Official Trade Deadline Speculation Thread

[MaNu4Tres]

I agree a wing to play Bogans/Finley minutes would be nice..

why not try Malik Hairston?

It's too late to find out. Maybe next year.

[Ice009]

Splitter is really good. Think of Marc Gasol right now. I remember Marc was once asked about Splitter and he said that if the Spurs had Splitter it would be game over. The Spurs would have to trade for someone really worth it. I imagine that Splitter is even better than Scola.

I recall that comment and it is basically the only reason I am willing to hold onto him.

He hasn't really impressed me more than Scola did. To me Scola was way more impressive before he got to the NBA than Splitter, and Marc Gasol himself has gotten way better since he made that comment.

Where do you think Splitter ranks amongst those 3 right now? I would rate him 3rd. Do you think he will be better than those 2 once he gets to the NBA and improves his game? Do you think he is better now than either Scola or Gasol?

[MaNu4Tres]

My guess is Camby would play 25-30 mpg actually and that's because I'd expect, at least by the playoffs, the Spurs to go to a three man big rotation, featuring Duncan, McDyess and Camby.

I know what you're saying, but if the Spurs think that Camby gives them an opportunity to legitimately compete for a championship, then they'd probably do it (like I said, though, it depends on how highly they value Splitter).

Camby is still an elite rebounder/shot-blocker. It improves the chances, how much I'm not sure. If I had to guess, my sense is Thomas and Pargo for expiring contracts is the trade the Spurs will make, if they make one at all. Here's why...


But that figure doesn't include a $14.2 million cap hold for Tyrus Thomas, space that must be allocated to him that includes the $6.3 million qualifying offer he'll be due as a restricted free agent. That's why league sources believe the Bulls will try to package Thomas in a significant deal for expiring contracts -- such as a proposal under consideration that would also send Kirk Hinrich to Boston for Ray Allen's $19.7 million expiring deal -- or in a separate deal to one of several Western Conference contenders that have inquired about Thomas' availability. If the Bulls could move Hinrich and Thomas -- who has long been attractive to the Celtics -- they'd be looking at more than $20 million of space. If they could find a taker for John Salmons, they'd be closing in on enough money to land two significant free agents. While everyone continues to focus on the Knicks and Nets as potential winners of the free-agent summer of 2010, this scenario would put the Bulls in a position to steal the show. CBSSports.com


The more I think about it, the more I think the Spurs are interested in an athletic, mobile four, mainly for defensive purposes. Granted, he's more limited than Camby, but if the Spurs really valued having another rim protecting center, wouldn't they play Ratliff more? People can talk about saving him for the playoffs all they want, the reality it's not like he'll ever be needed for 30 mpg.

I would rather make a move for Thomas because it would give us flexibility to make another move for a wing. With Camby we pretty much give up all our expiring contracts ( Spurs best trading assets outside of Manu).

Move for Haywood or Thomas and the possibility of adding an upgrade at the wing to a possible Manu/R.J rotation >>> Making a move for Camby and having to rely on the Mason/Bogans/Finley combination.

[MaNu4Tres]

That's the story of Malik's career so far.

And that is Pop's fault.

Spurs shouldn't have signed Bogans, or they should have tried packaging Mason/Finley/ Bonner/Mahimni for Jackson and Turiaf whenever Jackson was able to be had for basically nothing. If one of those situations played out, Hairston would have gotten a better opportunity since he would have been higher on Pop's depth chart. Then we could have known what we really had in Hairston.

Both Mahimni and Hairston got the short end of the stick this year. That's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

[TD 21]

I would rather make a move for Thomas because it would give us flexibility to make another move for a wing. With Camby we pretty much give up all our expiring contracts ( Spurs best trading assets outside of Manu).

Move for Haywood or Thomas and the possibility of adding an upgrade at the wing to a possible Manu/R.J rotation >>> Making a move for Camby and having to rely on the Mason/Bogans/Finley combination.

The more I think about it, I would too. It goes against a lot of what I said about needing another center-sized big, but if the Spurs really need that for stretches in a particular series, they still have Ratliff. Having a mobile, athletic four, who can defend those types is looking more valuable to have on this team by the game.

