2023-24 Trade Deadline Thread

[vincecarter4pres]

nobody anywhere close to as good as the 2 guys you just said you dont want

i swear sometimes i think im taking crazy pills.

we dont want to trade for legit all nba players because that's "a treadmill team".
but KD/Kyrie were a mistake because they are prima donnas.
(what were shaq and lebron when they went to LAL and MIA?)

so what's the alternative? lose enough to pray for ping pong balls to deliver the next wemby? ok that will only take 10-20 years. and instead probably end up with the next favors or oden. after waiting 4 years to get control of their picks back.

The irony is dealing said picks for a scrub like Rozier, or a good but flawed player in Murray. So it’s not just preferring those guys to Mitchell and Trae, it’s also giving up some of the premium picks to get them and losing the organic rebuild in the process.

I’m so confused lol.


And Papi, before you tell us you never said give up any of the premium picks, you just said we could have easily beat Miami’s offer. There offer included a lotto protected pick, but what do we have better? The Philly pick is even with that one for various factors. Murray will cost a little more and the Lakers are supposedly offering their own ‘29 1st either unprotected, or lightly.


I hate Rozier, especially on a roster like this, but I’m keen on Murray if they find a way to get him on the cheap. Not ok with any of the Phoenix or Dallas picks, or our own futures without at least permanent top 10 protections. Even then, makes future deals harder.

you guys are taking crazy pills. In order to get Mitchell or Trae we would have to give up most if not all of those picks we got, and those 2 guys would not make us that much better so whats the point? Look at Trae's team now, they haven't been good for years so how much better you guys think we'll get by adding him? exactly. You guys just want to throw picks away at any decent player but not getting the whole picture. We need 2 way players, not guys that just dominate on offense and do it on horrible efficiency like Trae Young, that's not a winning recipe, it's a recipe for disaster.

Rozier at least plays both sides of the court, or at least he tries on defense while putting up almost as good numbers on offense like your boy Trae Young is who you guys are dying over. It only took 1 pick to get him while it's going to take 4 or more picks for Trae. Meanwhile Rozier is putting up 23/4/7 on solid efficiency, Trae isn't 3 picks better than Rozier, a guy that is not a stiff on defense and is actually a dog. Same goes for Murray. I don't know why you guys just want to throw away all our picks like they're candy, especially to guys that aren't that good or wouldn't even make us that much better. It just doesn't make sense

I don’t personally want to trade for Young, but I can see it happening. Regardless, he’s still a very high level player, a true star.

Mitchell I would, I think he’s an elite player, fringe superstar, can lead the league in scoring on a dark horse contender kind of player, and can get hot and be the best player on a title team with the right construction next to him.

Rozier isn’t a real 23/4/7 guy on a good team Imho, not even close. That’s why he came so cheap, he’s another rich man’s Dinwiddie. In a slowed down team construct like Miami or Boston, he’s an average-ish 16/4/4 kind of guy with decent defense.

[Papi_swav]

The irony is dealing said picks for a scrub like Rozier, or a good but flawed player in Murray. So it’s not just preferring those guys to Mitchell and Trae, it’s also giving up some of the premium picks to get them and losing the organic rebuild in the process.

I’m so confused lol.


And Papi, before you tell us you never said give up any of the premium picks, you just said we could have easily beat Miami’s offer. There offer included a lotto protected pick, but what do we have better? The Philly pick is even with that one for various factors. Murray will cost a little more and the Lakers are supposedly offering their own ‘29 1st either unprotected, or lightly.


I hate Rozier, especially on a roster like this, but I’m keen on Murray if they find a way to get him on the cheap. Not ok with any of the Phoenix or Dallas picks, or our own futures without at least permanent top 10 protections. Even then, makes future deals harder.

you guys are taking crazy pills. In order to get Mitchell or Trae we would have to give up most if not all of those picks we got, and those 2 guys would not make us that much better so whats the point? Look at Trae's team now, they haven't been good for years so how much better you guys think we'll get by adding him? exactly. You guys just want to throw picks away at any decent player but not getting the whole picture. We need 2 way players, not guys that just dominate on offense and do it on horrible efficiency like Trae Young, that's not a winning recipe, it's a recipe for disaster.

