Which Brad Trade Has You Most Interested?
- Thread starter GeraldWallace#3
- Start date
Brad and Kenny for Marion.
We get an expiring and Marion we get rid of Kenny, and now Mikki Moore goes to 3rd off the bench, or 2nd off the bench in certain situations. At the end of the season we lose Marion, and we have Jason Thompson and Mikki Moore.
That leaves some holes for next year, but it's not my job to fill the holes, so I'm not going to spend all day figuring that out. That may be the reason Petrie doesn't do this deal, because of the holes, and we'd just have to pick up some other journey pf/c to back up the position, and they may not want to take another contract. Then at the end of the 09-10 season Kenny, Brad and Mikki all go away.
By that time we may have picked up some kids in the draft to help fill those positions, and then go free agent hunting during the 10 off season.
So, in the end staying put may make more sense because of that.
We get an expiring and Marion we get rid of Kenny, and now Mikki Moore goes to 3rd off the bench, or 2nd off the bench in certain situations. At the end of the season we lose Marion, and we have Jason Thompson and Mikki Moore.
That leaves some holes for next year, but it's not my job to fill the holes, so I'm not going to spend all day figuring that out. That may be the reason Petrie doesn't do this deal, because of the holes, and we'd just have to pick up some other journey pf/c to back up the position, and they may not want to take another contract. Then at the end of the 09-10 season Kenny, Brad and Mikki all go away.
By that time we may have picked up some kids in the draft to help fill those positions, and then go free agent hunting during the 10 off season.
So, in the end staying put may make more sense because of that.
Brad for Gooden+Noah or Thomas, of course, give us an expiring and a young player. Dump Kenny Thomas is not that important anymore.
But I really doubt we can get so much for Brad. I think a bad contract (Nocioni or Hinrich)+a young player (Noah or Thomas) or two expirings (Gooden+Simmons for example) are more realistic options, but expirings+young players it's too much for a 32 years old, 23 millions left, 11/7/47% FG center.
But I really doubt we can get so much for Brad. I think a bad contract (Nocioni or Hinrich)+a young player (Noah or Thomas) or two expirings (Gooden+Simmons for example) are more realistic options, but expirings+young players it's too much for a 32 years old, 23 millions left, 11/7/47% FG center.
I voted 'other' because I don't like any of these trades. Noah/Thomas haven't proved anything in the league and only have value based on their draft positions. Wallace is good but I would not touch his contract on a rebuilding team, especially given his age and health concerns. Marion is OK but really what's the point? We're not going to give him an extension and he'll leave at the end of the year so we just gave up two massive expiring contracts next year that could have potential value for one this year that has none. Giving up Thomas/Miller for an expiring is silly considering they both expire next year anyways.
The Heat deal is pointless. Chicago deal is the right idea, but I'm not too big on either Noah or Thomas; at least it's something though. Charlotte's is potentially a steal, but also extremely, I don't think it's worth the risk considering Wallace's age could be deceiving because of how wreckless he plays. If I had to choose one of them, I think I'd choose the Chicago deal; if it doesn't work out at least we're not stuck with a long 10mil/yr contract.
I agree with most of what you said, except for exchanging our 2010 expiring for 09 expiring. Have you been watching the games? Do you enjoy what you are seeing? Do you want to watch another year of the same caliber of basketball? With a trade, our roster next year is basicly the same except for the new draft choices and whoever we get in the trade.
With the trades your limited to what the other team thinks your players are worth. Cap space is like money in the bank, and money talks. Teams paying Luxury Tax can trade and get healthy with our cap space. FA's are an option. Teams worried that they won't be able to sign all their players, might be willing to trade one of their RFA for cap space. (ie Utah, Clev) Then there's the option of trading cap space for draft picks or moving up in the draft. Plus, there's no requirement to use the cap space for long term contracts. We can simply wait see how the draft plays out, then fill our needs. If that means going after Stars ok, but we could just as easily go after role players with expiring contracts, and still be able to be involved in the 2010 FA market.
With the trades your limited to what the other team thinks your players are worth. Cap space is like money in the bank, and money talks. Teams paying Luxury Tax can trade and get healthy with our cap space. FA's are an option. Teams worried that they won't be able to sign all their players, might be willing to trade one of their RFA for cap space. (ie Utah, Clev) Then there's the option of trading cap space for draft picks or moving up in the draft. Plus, there's no requirement to use the cap space for long term contracts. We can simply wait see how the draft plays out, then fill our needs. If that means going after Stars ok, but we could just as easily go after role players with expiring contracts, and still be able to be involved in the 2010 FA market.
Noah & Thomas are still question marks, and could very well turn into below aver players like Shelden Williams. Plus, what happens if we end up with an opportunity to draft Griffin or Thabeet. Your not going to pass them up so Noah & Thomas become unnecessary.
