Official Trade Thread IX (Visitors Post Trades HERE!)

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

REDardWIZskin, I certainly would prefer getting back Young or Caroll over Banks.

I just included Banks to make the cap work for both Toronto and Washington. Gasol's deal is for lot less than Brendan's, thus Banks' deal was added. (Similarly, Jaric balances the difference between Calderon's salary and Conley's).

As far as Crittenton or Banks, I'm not sure on that one except that at least Crittenton's salary is small. I'm leaning REDWIZ towards thinking Banks is better--mainly because of what you said. He scores well.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I have a real simple change: Send Crit to the Raps instead of McGuire.

Deal becomes Wiz send Haywood/Critt; Wiz receive Gasol/Banks

Raps send Calderon/Banks; Raps receive Conley/Crit/Jaric

Griz send Gasol/Conley/Jaric; Griz receive Calderon/Haywood

[nate33]

My latest trade musing, Memphis/Toronto/Washington, Realgm Trade ID #5207011:

Memphis sends
PG Mike Conley
C Marc Gaso
SG Marko Jaric

Memphis receives
PG Jose Calderon
C Brendan Haywood

Griz decide to try and win NOW. Putting these two good veterans around Mayo, Gay, Randolph and rooks Thabeet, Young, and Carroll accomplishes just that.

Toronto sends
PG Jose Calderon
PG Marcus Banks

Toronto recieves
PG Mike Conley
SG Marko Jaric
SF Dominic McGuire

Conley's a better defender and costs a whole lot less than Calderon.

Washington sends
C Haywood
SF Dominic McGuire

Washington recieves
C Marc Gasol
PG Marcus Banks

TSW's projection in the Javale Ceiling thread placed Marc Gasol along with Javale among players to have solid NBA careers at the least. Lke Haywood, Gasol's a good defender and rebounder. Haywood's going to cost a bundle to resign, but Gasol's signed through 2010-2011. Unlike Javale and Andray, Marc Gasol already plays like a seasoned veteran.

Thoughts?

That's horrible CCJ.

TSW made his projection using exclusively PER. I'm sure he'd readily tell you himself that PER is a limited statistic, particularly in it's capacity to measure defense. Haywood is a much better player than Gasol, and he'll remain a better player for at least another 4-5 years. This trade would only pay dividends five years from now. It's foolish to look that far into the future for the upside in a deal.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Oh man. My blog musings should NOT be used as inspiration for trade ideas.

Need to get a lawyer to write up a disclaimer or something.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

That's horrible CCJ.

TSW made his projection using exclusively PER. I'm sure he'd readily tell you himself that PER is a limited statistic, particularly in it's capacity to measure defense. Haywood is a much better player than Gasol, and he'll remain a better player for at least another 4-5 years. This trade would only pay dividends five years from now. It's foolish to look that far into the future for the upside in a deal.

I had the thought of trading for Gasol before anything TSW posted.

For you to say Gasol won't be better than Haywood in 5 years is probably wrong, nate. He's not ever going to be the defender Haywood is but Gasol is 5.25 years younger and already twice the passer, just as good a rebounder, better at drawing fouls on his opponent, and in HIS FIRST SEASON he's already a BETTER SCORER THAN HAYWOOD'S EVER BEEN.

For you to say a guy 5 years younger than Haywood who's already better in a number of areas shows your homerism.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lma01.html
http://www.82games.com/0809/08MEM13.HTM

For you to say I base my argument solely on PER I can' just as easily say you base yours solely on on/off and Haywood's experience.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Oh man. My blog musings should NOT be used as inspiration for trade ideas.

Need to get a lawyer to write up a disclaimer or something.

And my disclaimer is I had thought of posting a trade for Gasol before I read your post, TSW.

Just the idea that drafting Thabeet when they had a better C, Marc Gasol, was motivation.

The timing of your post particularly did inspire going through the exercise of posting a Haywood trade, knowing it would meet with disdain/invective/whatever.

I think Gasol's a winner. Purely subjective, though.

I like Haywood AND THINK IT"S BEST THE WIZARDS RESIGN HIM EVEN IF IT COSTS A TON. I was defending him when most (not nate) were saying negative stuff and calling him Brenda.

The thought is trade for Gasol and don't risk losing a good C, Haywood, for nothing.

I can foresee Haywood leaving for more money than the Wizards can match. This trade would get around it with IMO not a precipitous dropoff. Gasol's better than given credit for so far by IMO partial fans.

