KT + Beno

[Kingsin07]

In return, Samuel Dalembert

One extra year of his contract, but he needs a change of scenery.

We get rid of Beno and Phi needs another PG...and they have players who Beno could potentially play well with

Since we are looking to be players in the 2011 FA market from what I am hearing, and not 2010, why not?

Dalembert comes off the cap at 13 mil in 2011.....and he blocks shots and gets rebounds now. There is plenty of risk, yet some reward as well.

KT returns to the city where he has the most success and in one short year leaves the NBA one of the most overpaid players in recent memory.

 

[91sickness]

I thnk we could get more value out of K9's expiring contract closer to the trade deadline. Something that could help us long term...draft picks young players etc. I think Dalembert would be K9 part II.

 

[Chupacabra]

^I respectfully disagree that Dalembert is KT part 2. Dalembert is in the 7 foot area and is athletic. We definitely need to get a mobile shotblocker from the trading block. Chris Anderson or Marcus Camby would be ideal.

 

[AriesMar27]

if philly wanted to make that move then i would be so down. but then we would be in the same situation that we were in before with the chandler trade thread.... everyone wants hawes to start at center eventhough the player that we would be trading for is not only better but a better fit on our team.

 

[rhythmless]

I was pondering this move yesterday as well, for either Chandler/Dalembert. It makes sense for both teams, but both teams would still have gripes afterwards. Like democracy, you can tell you did a good job when everyone has something to complain about.

Philly/NO both want to be rid of the large contracts. That much is certain. In exchange, they basically get to change one large contract into an ender and a longer, smaller contract. Depending on how important it is to clear cap space for next year, I say it is a relatively good move for either ball club.

I would prefer Chandler, as he is a couple years younger, but Dalembert, at 28, isnt that old. Philly would need a pg as well to back up Holiday, as I am sure they will not be able to sign Miller. Beno is a servicable backup at a lofty contract.

For us, it drastically takes away from next year's free agent market. It does give us a defensive, mobile, rebounding, big man with shotblocking. This is imo, our weakest area, and either Dalembert/Chandler would fill the 3rd big role perfectly imo. They don't need shots, and are suited to come off the bench.

 

[Arby's Roast Beef]

It does work and finally addresses our need of a long armed, athletic shotblocking defensive center we haven't had since uh...Keon Clark? And Dalembert's contract expires in two years, so in the meantime, he could just give us a stalwart presence who rebounds and blocks shots, while making use of a now good trade chip in KT, and finally getting rid of Udrih to a suitor who thinks they could have a solid backup PG.

But this trade really depends on how much Philly likes Beno Udrih, because they're stuck with his escalating contract for the next four years. They might be trying to elevate Speights to the starting lineup (hence trading Dalembert), but I can see them trying to get a mentor for PGs in training Lou Williams and Jrue Holiday. I just think they could get a far cheaper option. Anyhow, Philly's been trying to sack Dalembert for salary relief for a while now, and by doing this trade they want $8.5mil of relief (KT's expiring contract) one year faster instead of $12.2mil of relief by letting Dalembert's contract expire in two years. Maybe they want to get into the 2010 sweepstakes?

 

[AriesMar27]

This is imo, our weakest area, and either Dalembert/Chandler would fill the 3rd big role perfectly imo. They don't need shots, and are suited to come off the bench.

there is the problem... neither one should be the 3rd big. they should be the starting center. hawes would have to come off the bench...

 

[rhythmless]

there is the problem... neither one should be the 3rd big. they should be the starting center. hawes would have to come off the bench...

I will disagree to the fullest extent.

1. Why do they have to "start?"

2. These defensive bigs are suited to come off the bench because they don't need the ball. Your bench is also not the best lineup for ball movement. They consist (ideally) of sparkplugs who score with the ball in their hands (ala bjax, Ben Gordon, JR Smith, et al). You put Hawes there, and you waste his package of talents. You put a Chandler in there, and he can clean up the mess.

3. Dalembert is a middling starting center at best. He plays minutes that are well suited to a backup. Chandler, likewise, could easily come off the bench. A 3 man rotation at the 4/5 is ideal, with all players getting 30 plus minutes being possible. In addition, big men play less minutes.

What does it matter if they start or not, if they are all getting significant minutes, and matchups are managed appropriately?

 

[gunks]

OR...Maybe move Hawes to the 4 (he played it, I forget how effectively though), and have JT (who can also play 4/5) come off the bench?

Interesting possibilities out there. I kinda think Petrie may wait til deadline time to pull any trade though. We'll get better offers, and by then will have a better idea of how effective Tyreke is at the point, which will influence a lot of big roster decisions (ie: moving or keeping Martin).

Dalembert is overpaid, but 2 years isnt THAT awful a contract. At the very worst he is an expiring next season, and therefor a trade chip. And he would address our frontcourt needs.

Edit: checked the split stats. Hawes was pretty crap as a 4. At least numbers wise. Shot 35% from the field!

 

[Showtime]

there is the problem... neither one should be the 3rd big. they should be the starting center. hawes would have to come off the bench...

Why? Chandler has had some health issues and has digressed. He has ZERO offensive ability and would be ideal for a reserve center to come in and relieve Hawes for a few minutes. I don't even think his body can handle a full season starting.