If you can move K9 with Miller, you do it. Wait till the lottery is determined, then start wheeling and dealing with cap space, draft picks, & Salmons. You never know, we could get the #1 pick, and then be able to trade our 2nd pick & Salmons to move up to #4 or #5. Then we'd end up with our Big & our PG, and still have all of our cap space.
If you can move K9 with Miller, you do it. Wait till the lottery is determined, then start wheeling and dealing with cap space, draft picks, & Salmons. You never know, we could get the #1 pick, and then be able to trade our 2nd pick & Salmons to move up to #4 or #5. Then we'd end up with our Big & our PG, and still have all of our cap space.
In the end I said "other" because I'd like to see a first-rounder or young talent (please, not Noah) come back for the presumably valuable 2010-ender in Brad.
Brad for Wallace is intriguing, but it doesn't look like Charlotte would be down for it. There are a couple of reasons, hashed out here before by many, that I would be a bit reluctant to get Wallace on a long-term deal - his tendency to injury, his concussion record, and being the eternal optimist, I want to see us develop Donte Greene into an all-star level inside-outside SF.
On the surface I don't really love Brad/Kenny for Marion, but there's a lot of cash to be saved there. All of Brad and all of Kenny for next year is $21M, and Marion comes out a bit lower this year, so we might save up to another $1M prorated in '09. So it is a bit tempting to let all that money go. I don't know what we do with that money, though, outside of make a run at Boozer.
The downside of trying to deal Brad/Kenny as enders for draft picks is that the teams trading for them will want to send bad salary back to us. And that's $21M of bad salary for at least the '10 and '11 season. And if you ask me would I rather have:
A) Two middling picks (because they'd likely be lottery protected) and maybe two mildly promising kids, and some bad salary
B) Miller and KT to the end of their contract
C) A partial year of Marion
Then A) seems the obvious choice. But let's look at approximate marginal cost, relative to the cheapest option:
A) At least $40M and reasonably $50M or more (not including the salaries of the draft picks) spread out through '10, '11, and possibly later
B) About $21M for Brad and KT in '10 (about another $1M for Brad/KT in '09)
C) $0
Then it's just not so obvious. You're paying out a marginal $10M+ per kid/pick, and if you play the Pritchard game properly, picks can be bought for a lot less.
Man, this makes me lean towards Marion and just getting the cash off the books...
Brad for Wallace is intriguing, but it doesn't look like Charlotte would be down for it. There are a couple of reasons, hashed out here before by many, that I would be a bit reluctant to get Wallace on a long-term deal - his tendency to injury, his concussion record, and being the eternal optimist, I want to see us develop Donte Greene into an all-star level inside-outside SF.
On the surface I don't really love Brad/Kenny for Marion, but there's a lot of cash to be saved there. All of Brad and all of Kenny for next year is $21M, and Marion comes out a bit lower this year, so we might save up to another $1M prorated in '09. So it is a bit tempting to let all that money go. I don't know what we do with that money, though, outside of make a run at Boozer.
The downside of trying to deal Brad/Kenny as enders for draft picks is that the teams trading for them will want to send bad salary back to us. And that's $21M of bad salary for at least the '10 and '11 season. And if you ask me would I rather have:
A) Two middling picks (because they'd likely be lottery protected) and maybe two mildly promising kids, and some bad salary
B) Miller and KT to the end of their contract
C) A partial year of Marion
Then A) seems the obvious choice. But let's look at approximate marginal cost, relative to the cheapest option:
A) At least $40M and reasonably $50M or more (not including the salaries of the draft picks) spread out through '10, '11, and possibly later
B) About $21M for Brad and KT in '10 (about another $1M for Brad/KT in '09)
C) $0
Then it's just not so obvious. You're paying out a marginal $10M+ per kid/pick, and if you play the Pritchard game properly, picks can be bought for a lot less.
Man, this makes me lean towards Marion and just getting the cash off the books...
Last edited:
Considering the last time Gerald Wallace was here, he:
1. Didn't show the kind of work ethic that pleased Petrie or Adelman.
2. Pouted on the bench and thru his agent, urged Petrie to trade him
3. Was injured a lot of the times
4. Supposedly prompted Petrie to proclaim he'll never again draft a player he didn't work-out.
I highly doubt that Petrie will bring GW back.
And I also doubt the Heat will take on Kenny Thomas's contract.
So I voted for the Bulls trade. It's the only one that is remotely possible, imo.
1. Didn't show the kind of work ethic that pleased Petrie or Adelman.
2. Pouted on the bench and thru his agent, urged Petrie to trade him
3. Was injured a lot of the times
4. Supposedly prompted Petrie to proclaim he'll never again draft a player he didn't work-out.
I highly doubt that Petrie will bring GW back.
And I also doubt the Heat will take on Kenny Thomas's contract.
So I voted for the Bulls trade. It's the only one that is remotely possible, imo.
