Reply With Quote
Why the would the Celtics trade the best perimeter defender in the NBA for a Center that doesn't really fit and an unproven PG?
makes no sense. less than nothing.
Buuuuuut... If the Spurs were to go that route, then maybe something like this would be better value:
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=cowmgcd
Adding a player like Baynes and doing this trade would save the Spurs a good deal of money this year and give them even more cap room next year (as they wouldn't have to pay Splitter). I still don't see how it doesn't cripple them this year; they'd have to hope one of Baynes, Melo or someone else can step in as the backup center. I could see that approaching realistic value for Williams, and that's a great deal for Splitter, all things considered. If San Antonio doesn't plan on paying him next season, I think this is one of the best packages they could expect to receive. Plus, they'd get a decent second-rounder from Philly.
The Celtics get a good center who may be even better starting with Rondo than he is playing limited minutes in San Antonio. Cory could play with his cousin, and he and/or Ivey may be able to play the guard-stopper role Bradley used to play with Boston. Philly gets Blair for basically nothing. Minnesota gets the guard they need, more shooting and a much-cheaper power-forward prospect that is doing decent work in Boston right now. Some picks may have to change hands, but I could see this framework working for all teams involved. So long as the Spurs want to move Splitter (which I don't believe they do) and the Wolves give up on getting Gasol, I could see them all agreeing to this.
Why the would the Celtics trade the best perimeter defender in the NBA for a Center that doesn't really fit and an unproven PG?
makes no sense. less than nothing.
Last edited by szkorhetz; 12-20-2012 at 05:24 PM.
The term "best perimeter defender" is thrown around way too much. A few months of good defensive play does not put Bradley in that category. (He didn't do anything as a rookie). He's also coming off an injury, so it's up in the air if he's going to come back and be the same. Right now, Boston is playing "small" with Garnett as the center. But they've been trying for the last few years to get good big men. The lack of them is killing the Celtics this year. They also need a back-up point guard badly, too, as right now they have to trot out Barbosa. Bradley was never much of a point, either, so he's not going to help. Joseph has shown flashes of being a true PG. He seems like a decent project for a team that's so Rondo-dominated, anyway.
Ivey has done as much defensively as Bradley. I honestly don't really care about the Spurs getting him, but an earlier poster suggested him as a piece in a Splitter trade, so I left him in. I don't see him as an irreplaceable piece for Boston, and I don't see him as a necessary piece for San Antonio. He'd be risky to start with Parker, and he probably wouldn't be displacing Manu on the bench. So giving him playing time would probably require moving Green. That may end up being worth it, but I don't think Bradley's good enough to change the back-court rotation when everyone is healthy.
Home Run, Solid Double, Base Hit?
I hate baseball. It's something only Caribbean Greece cares about anymore. However, with regards to bosltering the Spurs chances to win a le do you feel the Spurs need a homerun, just a base hit or the solid double? I preface this all with a thought process of not giving up any of the big 3, Tiago or Kawhi if possible.
How I define those:
Homerun: Significant risk/Significant reward. Injured players, bad contracts, malcontents that might be able to be had with salary relief and/or a first round pick.
Solid Double: Might have to move a guy like Tiago, preferrably not though, to get a player who's very solid on a fair contract that just might be a bad fit with current team, or on a team with younger players ready to take over. Not a superstar player, but one that is definitely boarderline All Star player if it goes well.
Base Hit: A rotational guy that fills a need where the Spurs don't have to rely on Blair, Bonner, Boris or one of the weaker back up guards.
Do most feel the Spurs need any trade and if so, which level?
For example - a homerun type of trade in this context:
Hornets Give: Eric Gordon
Spurs Give: Stephen Jackson, Matt Bonner and Gary Neal + first rounder
Hornets get to off load a big contract for a guy who's damn talented, but seemingly always unhealthy (whether he wants to be in NO is another valid question). Stephen Jackson is a salary guy who can be bought out opening up cap space. They get a big man who might have something they like and is only partially guaranteed next season, a rotational shooter like Gary Neal (to replace a guy like Belinelli they lost) and a first rounder. They might be able to get more for him, but if someone offers them a decent role player + cap space + first rounder do they move him? Especially if the trade market for Gordon is pretty dried up if he does not play many games near the deadline?
Spurs get a guy with some star potential where if he works out can give the Spurs another legit 20PPG talented scorer/ball handler. He might also pave the way for Manu insurance in case 1) Manu gets injured or 2) Manu retires. It's a huge risk because of the contract, but that type of trade (getting a guy with that upside) without having to give up a major piece might be something to consider.
