Reply With Quote
Knicks make the most sense if we're being honest.
The only way Spurs land this trade is by trading Parkers expiring contract and obtaining Thompson in the trade also
Knicks make the most sense if we're being honest.
The Spurs might as well try to land Manure on the moon. Thed have the same chance
Who says no...
Or maybe...maybe he's just getting here first, setting the table for Lebron's arrival next summer. Another brilliant CIA Pop move.
Yep Melo for Kyrie seems the most likely to me
We already have Costello...
Who says no...
Other than the Cavs, no one!! Pull the f'n trigger Pop!!
I'd give them the next three 1st rounders with LMA and Murray.
Why would we need to have all minimum deals around two max contracts?
I am no cap expert, but teams throughout the history of the league have been able to form "big 3's" with a talented cast around them, heck the Warriors just formed a big 4, but we would only have room for just two max contracts and a bunch of minimum deals?
And the Aldridge discussion isn't even worth having. I can't believe there are still guys that are against moving him.
Last edited by DAF86; 07-21-2017 at 06:42 PM.
Too much.
Cleveland does.Who says no...
Only 60+ win team in NBA history with no tradable assets.
Unlike thr #1 (goodbye Fathead), this is NEVER happening (#2).
Who says no...
NYK bound.
Not that Cleveland should want Melo.
NahWho says no...
Cavs will only pull the trigger if they offer Porz
I think they'd take Anthony.
They offered Anthony with future first rounders already...
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/r...-kyrie-irving/
well some of the last picks were tbh. I actualy believe that Murray can become a solid player, but after watching him in the SL I think he'll need a lot of time. And with him being a 3rd PG on this team he won't really be anything special. Milutinov who is pretty average in Europe so far, Anderson who is hated by most people here and Livio Jean Charles who is pathetic.
Kawhi and Kyrie would push $80 Million in combined salary by the second year of their new contracts. That's assuming a flat cap. That leaves like $20 Million minus 10 roster charges. So that's $11 Million in cap space. So they'd be able to add a Haslem-level player, but it would take some time to build up depth. It's anyone's guess how much the cap will grow or if it will actually shrink soon. If it's expected to grow, you get Cousins to come on and hope three max deals and filler can carry you to victory. But in order for that to work, you need guys on cheap deals, which means draft picks and prospects. You get rid of those guys, you only have ring-chasers, and even with Leonard and Irving, it's not obvious the Spurs would get their pick of that crop.Why would we need to have all minimum deals around two max contracts?
I am no cap expert, but teams throughout the history of the league have been able to form "big 3's" with a talented cast around them, heck the Warriors just formed a big 4, but we would only have room for just two max contracts and a bunch of minimum deals?
Here's how I see it:
You give a Nets-like deal if the Cavs are willing to just take Parker's contract
You give up two picks and Murray and Bertans along with Green and swapping Parker for Smith/Shump
You give up two of those picks/prospects if LMA is going out, because you still need to replace him, and because LMA is more important than Green
You give up a lot less than that if you move LMA and Green. You essentially give youself one off-season to build a le team and need to keep a future either to recover or to fill in the cracks.
I'm just here to push this bad boy to 100 pages.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