HarlemHeat37 is right, Splitter AND a 1st is a steep price to pay for Camby. A 1st, Mahinmi and expiring contracts is a no-brainer, but throwing Splitter into the mix is probably too much.

Haywood wouldn't fit. Duncan is strictly a center at this point in his career and Haywood always has been. Could he be the primary Nowitzki defender in a series? West? Boozer? Aldridge? Gasol? I know he's a solid defender, but I question whether he could effectively guard these types throughout a series. Thomas, theoretically, can. And with his improving mid-range jumper and freakish athleticism leading to occasional assaults on the rim, he could keep them honest defensively.

With Thomas, the Spurs would have a decision to make in the off season. Five top 3-4 bigs on the team and they can't all play. Trade McDyess and Duncan lacks an experienced big next to him. Splitter could become an asset then for a wing stopper, such as Batum possibly, or someone of that ilk.

Ideally, the Spurs get away with Bonner, Finley and Mahinmi for Thomas and Pargo. I'd prefer to keep Mason out of the trade; Finley would probably get bought out and re-sign.

[exstatic]

I don't think you get it. With or without Nazr that year, the Spurs were still contenders. This year is different. The Spurs, currently constructed, have so many problems, I don't see them as contenders. We all know Kurt Thomas failed. As much as I like Haywood, I would think the Spurs would rather keep that higher 1st round pick in the earlier twenties at this point as opposed to absorbing the contract of Deshawn Stevenson which ends in 2011 so that they can keep adding younger talent and be prepared for Duncan's departure.

Adding late first round talent now or not will have NO bearing on the post-Duncan Spurs. They'll drop into the lottery with a thud, regardless. If you can spend the pick to make Duncan's last 2.5 years better, you don't hold back.

[Chieflion]

Adding late first round talent now or not will have NO bearing on the post-Duncan Spurs. They'll drop into the lottery with a thud, regardless. If you can spend the pick to make Duncan's last 2.5 years better, you don't hold back.

That is just being short-sighted. The earlier twenties picks in recent years have proven they can be rotation players and some of them have star potential. There are some players drafted at the twenties who dropped out of the lottery and have lottery potential.

[Blackjack]

I'm down with the Spurs giving up their first-rounder but to give that and Splitter up for someone like Camby (a guy who makes them better but isn't enough, imo, to get them over the top), that's not something I'd sign off on.

I don't have a problem giving up the first and Splitter for a difference-making player or someone that could help them to win next year, but a guy like Haywood would only be worth it to me if I believed Splitter wasn't coming over; I just don't see Haywood being able to play the type of minutes you'd pay someone of his caliber with an aging Duncan at the "4".

That's why a Thomas-Salmons trade is the best way to go, if possible, imo. It improves them by addressing (not perfectly, but addresses nonetheless) their two most glaring needs and puts two more cogs into the mix that could potentially help next year as well; they'd be able to take a look-see and determine for themselves at least.

Like I said before, these suggested moves (Haywood, Camby, Thomas, Salmons, etc.) moves aren't putting this team back in the Finals without an act of Jebus (or the Spurs' answer to Jerry West), so I'd rather they improve their team and be able to keep those two assets; this year's result won't end much different.

[HarlemHeat37]

Thomas-Salmons is my favorite deal that we've discussed too, but I don't know if Pop would take on a headcase like Thomas(I hope he would)..

Regarding Splitter, if we decide not to give him up and then he doesn't come over, you can guess what kind of reaction that would spark from the fanbase..

[Slinkyman]

I'm down with the Spurs giving up their first-rounder but to give that and Splitter up for someone like Camby (a guy who makes them better but isn't enough, imo, to get them over the top), that's not something I'd sign off on.

I don't have a problem giving up the first and Splitter for a difference-making player or someone that could help them to win next year, but a guy like Haywood would only be worth it to me if I believed Splitter wasn't coming over; I just don't see Haywood being able to play the type of minutes you'd pay someone of his caliber with an aging Duncan at the "4".