So along those lines, what do yall think about what the Spurs really need?
Last edited by DPG21920; 12-20-2012 at 05:39 PM.
I'm torn between what I want the Spurs to get and what I think they need to help them this year. I think any homerun trade is too risky if thinking about this year, as there are too many things that could go wrong to sink a ship that is sailing pretty smoothly right now. If they move Splitter, they'd have to have a really solid plan on how to replace him. The Spurs waited too long for another legitimate big man to move him for an unknown.
I want the Spurs to take a change on player who are treading the bust line. I think the Spurs' biggest asset is their culture and their coaching. They should use it to their advantage. I want to see some young players who are under performing their high draft statuses, like Williams and Vesely. I don't think it helps the Spurs now if they have to give up Tiago or even Green or Jack for one of these players, but I'd love to see what those players could become in San Antonio.
A bigger risk than Gordon would be Beasley, who is really looking like a bust with his third team. He's a huge headcase, and is almost certainly beyond saving, but if he could get back on track, he'd be the missing piece. He can just do things other bigs can't. His contract is pretty reasonable compared to Gordon, and Green and Bonner could probably get it done. He'd be the homerun trade out there.
Outside of him, a trade like Splitter for Cousins is another high risk/reward deal. I don't really think trading for injured players makes sense; that's more for free agency in my mind.
EDIT: Actually, Bonner, Blair and Neal for Beasley works, too.
Beasley is not much of an inside player. I love him, I have him starting next to TIM in 2K13, but in reality, that just would not work and really would not solve any of our problems, IMHO.
If we wouldn't have KL, than it is another story. But we have.
So you're thinking just a base hit it seems. In all my scenarios, the goal in mind would do a trade without giving up Tim/TP/Manu/Kawhi/Tiago. I only give up Tiago if it's a no brainer, but that would be tough. From an injury perspective I mean a guy who's still expected to return at least by the trade deadline.
I agree though about our culture. Taking on a lower risk guy with some situational problems might be a good idea and much less risky/costly. However, in that situation the contract becomes critical. If it's low risk/low reward I want the cap space to not be phased too much.
I personally don't think the Spurs will have cap space if they intend to keep Splitter. He'll eat almost all of what Manu and Jack don't, and exceptions will take the rest. The Beasley trade doesn't give up Tiago, and I imagine Diaw would play with him off the bench or Beasley will play with him. The only way I give up Splitter is for someone like Gortat. But I don't think that's necessary with the way Tiago has been playing.
Besides Gordon, who else would qualify as a homerun? I know others have been injured, but I can't think of anyone really good who's been out besides Bynum and Granger.
szkorhetz I don't think the Spurs need another inside player to start next to Tim. I think the days of saving him from banging down low are over. He seems like he's putting a lot of effort into being able to play in the post effectively again. A stretch four who can drive and finish may make a good deal of sense this year.
Someone like Amare perhaps? Big risk, but type of guy if things go right that might really help? Same deal with the contract as Gordon..
Agree about the cap space though. I mentioned that Tiago is in line for a big pay day probably in the salaries thread. Let's say the Spurs have between 18-22M in cap space next year. Does Manu retire? If he does, would they even consider bringing Jack back? Even if Manu does not retire, is Jack likely to stay? The real quesitons are Manu's health, will he retire and if not, how much will he take? Will he take a Duncan like pay cut to stay on?
Then there is Tiago. That could wind up being a very tough, ASIK like decision.
I forgot about Amare. But I worry that he'd only be a center at this point. He was never overly effective as a four, and he's been getting slower. I don't consider him an upgrade over Splitter. If the Spurs are going to swing for the fences, I think it needs to be for a power-forward. I don't think any other position is bad enough to take an injury risk. I don't see any out there that would qualify, though. Maybe Bargnani, but he's never been good enough to worry about.
Definitely not Bargnani. But the idea was to just guage what type of trade/risk, if any, the Spurs need to take. If you can get a guy like Gordon/Amare/Other similar type guy without giving up anyone but Jackson+fillers+draft pick, is that necessary? Or should the Spurs focus on smaller deals and keep cap space in mind most importantly?
Tough to answer right now and I really hope over the next month the Spurs stay healthy, get a rotation set and we see what this team's ceiling truly is.
Tiago is worth Asik money, in my opinion. If you look at who else is making that type of money, Splitter is worth it.
