Trade ideas

[HermanG]

I haven't kept up with Brooklyn's assets. Curious about a Collins / Sexton / THT swap for Simmons. That isn't a bad return for them. Simmons only has next year left on his deal which they may just want to eat. This can be Danny's reclamation project.

You serious? Simmons is both a worse asset and a more hopeless project than any of those 3 individually.

 

[infection]

You serious? Simmons is both a worse asset and a more hopeless project than any of those 3 individually.

I'd be looking for some additional incentive in the move. But Simmons' expiring deal next year can be the salary ballast in this illustrious "star trade" that I keep hearing about.

 

[HermanG]

I'd be looking for some additional incentive in the move. But Simmons' expiring deal next year can be the salary ballast in this illustrious "star trade" that I keep hearing about.

Simmons salary is so fat it cannot be used for anything else but to trade for an established star who is already earning max money. And even in those cases they would need to be heading to tank land. If its a disgruntled star who wants out but the team doesnt own their picks (think anyone from Clippers, Nets, Atlanta etc), then you cannot use Simmons salary for anything in that deal and you are stuck with 40M dead money unless you pay someone to take him off your books.

Its not a flexible expiring deal. Its usable without penalties for like 1/20 trade scenarios, and 19/20 times you need to pay extra to get rid of him.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Simmons salary is so fat it cannot be used for anything else but to trade for an established star who is already earning max money. And even in those cases they would need to be heading to tank land. If its a disgruntled star who wants out but the team doesnt own their picks (think anyone from Clippers, Nets, Atlanta etc), then you cannot use Simmons salary for anything in that deal and you are stuck with 40M dead money unless you pay someone to take him off your books.

Its not a flexible expiring deal. Its usable without penalties for like 1/20 trade scenarios, and 19/20 times you need to pay extra to get rid of him.

You have to speak in the form of analogies when trying to describe things to Infection

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I'd be looking for some additional incentive in the move. But Simmons' expiring deal next year can be the salary ballast in this illustrious "star trade" that I keep hearing about.

Simmons salary is so fat it cannot be used for anything else but to trade for an established star who is already earning max money. And even in those cases they would need to be heading to tank land. If its a disgruntled star who wants out but the team doesnt own their picks (think anyone from Clippers, Nets, Atlanta etc), then you cannot use Simmons salary for anything in that deal and you are stuck with 40M dead money unless you pay someone to take him off your books.

Its not a flexible expiring deal. Its usable without penalties for like 1/20 trade scenarios, and 19/20 times you need to pay extra to get rid of him.

While I don't want Simmons (I legit think he might be done) this is the reason I don't love the rationale of "Collins trade is good cuz it will help with the star trade". If one of the main reasons they acquired him was for that purpose it is a terrible way to do that. Simmons deal is easier to trade for a star next year since its expiring and doesn't mean you need to do a 3 or 4 for one deal. Collins' deal is big enough that it also has those type of restrictions... and its longer. His game isn't good enough that a contender that is trading PG or someone like that can rationalize just taking a half step back and Collins will help smooth out the difference between him and star X. I'd say like 9 times out of 10 star trades involve taking a big or medium step back and are built around expiring money (dead or useful) picks, and guys on rookie salaries.

There are much better ways to get that salary ballast like taking on Cedi Osman or signing a few guys to 1+1 deals that would have been the easiest way to maintain flexibility in FA and trades.

IF they wanted Collins the player and that was the big reason for the acquisition then none of this is applicable. I assume that is the rationale until I hear otherwise. If they thought they could flip him later for more value I think they will be sad and took unnecessary risk given the upside. If the trade was to get a salary cuz you have to meet the salary floor and need salary for trades... well then the FO are a bunch of dunces. I don't think they are dunces.

 

[HermanG]

While I don't want Simmons (I legit think he might be done) this is the reason I don't love the rationale of "Collins trade is good cuz it will help with the star trade". If one of the main reasons they acquired him was for that purpose it is a terrible way to do that. Simmons deal is easier to trade for a star next year since its expiring and doesn't mean you need to do a 3 or 4 for one deal. Collins' deal is big enough that it also has those type of restrictions... and its longer. His game isn't good enough that a contender that is trading PG or someone like that can rationalize just taking a half step back and Collins will help smooth out the difference between him and star X. I'd say like 9 times out of 10 star trades involve taking a big or medium step back and are built around expiring money (dead or useful) picks, and guys on rookie salaries.