That's why a Thomas-Salmons trade is the best way to go, if possible, imo. It improves them by addressing (not perfectly, but addresses nonetheless) their two most glaring needs and puts two more cogs into the mix that could potentially help next year as well; they'd be able to take a look-see and determine for themselves at least.

Like I said before, these suggested moves (Haywood, Camby, Thomas, Salmons, etc.) moves aren't putting this team back in the Finals without an act of Jebus (or the Spurs' answer to Jerry West), so I'd rather they improve their team and be able to keep those two assets; this year's result won't end much different.

I agree with your Thomas-Salmons take, that would probably be the best thing for the spurs at this point. Right now the spurs have what other teams want, expiring contracts. Spurs are the ones with the leverage in that regard, the bulls need to dump salary more then the Spurs need Salmons or Thomas or both.

There are more teams that want to be players in this summers FA's market then have expiring deals like the spurs. If i'm the spurs i sit back and wait for the best deal. The same thing i hope they do with RJ, keep him until next season and get a real good offer for his expiring deal. Bottom line is the spurs have no business giving up a 1st or Splitter right now.

[HarlemHeat37]

ESPN has reported that Thomas and Hinrich have been the Bulls' 2 players that have received the most calls regarding offers, and Salmons has received some as well..they are supposedly not open to dealing anybody else unless it's a no-brainer, and they're also skeptical about dealing Hinrich since the organization loves him..

So it looks like it's likely that Thomas and/or Salmons are going to get traded..it should be interesting to see if the Spurs show some significant interest..I bet they will with Salmons, but I don't know about TT..

[MaNu4Tres]

I'm down with the Spurs giving up their first-rounder but to give that and Splitter up for someone like Camby (a guy who makes them better but isn't enough, imo, to get them over the top), that's not something I'd sign off on.

I don't have a problem giving up the first and Splitter for a difference-making player or someone that could help them to win next year, but a guy like Haywood would only be worth it to me if I believed Splitter wasn't coming over; I just don't see Haywood being able to play the type of minutes you'd pay someone of his caliber with an aging Duncan at the "4".

That's why a Thomas-Salmons trade is the best way to go, if possible, imo. It improves them by addressing (not perfectly, but addresses nonetheless) their two most glaring needs and puts two more cogs into the mix that could potentially help next year as well; they'd be able to take a look-see and determine for themselves at least.

Like I said before, these suggested moves (Haywood, Camby, Thomas, Salmons, etc.) moves aren't putting this team back in the Finals without an act of Jebus (or the Spurs' answer to Jerry West), so I'd rather they improve their team and be able to keep those two assets; this year's result won't end much different.

I'm starting to become a huge homer on the proposed Salmons/ Thomas deal.

It would help the team on both ends of the floor and make our team extremely versatile. It would be a significant upgrade and a change of such could just be what the Spurs need to compete with the top teams and give them a chance.


Parker 32-37 minutes
Salmons 25-30 minutes
Jefferson 28-33 minutes
Tim 33-38 minutes
McDyess 20-25 minutes

Manu 26-31 minutes
Hill 24-29 minutes
Blair 20-25 minutes
Thomas 18-23 minutes

Very solid 9 man rotation that consist of players that are anything but one dimensional. Our 48 minute attack would be efficient on both ends and would be more so of an "48 minutes of " for the opposition.

Bogans -DNP unless foul trouble or an injury
Ratliff- 10-15 minutes against LA or DNP's unless foul trouble or an injury
L. Hunter- DNP unless Hill injury or inactive list
Hairston- DNP unless foul trouble or injury or inactive list

What would the trade take now?

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=yfs3dzr

A first round pick and or Splitter?

I think in order for Bulls to really consider it, the Spurs would have to throw in a 1st rounder and Splitter. Would you do it?

[Chieflion]

On that Thomas/Salmons deal, no Splitter. I am ok with the first round pick if the guarantee is that Thomas is not an idiot.

[HarlemHeat37]

The 2nd unit would be amazingly energetic and explosive with Manu-Thomas-Hill-Blair..I can only dream of the highlights..

