When you look at the way each franchise usually operates, it does seem unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Pop
Printable View
When you look at the way each franchise usually operates, it does seem unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Pop
Haha, I don't think they do. I wouldn't, provided that I believed in my reasoning above. The Spurs could feel differently, of course. This may be a different story in the off-season, if the Spurs lose Splitter and have cap room lying around. A player like McGee would be helpful them. I just made the argument for trading for McGee because I feel like they could if they wanted to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel_13
I'll say this though: There are things that make it easier for the Spurs to have McGee instead of Splitter and Green that aren't there for the Nuggets:
Wing security: They have Kawhi and De Colo locked up and can re-sign Neal. If Manu and/or Jack come back, there'd be a struggle to find minutes for everyone even minus Green.
Cap prognosis: They don't have as much money committed long-term as the Nuggets do. Making that trade doesn't even eat all of San Antonio's cap space, let alone push them toward the tax.
Rotation: There's no reason why Duncan would not be able to start with McGee. (We now know he can spread the floor :lol.) So McGee would probably start for the Spurs. A big reason why the Nuggets would be better is because they'd get Green, who'd allow everyone to slide over to their natural positions. Losing Green doesn't have the same effect for the Spurs.
These may seem like tiny differences, but I do think they're big enough that it's not clear cut that the Spurs and Nuggets would be equally affected by this swap.
Good stuff and plenty of food for thought. One thing for sure, a trade along those lines would make this place explode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
I don't think either team would do Splitter/Green for McGee and McGee couldn't play next to Duncan, because neither can defend PF's. I also don't think the Nuggets would do Mozgov for Bonner. Sure, they need a stretch four, but with Chandler back, Gallinari will play PF more often, so Bonner wouldn't play anyway. Even if he did, they can do better. Randolph for Bonner, maybe, but if it were to happen, it would probably be around the draft. The Spurs would probably prefer to hold onto Bonner's contract and see if they can't do better between now and July 1st and if the Nuggets were willing to do that now, then chances are they will be then.
With the Baynes signing, other than trading Blair for essentially nothing, I no longer expect a move at the deadline . . . and it's not because I think Baynes will be in the rotation, either. I just think they accomplished their primary goal, which was getting a backup C, while avoiding the tax. I hope I'm wrong though, because they still need another big.
McGee is faster than Tiago and even if their speed was comparable, McGee has twice the wingspan so I garantee you he would challenge shots better than Tiago and Boris...Quote:
Originally Posted by TD 21
It's a big day for you, Paranoid Pop . Green's finally eligible to be traded.
So all the trades you were theorizing about like:
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=d9pylb3
and:
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=c4tu6yy
and now:
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=cvh8ylp
are available. I wonder if there will be any more movement now that this last major blockage in trades is lifted. Will the Nets make another run at Howard now that they can trade Lopez?
I honestly think that the Nuggets' best lineup would be Lawson, Player X, Iguadola, Gallinari, McGee. Once they stop trying to play big, everyone will be better off. They need a three-point specialist to play the two, but I could see them potentially making a move for Rip Hamilton this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by TD 21
I don't think they'd have interest in trading Randolph for Bonner in June, because all that would accomplish is saving about 350k. They need shooting this season, which could make Bonner worth it, but I doubt they'd want to pay him that much next season as well. So if they waived him, they'd be trading Randolph's $1.7 Million for Bonner's $1 Million buyout. Add in a roster charge, and it's almost no savings.
Faried is the one cockblocking McGee, they can't start two monkeyballers in the frontcourt and Karl seems to like Faried better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
Would be interesting to know about Ilyasova's situation, he's now tradeable but with the coaching change they will probably wait to see how the season turns out despite his underwhelming start that led him back to the bench...
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
You'll have your revenge when next season everyone will call for Boris Diaw to be traded for any scrub that will shoot the ball.