Don't disagree really. It will be very interesting and things can change quickly. Any kind of major injury changes the variable, same with a strong or weak playoff run. Just too hard to tell. Good news is Spurs have options. They can have cap space if they want it. They can likely keep their core together if they want to. They have tradeable assets (Jackson/Bonner expiring contracts, talent like Tiago/Neal or even big 3). They are in a good spot.
They are. The Spurs don't need a superstar; they have that by committee with the Big Three. They need youth and athleticism in the front court. They need star potential. I think they can do that without giving up Jack, but as long as they have a plan to replace his minutes at the three, I'm willing to see what that looks like.
Williams is the one to watch, as he has everything the Spurs need from a role player this year, as well as having the ability to compensate for the Big Three getting older. Vesely is intriguing, but I haven't seen the skills needed to play the three or the four. Beasley would never happen, as he's about as far away from a Spurs player as you can get. But getting him for spare parts would allow the Spurs to offset dependence on him or any of these player right away.
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=c3lhrqp
What's true is that there are some young player with potential getting inconsistent minutes on teams across the league. Teams like Philly and Milwaukee seem to have know idea who to play on any given night. Veterans like those that San Antonio has can be really helpful to teams trying to gain some stability. The Spurs just have to be willing to give up some of that stability for potential.
Why do you always trading DB to Philly. They stated that they have no interest in him...
I don't believe Philly has said that. No team ever states that they have no interest in a player from another team, nor that they do. It's terrible practice to show your hand when you don't have to, and in some cases it's tampering.
I don't think Philly would mind taking Blair for nothing. But if they do, there are other teams that would take him for nothing or for non-guaranteed contracts, which would mean pretty much the same thing. I usually just put them there because the trade machine lets me do it without asking me to jump through hoops. It's possible that the Suns would take him in this deal, which would render having to find a third team moot.
DPG, not a snowball's chance the Hornets even give that proposal a second of consideration. Gordon's days are clearly numbered their and his injury prone nature won't help his value, but he's still worth a lot more than that.
Stoudemire makes too much for him to be a consideration. They'd have to literally gut their roster to acquire him, they'd be left with zero depth on the perimeter and staying under the tax would be virtually impossible going forward.
To answer your question, probably a double. Given their dire situation, I'd take a base hit too, though. Obviously, a home run would be great, but it's highly unlikely.
Regarding Williams: Howard has a torn ACL, is done for the season and has been released. Not only opens up a roster spot, but further weakens their wing depth. There's speculation they could pursue Redd, but you've got to think Neal (and Bonner, to make it work) is looking pretty good right now.
Too bad Green can't be traded, as he can play both wing position and could be more valuable than Neal for that reason. Unfortunately, Howard's injury may open up minutes for Williams at the three. If that's the case, they may not want to move him as much.
How about bonner for Jordan Hill straight up?? It seems like a win-win for both teams
TD21 - don't disagree about NO with regards to Gordon - it was just an example. I think they would listen, but it would depend on the market for him. It might very well be dry if he has any setbacks or hasn't played by the deadline.
Beasley playing for Pop would be hilarious.
If they are not trying to get Baynes, they have to be working on a trade... I don't believe a lot of names have been suggested as a back up center via trade.
Rebounding seems like it could end up being very important in the PO, teams like Miami, Boston could be ed in the POs because of their lack of rebounding. We probably belong to that list if we don't find a good back up C or at least we'd have to go back to last year's rotation.
The Lakers have been playing Metta at the 4 and are supposedly looking for a SF, they probably couldn't be sold on the idea but I would do Green for Jordan Hill in a heartbeat. Hard to find a better rebounder tbh.
http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400278102
Sanders beasted with 17/20/3, so I think he's out of trade discussions for even the most optimistic of posters. Besides him, however, I think the other Bucks bigs are fair game. The rotation is nuts. They gave four bigs DNPs last night. I can't see how they can keep them all.
It looks like they've given up on Mbah a Moute being a wing. He started at the four and put up pretty good numbers (20/6/2 in 40 minutes). You add him to the rest, and I can't see how they go much longer without making some deals.
Out of all of Milwaukee's bigs besides Sanders, who do people on here most want? Who would be most realistic for the Spurs to target?
None of them tbh. They are all below average for the most part. Sanders I would love on spurs, obviously won't happen.
Udoh, Dalembert, Gooden, Joel P are all . I'd go with Mbah maybe but meh.
Dalembert is clearly the most realistic target.
Everyone would want Ilyasova tho.
Mbah a Moute is in the middle.
Not sure what the Bucks needs.
Dalembert's contract is in its last year so as a fourth big we could do way worse. Problem is would he be ok being only the fourth big, didn't to be fine with his situation with the Bucks.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