[HarlemHeat37]

On that Thomas/Salmons deal, no Splitter. I am ok with the first round pick if the guarantee is that Thomas is not an idiot.

Well, you can't really change that, Thomas is an idiot either way..very low basketball IQ..I would believe that playing in a more controlled system and playing with Duncan/McDyess would have a great influence on him though..

[TD 21]

I'm starting to become a huge homer on the proposed Salmons/ Thomas deal.

It would help the team on both ends of the floor and make our team extremely versatile. It would be a significant upgrade and a change of such could just be what the Spurs need to compete with the top teams and give them a chance.


Parker 32-37 minutes
Salmons 25-30 minutes
Jefferson 28-33 minutes
Tim 33-38 minutes
McDyess 20-25 minutes

Manu 26-31 minutes
Hill 24-29 minutes
Blair 20-25 minutes
Thomas 18-23 minutes

Very solid 9 man rotation that consist of players that are anything but one dimensional. Our 48 minute attack would be efficient on both ends and would be more so of an "48 minutes of " for the opposition.

Bogans -DNP unless foul trouble or an injury
Ratliff- 10-15 minutes against LA or DNP's unless foul trouble or an injury
L. Hunter- DNP unless Hill injury or inactive list
Hairston- DNP unless foul trouble or injury or inactive list

What would the trade take now?

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=yfs3dzr

A first round pick and or Splitter?

I think in order for Bulls to really consider it, the Spurs would have to throw in a 1st rounder and Splitter. Would you do it?

Man, you're as in-depth as me in my thinking, right down to the rotation, the minutes, etc. I like it.

I doubt Thomas-Salmons would be the trade, though. Salmons is too shot happy and moody to willingly play the role of fifth option/defensive stopper. Besides, even though he's a solid defender, he's not a stopper (not that Bogans is, but he's cheap). I agree it improves the team, but I think if the Spurs acquire Thomas, it'll be along with Pargo. Although, maybe that's the catch with getting Thomas for expiring contracts, is taking Salmons' contract off the Bulls hands.

[Blackjack]

If they could pull off and Iggy-Dalembert trade and didn't because of Splitter, I'd be pissed. But in the case of Haywood and Camby, I just don't see it meaning a le this year, and I don't think the fit (Haywood) and age (Camby) would leave me too bent out of shape as it pertains to next year.

In all honesty, I'm not as high on Splitter as most seem to be. He'll be a nice addition but he's not some great defender (solid position defender, not real disruptive) or as big and skilled offensively as Gasol (whom he's often compared to).

He will come at a much more appropriate price for the role he'd be playing, so that's definitely something that plays into my thinking, but if he doesn't come and it ends up costing them Haywood or Camby this year?

I wouldn't be all that butt-hurt..

[Chieflion]

Well, you can't really change that, Thomas is an idiot either way..very low basketball IQ..I would believe that playing in a more controlled system and playing with Duncan/McDyess would have a great influence on him though..

I really am not that high on those two, theoretically, they solve some problems. I was watching Salmons just now with the Bulls game. Whenever he gets the ball, it is an isolation play or pick and roll. It has to be a style preference and that he is much more effective being the playmaker, I would consider starting him but one has to wonder if his situation would be similar to RJ. Thomas is a big idiot. No questions about that. He was an idiot with Scott Skiles, anyone actually thinks it is going to change?

[HarlemHeat37]

I like the Salmons fit better because he's a much better defender than Jefferson and he's also a better 3-point shooter..his offense has fallen off this season, he needs a change of scenery IMO..

Thomas won't be much less of an idiot, but his talent and physical attributes are undeniable and would fill major needs for the Spurs..if we get him, we will certainly have to live with some boneheaded plays..

It's a risk, but almost any trade that is going to happen is a risk..the only certainty is that the Spurs DO need a trade..this current team isn't going to be enough to get to the 2nd round..

With Haywood, there will still be an issue with defending the bigs with an outside J..