I believe they'll be receptive to offers for Ilyasova. They're going to have have to spend big money to keep Jennings and Ellis, so I believe they'll look to dump one of their more expensive bigs. They'd obviously prefer to move Gooden, but they'd probably have to add sweeteners to generate interest for him. Ilyasova may well be obtainable for a package like the one you suggested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Pop
I think it has more to do with there being no power-forward on the team besides Faried (not counting Gallo). McGee isn't a four, and neither are Koufus and Mozgov. So Faried is going to play, and if he can't do effectively that with McGee on the court, then someone else needs to be at the five. Putting Gallo at the four would probably let McGee play the five, and Faried and Koufus could dominate most bench bigs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Pop
Mbah a Moute is likely, too. Right now, he's playing the four, but with Harris and Henson pushing for more minutes, I don't know how long he'll hold on to a spot in the rotation. Bonner and Blair may be enough to get it done. He's signed really long-term, and I doubt the Bucks really want to keep him around for that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel_13
Ilyasova is possible, but I don't think it makes sense to trade Green for him. He'd also eat almost all of Jack's minutes, making the Good Captain expendable. I'd rather the Spurs pursue him as a trade target if they have cap space this off-season. That may be attractive to Milwaukee if they are really trying to go all-in in the free-agent market.
1. He would take Jack's small ball minutes at the 4 (82games.com says he gets less than 30% of his minutes at the 4), but with Green gone there would be more minutes available at the wings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
2. So I don't believe that acquiring Ilyasova would make Jack expendable, although he would certainly be even more available than he is right now.
I didn't account for Green's minutes being available, but I don't think that they're going to either Jack or Ilyasova. Some could go to Leonard, but I think most would go to Neal, with Mills and De Colo taking the rest (in addition to taking some minutes at the point, of course). Joseph would probably get two-guard minutes ahead of Jack right now. I almost consider him a combo-forward now, which is exactly the role Ilyasova would have. I'd like to see Jack moved for a younger wing if this trade were to go through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel_13
IMO, if Jack is on the team when the playoffs begin, Pop will have him in the rotation. Certainly ahead of players like Mills, De Colo, and Joseph.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
He'll have to show he can consistently play at the two still. Otherwise, Leonard may be the starting off-guard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel_13
I don't see Jack losing any minutes as the backup SF, but I also don't see him playing at the 2. Leonard is much more likely to get some minutes at SG, and I don't see any reason why they couldn't play together as the wings in a big line-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
I imagine that's what Pop would have to do in the playoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel_13
I don't see how the Spurs could make such a big commitment to Ilyasova if they don't intend to play him big minutes. He's too young to just split minutes with Diaw and Splitter. I think he'd play a lot of minutes at the four. He'd either start at the three and move over when the bench plays or start at the four and move down.
Or they go back to Diaw in the starting line-up and bring Ilyasova off the bench with Splitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
I don't think they would have to make Ilyasova a starter immediately. He would go right into the rotation, as a 4 almost exclusively IMO, but his youth and length of contract make him an acquisition for the future (Diaw and Splitter could both sign elsewhere this summer) as much as the present.
Duncan, Baynes, Ilyasova and Williams would make a pretty good rotation for the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel_13
The Bucks do seem like a natural trading partner for the Spurs. Unfortunately, if the Bucks want to dump salary like you say, the best piece the Spurs can offer is Jax, who is toxic to them.
Maybe something based around Jax to Utah, Mo Williams and Danny Green (or better, Neal) to Milwaukee, Ilyasova and Mbah a Moute to San Antonio?
Yeah it's a salary dump for Milwaukee, but it might be the best they can do. They might demand a pick in there somewhere. Sprinkle in Bonner or Blair as needed.
Utah has no reason to trade Mo for Jack. Not only Mo is cheaper but he also has more value than Jack. If MIL wants to dump Ersan and Moute, they would be able to find better offers quite easily. This trade only helps the Spurs.
Yeah, and the Jazz are in the running for a playoff spot, and that trade would be for a team who has given up. The same can be said for Milwaukee.Quote:
Originally Posted by elemento
I was just seeing if there was a way to find a somewhat large expiring on a third team so the Bucks wouldn't take Jax back.
The more I look at that trade idea, the more of a 2-post gnsf I seem. Just shoot me now.
This is the trade idea that was being discussed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventyniner
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=c4tu6yy
The Bucks relieve themselves of an expensive, long term deal and get back a rotation player on a very reasonable contract. I'm not sure what trade idea you're referring to, but the one under discussion when you joined in doesn't fit the description in the quoted post.