 

[dbfish]

I don't care who starts,

that's up to the coach. There would be plenty of minutes for all with a 3 man rotation. (Sorry May). I would do it.

 

[wonjaeyou]

that's up to the coach. There would be plenty of minutes for all with a 3 man rotation. (Sorry May). I would do it.

agreed.

But I don't see Phillies taking Beno's long, and overpaid contract.

 

[AriesMar27]

I will disagree to the fullest extent.

1. Why do they have to "start?"

2. These defensive bigs are suited to come off the bench because they don't need the ball. Your bench is also not the best lineup for ball movement. They consist (ideally) of sparkplugs who score with the ball in their hands (ala bjax, Ben Gordon, JR Smith, et al). You put Hawes there, and you waste his package of talents. You put a Chandler in there, and he can clean up the mess.

3. Dalembert is a middling starting center at best. He plays minutes that are well suited to a backup. Chandler, likewise, could easily come off the bench. A 3 man rotation at the 4/5 is ideal, with all players getting 30 plus minutes being possible. In addition, big men play less minutes.

What does it matter if they start or not, if they are all getting significant minutes, and matchups are managed appropriately?

1. they are better defenders and rebounders than hawes....

2. id rather have them guarding the opposings best bigmen rather than their backups who couldnt score by themselves anyways. who would you rather have hawes guarding, dwight or gortat/bass? who would you rather have chandler/dalembert guarding, dwight or gortat/bass.

3. since neither one needs the ball on offense or cant score why would you want them with a bunch of other players who cant score? hawes can score and would have an easier time scoring in the post against a bench player than against the starting big. and which contending teams have their defensive big coming off the bench? hell thats the reason odom came off the bench last year. he could score and help run the offense off the bench. hawes would have the same role and it would make our team better overall in the process. that and they needed toughness which is what bynum was supposed to bring. oddly enough odom killed the magic bench... and bynum fouled the hell out of howard which took him out of his comfort zone. maybe the magic shouldve brought dwight off the bench....

 

[rhythmless]

1. they are better defenders and rebounders than hawes....

2. id rather have them guarding the opposings best bigmen rather than their backups who couldnt score by themselves anyways. who would you rather have hawes guarding, dwight or gortat/bass? who would you rather have chandler/dalembert guarding, dwight or gortat/bass.

3. since neither one needs the ball on offense or cant score why would you want them with a bunch of other players who cant score? hawes can score and would have an easier time scoring in the post against a bench player than against the starting big. and which contending teams have their defensive big coming off the bench? hell thats the reason odom came off the bench last year. he could score and help run the offense off the bench. hawes would have the same role and it would make our team better overall in the process. that and they needed toughness which is what bynum was supposed to bring. oddly enough odom killed the magic bench... and bynum fouled the hell out of howard which took him out of his comfort zone. maybe the magic shouldve brought dwight off the bench....

1. Hawes is 21, Thompson 22, coming into their 3rd and 2nd season, respectively. Their ceiling has not been established in the slightest.

2. You talk like whenever a starting C goes to the bench, the other team's starting C goes to the bench. And when they come back, the other starter comes back as well. You act like every team's rotation is the same, and every team's matchup is exactly lined up perfectly. This isn't even true in a video game. Watch a couple games. At times, Hawes will be matched up w/both the starting C and backup C. Same goes for Thompson. Same would go for the backup big. Further, your questions are bias, bordering on asinine. Let me pose to you similar questions; who would you rather have try to score on Dwight? Hawes or Chandler? Does that answer your question? These things are fluid.

3. Again, your reasoning completely disregards the other side of the argument. Yes, Hawes will have it easier playing against the other team's backup center. But you know what? Our entire starting lineup will have a better chance of scoring on their backups. By your logic, we should shift all the starters to the bench, and bring all the benchers to start. It'll be so easy for the starters itll be BRILLIANT.

To put this down once and for all, matchups, teams, minutes, are all fluid and should be addressed on individual basis. I think that's why they hired a coach. You know, to make changes as needed. If it ends up that you need to flip flop a starter/bench because it works better, fine. But your reasoning for NOT bringing in a defensive big due to issues of "who should start" are completely inept.

 

[AriesMar27]

you say that until one of the starting centers gets into foul trouble. the minute the back up comes in the opposing teams guards' eyes light up because there is a greenlight into the paint.

this years nba finals was a prime example of that. dwight got bynum into early foul trouble so pau had to slide over at center. alston and lee had their most success while bynum was out. though howard couldnt take advantage of it because he cant shoot freethrows.

 

[bajaden]

you say that until one of the starting centers gets into foul trouble. the minute the back up comes in the opposing teams guards' eyes light up because there is a greenlight into the paint.

this years nba finals was a prime example of that. dwight got bynum into early foul trouble so pau had to slide over at center. alston and lee had their most success while bynum was out. though howard couldnt take advantage of it because he cant shoot freethrows.

Let me see, the last time I checked, I think the Lakers won that series. You can't seriously be saying that Howard should come off the bench. Right? If you are, I want to know what your drinking so I can get some of it.

 

[AriesMar27]

Let me see, the last time I checked, I think the Lakers won that series. You can't seriously be saying that Howard should come off the bench. Right? If you are, I want to know what your drinking so I can get some of it.

i was being sarcastic... though that series outside of game 1 basically came down to howard not making freethrows...especially those 2 overtime games...