There are much better ways to get that salary ballast like taking on Cedi Osman or signing a few guys to 1+1 deals that would have been the easiest way to maintain flexibility in FA and trades.

IF they wanted Collins the player and that was the big reason for the acquisition then none of this is applicable. I assume that is the rationale until I hear otherwise. If they thought they could flip him later for more value I think they will be sad and took unnecessary risk given the upside. If the trade was to get a salary cuz you have to meet the salary floor and need salary for trades... well then the FO are a bunch of dunces. I don't think they are dunces.

Last 10 star trades:
Harden (to Clips), Jrue, Dame, CP3, Beal, KD, Kyrie, Don, Gobert, Harden (to Philly)

Every deal had servicable players going back to seller (including two since turned stars Bridges and Lauri). And none of them were even heavy on expiring salaries as far as I remember.

Your logic might say "teams want expiring" but in reality they dont. They want good players/prospects in addition to picks.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Last 10 star trades:
Harden (to Clips), Jrue, Dame, CP3, Beal, KD, Kyrie, Don, Gobert, Harden (to Philly)

Every deal had servicable players going back to seller (including two since turned stars Bridges and Lauri). And none of them were even heavy on expiring salaries as far as I remember.

Your logic might say "teams want expiring" but in reality they dont. They want good players/prospects in addition to picks.

Harden - Expiring salaries were a priority
Beal - Washington got expiring salaries. The re-routed CP for Poole and assets.
Jrue - Not expirings but 2 two year deals for decent players (Boston also had no expirings).
Dame - Jrue (an expiring) and picks.
KD - Great young players (worth multiple picks by themselves) and picks.
Kyrie - DFS and Dinwiddie both players that would have positive value by themselves. DFS would have gotten a first for sure.
Don - Lauri/Sexton picks Ochai and picks
Rudy - Expirings and low salary guys plus picks.
Harden - BS (who had value at the time individually) and picks.

If you are going to use absolutes like "none" please do your homework. At least 4 relied on salary flexibility and expiring contracts. Two of them (Boston/Cleveland) didn't have expiring salary to match. The other players involved in trades for the most part had serious trade value on their own - Bridges, Ben Simmons, DFS, Cam Johnson. The Brooklyn trades are unique in that their draft picks belong to another team so they wanted good (not serviceable) players as well.

We know exactly what Collins value was this summer. Essentially a second round pick and some unsavory 1 year salary. He is not equal to any of those guys outside of maybe Sexton.

So its not my logic... its history... and history states that most teams seek financial flexibility when trading off a star (in addition to draft assets and young players). There are outliers but even in the outlier situations we could easily substitute expiring salary for Collins and would have more flexibility with the cap and still accomplish the goal. It isn't like Portland was sitting there saying "we can do a deal with someone else for an expiring contract and the same picks as Boston is offering... but man we really need to get Malcolm Brogdon and Robert Williams!"

 

[Elizah Huge]

Last 10 star trades:
Harden (to Clips), Jrue, Dame, CP3, Beal, KD, Kyrie, Don, Gobert, Harden (to Philly)

Every deal had servicable players going back to seller (including two since turned stars Bridges and Lauri). And none of them were even heavy on expiring salaries as far as I remember.

Your logic might say "teams want expiring" but in reality they dont. They want good players/prospects in addition to picks.

I mean every player the 76ers got back for Harden is an expiring contract. For Gobert we got a ton of expiring contracts.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Harden - Expiring salaries were a priority
Beal - Washington got expiring salaries. The re-routed CP for Poole and assets.
Jrue - Not expirings but 2 two year deals for decent players (Boston also had no expirings).
Dame - Jrue (an expiring) and picks.
KD - Great young players (worth multiple picks by themselves) and picks.
Kyrie - DFS and Dinwiddie both players that would have positive value by themselves. DFS would have gotten a first for sure.
Don - Lauri/Sexton picks Ochai and picks
Rudy - Expirings and low salary guys plus picks.
Harden - BS (who had value at the time individually) and picks.