[nate33]

With Yao and TMac out, Houston's season is a lost cause. Furthermore, they'll have an eye toward 2010 free agency if they can shave a little more salary. Also, they just signed Ariza to a long term deal which creates a log jam at SF. With that the case, I think they'd be open to a Battier trade. Battier is 31 and won't be in his prime by the time Houston manages to rebuild.

I'd love to add Battier to our roster. We're still a bit overweighted on offense and lack quality defenders in our starting lineup. If we could somehow swap Miller for Battier, it would really vault us into "contender" status.

So how do we make it happen?

A simple trade of Miller for Battier plus Brent Barry would work, but I don't think Houston does that. They'd ultimately be just giving Battier away for an expiring contract. They're gonna want more.

What about:

Washington trades: Miller, Stevenson, Young
Houston trades: Battier, Barry, B.Cook

Why for Houston? They address their weak SG position by getting young talent in Nick Young and a stable vet in Stevenson while dumping the dead weight of Barry and Cook. Also, Miller is better able to play SG than Battier, so he would fit alongside Ariza better. Next year, they'd have fully rebuilt around a Young lineup of: Brooks, Young, Ariza, Scola, Yao, Landry and a $10M free agent.

Why for Washington? We sacrifice some youth to finalize our "win-now" roster. A 3-man rotation of Foye, Battier and Butler at SG and SF would be perfect. And Barry and DMac are there as emergency depth. Also, by dumping Stevenson and Young, we free up enough salary room to take care of Battier's salary next year. We'd only have to worry about signing Haywood and Foye next summer, rather than Haywood, Foye AND Miller. Finally, we save $3M in money immediately, which saves Abe $6M

Our 9-man rotation:
PG Arenas/Crittenton
SG Battier/Foye
SF Butler/Battier
PF Jamison/Blatche
C Haywood/McGee
Emergency depth: James, Barry, DMac, Cook, Oberto

[LyricalRico]

^ I'd actually rather do something like this:

Wiz trade: Stevenson, James, Young, and future 2nd
Rockets trade: Battier and Cook

Houston saves money and possibly gets their SG of the future . It clears our backcourt glut and we can set up our perimeter rotation like so:

Butler(36)/Miller(12)
Battier(28)/Miller(12)/Foye(8)
Arenas(36)/Foye(12)

Doesn't leave much room for McGuire, though. It also takes us back down to a 13 man roster.

[nate33]

^ that works too. I suppose if Houston is tanking, they don't much care whether they have Miller or Barry + James. Either way, they're just expiring contracts. From our perspective, it would mean that we'd be sure to cut Miller in 2010, but at least we'd get to rent his services for one year.

I was trying to think of a 3-way where we send Miller to a 3rd party and that 3rd party sends an expiring contract and a pick/prospect to Houston, but I couldn't find one that makes sense. The only teams that are interested in sacrificing value for a one-year rental of Miller are contenders, and most of them don't need another jumpshooting wing like Miller.

The best-case scenario for us would be:

Washington trades: Miller + future 1st
Washington receives: Battier + expiring filler

Team X trades: expiring + pick/prospect
Team X receives: Miller

Houston trades: Battier
Houston receives: expirings + WAS 1st + TeamX pick/prospect

That way, we keep Young.

[Ruzious]

^ I'd actually rather do something like this:

Wiz trade: Stevenson, James, Young, and future 2nd
Rockets trade: Battier and Cook

Houston saves money and possibly gets their SG of the future . It clears our backcourt glut and we can set up our perimeter rotation like so:

Butler(36)/Miller(12)
Battier(28)/Miller(12)/Foye(8)
Arenas(36)/Foye(12)

Doesn't leave much room for McGuire, though. It also takes us back down to a 13 man roster.

That makes a lot more sense than nate's trade. Trading both Miller and Young for Battier would be a really bad value at this stage of Battier's career.

[nate33]

^ I'd actually rather do something like this:

Wiz trade: Stevenson, James, Young, and future 2nd
Rockets trade: Battier and Cook

Houston saves money and possibly gets their SG of the future . It clears our backcourt glut and we can set up our perimeter rotation like so:

Butler(36)/Miller(12)
Battier(28)/Miller(12)/Foye(8)
Arenas(36)/Foye(12)

Doesn't leave much room for McGuire, though. It also takes us back down to a 13 man roster.

That makes a lot more sense than nate's trade. Trading both Miller and Young for Battier would be a really bad value at this stage of Battier's career.