Considering contracts Wallace = Salmons. Taking on Gooden and Noah/thomas gives us a servicable PF to start alongside Hawes giving Noah/Thomas time to develop, learn our system and eventually take over. All without taking up too much more cap space.
Wallace is intriguing but we have enough wing players. This also lets us focus more on a PG in the draft.
Wallace is intriguing but we have enough wing players. This also lets us focus more on a PG in the draft.
Give me the Chicago deal 10 times out of 10 times...Gooden is good. I mean he's no star but he's a great rebounder with an above average offensive game, while being on an expiring contract. You shave that year off of Brad deal and you get some significant cap space to perhaps pursue a Carlos Boozer, Amare Stoudemire(via snt w/extension) or Ben Gordon caliber player in 2009, then you STILL have enough money to look to max out a player like Bosh, Joe Johnson etc. in 2010.
That could potentially land you another young pup in Noah/Thomas PLUS two FA's over 2 years and likely at least 1 if not 2 lotto picks to the roster.
In 2010 that'd give us a roster of:
C: Hawes, Noah
PF: Thompson, Greene
SF: Salmons, Garcia
SG: Martin
PG: Beno
+ 2009 FA (Boozer, Amare, Gordon, etc.)
+ 2010 FA (Bosh, Johnson, etc)
+ 2009 Lotto pick
+ 2009 Houston first rounder
+ 2010 first rounder
That'd give us 13 guys under contract with potential a LOT of talent moving forward.
That could potentially land you another young pup in Noah/Thomas PLUS two FA's over 2 years and likely at least 1 if not 2 lotto picks to the roster.
In 2010 that'd give us a roster of:
C: Hawes, Noah
PF: Thompson, Greene
SF: Salmons, Garcia
SG: Martin
PG: Beno
+ 2009 FA (Boozer, Amare, Gordon, etc.)
+ 2010 FA (Bosh, Johnson, etc)
+ 2009 Lotto pick
+ 2009 Houston first rounder
+ 2010 first rounder
That'd give us 13 guys under contract with potential a LOT of talent moving forward.
Noah & Thomas are still question marks, and could very well turn into below aver players like Shelden Williams. Plus, what happens if we end up with an opportunity to draft Griffin or Thabeet. Your not going to pass them up so Noah & Thomas become unnecessary.
If you can move K9 with Miller, you do it. Wait till the lottery is determined, then start wheeling and dealing with cap space, draft picks, & Salmons. You never know, we could get the #1 pick, and then be able to trade our 2nd pick & Salmons to move up to #4 or #5. Then we'd end up with our Big & our PG, and still have all of our cap space.
If you can move K9 with Miller, you do it. Wait till the lottery is determined, then start wheeling and dealing with cap space, draft picks, & Salmons. You never know, we could get the #1 pick, and then be able to trade our 2nd pick & Salmons to move up to #4 or #5. Then we'd end up with our Big & our PG, and still have all of our cap space.
I like getting Noah or Thomas. They could be busts, but they are nothing like Shelden Williams. Shelden is short height wise, has a short wing span and has below average athleticism. His upside is a tough, inside banger. He was a terrible draft pick.
Noah and Thomas might not work out, but there is no denying their potential. Noah at the very last can be a rich man's Scot Pollard. He has heigh, length and plays with a lot of heart. Thomas is the quenessential player who a team gives up on too soon. He was the number 2 pick for a reason - he has height, length and great athleticism. He has shown flashes of putting things together, but has lacked consistency. This has been exacerbated by his getting very inconsistent playing time. If he gets traded to a team that will give him some consistent minutes and let him develop, he still has a very high ceiling. I think he is the perfect gamble for us. And because he can play the 3, 4 and 5 - he would also give us a lot of options. Imagine a lineup with Thomas, Thompson and Hawes on the floor. If Greene can play some shooting guard, we could have our 2-5 positions filled with athletic players 6'10'' and taller.
Noah and Thomas might not work out, but there is no denying their potential. Noah at the very last can be a rich man's Scot Pollard. He has heigh, length and plays with a lot of heart. Thomas is the quenessential player who a team gives up on too soon. He was the number 2 pick for a reason - he has height, length and great athleticism. He has shown flashes of putting things together, but has lacked consistency. This has been exacerbated by his getting very inconsistent playing time. If he gets traded to a team that will give him some consistent minutes and let him develop, he still has a very high ceiling. I think he is the perfect gamble for us. And because he can play the 3, 4 and 5 - he would also give us a lot of options. Imagine a lineup with Thomas, Thompson and Hawes on the floor. If Greene can play some shooting guard, we could have our 2-5 positions filled with athletic players 6'10'' and taller.
I'm not really a Felton fan. I'm really not sure how much better he actually is than Beno. Felton also doesn't play much D. His shot is very inconsistent and at times he starts shooting way too much. Besides, adding Gerald and Felton is basically adding the core of a 25 win team. I just don't think it's in our best interest right now.