If you are going to use absolutes like "none" please do your homework. At least 4 relied on salary flexibility and expiring contracts. Two of them (Boston/Cleveland) didn't have expiring salary to match. The other players involved in trades for the most part had serious trade value on their own - Bridges, Ben Simmons, DFS, Cam Johnson. The Brooklyn trades are unique in that their draft picks belong to another team so they wanted good (not serviceable) players as well.

We know exactly what Collins value was this summer. Essentially a second round pick and some unsavory 1 year salary. He is not equal to any of those guys outside of maybe Sexton.

So its not my logic... its history... and history states that most teams seek financial flexibility when trading off a star (in addition to draft assets and young players). There are outliers but even in the outlier situations we could easily substitute expiring salary for Collins and would have more flexibility with the cap and still accomplish the goal. It isn't like Portland was sitting there saying "we can do a deal with someone else for an expiring contract and the same picks as Boston is offering... but man we really need to get Malcolm Brogdon and Robert Williams!"

In the Harden situation it is even a team in win now mode and they still preferred Morris (expiring) to Norm Powell... Norm's deal is better than Collins' deal and it isn't really close to me.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I mean every player the 76ers got back for Harden is an expiring contract. For Gobert we got a ton of expiring contracts.

I still say we just wanted John Collins the player OR we erroneously thought we could substantially improve his value (chasing a Lauri 2.0). The argument that Collins was a great get because we needed to hit the salary floor or we needed salary for a star trade later is just not correct. There are MUCH better ways to accomplish those tasks.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Its simply this... there are several scenarios where a team trading a star would prefer expiring salary to John Collins. There are very few or maybe no scenarios where team would prefer John Collins to expiring contracts in a trade.

The next few stars that get moved - KAT, Brown, Ingram/Zion... will get moved in part because of fit but also because of cap dynamics.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Ive yet to see a trade idea for Collins individually that makes sense.

 

[HermanG]

Harden - Expiring salaries were a priority
Beal - Washington got expiring salaries. The re-routed CP for Poole and assets.
Jrue - Not expirings but 2 two year deals for decent players (Boston also had no expirings).
Dame - Jrue (an expiring) and picks.
KD - Great young players (worth multiple picks by themselves) and picks.
Kyrie - DFS and Dinwiddie both players that would have positive value by themselves. DFS would have gotten a first for sure.
Don - Lauri/Sexton picks Ochai and picks
Rudy - Expirings and low salary guys plus picks.
Harden - BS (who had value at the time individually) and picks.

If you are going to use absolutes like "none" please do your homework. At least 4 relied on salary flexibility and expiring contracts.

I didnt intend to use absolutes. I said "as far as I remember". I also actually only countered a point where you said 9/10 trades are based on expirings.

Now you are saying its 4.

However Jrue was not taken as an expiring, he was taken to mazimize return value... so its 3.

And Philly wanted "a star" back, not expirings (plus they dont even fit to the getting worse category)... so its 2 actually.

And didnt we trade the biggest expiring from Rudy deal for THT who is still riding that contract? I wont count that, but still.

Its closer to 1/10 than 9/10 from where I'm looking at.

 

[HermanG]

I mean every player the 76ers got back for Harden is an expiring contract. For Gobert we got a ton of expiring contracts.

Thats 2 of 10, and Philly wanted a star not expirings (plus we traded Pat Bev for THT, so the biggest expiring contract was used by a trade chip few months later).

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I didnt intend to use absolutes. I said "as far as I remember". I also actually only countered a point where you said 9/10 trades are based on expirings.

Probably a bit off on my part... but you selected a sample. I was referring to the history of star trades... not just the last few.

Now you are saying its 4.

However Jrue was not taken as an expiring, he was taken to mazimize return value... so its 3.

And Philly wanted "a star" back, not expirings (plus they dont even fit to the getting worse category)... so its 2 actually.

Once they knew they were not getting a star they absolutely prioritized capspace so it for sure counts. By that logic I can throw Portland in there because they preferred no salary back... so 5/10.

And didnt we trade the biggest expiring from Rudy deal for THT who is still riding that contract? I wont count that, but still.

Oh brother. Wrong again but go ahead and look it up for yourself.

Its closer to 1/10 than 9/10 from where I'm looking at.

I said 9 out of 10... which is off... I did not say 9 of the last 10. A sample you handpicked and still didn't get it right. Over a bigger sample it probably isn't 90% but its still a majority. It isn't always possible because the "preferred destinations" don't always have the perfect matching salary.