Don't overlook how it helps our cap though. If you assume that we can't afford both Foye and Miller next year anyhow, then my trade looks much better. Basically, we are trading Young + Stevenson for Battier (a salary neutral deal that's a steal for us) while simultaneously trading a one year rental of Miller for a one-year rental of Cook + Barry while saving Abe $6M in the process.

[nate33]

^ that works too. I suppose if Houston is tanking, they don't much care whether they have Miller or Barry + James. Either way, they're just expiring contracts. From our perspective, it would mean that we'd be sure to cut Miller in 2010, but at least we'd get to rent his services for one year.

I was trying to think of a 3-way where we send Miller to a 3rd party and that 3rd party sends an expiring contract and a pick/prospect to Houston, but I couldn't find one that makes sense. The only teams that are interested in sacrificing value for a one-year rental of Miller are contenders, and most of them don't need another jumpshooting wing like Miller.

The best-case scenario for us would be:

Washington trades: Miller + future 1st
Washington receives: Battier + expiring filler

Team X trades: expiring + pick/prospect
Team X receives: Miller

Houston trades: Battier
Houston receives: expirings + WAS 1st + TeamX pick/prospect

That way, we keep Young.

What about involving New Orleans? Miller would be a great fit alongside Paul. Would they trade crappy expirings (Daniels + R.Butler) plus a pick for Mike Miller? If so, the 3-way could look like this:

Washington trades: Miller + 1st rd pick
Washington receives: Battier + Barry

New Orleans trades: Daniels + R.Butler + 1st round pick
New Orleans receives: Mike Miller

Houston trades: Battier + Barry
Houston receives: Daniels (EC) + R.Butler (EC) + WAS 1st + NO 1st

Houston gets 2010 cap relief and two late first rounders for Battier.

[Ruzious]

^ I'd actually rather do something like this:

Wiz trade: Stevenson, James, Young, and future 2nd
Rockets trade: Battier and Cook

Houston saves money and possibly gets their SG of the future . It clears our backcourt glut and we can set up our perimeter rotation like so:

Butler(36)/Miller(12)
Battier(28)/Miller(12)/Foye(8)
Arenas(36)/Foye(12)

Doesn't leave much room for McGuire, though. It also takes us back down to a 13 man roster.

That makes a lot more sense than nate's trade. Trading both Miller and Young for Battier would be a really bad value at this stage of Battier's career.

Don't overlook how it helps our cap though. If you assume that we can't afford both Foye and Miller next year anyhow, then my trade looks much better. Basically, we are trading Young + Stevenson for Battier (a salary neutral deal that's a steal for us) while simultaneously trading a one year rental of Miller for a one-year rental of Cook + Barry while saving Abe $6M in the process.

It's a lose/lose. You're mortgaging part of the future to get Battier, and then you're hurting the present by trading Miller.

[nate33]

So hypothetically, you wouldn't trade Young + Stevenson straight up for Battier?

The future is now as far as I'm concerned. Young is talented, but I don't think he's irreplaceable and I think he's a bit redundant on a team that already has Arenas and Foye. History has shown that having a shut-down perimeter defender is a prerequisite to winning championships. Battier is exactly that, and I think he has at least 3 good years left in him (about as many as Jamison).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in the Lyrical Rico camp of people who would give away Young for cap relief. But I'm definitely open to trading Young to fill the biggest void on our team (that of a perimeter defender).

[LyricalRico]

What about involving New Orleans? Miller would be a great fit alongside Paul. Would they trade crappy expirings (Daniels + R.Butler) plus a pick for Mike Miller? If so, the 3-way could look like this:

Washington trades: Miller + 1st rd pick
Washington receives: Battier + Barry

New Orleans trades: Daniels + R.Butler + 1st round pick
New Orleans receives: Mike Miller

Houston trades: Battier + Barry
Houston receives: Daniels (EC) + R.Butler (EC) + WAS 1st + NO 1st

Houston gets 2010 cap relief and two late first rounders for Battier.

In any deal for Battier, I think we have to also move Stevenson. Otherwise we're just adding to our 2010 salary and making it more difficult to re-sign Haywood and Foye. That's another reason why I'd like to include Young.

[Benjammin]

^ I'd actually rather do something like this:

Wiz trade: Stevenson, James, Young, and future 2nd
Rockets trade: Battier and Cook

Houston saves money and possibly gets their SG of the future . It clears our backcourt glut and we can set up our perimeter rotation like so:

Butler(36)/Miller(12)
Battier(28)/Miller(12)/Foye(8)
Arenas(36)/Foye(12)

Doesn't leave much room for McGuire, though. It also takes us back down to a 13 man roster.

