Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are Kemba Walker and Jerryd Bayless redundant?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Quixotic wrote: View Post
    Anything larger than a three-team trade hurts my head, so I think I'll pass on that one.

    The #1 reason the three-team trade wouldn't work is because Tim W. and I have already agreed that Bargnani needs to be traded to the Hornets, after which they'll promptly move to Vancouver.

    Seriously though, I don't need to bother with the Toronto aspect (except I don't think Kanter will be around at #5), and the Minnesota aspect (in the Shantz tweak) looks fine/realistic. I'm balking a bit at the Sacramento portion though (if I'm reading it correctly, I'm trading the 5th overall pick, Thompson, Casspi and Garcia, and getting back Bargnani, Bayless, the 20th overall pick and Webster). Not because I think it's unreasonable, but because most GMs prefer their own prospects to someone else's. As a Raptors fan, I have high hope for Bayless, but as a non-Raptors fan, I think I'd try to eek a bit more out of Toronto, like the right to swap picks in either the 2012 or 2013 draft, my choice. Would you, as the Raptors GM, go for that? =P
    The four team trade is pretty straight-forward - the key is to always remember salaries going out and coming back must always be within 125% + 100K plus any available cap space for teams with a payroll under $58M.


    I'd go for anything that delivered Kanter and Irving while keeping ED, DD, and Amir and a 2012 first round pick including swapping picks with SAC.

    Comment


    • #77
      Tim W. wrote: View Post
      Uh, I'm the sarcastic one with the condescending attitude around here, thank you.
      Right, right, I forgot.

      *slinks away*

      Comment


      • #78
        Matt52 wrote: View Post
        The four team trade is pretty straight-forward - the key is to always remember salaries going out and coming back must always be within 125% + 100K plus any available cap space for teams with a payroll under $58M.


        I'd go for anything that delivered Kanter and Irving while keeping ED, DD, and Amir and a 2012 first round pick including swapping picks with SAC.
        Haha, not sure how remembering that "key" helps. Besides, four-team trades happen so rarely in real life, it's almost total fantasy land. =P

        I guess it's a deal then? I guess as a Raptors fan I would do it too, but you never know if it'll come back to bite us in the ass. If we're still a high lottery pick in the next two years and Sacramento isn't, we might be wishing we had that top 4 pick rather than their late lottery.

        Comment


        • #79
          Quixotic wrote: View Post
          Haha, not sure how remembering that "key" helps. Besides, four-team trades happen so rarely in real life, it's almost total fantasy land. =P

          I guess it's a deal then? I guess as a Raptors fan I would do it too, but you never know if it'll come back to bite us in the ass. If we're still a high lottery pick in the next two years and Sacramento isn't, we might be wishing we had that top 4 pick rather than their late lottery.
          The financial numbers are usually what causes the issues in trades in the NBA. If each team is addressing the needs of their team, then 3,4,5 teams shouldn't make a difference. Obviously 4 team trades are uncommon but they are not impossible if everyone feels they are bettering their own team. BOS/MIA/UTA/NOH in 2005, ORL/NJ/TOR/DAL in 2008, IND/ATL/NOH/MIA last year are off the top of my head. A little further checking and PHX/SEA/NYK/LAL in 2000. Colangelo was involved in 2 and he was involved in an 8 player deal, three team deal as well.

          You raise a good point on the lottery pick but with Irving, DD, ED, and Kanter in the starting lineup and Garcia/JJ/Amir on the bench, a starting SF is the only position of need and there are going to be a number of good SF's available next year. Also, the 4 team deal would not require any further incentive for SAC, in my opinion.

          Comment


          • #80
            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            The financial numbers are usually what causes the issues in trades in the NBA. If each team is addressing the needs of their team, then 3,4,5 teams shouldn't make a difference. Obviously 4 team trades are uncommon but they are not impossible if everyone feels they are bettering their own team. BOS/MIA/UTA/NOH in 2005, ORL/NJ/TOR/DAL in 2008, IND/ATL/NOH/MIA last year are off the top of my head. A little further checking and PHX/SEA/NYK/LAL in 2000. Colangelo was involved in 2 and he was involved in an 8 player deal, three team deal as well.

            You raise a good point on the lottery pick but with Irving, DD, ED, and Kanter in the starting lineup and Garcia/JJ/Amir on the bench, a starting SF is the only position of need and there are going to be a number of good SF's available next year. Also, the 4 team deal would not require any further incentive for SAC, in my opinion.
            Yeah, sorry, that's not what I meant about headache. I'm fluent with cap-related issues, but just don't want to bother thinking about whether it makes sense for more than 3 teams. It doesn't seem like much until you factor in the billion trade suggestions and rumors each year.

            Comment


            • #81
              Quixotic wrote: View Post
              Because it's so much better to base such decisions on small samples of "black and white" individual performance. By the way, our team was 1.121 offensive ppp and 1.022 defensive ppp when David Andersen was on the floor. Without him, we were 1.067 offensive ppp and 1.146 defensive ppp. Plus, he held opposing centers to a defensive stopper worthy 13.0 PER.

              I'm going to thank myself for showing black and white how amazing Andersen was, especially since I used team and not individual performance. If our team doesn't re-acquire him immediately and lock him up long term as our center of the future, no wonder our team sucks.
              It is a good thing there is no "tone" in written language or I might have considered your "tone" for offending However now looking at those stats and thinking it through I agree with you that we actually don't have enough to compare them (Bayless and Calderon) but given the fact that Calderon makes SO MUCH more $ than Bayless makes Bayless look better as our future PG.That's my opinion.I judge the game not only on stats but on their checks and on what I see of them on the court...like effort,DEFENSE,attitude,listening to the coach(now,if the coach sucks that is another topic ) and trying to do the things you're asked to.All things that I believe a winning team's PG should have.So Bayless would be my choice..over Calderon and over Kemba..or other draft prospects.
              As for David Andersen..he should have been our franchise player if Bargnani was the one this season.Am i joking?

              Comment

              Working...
              X