Official Trade Thread IX (Visitors Post Trades HERE!)

[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.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

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.

You almost have to see Miller's run here as a short one, or else say bye bye to Brendan.

I'd rather have Battier and Miller and be greedy this season, replacing Nick. But rather than lose Miller to free agency of course your idea's a better alternative, nate. Trade for Battier.

[Ruzious]

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.

There are too many unknowns to think of it that way. There might be better trade opportunities. And I wouldn't bank my job on Battier being what he used to be. As I said when we discussed him before, his offensive production has gone way down the last couple of seasons, his rebounding has been mediocre - and I don't know whether or not that all points to a decrease in athleticism - especially considering he's over 30. At 28 years old - yes, I make your trade. At 31 and showing signs of decline - it's an easy No.

[rockymac52]

Nate i normally agree with everything you say, but i think mike miller will resign with the wizards. Now, if we struggle this season, I'd say a 6 seed or below, we should let him walk, because at that point we have to realize that what we've got going isn't working. Unless of course we suffer another huge injury that was just a fluke accident. But if we show signs of competing with the top dogs in the East, we might be willing to pay a little more to keep that going. The way I see it, Abe Pollin obviously doesn't want to spend more money than he needs to, especially if we're not winning. However, if we do well this season and we then turn around and let Miller walk, we're only going to get worse. Sure we'll have more experience under Flip's system, and maybe Blatche, McGee, and/or Young will make steps forward, but we're losing Miller, who I think will be a stud in this system. If we let Miller go, we still have a very large payroll, and it's going to be like that for the near future. That's what you get when you sign longterm deals to Gil and AJ (for the record, I'm a fan of both signings, still). But as long as we aren't 100% fire sale rebuilding next offseason, we might as well keep Miller. Otherwise, we sink even further into our cycle of mediocrity.

[nate33]

Hmmm. I posted my very first iteration of this trade on the Trade Board: Miller + 2nd rounder for Battier + Barry.

Houston fans like it!

Battier will be paid 6.8M next year, so salarywise, it's no different than resigning Mike Miller on a 1-year extension for $6.8M. If Abe was originally willing to keep both Miller and Foye this summer, then this trade is a no brainer. Not only do we get Battier, who is a better fit than Miller, but we only have to commit to him until 2011 (rather than the 4 or 5 year commitment that would be necessary to retain Miller). With Butler up for renewal in 2011 when Battier expires, everything falls into place perfectly.

I love it!

[LyricalRico]

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.

There are too many unknowns to think of it that way. There might be better trade opportunities. And I wouldn't bank my job on Battier being what he used to be. As I said when we discussed him before, his offensive production has gone way down the last couple of seasons, his rebounding has been mediocre - and I don't know whether or not that all points to a decrease in athleticism - especially considering he's over 30. At 28 years old - yes, I make your trade. At 31 and showing signs of decline - it's an easy No.

The other consideration is that when it comes to re-signing Haywood and Foye, trading expirings for Battier is the same thing as re-signing Miller to an MLE level deal. So saying that we can't afford to re-sign Miller and also keep Haywood but at the same time wanting to trade Miller's expiring for Battier's contract while projecting that we can still keep Haywood seems a bit contradictory.

Yes, a new contract for Miller would last longer than Battier's current deal but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the team can re-sign Haywood and Foye next summer without paying an enormous tax bill. That's why I'm saying that any deal for Battier would have to include Stevenson and Young if you really want to make it salary neutral.

[mhd]

I think our 1st rounder next year will be traded along with Stevenson to a team under the cap to get Stevenson's contract off the books.

[LyricalRico]

I think our 1st rounder next year will be traded along with Stevenson to a team under the cap to get Stevenson's contract off the books.

Do you really think there will be teams willing to add $4.1M in salary for a low first round pick? I'm not sure that will be the case, especially if the tax level drops as low as they say it might. Not saying it can't be done but there might not be a surplus of buyers.

[nate33]

I think our 1st rounder next year will be traded along with Stevenson to a team under the cap to get Stevenson's contract off the books.

Rather than adding a pick, I think the way to dump Stevenson is to add $3M cash. If we trade Stevenson + $3M cash for an expiring contract at the Trade Deadline, the other team would effectively be paying $1.1M to add Stevenson to their roster next year. That's equal to a one-year contract for the vet minimum. That's not a bad deal. If Stevenson regains any semblance of his old form, he'd certainly be better than a vet-minimum scrub.