My larger point still stands. If you acquired Collins to use him as a component of a star trade you are doing it wrong. None of those examples represent John's individual trade value accurately. All of the players included in those deals had first round value or damn close to it or the trading team did not have expiring salary to substitute in for the player (Brogdon, Williams, Sexton would fit here). John does not have first round value.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Thats 2 of 10, and Philly wanted a star not expirings (plus we traded Pat Bev for THT, so the biggest expiring contract was used by a trade chip few months later).

I guess if we are just going to make **** up and count how we want then we shouldn't discuss. The subsequent deals don't matter, what the team wanted doesn't matter... what matters is what happened. Like when Portland flips Brogdon for an expiring contract are you going to throw that one back in my column?

 

[infection]

A couple ideas I’d try to work with is unloading some of our value to improve some of our picks. What I mean is something like getting Clarkson to LA for them to drop the protections on the pick. It’d have to include a third team because there’s nothing we’re taking back from them. Then if we could send out anything of value to Minnesota, or route something elsewhere with something else to Minnesota, to drop the protections on the last pick.

 

[HermanG]

Probably a bit off on my part... but you selected a sample. I was referring to the history of star trades... not just the last few.

Once they knew they were not getting a star they absolutely prioritized capspace so it for sure counts. By that logic I can throw Portland in there because they preferred no salary back... so 5/10.

Oh brother. Wrong again but go ahead and look it up for yourself.

I said 9 out of 10... which is off... I did not say 9 of the last 10. A sample you handpicked and still didn't get it right. Over a bigger sample it probably isn't 90% but its still a majority. It isn't always possible because the "preferred destinations" don't always have the perfect matching salary.

Dude.... "Selected/handpicked a sample" when I used the last 10? Really? The most honest, current and relevant sample you could use. I dont know why you keep scrambling and try to throw shade at me here. I'm not "truthtelling" here, you are. I simply questionned your point, and you already admitted it was valid criticism.

My larger point still stands. If you acquired Collins to use him as a component of a star trade you are doing it wrong. None of those examples represent John's individual trade value accurately. All of the players included in those deals had first round value or damn close to it or the trading team did not have expiring salary to substitute in for the player (Brogdon, Williams, Sexton would fit here). John does not have first round value.

I dont disagree with the notion that its a bad idea if DA traded Collins to use him as a pawn. They were celebrating the amount of tradable contracts we have last spring, which has now transpired into having too many guys who need minutes. So if Collins is just another tradable contract then its a really bad look. I personally think Collins was acquired as a true reclamation project. But if he rehabs his value to any extent Danny will for sure take calls on him and abandon that project as soon as he sees dollar signs. Collins is not looking like a building block, at least not at the moment.

Also Collins acquisition is not looking much worse as it appears Hendricks actually might be as ready as advertised.... which is also why I didn't love the trade despite advocating it during last season.

 

[HermanG]

I guess if we are just going to make **** up and count how we want then we shouldn't discuss. The subsequent deals don't matter, what the team wanted doesn't matter... what matters is what happened. Like when Portland flips Brogdon for an expiring contract are you going to throw that one back in my column?

What the seller wanted doesnt matter? Wow. Thats rich from a Jazz fan. Maybe Lakers fans can say that. Like we would ever have the leverage the Clippers had where we can say "No, we are not giving up our 4th best player Terance Mann".

Also you said:

Harden - Expiring salaries were a priority

Priority as a word implies its what the seller wanted. But it wasnt. Priority was actually players, and they settled for expirings because the situation was inflating and escalating quickly.

 

[HermanG]

Oh brother. Wrong again but go ahead and look it up for yourself.

Also had to return to this point, since you are obviously counting Beasley as an expiring contract despite the team option. To say that DA wanted him as an expiring is just pure specualation.

The FO clearly wanted young talent under team control which makes sense when you are entering the rebuild as the Utah Jazz. It is also apparent by the Sexton sign-and-trade being part of the Cavs package. I'm pretty sure Cavs had expiring money to give. I mean didnt they have Kevin Love in the books for a 25M or something expiring? Vando and Beasley were both under team control for 2 years, Lauri for 3 and Sexton for 4.