|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 26, 2017 8:53:06 GMT -5
Welp... it's officially the offseason now so we need a new thread. One thing it seems most of us agree on is things are going to happen this offseason. I mean just having the number 1 pick guarantees that.
Here goes my offseason plan:
1. Keep the number 1 pick AND draft Fultz.
2. Sign Hayward, but who do you trade to make room to sign Hayward and open up time for Fultz?
3. Trade Smart.... so hard for ME to say this as I love me some Marcus. But he should be the one in my opinion for these reasons:
A. You cannot trade Isaiah and sign Hayward.. you just can't. Makes no sense for a guy like Hayward to come here but the team gives up their best scorer to go get him.
B. By going the route I'm taking you are playing the short and long game together. This means you need to take some calculated risks to make yourself better on the short-term and to me that's keeping Avery and his injury history. He's the best two way player on the team when healthy and he gets better EVERY year. He's still young and he can guard point guards. His size is less of an issue as Fultz matures and can guard 2 guards. A Fultz/Bradley back court in a couple years with Isaiah being able to be strategically used for 30 minutes a night could be deadly. All 3 are scorers and Fultz should be able to play good defense (remember with Avery he won't need to match up on the top guy), shoot, create for others and rebound his position.
C. One has to go and Marcus Opens enough salary and is easier to justify trading for picks and salary relief. Plus, you lose way too much by losing Bradley. How much improved is a team that subtracts Bradley but adds Hayward?
D. Trading Crowder instead doesn't make sense . The team will will need him as a 3/4 playing fewer minutes. His contract and skill set are perfect for that. Plus, he should be even more efficient with more open looks when on the floor with Hayward drawing attention.
4. Keep the 2018 Nets pick too!!!! This is a long term short term thing and there is no trade that I can see then making AFTER signing Hayward that doesn't completely gut key players off this team. They will need to match salaries and the only ones left would be Bradley, Crowder, Isaiah, Brown, Fultz and Horford. See above. Makes no sense. Now you're giving up the future plus the present.
5. Use all the midlevel exception money to sign a big to a 2 year deal with second year non-guaranteed. It really may be Johnson again... tho not ideal. This is important for later.
6. Bring over Zizic, Yabusele and Nader to fill key bench roles. Zizic should be given the chance to fill the role we need for a big who can rebound (supposed to be a great rebounder) and also shoot. Yabu and Nader will have more limited roles but Nader could actually surprise with his ability to defend... unfortunately his 3 point shot is behind where we'd like but maybe he will improve it a bit this offseason.
7. Wait until the season to possibly trade for another big. We know this team can win games in the regular season with the team as is. The key is seeing how the pieces fit- get the lay of the land then figure out what you need specifically. If Chandler is a guy we need and he's still playing well then we use the midlevel contract guy plus (maybe our 2018 first) to swing a deal.
My roster:
Guards: Isaiah, Bradley, Fultz, Rozier
Wings: Hayward, Brown, Crowder, Nader
Bigs: Horford, Mid-level guy, Zizic, Yabusele
That's 12, then the next 3 spots are filled out with veteran free agents and/or a second round pick or 2. I left Jackson off this - he could be kept and fall into the guard mix or he can be traded outright to open space.
Obviously, a younger team. I don't think we take a step back though. The bench in thinner, but much more upside and the top is stronger - which is exactly what's needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on May 26, 2017 9:08:29 GMT -5
Mostly agree at a quick glance with a couple of minor differences (though they may be semantic differences):
1. Zizic, Yabusele and Nader should NOT be counted on to be contributing immediately. Get some Vet Min Contracts to fill the roles you hope they take. If the youngsters win out, great.
2. I think we're approaching the "who gets moved" conversation all wrong. Instead of it being who we want to be on the team, it's probably going to be who brings the most (combination of space and valued return) back. If you can trade Bradley as part of a deal that gets you space AND a big man who can protect/defend while slotting in next to Al, sorry Avery. You're gone.