With Camby, there's still a major issue with defending the p&r and a minor issue with defending post-up players that Duncan doesn't pick up..also the age issue..

With guys like Raja Bell, there's a serious age issue that this team already struggles with..

With minor trades like Turiaf/Watson, there's the obvious lack of talent issue..

Any non-Gasol like trade is a risk..

[Chieflion]

I like the Salmons fit better because he's a much better defender than Jefferson and he's also a better 3-point shooter..his offense has fallen off this season, he needs a change of scenery IMO..

Thomas won't be much less of an idiot, but his talent and physical attributes are undeniable and would fill major needs for the Spurs..

It's a risk, but almost any trade that is going to happen is a risk..the only certainty is that the Spurs DO need a trade..this current team isn't going to be enough to get to the 2nd round..

You made me miss Corey Brewer's amazing dunk. Either way, like I said, they solve some problems, I was actually wondering how Salmons with a 17.8% usage rate works here. He could very well end up not producing without the ball.

[Blackjack]

Yeah, NBA TV's pregame of Bulls-Heat had Chicago's beat writer or some such on and he made it pretty clear that the Bulls were looking to do a salary dump and that Salmons and Hinrich were the two most likely candidates. Salmons' option has them fretting a bit and, even though they'd love to keep Hinrich, moving him might be a necessary evil for them to find the money for a max player next year.

I'm pretty sure the Spurs have what it takes to land Salmons and hopefully the emergence of Gibson and recent friction with Thomas is enough to have him included.

[MaNu4Tres]

I really am not that high on those two, theoretically, they solve some problems. I was watching Salmons just now with the Bulls game. Whenever he gets the ball, it is an isolation play or pick and roll. It has to be a style preference and that he is much more effective being the playmaker, I would consider starting him but one has to wonder if his situation would be similar to RJ. Thomas is a big idiot. No questions about that. He was an idiot with Scott Skiles, anyone actually thinks it is going to change?

Salmons has more quickness and has better ball-handling to create effectively off the dribble from the triple threat position with the ball, whether it be penetrating from a jab step or the pick and roll or a hesitation move. He's more effective than R.J in any of those situations.

You think since R.J can make some athletic highlights above the rim, and since he avg. 19 points a game from a terrible Bucks team then he should be able to create offense ( Like I had originally thought). That is not the case. Salmons is a much better offensive player in the half-court than R.J. Therefore Salmons can make more out less touches in the half-court than R.J.

Also, Spurs need another play-making threat with the ball than Manu/ Parker and Hill anyway. It will only make things so much easier for the rest of the team. We all thought R.J was going to be it but we were wrong about that.

[ace3g]

one thing I like about Salmons is that he is an underrated passer , in a lot of games I've seen, he gets 5+ assists. So he is also a playmaker that even when his shot is not falling will look for others

[Chieflion]

Salmons has more quickness and has better ball-handling to create effectively off the dribble from the triple threat position with the ball, whether it be penetrating from a jab step or the pick and roll or a hesitation move. He's more effective than R.J in any of those situations.

You think since R.J can make some athletic highlights above the rim from time to time then he should be able to create off the dribble pretty effective ( Like I had originally thought). That is not the case. Salmons is a much better offensive player in the half-court than R.J. Therefore Salmons can make more out less touches in the half-court than R.J.

Also, Spurs need another play-making threat with the ball than Manu/ Parker and Hill anyway. It will only make things so much easier for the rest of the team. We all thought R.J was going to be it but we were wrong about that.

Like I stated, we needed a playmaker, and I saw Salmons play just now, he can create, but he also needs the ball, well you need the ball to create. RJ can't create, I thought that was obvious right from the start of the season. We don't need Salmons to jack up 3s though, I think Rose's emergence made him handle the ball less, making him less efficient. I think his situation is quite similar with RJ but it is obvious he can do the job better.

[Blackjack]

Salmons is a bit of a poor man's Pierce offensively. The way they iso- and attack off the dribble, and even how they post off the dribble for a turnaround jumper... There's just a bit of a point-forward aspect, which would benefit the Spurs; they just flat-out need a better player for the position/role.