 OR Horford (1-28; 2nd year ptl for 12m), TOR 1st 2021, Wiseman, GS 1st 2021?

Because I think that's pretty close to even, if not favorable to the latter because Horford is still a very solid player at C, whereas Wiggins is a blend into the woodwork type wing. Not to mention the better salary situation too.

[FNQ]

What happened to Wiseman on your roster? Heh. But yeah, I wouldn't do the deal because Lowry is expiring. Also, Klay is going to be out for a good portion of next season so we have to either have Wiggins or Oubre/his salary on this roster to start. If we're depending on a draft pick and an MLE player to keep us adrift for a couple months, we maybe in trouble.

lol holy **** i was so excited about the roster I forgot him

I'm actually fine with Poole taking the role, because I really feel it could fit him. And for everyone opining about his defense, maybe they oughta take a stroll down memory lane of Klay's 2nd year and how his defense was. Hell, how his offense was!

Either way, I think there's enough talent there to keep us afloat, and once Klay returns, that team not only is damned good, we still have ammo to make a trade for middling players. For example - if we did this kind of deal we could try and flip Looney for a temporary wing. Maybe sign a Wayne Ellington type..

But considering the amount of talent surrounding that wing, I'm not worried. We're starting Wiggins/Oubre/Looney right now and over .500

In a teeny sample size, Poole is far ahead of Klay as a finisher in their second years. Poole will never reach those heights as a shooter, in part because he's a high variance gunner, in part because Klay is a 99th percentile shooter, but I appreciate that comparison.

Yup and to be clear, I'm not putting Poole anywhere near Klay's trajectory. I'm saying his skillset mirrors a lot of Klay's and there's no reason he couldnt step into Klay's role for a while. Poole, like Klay, like Curry, has already earned some NBA gravity. And that is the huge thing we're missing. We're missing Klay's gravity. It opens up the floor so much.. I think Wiggins, or Oubre, would do so much better if the other was benched and Poole inserted in their place. And for the 'oh noez, defense!' crowd.. Oubre's defensive rotations don't offend you but Poole's do? fohhhhhhhhhh

[and1GS]

W's rumored in for Aaron Gordon (seems like we are rumored for everyone). I have a soft spot for him since he's from the Bay Area, but am I crazy to think Aaron might be a great fit for us? Solid defensive numbers (but not a rim protector, which...HOW) and I think he'd be OK with a 6th man role where he gets ~28 mpg playing at the 5, 4 and the 3 (gulp).

I have to imagine his trade value is WAY lower now that he's gone from 'AARON GORDON!!!' to 'Aaron Gordon.' Oubre and our GS pick for this year? I think I'd do that. His contract even takes a $2m dip next year to $16m.

[kingcong95]

Gordon is a better passer and defender than Oubre, but he can't shoot or stay healthy. If we give them this year's pick, that pick would be in the 12-20 range. I'd do it only if I was confident in getting Klay back next year at 75-80% capacity, in which case I would add protections that increase the chances we give them the pick next year instead of this year.

[TB]

I like Gordon. He's a solid forward that does a little bit of everything, even if he doesn't do anything great. Him and Vucevic have never played with a good guard, so they have become pretty decent distributors having to fill that role.

I wouldn't give up our pick this year, or any 1st round pick, but I'd definitely be interested in trying to trade Oubre and Paschall for him.

Basically I want to turn Oubre + paschall or Looney etc etc into a good rotational player thats under contract next year. Guys like Gordon, Thad Young, Satoransky, Cedi/Nance would all fit that category. And doing it without giving up picks.