I guess, technically, we should throw in Step 0 which is to see if you can convince New Orleans to trade Davis for a package that includes both #1s from Brk. It's an absolute pipe dream but now that this year's pick is #1 overall, Danny needs to do his due diligence.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 26, 2017 9:10:55 GMT -5
Mostly agree at a quick glance with a couple of minor differences (though they may be semantic differences): 2. I think we're approaching the "who gets moved" conversation all wrong. Instead of it being who we want to be on the team, it's probably going to be who brings the most (combination of space and valued return) back. If you can trade Bradley as part of a deal that gets you space AND a big man who can protect/defend while slotting in next to Al, sorry Avery. You're gone. If you can, come up with an example where this is realistic then I might get behind it. But let's be real. Avery's cap number is pretty low. How do you trade that plus get space and a quality player? |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on May 26, 2017 9:14:26 GMT -5
That's why I said it's semantics (maybe not the right word). The end result probably looks more like what you suggest but the approach should be different than what we have been talking about.
Smart, Bradley and Crowder should ALL be on the table in an effort to get space for Hayward and improve the front court.
|
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 26, 2017 12:28:10 GMT -5
I still think taking a longer look at a deal for george which features smart or rozier and this years first of george opts in to next year or signs an extension to cover that year at a higher salary would be a good idea. george is a better fit and a better overall player in my view, although I do think losing this years pick is not ideal. Still, if one of them has to go I'd say it should be this one- it's more valuable (being #1 in a deep draft) and there's no optimal fit for the roster. In fact, the guy we all view as the best option for that pick would be adding another player at the position at which we're deepest.
Aside from that, I think the scenario which has already been outlined would be a great outcome, although I think a guy like Nader needs to be emergency depth at best at this stage. I'd be fine with bringing back green, maybe even Johnson (although I'd prefer that 3rd/4th big to have a little more size). I like everything I've heard about zizic and yabusele looks like a beast with a lot more skill/athleticism than you'd expect, but I wouldn't want to go into the year counting on them to be significant contributors, although I wouldn't be shocked if they were
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 26, 2017 13:40:49 GMT -5
Ctfisher you don't trade the #1 pick in this draft for one year of anyone! I don't trade it for one year of LeBron! I most likely don't trade it for George at all, but if I did he has to sign extension for me to make trade. In NBA you take best player and work it out later.
Rip I agree with most of what you said. The only thing about Smart is what can you get? You would need a team that thinks they can improve his shot. Otherwise you're just not getting much for him. Maybe a future late first round pick and we have a ton of those. You will have to get very creative to find a good trade for him. Maybe a late first and a former 2nd round international guy that you really like, is cheap and ready to help us. Man there just aren't many of those guys. I agree he makes the most sense, because you want Fultz being the backup PG learning how to run a team. We really need to find out the exact number of the cap, so we know exactly how much money we need to move. That or trade him for a first in this draft and take an international player and keep him overseas if we can get Hayward and need the extra money.
As to keeping Bradley and Crowder if we get Hayward, maybe. For example getting a Favors for Crowder might be better than having Crowder on your bench. You have to fix our bigs problem if you get Hayward. Most likely that won't happen with mid level money and Johnson is just not the answer. I can see getting a player like Favors and then bringing back Johnson. You can't count on anything from Zizic and Yabu. If they are ready it's a huge bonus. We can't wait till deadline to fill what most likely will be are biggest need! The players are limited and you get very little time to incorporate them. It's just better to do it in offseason. This also gives Brown more minutes.
How good is Fultz year 1? If you believe he's a ROY type player right out of gate, I can see moving both Bradley and Smart. It's not likely, but Rozier impressed me in playoffs. He's still raw, but his upside is huge. He can do things no one else on team can. He needs to improve his shot and finishing at rim, but I wouldn't worry about him being my third guard if you believe Fultz is a stud. He sure looks like a player that just needs more playing time to break out. I just love watching him shot a 3 and go hard to rim for a rebound. He impressed me the most during playoffs and I'm glad they didn't trade him. It almost seems like a waste to play him 15 minutes a game next year.
