What's new
By:

Post your Billy King dumb like trade ideas in here

Assets for a good player.
 
gregbroncs said:
And no money, no backup C, no draft pick, and no flexibility if it does not work out. It's a bad trade IMO.
Click to expand...

We have 45.8M tied in contracts. If we accept the contracts of Lowry and Patterson (17.8M) we get to 63.6, if we send Trey to Toronto, that would make it about 61M. The cap is projected to be around 67M... We will have 6M to the cap with the following players tied with contracts:

Gordon Hayward
Derrick Favors
Dante Exum
Alec Burks
Rodney Hood
Rudy Gobert
Kyle Lowry
Patrick Patterson.



If you offer 5M to Tomic, you are left with 1M that you can spend on Millsap's contract. You have mid-level exception of ~2.8M, that you can split to multiple players. Say you pick the option on Cotton. You are left with 2M(Lets say our 2 second round picks). We can go above the limit for resigning our own players(Jingles, Evans). So you are left with a depth chart like this:

Depth chart:

PG: Lowry, Exum, Cotton
SG: Burks, Hood, Millsap, (second round pick)
SF: Hayward, Hood, Ingles
PF: Favors, Patterson, Evans
C: Gobert, Tomic, (second round pick)

If you need a hole plugged at some time during the season you are allowed to use a min-salary exception to sign a D-Leaguer for example.

I don't see how that hurts our flexibility when this is going to be the cap only for one year and after that the cap jumps to ~90 million. So we would have ~20 million to spend the first year of the new CBA, and 30M in the second year of the CBA(~45-50M if it's used for resigning our own players).
 
Last edited:
Wait so every trade that cashes out future assets for vets is a stupid billy king trade... Because the only way to build a contender is through the draft... There is no other way to do it huh?

Boston, Detroit, Miami (the shaq team), and Dallas all say hello.
 
stitches said:
We have 45.8M tied in contracts. If we accept the contracts of Lowry and Patterson (17.8M) we get to 63.6, if we send Trey to Toronto, that would make it about 61M. The cap is projected to be around 67M... We will have 6M to the cap with the following players tied with contracts:

Gordon Hayward
Derrick Favors
Dante Exum
Alec Burks
Rodney Hood
Rudy Gobert
Kyle Lowry
Patrick Patterson.



If you offer 5M to Tomic, you are left with 1M that you can spend on Millsap's contract. You have mid-level exception of ~2.8M, that you can split to multiple players. Say you pick the option on Cotton. You are left with 2M(Lets say our 2 second round picks). We can go above the limit for resigning our own players(Jingles, Evans). So you are left with a depth chart like this:

Depth chart:

PG: Lowry, Exum, Cotton
SG: Burks, Hood, Millsap, (second round pick)
SF: Hayward, Hood, Ingles
PF: Favors, Patterson, Evans
C: Gobert, Tomic, (second round pick)

If you need a hole plugged at some time during the season you are allowed to use a min-salary exception to sign a D-Leaguer for example.

I don't see how that hurts our flexibility when this is going to be the cap only for one year and after that the cap jumps to ~90 million. So we would have in ~20 million to spend the first year of the new CBA, and 30M in the second year of the CBA(~45-50M if it's used for resigning our own players).
Click to expand...

I'm not motivated enough to attempt to verify this but it is well thought out and seems correct. I also think that is the argument against the trade is... Then who plays backup center? Then I am willing to roll the dice. Wven if we don't have the dough for Tomic we can find someone. We are currently playing 2 backup level players at the starting point guard ( backup level is generous on some nights). We will be fine at backup center.
 
gregbroncs said:
And no money, no backup C, no draft pick, and no flexibility if it does not work out. It's a bad trade IMO.
Click to expand...

We would still have draft picks in 2016, 2017, and maybe the OKC pick. Salary cap wise we'd still have max space next year if we wanted. We would still have flexibility.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I'm not motivated enough to attempt to verify this but it is well thought out and seems correct. I also think that is the argument against the trade is... Then who plays backup center? Then I am willing to roll the dice. Wven if we don't have the dough for Tomic we can find someone. We are currently playing 2 backup level players at the starting point guard ( backup level is generous on some nights). We will be fine at backup center.
Click to expand...

I did it very quickly and without consulting the CBA FAQ so I might have made some small mistakes somewhere. For example, I am not sure if we can use the mid-level exception for a contract that is already in place(Cotton), but the option is not picked up. But if that's not possible, just replace Cotton with some new D-Leaguer as our 3d PG at min salary, I don't think there's gonna be much difference.
 
stitches said:
I did it very quickly and without consulting the CBA FAQ so I might have made some small mistakes somewhere. For example, I am not sure if we can use the mid-level exception for a contract that is already in place(Cotton), but the option is not picked up. But if that's not possible, just replace Cotton with some new D-Leaguer as our 3d PG at min salary, I don't think there's gonna be much difference.
Click to expand...

Exactly... We get a top ten PG and a good stretch big and we are worried about who will back up our center and fill out the 10th-15th roster spots.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Exactly... We get a top ten PG and a good stretch big and we are worried about who will back up our center and fill out the 10th-15th roster spots.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you saw it in my calculations, but I made a nice 5M salary spot for Tomic, so we won't be worrying for the backup center spot either.
 
stitches said:
I don't know if you saw it in my calculations, but I made a nice 5M salary spot for Tomic, so we won't be worrying for the backup center spot either.
Click to expand...

I did... Just think its a bad argument to start with worrying about who will backup a position when we are already filling glaring needs.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Wait so every trade that cashes out future assets for vets is a stupid billy king trade... Because the only way to build a contender is through the draft... There is no other way to do it huh?

Boston, Detroit, Miami (the shaq team), and Dallas all say hello.
Click to expand...


Apples meet oranges.

Boston, Detroit and Miami did not have three top-50 young players (Gobert, Hayward, Favors) on their roster and outstanding chemistry.
 
If Hack was the GM of a Junior Jazz team, I propose they'd probably suck in short- and long-term.
 
silesian said:
Apples meet oranges.

Boston, Detroit and Miami did not have three top-50 young players (Gobert, Hayward, Favors) on their roster and outstanding chemistry.
Click to expand...

We also don't have the best player of the generation in Tim Duncan, so I guess the Spurs model is out of the question. The point behind my comment is there are many ways to build a team... trades where you send out draft assets to fill the needs of a team have been used to build contenders and champions.

Just because our situation isn't exactly like those other teams doesn't mean it isn't a valid point.
 
NAOS said:
If Hack was the GM of a Junior Jazz team, I propose they'd probably suck in short- and long-term.
Click to expand...

They would not take short cuts though...
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
They would not take short cuts though...
Click to expand...

I'm betting that Hack thinks he's better than PKM at evaluating talent in the pool of players aged 12 to 14. Where does Hack get this kind of false confidence? Why doesn't he realize that PKM is totally the best at this??
 
NAOS said:
I'm betting that Hack thinks he's better than PKM at evaluating talent in the pool of players aged 12 to 14. Where does Hack get this kind of false confidence? Why doesn't he realize that PKM is totally the best at this??
Click to expand...

I know I'm better than you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top