That makes a lot more sense than nate's trade. Trading both Miller and Young for Battier would be a really bad value at this stage of Battier's career.

Don't overlook how it helps our cap though. If you assume that we can't afford both Foye and Miller next year anyhow, then my trade looks much better. Basically, we are trading Young + Stevenson for Battier (a salary neutral deal that's a steal for us) while simultaneously trading a one year rental of Miller for a one-year rental of Cook + Barry while saving Abe $6M in the process.

Nate, I think Ruzious already answered your question when he indicated that he liked the Stevenson, Young, and filler trade for Battier better than one involving Miller. I would be completely fine with a Young/Stevenson/filler deal for Battier, but I don't know there's enough incentive for the Rockets to pull the trigger. At least for this year, it would give the Wizards a very talented quartet at the 2/3 positions.

[Ruzious]

So hypothetically, you wouldn't trade Young + Stevenson straight up for Battier?

The future is now as far as I'm concerned. Young is talented, but I don't think he's irreplaceable and I think he's a bit redundant on a team that already has Arenas and Foye. History has shown that having a shut-down perimeter defender is a prerequisite to winning championships. Battier is exactly that, and I think he has at least 3 good years left in him (about as many as Jamison).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in the Lyrical Rico camp of people who would give away Young for cap relief. But I'm definitely open to trading Young to fill the biggest void on our team (that of a perimeter defender).

What Ben said - Rico's trade - Battier for Young essentially - makes more sense to Ruz. I don't think Battier is greater than both Miller and Young. I'd be happy to have both Battier and Miller.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

^ I'd actually rather do something like this:

Wiz trade: Stevenson, James, Young, and future 2nd
Rockets trade: Battier and Cook

Houston saves money and possibly gets their SG of the future . It clears our backcourt glut and we can set up our perimeter rotation like so:

Butler(36)/Miller(12)
Battier(28)/Miller(12)/Foye(8)
Arenas(36)/Foye(12)

Doesn't leave much room for McGuire, though. It also takes us back down to a 13 man roster.

That makes a lot more sense than nate's trade. Trading both Miller and Young for Battier would be a really bad value at this stage of Battier's career.

+1

LR, I like this one a whole lot.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

So hypothetically, you wouldn't trade Young + Stevenson straight up for Battier?

The future is now as far as I'm concerned. Young is talented, but I don't think he's irreplaceable and I think he's a bit redundant on a team that already has Arenas and Foye. History has shown that having a shut-down perimeter defender is a prerequisite to winning championships. Battier is exactly that, and I think he has at least 3 good years left in him (about as many as Jamison).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in the Lyrical Rico camp of people who would give away Young for cap relief. But I'm definitely open to trading Young to fill the biggest void on our team (that of a perimeter defender).

What Ben said - Rico's trade - Battier for Young essentially - makes more sense to Ruz. I don't think Battier is greater than both Miller and Young. I'd be happy to have both Battier and Miller.

I agree, Ruz. I'd trade Nick for Battier. The Wizards can always add a scorer like Trey Johnson or Othyus Jeffersfrom the D-League to replace Nick Young.

His senior year, [Jeffers] averaged 24 points and 15 rebounds in a league that also featured Shaun Livingston, Julian Wright, Shannon Brown, Shaun Pruitt, Sherron Collins and fellow D-Leaguer DeWitt Scott.

Jeffers was he 2008-2009 D-League ROY and he just got through averaging 20 and 7 in the Vegas SL. Might be like Azubuike, more of a SF, but I think the man can definitely score as a SG.

I think the NBA teams have a resource in the D-League that really should be utilized more often. MLB has a minor league and it just seems to me the NBA teams would be wise to leave a few roster spots open for guys that have the talent to step right in and play, like Jeffers.

[nate33]

I think the difference on the perception of this trade is based on whether or not one believes we'll pay to retain Miller next year. After resiging Haywood and Foye, we will be over the luxtax. Somebody is going to offer Miller an MLE deal. So essentially, Abe is going to have to pay $12M a year to keep Miller here. I don't think that'll happen.

So I view Miller strictly as a one-year rental and not a long term asset. As a one-year rental, I don't consider it a huge loss if we lose him in a trade - as long as we retain enough quality swing men to fill out our roster.

With Battier on this team, we will be a team to be reckoned with. Think about it. We'll have the Big Three plus a top 5 defensive center and a top 5 swing man defender (who can also hit the 3). Also, Battier's legendary work ethic in the film room will set a great example for the youngsters.