My shocking Bradley trade, trade him for a late lottery pick and take Giles if he checks out OK health wise. It's a pipe dream I know and it's incredibly risky. It's also the type of move that could win us titles. He's a guy pre injury that was the clear #1 player in class. He also fills our biggest need. You could get maybe the two best players in draft and the foundation for a 10 year championship run.
This offseason is going to be very interesting!
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 26, 2017 13:50:26 GMT -5
Rip I agree with most of what you said. The only thing about Smart is what can you get? We need to accept the fact that if they are trading one of these guys to open extra space to get Hayward, you cannot take back salary so the return is little. It's draft picks. That just is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 26, 2017 13:52:06 GMT -5
My shocking Bradley trade, trade him for a late lottery pick and take Giles if he checks out OK health wise. It's a pipe dream I know and it's incredibly risky. It's also the type of move that could win us titles. He's a guy pre injury that was the clear #1 player in class. He also fills our biggest need. You could get maybe the two best players in draft and the foundation for a 10 year championship run. This offseason is going to be very interesting! That would be a terrible move. Giles had one of the lowest vertices in the combine. 32.5 inch Vertice is a terrible sign for him. He's not a skill player his whole game was around athleticism. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 26, 2017 13:59:20 GMT -5
Throwing names out is nice but the money needs to work. I'm assuming when we talk Favors we are talking about getting Hayward in FA. So then how do you add Favors? I think Smart and Crowder does match salaries for Favors. That doesn't open money for Hayward tho. Maybe Hayward would leave money on the table to come here with Favors but maybe..
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on May 26, 2017 14:10:42 GMT -5
I feel like if you're trading Smart you're going to get a similar wild card back in return. For example, Smart to SAC and WCS coming back.
Not endorsing that, just demonstrating a 1-for-1 deal that doesn't add salary and gives us a chance at some upside (just a different position)
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 26, 2017 14:12:55 GMT -5
I feel like if you're trading Smart you're going to get a similar wild card back in return. For example, Smart to SAC and WCS coming back. Not endorsing that, just demonstrating a 1-for-1 deal that doesn't add salary and gives us a chance at some upside (just a different position) You need to shed salary, you can do that if it opens enough salary. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on May 26, 2017 14:20:41 GMT -5
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
That would be in addition to a 2nd trade that clears salary (if you're moving on from KO - you only need about another $3Mn).
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,860
|
Post by wcp3 on May 26, 2017 14:20:58 GMT -5
Trying to figure out who gets moved is a fool's errand until the free agent/trade scenarios work themselves out. I highly doubt the pick gets moved, but if it does for a guy like Paul George or something, there's less of a need to trade one of the guards.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 26, 2017 14:49:11 GMT -5
Throwing names out is nice but the money needs to work. I'm assuming when we talk Favors we are talking about getting Hayward in FA. So then how do you add Favors? I think Smart and Crowder does match salaries for Favors. That doesn't open money for Hayward tho. Maybe Hayward would leave money on the table to come here with Favors but maybe.. Yes after getting Hayward, you can trade Crowder and Jackson for Favors per ESPN trade machine. So you can still move Smart to free up space to sign Hayward. You might even be able to get a first round pick from Jazz because of Crowders crazy good contract and the fact Favors is only signed for one year. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 26, 2017 15:05:04 GMT -5
My shocking Bradley trade, trade him for a late lottery pick and take Giles if he checks out OK health wise. It's a pipe dream I know and it's incredibly risky. It's also the type of move that could win us titles. He's a guy pre injury that was the clear #1 player in class. He also fills our biggest need. You could get maybe the two best players in draft and the foundation for a 10 year championship run. This offseason is going to be very interesting! That would be a terrible move. Giles had one of the lowest vertices in the combine. 32.5 inch Vertice is a terrible sign for him. He's not a skill player his whole game was around athleticism. It's all about his medicals. He's not 100% right now, it's what can he be in 6 months to a year down the road. Sure if you believe he's not going to be anything more than he is right now, you pass. Thing is if you believe he's just taking it slow, which is the smart play and he'll get his ups back he's worth the gamble. This is a high risk high reward type move. It's like going all in on a flush draw in poker. You don't do it often, but sometimes it's the right play. It's all about how his medical reports come back. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on May 26, 2017 15:10:59 GMT -5