Rozier at least plays both sides of the court, or at least he tries on defense while putting up almost as good numbers on offense like your boy Trae Young is who you guys are dying over. It only took 1 pick to get him while it's going to take 4 or more picks for Trae. Meanwhile Rozier is putting up 23/4/7 on solid efficiency, Trae isn't 3 picks better than Rozier, a guy that is not a stiff on defense and is actually a dog. Same goes for Murray. I don't know why you guys just want to throw away all our picks like they're candy, especially to guys that aren't that good or wouldn't even make us that much better. It just doesn't make sense

I don’t personally want to trade for Young, but I can see it happening. Regardless, he’s still a very high level player, a true star.

Mitchell I would, I think he’s an elite player, fringe superstar, can lead the league in scoring on a dark horse contender kind of player, and can get hot and be the best player on a title team with the right construction next to him.

Rozier isn’t a real 23/4/7 guy on a good team Imho, not even close. That’s why he came so cheap, he’s another rich man’s Dinwiddie. In a slowed down team construct like Miami or Boston, he’s an average-ish 16/4/4 kind of guy with decent defense.

I disagree , but it's clear we have 2 different views. Trae youn is not a true star, if he was his team wouldn't be so trash the last few years. Mitchell can have games where he dominates but he's not a 1A star on any team contending, His career has proven this.

How is Rozier a real 20 point guy? Dude been averaging over 20/4/5 the last 5 years with good defense lol yea on a good team his numbers will go down but even 16/4/4 with good defense on a good team seems fine with me for just giving up 1 pick. Don't forget when Kyrie went down he took over Boston and killed it in the playoffs, Rozier has that dog in him, Trae Young is a little poodle.

Miami makes smart educated moves, there's a reason they wanted Rozier over the others. And there's a reason they didn't throw away all of their future picks for Dame, who is better than Trae Young. We have to make smart educated moves, not just make a just because.

[Netaman]

I'd go Mitchell way before Trae but fine with either depending on cost (same with Murray and Herro).

Unless i'm having a senior moment, Trae hasn't really had a Bridges next to him in Atlanta? A legit 20+ ppg efficient player who can compliment. Their core 4 starters in 2020-2021 were Trae, Huerter, Capela, Capela. The 5th starter was usually Bogdonovic, Snell, or Reddish. 2nd leading scorer was Collins.

So both Mitchell and Trae are Bridges age or younger, and led teams to playoff success as the #1 option without a #2 option as good as Bridges.

And since the nets own like 6 or 7 tradeable unprotected picks with another handful protected, they'd have another move in them after whatever move they make present day. So yeah. I'm totally fine pushing some chips in on Bridges + Mitchell/Trae for what would be a 3-5 year window.

Murray or Herro should cost a lot less because they aren't true #1's. They'd be like 2a/2b with Bridges. I'd be fine with them for similar reasons, and because the cost is less the nets shouldnt need to deal any of their unprotected picks to get them.

[Netaman]

oh and just to answer on rozier, he turns 30 in 6 weeks. he isn't a 1 or a 2. he's a better version of dinwiddie. he's a short term bandaid on a bullet wound.

trae and mitchell are legit #1's, they are better than brunson and probably on par with jaylen brown. obviously a tier below the true elites like tatum/freak/embiid.

herro and murray have the potential to be on par with brunson, which is a weak #1 that's more of a #2 on a championship team. just like bridges.

adding any of those guys gets nets into the knicks/cavs/miami 3-6 tier.

terry is just nowhere near that (imo).

[vincecarter4pres]

oh and just to answer on rozier, he turns 30 in 6 weeks. he isn't a 1 or a 2. he's a better version of dinwiddie. he's a short term bandaid on a bullet wound.

trae and mitchell are legit #1's, they are better than brunson and probably on par with jaylen brown. obviously a tier below the true elites like tatum/freak/embiid.

herro and murray have the potential to be on par with brunson, which is a weak #1 that's more of a #2 on a championship team. just like bridges.

adding any of those guys gets nets into the knicks/cavs/miami 3-6 tier.

terry is just nowhere near that (imo).

Mainly agree, but just for debate’s sake, I have Mitchell comfortably above Jalen Brown, Trae by a bit too.

[NetsWorld]

I'd go Mitchell way before Trae but fine with either depending on cost (same with Murray and Herro).

Unless i'm having a senior moment, Trae hasn't really had a Bridges next to him in Atlanta? A legit 20+ ppg efficient player who can compliment. Their core 4 starters in 2020-2021 were Trae, Huerter, Capela, Capela. The 5th starter was usually Bogdonovic, Snell, or Reddish. 2nd leading scorer was Collins.

So both Mitchell and Trae are Bridges age or younger, and led teams to playoff success as the #1 option without a #2 option as good as Bridges.

And since the nets own like 6 or 7 tradeable unprotected picks with another handful protected, they'd have another move in them after whatever move they make present day. So yeah. I'm totally fine pushing some chips in on Bridges + Mitchell/Trae for what would be a 3-5 year window.

Murray or Herro should cost a lot less because they aren't true #1's. They'd be like 2a/2b with Bridges. I'd be fine with them for similar reasons, and because the cost is less the nets shouldnt need to deal any of their unprotected picks to get them.

Mithcell before Young? No, Young would be what the doctor ordered for this team and would be the start of a potential turnaround for the Nets organization. The roster is easily fixable if Marks didn't get stubborn with his infatuation for wings; a legit PG, a very good C would do wonders for this team. And you have to be willing to relinquish picks to get good players in return.

[Netaman]

oh and just to answer on rozier, he turns 30 in 6 weeks. he isn't a 1 or a 2. he's a better version of dinwiddie. he's a short term bandaid on a bullet wound.

trae and mitchell are legit #1's, they are better than brunson and probably on par with jaylen brown. obviously a tier below the true elites like tatum/freak/embiid.

herro and murray have the potential to be on par with brunson, which is a weak #1 that's more of a #2 on a championship team. just like bridges.

adding any of those guys gets nets into the knicks/cavs/miami 3-6 tier.

terry is just nowhere near that (imo).

Mainly agree, but just for debate’s sake, I have Mitchell comfortably above Jalen Brown, Trae by a bit too.

i agree but most others seem to have irrational love for brown so i was mainly looking to avoid controversy.

i think id go mitchell ahead of all 3 because i like his length on defense even if the numbers say he's not a great defender. seems like no drama and wants to be in ny. among the semi-realistic targets in the next 2 years he's probably the best one but i dont think cavs are going to consider it until next deadline.

[Stone]

Both Young and Mitchell are top 20 players. As long as we don't give away the farm to get them, it would be a step in the right direction.
I honestly don't see either of them being dealt at the deadline, maybe the offseason.

[Netaman]

Both Young and Mitchell are top 20 players. As long as we don't give away the farm to get them, it would be a step in the right direction.
I honestly don't see either of them being dealt at the deadline, maybe the offseason.

agreed.

meanwhile sigh, another loss late because they have nobody who can break down the defense when they need it.

when defenses key on bridges like that it's asking too much of him to create by himself. and cam t can only get hard shots.

not sure what happened to dinwiddie but he just looks off.

either of herro or murray would add something this roster just doesnt have and badly needs. without a player like that they may as well just sell.

[vincecarter4pres]

I would actually consider LaVine and Dlo. I understand the drawbacks but both are at a distressed level and probably would not require even a single draft pick. At the same time, you get the playmaking and scoring this team needs. You do sacrifice flexibility and cap space but if you can put together a competitive team (while the rockets own the picks) without sacrificing any draft capital, I think that's a good option to take. Here's a framework on getting both:

Nets Out: Din, Cam Johnson, Thomas
Nets In: LaVine, Dlo (tpe)

You lose Thomas but his best realistic outcome is becoming a player like LaVine (efficient scoring, limited to non-existent defense) so why not just get LaVine and improve immediately?

Dlo/Smith
LaVine/Walker
Bridges/O'Neale
DFS/Watford
Claxton/Sharpe

I think that team could compete for the playoffs and you still have all the picks to further improve.

Revisting this, what about something like this?

Cam Johnson
Cam Thomas
Dinwiddie
DFS
Philly pick

For

LaVine
Coby White

[Netaman]

I would actually consider LaVine and Dlo. I understand the drawbacks but both are at a distressed level and probably would not require even a single draft pick. At the same time, you get the playmaking and scoring this team needs. You do sacrifice flexibility and cap space but if you can put together a competitive team (while the rockets own the picks) without sacrificing any draft capital, I think that's a good option to take. Here's a framework on getting both:

Nets Out: Din, Cam Johnson, Thomas
Nets In: LaVine, Dlo (tpe)

You lose Thomas but his best realistic outcome is becoming a player like LaVine (efficient scoring, limited to non-existent defense) so why not just get LaVine and improve immediately?

Dlo/Smith
LaVine/Walker
Bridges/O'Neale
DFS/Watford
Claxton/Sharpe

I think that team could compete for the playoffs and you still have all the picks to further improve.

Revisting this, what about something like this?

Cam Johnson
Cam Thomas
Dinwiddie
DFS
Philly pick

For

LaVine
Coby White

i think the only way nets touch the lavine contract is with simmons involved, but even then they are taking on 2 more years and almost $100m extra. i know white is a sweetener in there, but i think there would need to be a lot more sweetner. that has to be the worst contract in the nba right now.

[Netaman]

Revisting this, what about something like this?

Cam Johnson
Cam Thomas
Dinwiddie
DFS
Philly pick

For

LaVine
Coby White

here's the best i can come up with, and here's my thought process, nets need at least a good FRP equivalent from CHI, 1 for each extra $45m+ salary year Lavine comes along with. I included Cam Thomas to CHI as a sort of vanity give. He and White may not look dramatically different in value on paper, and they may not be in reality i guess, but White obviously fits the nets a lot better, especially if they have Lavine starting at the 2.

so White (I assume he has more value than 1 FRP) and the 2028 top 5 protected FRP are the price of taking on the extra years of Lavine's deal. and in all honesty i think that 2028 should possibly be totally unprotected. to move the worst contract in the NBA it may need to come along with the best unprotected pick that's been traded. we know how bad the simmons deal is and the lavine deal has 3x as much $ left, so it is almost 3x worse.



post trade starting lineup is locked in for a while:

white x 2 more years
lavine x 3 more years
bridges x 3 more years
cam j x 3 more years
claxton due for extension

that's probably a treadmill team, but on the plus side it's better than what they have on the court now and they have 2 more FRPs and white to trade for Trae/Mitchell/whoever the next star is.

assuming they extend claxton @ around $20m, they would have $130m in payroll next year with 8 players (the 5 above + whitehead, clowney, sharpe). So $40m or so under the luxury tax to extend Walker, DSJ, Royce, add another big, whatever.

[vincecarter4pres]

Revisting this, what about something like this?

Cam Johnson
Cam Thomas
Dinwiddie
DFS
Philly pick

For

LaVine
Coby White

here's the best i can come up with, and here's my thought process, nets need at least a good FRP equivalent from CHI, 1 for each extra $45m+ salary year Lavine comes along with. I included Cam Thomas to CHI as a sort of vanity give. He and White may not look dramatically different in value on paper, and they may not be in reality i guess, but White obviously fits the nets a lot better, especially if they have Lavine starting at the 2.

so White (I assume he has more value than 1 FRP) and the 2028 top 5 protected FRP are the price of taking on the extra years of Lavine's deal. and in all honesty i think that 2028 should possibly be totally unprotected. to move the worst contract in the NBA it may need to come along with the best unprotected pick that's been traded. we know how bad the simmons deal is and the lavine deal has 3x as much $ left, so it is almost 3x worse.



post trade starting lineup is locked in for a while:

white x 2 more years
lavine x 3 more years
bridges x 3 more years
cam j x 3 more years
claxton due for extension

that's probably a treadmill team, but on the plus side it's better than what they have on the court now and they have 2 more FRPs and white to trade for Trae/Mitchell/whoever the next star is.

assuming they extend claxton @ around $20m, they would have $130m in payroll next year with 8 players (the 5 above + whitehead, clowney, sharpe). So $40m or so under the luxury tax to extend Walker, DSJ, Royce, add another big, whatever.

I just don’t see Chicago coming off picks to trade him and my thinking is DFS and CJ have more long term money then Simmons, Simmons is a fat expiring next year, when Trae and Mitchell will probably be on the block.

I can see the Sacto pick coming this way and the Sixers pick eliminated from the equation entirely, but doubtful Chicago is adding unprotected picks to dump LaVine.

You have to pay someone in today’s NBA or get penalized, you can’t carry the zero sum to the deadline anymore, you have to handle that biz during the summer. Doesn’t mean we need to pay LaVine, just that he is a prime age productive player, better for a team like Detroit or Charlotte to pay him then dole out the next Mozgov contract.


I don’t like the idea of a LaVine trade at all tbh, even when getting back White, whom is a steal at his contract, but just throwing **** against a wall.

[Netaman]

You have to pay someone in today’s NBA or get penalized, you can’t carry the zero sum to the deadline anymore, you have to handle that biz during the summer. Doesn’t mean we need to pay LaVine, just that he is a prime age productive player, better for a team like Detroit or Charlotte to pay him then dole out the next Mozgov contract.


I don’t like the idea of a LaVine trade at all tbh, even when getting back White, whom is a steal at his contract, but just throwing **** against a wall.

you have to pay someone sure, but how much better on court is lavine than say DLO?

nets could almost definitely get DLO for some combination of DFS/Royce.

Cam J at half the price of Lavine is better $ to have on the books.

Herro and Murray are a lot cheaper, younger, probably fit better than Lavine too. So the only reason to take on Lavine's contract is if there's value coming along with it. And the only value that moves the needle are unprotected picks since the nets have plenty of picks as it is.

[TheNetsFan]

So Windhorst says Washington has a mandate to accumulate draft picks. I don't think either team would do it, but Simmons & a 1st for Jones+Avdija+Shamet would be a nice deal for us.

[Netaman]

So Windhorst says Washington has a mandate to accumulate draft picks. I don't think either team would do it, but Simmons & a 1st for Jones+Avdija+Shamet would be a nice deal for us.

i think simmons would cost more than a 1st to dump and jones is going to cost a 1st to get. he's a rental so maybe not, but could see him as a piece back for DFS with him going to a 3rd team and whatever he returns going to Washington.

[Netaman]

So Windhorst says Washington has a mandate to accumulate draft picks. I don't think either team would do it, but Simmons & a 1st for Jones+Avdija+Shamet would be a nice deal for us.

something like this could work, think it works with either of DFS or Royce going to LAL:

[vincecarter4pres]

You have to pay someone in today’s NBA or get penalized, you can’t carry the zero sum to the deadline anymore, you have to handle that biz during the summer. Doesn’t mean we need to pay LaVine, just that he is a prime age productive player, better for a team like Detroit or Charlotte to pay him then dole out the next Mozgov contract.


I don’t like the idea of a LaVine trade at all tbh, even when getting back White, whom is a steal at his contract, but just throwing **** against a wall.

you have to pay someone sure, but how much better on court is lavine than say DLO?

I’m honestly not sure, that’s a decent debate. I’d say definitely better and his athleticism and separation is something this team lacks and something he is levels above DLo with.

I’d also say DLo is benefiting a lot from the relieved pressure, playing alongside Bron and AD, his efficiency would take a dive on a majority of rosters around the league, and he’d be forced back to trying to be the main initiator breaking down guys one on one with a tragically slow first step.

But again, this is just talking the two players without taking to account that fugly contract.

nets could almost definitely get DLO for some combination of DFS/Royce.

Most likely, maybe even for Dinwiddie’s punk ass lol.

Cam J at half the price of Lavine is better $ to have on the books.

I think yes, just financially speaking, and cap consciously, for sure.

But with all the hate LaVine gets, a lot of it rightfully so, Cam is borderline useless on a roster like this. He looks bad when he overextends himself. He needs to be on a strong playoff level team, where he can 3&D and be efficient and not have to decision make with the ball almost ever. He’s a starting level forward, but on a weak roster without a guy running the offense and a good secondary ball handler, he looks like ass and has zero impact, in fact I’d argue borderline negative.

Once again, with that being said, LaVine’s contract running so long makes this an easy decision.

You’d hope we have bigger fish to fry.

Orrrr…. They are going to finally commit to the organic approach, build a just good, balanced, well functioning, non-toxic lockerroom, actual team, with youth, and depend on the Phoenix and Dallas picks winding up high enough to land an eventual franchise savior.

Idk if that involves taking on LaVine, but it does involve landing a couple opportunistic players like him… good but way overpaid, so acquirable on the cheap, so you are an every year competitive team in the interim… and if something truly franchise altering presents itself, like a Mitchell, or better yet a Doncic or SGA, you’re still in the thick of it.

Herro and Murray are a lot cheaper, younger, probably fit better than Lavine too. So the only reason to take on Lavine's contract is if there's value coming along with it. And the only value that moves the needle are unprotected picks since the nets have plenty of picks as it is.

So yeah, this is essentially where I’m at as well.

I don’t want you or anyone to think I’m personally campaigning for LaVine on some Joe Johnson, Billy King level shenanigans, but it’s also worth noting, my stance is the Bulls would not be amendable to adding huge value in the ilk of picks to dump him, if the only value returned was slight salary relief and B/C rate players like Cam J and DFS.


But that’s why Marks will probably focus on a different move, or just selling off everyone besides Bridges and probably Clax and Cam T for picks, because our own picks are sunken cost at this point.

[Netaman]

I don’t want you or anyone to think I’m personally campaigning for LaVine on some Joe Johnson, Billy King level shenanigans, but it’s also worth noting, my stance is the Bulls would not be amendable to adding huge value in the ilk of picks to dump him, if the only value returned was slight salary relief and B/C rate players like Cam J and DFS.


But that’s why Marks will probably focus on a different move, or just selling off everyone besides Bridges and probably Clax and Cam T for picks, because our own picks are sunken cost at this point.

I kind of liked Lavine last year at a point (think it was right after he dropped like 40 on us lol), I dont remember if it was before or after KD, so I'm not totally opposed. He is the dynamic scorer who can close games they need. But with where things have shifted over the course of this year and the way his value has tanked, and the new CBA restrictions, I think it's just a really really under water asset.

he's kind of like the modern day atlanta joe johnson, but since nets right now dont have a deron williams (at the time considered a franchise player) or billy king, there needs to be more incentive than just swapping $. also enough other options seemingly available that marks likely lands a different one.

[Tha King]

I don’t want you or anyone to think I’m personally campaigning for LaVine on some Joe Johnson, Billy King level shenanigans, but it’s also worth noting, my stance is the Bulls would not be amendable to adding huge value in the ilk of picks to dump him, if the only value returned was slight salary relief and B/C rate players like Cam J and DFS.


But that’s why Marks will probably focus on a different move, or just selling off everyone besides Bridges and probably Clax and Cam T for picks, because our own picks are sunken cost at this point.

I kind of liked Lavine last year at a point (think it was right after he dropped like 40 on us lol), I dont remember if it was before or after KD, so I'm not totally opposed. He is the dynamic scorer who can close games they need. But with where things have shifted over the course of this year and the way his value has tanked, and the new CBA restrictions, I think it's just a really really under water asset.

he's kind of like the modern day atlanta joe johnson, but since nets right now dont have a deron williams (at the time considered a franchise player) or billy king, there needs to be more incentive than just swapping $. also enough other options seemingly available that marks likely lands a different one.

You're right in that he's at a distressed level, however, that's why I think it could be a good direction. If all it takes is expiring contracts, why not? To wait on Mitchell? With a rising cap, if you can get all star level production from LaVine, his contract will actually be solid and will take you through all the years the Rockets control the picks.

imo in the league you have your generational stars (i.e. Bron, KD, Curry, Jokic, etc.), elite (i.e. Tatum, Davis, George) and then a semi-interchangeable group where team situation, roster, etc. affects their impact and perception. I don't think there is a ton separating LaVine and Mitchell. The former has actually been the more efficient scorer while the latter has been on far better teams where he's been mostly the second best player and it was really only until this year where he's had ultra impact.