Abe would save $5.2M even after accounting for the $3M cash he gave up.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I think our 1st rounder next year will be traded along with Stevenson to a team under the cap to get Stevenson's contract off the books.

Milwaukee's looking to trade Bruce Bowen. I wonder if Stevenson and a 2011 first for Bowen's expiring would work?

(After reading nate's above post, how about Stevenson + $3Mil for Bowen?)

[LyricalRico]

I think our 1st rounder next year will be traded along with Stevenson to a team under the cap to get Stevenson's contract off the books.

Milwaukee's looking to trade Bruce Bowen. I wonder if Stevenson and a 2011 first for Bowen's expiring would work?

(After reading nate's above post, how about Stevenson + $3Mil for Bowen?)

I'm not sure that Milwaukee would be looking for another guard. But maybe. We'd also have to add more than $3M because Bowen's contract is only partial guaranteed for this year. Obviously we can't add more cash but maybe they'd take a pick.

Stevenson+$3M+future first

for

Bruce Bowen+future 2nd

The question then becomes do the Wizards keep Bowen on the roster this year as a veteran defensive instructor and situational defender (which could be valuable in the playoffs) or do they waive him and take the immediate cap savings? I say we keep him.

As a side effect, dumping Stevenson also makes it easier to do nate's Battier trade (although I'm still not sold on it because I really like Mike Miller and think he's going to change a lot of minds about him this season).

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Miller and Battier were teammates on a Memphis team under Hubie Brown that won over 50 games a few seasons ago, FWIW.

I'd like to have both as Wizards.

[nate33]

As a side effect, dumping Stevenson also makes it easier to do nate's Battier trade (although I'm still not sold on it because I really like Mike Miller and think he's going to change a lot of minds about him this season).

If you had a team with Arenas, Foye, Young and Butler to man the PG, SG, and SF positions, and somebody gave you the opportunity to add either Mike Miller or Shane Battier, who would you pick?

To me, it's a no-brainer. I already have a ridiculous amount of offensive firepower. I'd take the defender.

[Hoopalotta]

Yeah, I'm a bit reluctant to part Miller unto someone else as I see him being able to feed off the offense created by others like a sucker fish on a shark. Throw in his passing with guys rushing out to cover his .58% EFG rate, and he can really grease the gears of a monstrously high octane offensive attack. I expect that as is, we will see opponents doing a lot of panicked sprinting by 'switchers' swinging around between assorted weapons that can efficiently move the ball between each other. Losing Miller detracts a lot from that.

Battier would of course be a welcome addition to plug into Young's minutes, but I have some concern that Battier is going to slip too; just an instinct, but I worry a bit there.

I appreciate the idea of getting Battier for two years over either of:
A) resigning Miller for four or five years at the MLE
B) letting Miller walk next summer.

So the trade makes a lot of sense as a fiscal compromise there. It would be nice to see what all Young is going to do next year as well and how he fits into the long term plans. But as it stands now, I couldn't see dumping both Young and Miller before the season starts without knowing what we have.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Here's a homer trade: Wizards/Rockets

Wizards send Stevenson, James, Blatche

Wizards receive Battier, Lowry, Landry

Thoughts?

[Dat2U]

I don't think Battier's necessarily slipped b/c of declining ability, I think he's just settled into not trying to do anything offensively other than spot up for that corner J. It's almost like he's patterned his game after Bruce Bowen. Bowen has been an awful offensive player for years if you look at just his PER numbers. It's because he does little else than spot up in the corner or make the extra pass.

Defensively Battier is as good as ever. Like Nate said, on a team with Arenas, Jamison, Butler, Foye and Young, you begin to see a declining return on all these offensive assets. You can only have so much offense. Battier IMO would contribute and impact us more on the defensive end than Miller can making 4 or 5 shots a night as part of an offensive juggernaut.

There's also the situation of Miller's impending FA. What are the chances we keep Miller AND Foye next season? As has been mentioned Battier gives us an extra year at an affordable price.

Battier's game is also not based on athleticism. He was never anything more than an average athlete at best. He's a successful defender based on smarts and guile and the dilligence in which he follows the scouting reports. Like Bowen, I suspect Battier to be a more than effective defender into his mid 30s.