You can add Favors (for Crowder and Jackson) and that adds $4mn. Then you have to trade Bradley for picks as you'll need the full $8Mn.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 26, 2017 15:11:01 GMT -5
I'd be more surprised if he was a lottery pick at this point than I would be if he fell to the second round. A lot can happen between now and the draft but I don't think he's taking it slow. If there was confidence on their end he'd return to form then he'd go back to Duke and dominate and be a top 5 pick next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 26, 2017 15:20:55 GMT -5
I feel like if you're trading Smart you're going to get a similar wild card back in return. For example, Smart to SAC and WCS coming back. Not endorsing that, just demonstrating a 1-for-1 deal that doesn't add salary and gives us a chance at some upside (just a different position) I'm 100% on board. You could even get a player that wasn't a lottery pick so you did free up salary. I just like that idea rather than getting some pick that most likely is a late first years down the road, in a draft were you have no clue how good it will be or what type of player you can get. You can make the case that maybe a late first this year is worth it. You know the draft and have a good idea who will be there. Thing is do you make that trade without knowing about Hayward? I don't think so and that's the problem. Yes you have to trade a guard, but I have to think your moves are let's say A if you can sign Hayward and B if you can't sign Hayward. No Hayward and you just trade Smart for the best return. No need to worry about salary. Maybe you include him in a bigger trade to get a PF that we really need. I can get behind trading him, I just don't see the point of just dumping him unless it's our only option. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 26, 2017 15:22:26 GMT -5
Yea I wouldn't be dumping Smart or trading anyone to free space unless Hayward has agreed upon a deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 26, 2017 15:24:27 GMT -5
You can add Favors (for Crowder and Jackson) and that adds $4mn. Then you have to trade Bradley for picks as you'll need the full $8Mn. Nope, in my example you clear salary with Smart. Sign Hayward, then trade for Favors. No issues at all and no need to move Bradley. There are literally a million different ways to do things this offseason. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on May 26, 2017 15:32:37 GMT -5
I'm confused.
Getting rid of Smart (with no $ coming back) gets you the $30 to sign Hayward (assuming all FA's and Zeller/Mickey are gone).
How do you trade away $8Mn (Crowder/Jackson) and pick up $12 when you are over the cap?
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 26, 2017 15:38:53 GMT -5
I'd be more surprised if he was a lottery pick at this point than I would be if he fell to the second round. A lot can happen between now and the draft but I don't think he's taking it slow. If there was confidence on their end he'd return to form then he'd go back to Duke and dominate and be a top 5 pick next year. With the chance he could get injured again, I don't think so. Well all reports say he's a lottery pick if his medicals are good. So your just assuming they are going to be bad I guess. There was an article saying he was advised not to play this year while not 100%. They knew it would hurt his stock. He played anyway wanting to get some experience and learn from a great coach. If he really just cared about draft position he wouldn't have played. There would be no games were he wasn't 100%. It would all be on his medicals. So for me I don't think he's worried at all. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 26, 2017 15:43:34 GMT -5
I'm confused. Getting rid of Smart (with no $ coming back) gets you the $30 to sign Hayward (assuming all FA's and Zeller/Mickey are gone). How do you trade away $8Mn (Crowder/Jackson) and pick up $12 when you are over the cap? Trades don't have be dollar for dollar. You can take back 120-130% of what you send out. I forget the exact figure. We are currently over cap and if you go to ESPN trade machine it works. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 26, 2017 15:49:13 GMT -5
ESPN trade machine is not great with the complexities of the CBA, so I wouldn't rely on it as a definitive source.
I wouldn't assume that they sign Hayward, by the way. I'd handicap it as less than 50/50 odds that he signs in Boston. Frankly, the need to upgrade the frontcourt becomes even more acute if they don't sign Hayward.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 26, 2017 16:00:35 GMT -5
Per old CBA trades sending out up to 9.8 million could take back 150% of salary plus 100,000 if they weren't over luxury tax. Not sure if it's changed as new CBA info isn't the easiest thing to find right now.
|
|
