What's new
By:

Post your Billy King dumb like trade ideas in here

Hotdog

Hotdog

Well-Known Member
I'll start with a few. Some have already been mentioned.


Picks and Trey for Lowry

A whole bunch of picks and Trey for CP3

Gobert for Tony Parker

Trey and picks for Lawson

Trey and picks for Iguodala

Trey and picks for Jrue Holiday

Trey and picks for George Hill

Trey and picks for Jeremy Lin

Trey and picks for Mike Conley

Favors for Chris Bosh

Favors for Al Horford

Hood for Paul Pierce

Hood for Corey Brewer

Hood for JJ Reddick



Sorry I probably took a lot of ideas. But I'm sure there are a lot more.

I know a lot of you are thinking, hey I would do that trade. Well, you are high as a kite. Those are bad ideas. That's not how you run a small market successful NBA franchise.

It isn't about next year only. We have to consider the future and all sorts other things that go into the trades.
 
I'm starting to think you shouldn't be the expert on what is and isn't stupid.
 
Some of those trades are awful, some are not. The perpetual rebuild, which is what Hack has fallen trap to, can be fool's gold. People thought LaMarcus Aldridge was a lock to stay in Portland, and now is reported to be "50/50" on leaving - probably to NY or LA. Gordon Hayward and Derrick Favors are not restricted free agents in 2-3 years, if the Jazz aren't at least a 5 seed playoff team, both could walk. They might even walk if we are, sometimes players just want a change of scenery. Point is you have to strike when the iron is hot.

My theory is if you have 3 players in the top 10 for their respective positions, you've got enough, and should be looking to accelerate the process.
 
Jazz4ever said:
Some of those trades are awful, some are not. The perpetual rebuild, which is what Hack has fallen trap to, can be fool's gold. People thought LaMarcus Aldridge was a lock to stay in Portland, and now is reported to be "50/50" on leaving - probably to NY or LA. Gordon Hayward and Derrick Favors are not restricted free agents in 2-3 years, if the Jazz aren't at least a 5 seed playoff team, both could walk. They might even walk if we are, sometimes players just want a change of scenery. Point is you have to strike when the iron is hot.

My theory is if you have 3 players in the top 10 for their respective positions, you've got enough, and should be looking to accelerate the process.
Click to expand...

With Lowry we might have 4 top 10 players in their respective positions.
 
Jazz4ever said:
Some of those trades are awful, some are not. The perpetual rebuild, which is what Hack has fallen trap to, can be fool's gold. People thought LaMarcus Aldridge was a lock to stay in Portland, and now is reported to be "50/50" on leaving - probably to NY or LA. Gordon Hayward and Derrick Favors are not restricted free agents in 2-3 years, if the Jazz aren't at least a 5 seed playoff team, both could walk. They might even walk if we are, sometimes players just want a change of scenery. Point is you have to strike when the iron is hot.

My theory is if you have 3 players in the top 10 for their respective positions, you've got enough, and should be looking to accelerate the process.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about perpetual rebuild? It's not perpetual if you do it right. That perpetual rebuild you are talking about is the same reason why we are going into next offseason with a ton of hope and optimism.

Did it serve us better to keep developing Favors and Hayward? Or would it have been better to strike while the iron is hot and trade them for help for Al Jefferson?
 
Hack said:
What are you talking about perpetual rebuild? It's not perpetual if you do it right. That perpetual rebuild you are talking about is the same reason why we are going into next offseason with a ton of hope and optimism.

Did it serve us better to keep developing Favors and Hayward? Or would it have been better to strike while the iron is hot and trade them for help for Al Jefferson?
Click to expand...

You don't think we could contend with Gobert, Hayward, Favors, healthy Burks, and a top 10 PG? Some of your posted trades indicate you don't believe this.
I think we could, and more importantly, Gordon Hayward and Derrick Favors think we can. They aren't naive kids. Most players want a proactive GM.
 
Trey to gsw for barns
A lot of picks for greek freak
Picks for Mario hezonja
Trey and filler for d-will
Picks for Dario saric
Picks for mirotic
All assets forpaul George
All assets for Andrew Wiggins
Trey for Beverley
Picks for Patrick Patterson
Pick for Ross
 
Hack said:
At least I have foresight and can see how a bad trade will play out.
Click to expand...
You've yet to provide much of an argument. You also failed to recognize that I didn't support the trade as proposed in the OP...There's that illiteracy and irrational confidence. Thanks for providing such a useful demonstration.
 
GVC said:
You've yet to provide much of an argument. You also failed to recognize that I didn't support the trade as proposed in the OP...There's that illiteracy and irrational confidence. Thanks for providing such a useful demonstration.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? Now you are saying didn't support the trade? Damn bro. That short memory is killing you. How do you not remember what you posted?

Also, just because you don't agree with my argumen, doesn't mean it isn't a good one.
 
Hack said:
WTF are you talking about? Now you are saying didn't support the trade? Damn bro. That short memory is killing you. How do you not remember what you posted?
Click to expand...
How do you not remember? In consecutive posts I said that I wasn't sure that the trade from the OP was all that great, and that I'd definitely want Lowry for less.

It might help if you actually read people's posts before commenting on them.

Hack said:
Also, just because you don't agree with my argumen, doesn't mean it isn't a good one.
Click to expand...
Your argument was based on weak or false premises. That's my point. I agree (and agreed) that it's possible to come down on either side of that trade. I'm on the fence about it, as I've already said.
 
GVC said:
How do you not remember? In consecutive posts I said that I wasn't sure that the trade from the OP was all that great, and that I'd definitely want Lowry for less.

It might help if you actually read people's posts before commenting on them.

Your argument was based on weak or false premises. That's my point. I agree (and agreed) that it's possible to come down on either side of that trade. I'm on the fence about it, as I've already said.
Click to expand...

First of all, the trade suggested probably isn't enough to aquire Lowry. And you want to subtract a first rounder.

Even with one less first rounder we give up, its still a bad idea.

I promise you, that in 2-3 years, this will look like a bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top