Would you trade Hayward+assets for John Wall??

[Saint Cy of JFC]

So who would you give up instead of Hayward?

Can you just read the previous post where I explained my proposed deal?

Since you are lazy and inconsiderate, I will repost it.

Exum/Hood/Picks for Wall. That is right in line with how most trades for an all-star player who the team questions can be a "franchise" guy go. Young talent with high ceiling and picks. Utah gets better in the immediate future and Washington builds up assets to rebuild the team in a new direction. I even posted how Washington doesnt have a draft pick this year, so our pick would be even more valuable to them.

I agree with NAOS though that this purely hypothetical and I don't think Washington is considering trading Wall at all, but I do think it's a start of some tension in Washington that could lead to them wanting to do a deal in the future if the situation worsens.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

That is why the deal becomes a three way with Boston, Boston wants Hayward and believes they can retain him. Wizards get Boston's top 5 pick in the draft.

So Boston gives up a top 5 pick for a player they probably think they can outright sign in free agency? Genius!!!

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I'm not saying my proposed deal of Exum/Hood/Picks is flawless, but that is the deal that seems to be the most realistic and the deal that is in line with previous deals of that nature (team looking to unload star). Rarely do star for star trades happen and no one is trading for Hayward in a contract year when he is going to be unrestricted, just way too risky.

 

[fishonjazz]

Really?

What star did we get for Dwill?

What star did Denver get for Carmello?

What star did OKC get for Harden?

What star did Minnesota get for Live?

What star did New Orleans get for Paul?

What star did Memphis get for Gadol?

In all cases it was high profile young talent on rookie deals and draft picks.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

I did mention in one of my posts that a star on the last year of his contract that his current team doesn't think will re-sign is one that can be had without the inclusion of a star.

It can happen. Just don't think teams often trade their star player on a good long term contract for young pieces that have done absolutey nothing in the league.

Wall is a star in this league on a good long term contract. Hood is an ok player. Exum might suck and is coming off a bad injury.

I think Washington would laugh at that offer.

Agree to disagree I guess

 

[karl malone]

Hayward, no.

But I'd trade Exum/Burks/Assets.

Agree with this, Hayward+ for Wall would be a lateral move IMO (although if we're going to lose him for nothing in a year, we'd be lucky to get a talent such as Wall in return). I don't know if WAS would be interested but I would definitely trade Exum/Burks/picks for Wall. With Hayward only having one more guaranteed year on his contract, we need to either trade him or add high-end talent around him.

Wall/Mack/Neto
Hood/?/Johnson
Hayward/Ingles
Favors/Lyles
Gobert/Whithey

I doubt WAS trades him (especially in a deal centered around a player coming off a serious injury), but that roster (with the right addition or 2) could be a serious contender & potentially convince Hayward to re-sign at a reasonable price as well as keep Wall reasonably content. As someone mentioned, due diligence on Wall would need to be done prior to any trade though.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I did mention in one of my posts that a star on the last year of his contract that his current team doesn't think will re-sign is one that can be had without the inclusion of a star.

It can happen. Just don't think teams often trade their star player on a good long term contract for young pieces that have done absolutey nothing in the league.

Wall is a star in this league on a good long term contract. Hood is an ok player. Exum might suck and is coming off a bad injury.

I think Washington would laugh at that offer.

Agree to disagree I guess

Hood is definitely better than OK.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Hood is definitely better than OK.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

Back that ish up with his stats please.

I think ok is about what we would see if you show me stats.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I'm not saying my proposed deal of Exum/Hood/Picks is flawless, but that is the deal that seems to be the most realistic and the deal that is in line with previous deals of that nature (team looking to unload star). Rarely do star for star trades happen and no one is trading for Hayward in a contract year when he is going to be unrestricted, just way too risky.

I am not a big John Wall fan, but agree with the premise of Cy's trade idea. You have to pick a direction and go for it. If you are going to go young you move Hayward for picks, good young players, etc. If you are acquiring an all-star who is ready now... don't send out other ready now pieces... send young players and picks.

Wall for Hayward and stuff is a lateral reshuffling of deck chairs.

Also, it absolutely won't happen either way so carry on.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Agree with this, Hayward+ for Wall would be a lateral move IMO (although if we're going to lose him for nothing in a year, we'd be lucky to get a talent such as Wall in return). I don't know if WAS would be interested but I would definitely trade Exum/Burks/picks for Wall. With Hayward only having one more guaranteed year on his contract, we need to either trade him or add high-end talent around him.

Wall/Mack/Neto
Hood/?/Johnson
Hayward/Ingles
Favors/Lyles
Gobert/Whithey

I doubt WAS trades him (especially in a deal centered around a player coming off a serious injury), but that roster (with the right addition or 2) could be a serious contender & potentially convince Hayward to re-sign at a reasonable price as well as keep Wall reasonably content. As someone mentioned, due diligence on Wall would need to be done prior to any trade though.

It would have to be Hood, not Burks, for it to have any chance.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Hood is definitely better than OK.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

Even if you are right, Washington still lol's. It ain't enough imo

Agree to disagree

 

[Jamezz]

Can you just read the previous post where I explained my proposed deal?

Since you are lazy and inconsiderate, I will repost it.

Exum/Hood/Picks for Wall. That is right in line with how most trades for an all-star player who the team questions can be a "franchise" guy go. Young talent with high ceiling and picks. Utah gets better in the immediate future and Washington builds up assets to rebuild the team in a new direction. I even posted how Washington doesnt have a draft pick this year, so our pick would be even more valuable to them.

I agree with NAOS though that this purely hypothetical and I don't think Washington is considering trading Wall at all, but I do think it's a start of some tension in Washington that could lead to them wanting to do a deal in the future if the situation worsens.

Sorry I didn't read your previous post, I'm busy and I'm just lurking during breaks. No I don't do that, do you know what we have in Exum yet? I don't think so.

As much as I like Wall you just don't give up on a player which you don't know what his ceiling could be yet. Hayward on the other hand seems to have reached it. I agree that the Wizards would be dumb to trade for Hayward since he's becoming a free agent though.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Even if you are right, Washington still lol's. It ain't enough imo

Agree to disagree

Look I said I doubt Washington is looking to move Wall.

The point is there is some issues going on in Washington. They could be resolved or they could get worse, who knows but it has taken a step in a bad direction. I don't think they would get a package substantially better than Hood/Exum/Lottery pick. Exam is obviously a risk, but so was Favors when we traded Swill and we never got a guaranteed starter like Hood in that deal.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk