Author Topic: Surveying the Trade Landscape  (Read 8935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2014, 03:18:15 AM »

Offline Rondo9

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5379
  • Tommy Points: 277
These proposals are really truly awful. You basically have the other teams trading us either their best players or their young prospects for our veteran role players. In the case of the Pistons trade you have them trading us Drummond AND taking on Wallace. I don't even know what to say to that.

No way any of these trades happen. Green might net us a young prospect and some salary (ala the MKG+Henderson deal) but that's assuming Rich Cho panic trades MKG to make a playoff push before Jefferson gets better offers. Bass will probably only get a 2nd round pick.

Our guys aren't world beaters. They are role players on a 4-8 team in a pitiful conference.

I think the Bobcats would swap MKG for Green and I'm pretty sure Danny could get a bit more for Brandon Bass.

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2014, 05:03:30 AM »

Offline pokeKingCurtis

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3733
  • Tommy Points: 280
Well, although we're 4-8 Eastern Conference team, we've faced quite a few Western Conference powerhouses in the process.

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2014, 08:04:56 AM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
Well, although we're 4-8 Eastern Conference team, we've faced quite a few Western Conference powerhouses in the process.

With a quality center such as Gasol , yeah this team could put up a respectable season.

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #18 on: November 26, 2014, 08:07:52 AM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403

Bobcats, just go to their stats page and look at their wing production. Neal is only one averaging double digits.

Hawks, add Green to a front line of Milsap and Horford and ATL may have enough talent to make a deeep playoff run.

Clippers, deplorable at SF

Grizz , they are really good. Green could make them great. He would add the athletism they lost in trading Gay without the headache. Prince is an expiring deal and could be a stating point of a trade. Cs also have recent history trading with them.

Warriors, i doubt it but maybe they unload some youth for a super 6th man / stretch 4. Curry, Thompson, Iquodala, Green would be scary to match up against.

Pelicans, Green is a perfect fit. With Gordon hurt they need wing players. They dont have many movable parts but maybe a deal centered around Gordons bad deal for Wallaces get a trade started. Overpaying Gordon next season while he tries to save his career may not be as bad as overpaying wallace to just get old.

Nice work here. I quoted the ones I think are most sensible. Having poked thru the Trade Machine a couple of days ago on this, I'd be willing to bet Green ends up on one of these teams if he's traded this year, with Memphis, NOP and the Bobcats in the lead. Hawks and Clips' assets don't really shake out well for a Celtics deal with Green.....

Grizz deal makes sense:

1) Simple version ~

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pyyplhc

or

2) A little more value version ~

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=n2hstu5

In this one, if the Cs waived Pressey and he was claimed, they'd get under the lux tax, I believe.
Why would Boston do this deal?  For Jordan Adams?  I like Jarnell Stokes in the second deal, but Tayshaun would have no future here.  Why give up Green?

Prince is filler. I happen to like Jordan Adams. Regardless, your trading a soon-to-be UFA -- you're not likely to get more than 1-2 young players or assets with no other baggage in tow.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #19 on: November 26, 2014, 12:09:19 PM »

Offline PickNRoll

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1691
  • Tommy Points: 199
These proposals are really truly awful. You basically have the other teams trading us either their best players or their young prospects for our veteran role players.
Trading young prospects for proven veteran role players happens, and sometimes it's good for both teams.

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #20 on: November 26, 2014, 01:12:39 PM »

Offline nostar

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 754
  • Tommy Points: 74
These proposals are really truly awful. You basically have the other teams trading us either their best players or their young prospects for our veteran role players.
Trading young prospects for proven veteran role players happens, and sometimes it's good for both teams.

It has happened. It's certainly not common. The homer coefficient on this trades was pretty high. If it was just one or two trades that looked that way I would have probably just let it go. Every trade machine link I clicked on was worse than the last. We either get former high lotto picks on rookie deals for our veteran role players or we get the best player in the trade by far. Neither of those things is very likely.

The crazy thing is that both Atlanta and Charlotte are probably good trade partners for us. I could see an MKG/Henderson-for-Green trade, although Charlotte would (rightly) ask for a pick. The problem with this trade is that MKG has been pretty good this season. He's on a rookie deal for another full season and a QO after that. Green can essentially walk next summer.

Don't get me wrong, I want Horford, MKG, Drummond, Jackson and Sanders too. A lot of teams in the league want those guys because they're all really talented. I just don't think that trading our role players is a realistic possibility.

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2014, 01:14:59 PM »

Offline Rondo9

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5379
  • Tommy Points: 277
These proposals are really truly awful. You basically have the other teams trading us either their best players or their young prospects for our veteran role players.
Trading young prospects for proven veteran role players happens, and sometimes it's good for both teams.

It has happened. It's certainly not common. The homer coefficient on this trades was pretty high. If it was just one or two trades that looked that way I would have probably just let it go. Every trade machine link I clicked on was worse than the last. We either get former high lotto picks on rookie deals for our veteran role players or we get the best player in the trade by far. Neither of those things is very likely.

The crazy thing is that both Atlanta and Charlotte are probably good trade partners for us. I could see an MKG/Henderson-for-Green trade, although Charlotte would (rightly) ask for a pick. The problem with this trade is that MKG has been pretty good this season. He's on a rookie deal for another full season and a QO after that. Green can essentially walk next summer.

Don't get me wrong, I want Horford, MKG, Drummond, Jackson and Sanders too. A lot of teams in the league want those guys because they're all really talented. I just don't think that trading our role players is a realistic possibility.

Hortford and Sanders are a possbility (though a slim one.) MKG is a very possible and even realistic. Drummond is untouchable though (I'm dissappointed with his progress though.)

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2014, 04:01:54 PM »

Offline PickNRoll

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1691
  • Tommy Points: 199
These proposals are really truly awful. You basically have the other teams trading us either their best players or their young prospects for our veteran role players.
Trading young prospects for proven veteran role players happens, and sometimes it's good for both teams.

It has happened. It's certainly not common.
Trading veterans for prospects isn't common?  In what world?  Virtually every trade involves combinations of veterans and prospects.

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2014, 04:08:48 PM »

Offline PickNRoll

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1691
  • Tommy Points: 199
These proposals are really truly awful. You basically have the other teams trading us either their best players or their young prospects for our veteran role players.
Trading young prospects for proven veteran role players happens, and sometimes it's good for both teams.

It has happened. It's certainly not common. The homer coefficient on this trades was pretty high. If it was just one or two trades that looked that way I would have probably just let it go. Every trade machine link I clicked on was worse than the last. We either get former high lotto picks on rookie deals for our veteran role players or we get the best player in the trade by far. Neither of those things is very likely.

The crazy thing is that both Atlanta and Charlotte are probably good trade partners for us. I could see an MKG/Henderson-for-Green trade, although Charlotte would (rightly) ask for a pick. The problem with this trade is that MKG has been pretty good this season. He's on a rookie deal for another full season and a QO after that. Green can essentially walk next summer.

Don't get me wrong, I want Horford, MKG, Drummond, Jackson and Sanders too. A lot of teams in the league want those guys because they're all really talented. I just don't think that trading our role players is a realistic possibility.

Hortford and Sanders are a possbility (though a slim one.) MKG is a very possible and even realistic. Drummond is untouchable though (I'm dissappointed with his progress though.)
Yeah, the untouchable world-beater Drummond is shooting 43% on the year.  If he were a Celtic, he'd be tied with Jeff Green as the worst Celtic starter, in terms of FG%.

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2014, 04:23:47 PM »

Offline PickNRoll

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1691
  • Tommy Points: 199

Bobcats, just go to their stats page and look at their wing production. Neal is only one averaging double digits.

Hawks, add Green to a front line of Milsap and Horford and ATL may have enough talent to make a deeep playoff run.

Clippers, deplorable at SF

Grizz , they are really good. Green could make them great. He would add the athletism they lost in trading Gay without the headache. Prince is an expiring deal and could be a stating point of a trade. Cs also have recent history trading with them.

Warriors, i doubt it but maybe they unload some youth for a super 6th man / stretch 4. Curry, Thompson, Iquodala, Green would be scary to match up against.

Pelicans, Green is a perfect fit. With Gordon hurt they need wing players. They dont have many movable parts but maybe a deal centered around Gordons bad deal for Wallaces get a trade started. Overpaying Gordon next season while he tries to save his career may not be as bad as overpaying wallace to just get old.

Nice work here. I quoted the ones I think are most sensible. Having poked thru the Trade Machine a couple of days ago on this, I'd be willing to bet Green ends up on one of these teams if he's traded this year, with Memphis, NOP and the Bobcats in the lead. Hawks and Clips' assets don't really shake out well for a Celtics deal with Green.....

Grizz deal makes sense:

1) Simple version ~

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pyyplhc

or

2) A little more value version ~

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=n2hstu5

In this one, if the Cs waived Pressey and he was claimed, they'd get under the lux tax, I believe.
Why would Boston do this deal?  For Jordan Adams?  I like Jarnell Stokes in the second deal, but Tayshaun would have no future here.  Why give up Green?

Prince is filler. I happen to like Jordan Adams. Regardless, your trading a soon-to-be UFA -- you're not likely to get more than 1-2 young players or assets with no other baggage in tow.
OK.  I don't see it that way.  All indications are that Green wants to stay.  I wouldn't let anybody twist my arm into giving Green up for free, especially given that he's playing pretty well.  I haven't seen enough of Jordan Adams to comment on that part, but I thought Stokes could blossom into a Charles Oakley type.  He was a pretty mean rebounder in college.

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2014, 05:09:41 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
These proposals are really truly awful. You basically have the other teams trading us either their best players or their young prospects for our veteran role players.
Trading young prospects for proven veteran role players happens, and sometimes it's good for both teams.

It has happened. It's certainly not common. The homer coefficient on this trades was pretty high. If it was just one or two trades that looked that way I would have probably just let it go. Every trade machine link I clicked on was worse than the last. We either get former high lotto picks on rookie deals for our veteran role players or we get the best player in the trade by far. Neither of those things is very likely.

The crazy thing is that both Atlanta and Charlotte are probably good trade partners for us. I could see an MKG/Henderson-for-Green trade, although Charlotte would (rightly) ask for a pick. The problem with this trade is that MKG has been pretty good this season. He's on a rookie deal for another full season and a QO after that. Green can essentially walk next summer.

Don't get me wrong, I want Horford, MKG, Drummond, Jackson and Sanders too. A lot of teams in the league want those guys because they're all really talented. I just don't think that trading our role players is a realistic possibility.

Hortford and Sanders are a possbility (though a slim one.) MKG is a very possible and even realistic. Drummond is untouchable though (I'm dissappointed with his progress though.)
Yeah, the untouchable world-beater Drummond is shooting 43% on the year.  If he were a Celtic, he'd be tied with Jeff Green as the worst Celtic starter, in terms of FG%.

Statements like, "tied with Jeff Green as the worst Celtic starter, in terms of FG%" would be a lot more illustrative if Green didn't take 14.5% of his shots from beyond the 3PT line.  His eFG% is 48.3%.   That's actually a very decent figure for a player with Green's shot selection profile.

Drummond's takes 70% of his shots within 3 feet oft the basket and 96% of them within 10 feet.  His eFG% is 43.4%.  That's awful.

A more compelling comparative statement would have been to say, "Drummond is shooting 43.4% eFG%.  If he were a Celtic, that would be the 4th worst on the team and miles below any Celtic starter."

It's a short season so far, but so far, Drummond's offense is really sputtering.   That team is really struggling out of the gate.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2014, 06:35:45 PM »

Offline PickNRoll

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1691
  • Tommy Points: 199
These proposals are really truly awful. You basically have the other teams trading us either their best players or their young prospects for our veteran role players.
Trading young prospects for proven veteran role players happens, and sometimes it's good for both teams.

It has happened. It's certainly not common. The homer coefficient on this trades was pretty high. If it was just one or two trades that looked that way I would have probably just let it go. Every trade machine link I clicked on was worse than the last. We either get former high lotto picks on rookie deals for our veteran role players or we get the best player in the trade by far. Neither of those things is very likely.

The crazy thing is that both Atlanta and Charlotte are probably good trade partners for us. I could see an MKG/Henderson-for-Green trade, although Charlotte would (rightly) ask for a pick. The problem with this trade is that MKG has been pretty good this season. He's on a rookie deal for another full season and a QO after that. Green can essentially walk next summer.

Don't get me wrong, I want Horford, MKG, Drummond, Jackson and Sanders too. A lot of teams in the league want those guys because they're all really talented. I just don't think that trading our role players is a realistic possibility.

Hortford and Sanders are a possbility (though a slim one.) MKG is a very possible and even realistic. Drummond is untouchable though (I'm dissappointed with his progress though.)
Yeah, the untouchable world-beater Drummond is shooting 43% on the year.  If he were a Celtic, he'd be tied with Jeff Green as the worst Celtic starter, in terms of FG%.

Statements like, "tied with Jeff Green as the worst Celtic starter, in terms of FG%" would be a lot more illustrative if Green didn't take 14.5% of his shots from beyond the 3PT line.  His eFG% is 48.3%.   That's actually a very decent figure for a player with Green's shot selection profile.

Drummond's takes 70% of his shots within 3 feet oft the basket and 96% of them within 10 feet.  His eFG% is 43.4%.  That's awful.

A more compelling comparative statement would have been to say, "Drummond is shooting 43.4% eFG%.  If he were a Celtic, that would be the 4th worst on the team and miles below any Celtic starter."

It's a short season so far, but so far, Drummond's offense is really sputtering.   That team is really struggling out of the gate.
So, I was right but I could've said it in a more compelling way.  Thanks?

Re: Surveying the Trade Landscape
« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2014, 06:40:10 PM »

Offline PickNRoll

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1691
  • Tommy Points: 199
These proposals are really truly awful. You basically have the other teams trading us either their best players or their young prospects for our veteran role players.
Trading young prospects for proven veteran role players happens, and sometimes it's good for both teams.

It has happened. It's certainly not common. The homer coefficient on this trades was pretty high. If it was just one or two trades that looked that way I would have probably just let it go. Every trade machine link I clicked on was worse than the last. We either get former high lotto picks on rookie deals for our veteran role players or we get the best player in the trade by far. Neither of those things is very likely.

The crazy thing is that both Atlanta and Charlotte are probably good trade partners for us. I could see an MKG/Henderson-for-Green trade, although Charlotte would (rightly) ask for a pick. The problem with this trade is that MKG has been pretty good this season. He's on a rookie deal for another full season and a QO after that. Green can essentially walk next summer.

Don't get me wrong, I want Horford, MKG, Drummond, Jackson and Sanders too. A lot of teams in the league want those guys because they're all really talented. I just don't think that trading our role players is a realistic possibility.

Hortford and Sanders are a possbility (though a slim one.) MKG is a very possible and even realistic. Drummond is untouchable though (I'm dissappointed with his progress though.)
Yeah, the untouchable world-beater Drummond is shooting 43% on the year.  If he were a Celtic, he'd be tied with Jeff Green as the worst Celtic starter, in terms of FG%.

His eFG% is 48.3%.   That's actually a very decent figure for a player with Green's shot selection profile.

Actually, isn't this the exact thing that eFG is meant to account for?  Shouldn't eFG measure players in a way that is NOT relative to their shot selection, so that I can see who is more efficient... the 3 point shooter or the low post player?