What could we get for IT4

[TrueFan]

I think of this more as what type of team would want to trade for him.  One scenario could be an established team that thought adding IT would put them over the top.  But that type of team would not want to give up much because they are trying to win now.

More likely, I see IT being used as part of a big trade for someone like Cousins where a team is punting and rebuilding.  Not too many of those team around.  Cousins, Paul George, anyone else?

I just don't see all that many trade scenarios for IT.

Good point but what if we sweetened the pot. Say we make it IT4 and Horford for Porzingis?

Both players go to a team who could compete and we get a stud big.

[Vermont Green]

I think of this more as what type of team would want to trade for him.  One scenario could be an established team that thought adding IT would put them over the top.  But that type of team would not want to give up much because they are trying to win now.

More likely, I see IT being used as part of a big trade for someone like Cousins where a team is punting and rebuilding.  Not too many of those team around.  Cousins, Paul George, anyone else?

I just don't see all that many trade scenarios for IT.

Good point but what if we sweetened the pot. Say we make it IT4 and Horford for Porzingis?

Both players go to a team who could compete and we get a stud big.

Horford and IT is $33M in salary that would have to be matched up.  I could see IT and Horford being the start of a deal for someone like Cousins but not Porzingis, not the Knicks.

Milwaukee is an interesting potential partner.  How about Thomas and Amir Johnson for Parker and Monroe.  I am not sure why either team would do that but the value seems to match up.

[PhoSita]

The team seeking a trade typically has to accept lesser value in return so you are only stating the obvious.

While I don't agree with your premise, necessarily, I think you have to ask yourself:

If it's virtually guaranteed that you get less value by trading IT than keeping him, then what is the point of engaging in this discussion?

[Csfan1984]

Three trade ideas to consider,
Bucks
IT for Jabari Parker and a pick.
Starters=Smart, AB, Crowder, Parker, Al

Pelicans
IT, Crowder, AJ and Nets 2018 for Anthony Davis
Starters=Smart, AB, Brown, AD, Al

C's, Pacers and Kings
IT for WCS and Miles Turner. (Kofous and IT to Pacers. Teague and Allen to Kings)
Starters=Smart, AB, Crowder, Al, Turner


Of course the Davis deal is my choice though you give up additional pieces you get a top 10 player. Also the C's would still have room to add a max deal like Hayward if he so decides to leave Jazz. How would Smart, AB, Hayward, AD and Al do in east?

**** at that package for Davis.  He's pretty close to untouchable.

It is ridiculous that people think IT, Crowder, AJ and Nets 2018 is laughable. Davis is a guy who averages 65 games in a season and won't be getting his team into the playoffs again. Sometimes you have to look at spreading out the talent because one guy isn't a team. Davis is a top ten player yes but IT is a top level PG and top 20 player. Crowder is a top level SF and locked up super cheap. That is two positions you upgrade who are on cheap contracts beyond this year. You also score a Nets pick which lets face Nets may be worse in 2018. And cap space this coming season. That isn't garbage.

Remember Love put up great numbers in Minnesota so let's not go crazy about Davis' big numbers on a bad team. If Davis came here he would be a 20 and 9 guy with above average defense is all. Still good but its not what he is doing now in New Orleans. And that isn't even sustainable. Hell, he is already having health issues so he will require long term rest managment in which he sits games out. That may be the rest of his career given the history. So that's another factor that goes into is he even worth trading for at a top ten player price. Health, bloated numbers, and defense against top big are concerns with Davis so he isn't untouchable.

[snively]

What could we get if we trade IT4?

- Substantially reduced odds to do anything of note in the playoffs.

- A significantly less entertaining team to watch.

- Bad karma

- More young players we don't have time or patience to develop fully.

- More picks that will fall in the 5-20 range to be used on high floor prospects we'll just resent for not being the higher upside / higher bust potential freaks taken later in the draft by other teams.

Bad karma? We rescued IT from Phoenix, took him to the playoffs twice, gave him a starting gig that got him an All-Star selection and basically turned the entire team over to him this year. I think we've done right by him.

I also don't find IT all that entertaining.

[TrueFan]

The team seeking a trade typically has to accept lesser value in return so you are only stating the obvious.

While I don't agree with your premise, necessarily, I think you have to ask yourself:

If it's virtually guaranteed that you get less value by trading IT than keeping him, then what is the point of engaging in this discussion?

I'm sorry you don't see the point in this thread and feel like you have to shoot it down. Now that you did can you move to another thread please.

[snively]

Ok, I will play...

Nikola Jokic and draft picks from Denver.

PG J Nelson is 34 and not the future in Denver.  Mudiay is probably more of a shooting/combo guard.

Yes. I like this idea. Denver has so much win-now talent with Gallo/Chandler/Faried and they are well stocked on the talented youth front.

IT for Jokic makes a lot of sense for them.

[TrueFan]

I think of this more as what type of team would want to trade for him.  One scenario could be an established team that thought adding IT would put them over the top.  But that type of team would not want to give up much because they are trying to win now.

More likely, I see IT being used as part of a big trade for someone like Cousins where a team is punting and rebuilding.  Not too many of those team around.  Cousins, Paul George, anyone else?

I just don't see all that many trade scenarios for IT.

Good point but what if we sweetened the pot. Say we make it IT4 and Horford for Porzingis?

Both players go to a team who could compete and we get a stud big.

Horford and IT is $33M in salary that would have to be matched up.  I could see IT and Horford being the start of a deal for someone like Cousins but not Porzingis, not the Knicks.

Milwaukee is an interesting potential partner.  How about Thomas and Amir Johnson for Parker and Monroe.  I am not sure why either team would do that but the value seems to match up.

The Knicks would have to add salary filler. It's a huge future piece they are moving but they have a small window with Melo. They might do it.

I think I pass on Cousins only because I feel like we are doing Horford and IT4 wrong by shipping them to Sacramento.

[Moranis]

I honestly don't think Thomas' value is that high.  There aren't many teams that need a PG, let alone need a PG that is a win now type PG like Thomas.  As such, I just don't see much of a market for Thomas and thus his trade value isn't that high.  I mean look at the teams in the East, the teams where Thomas would make some sense are Milwaukee, Miami (if they felt Dragic and Thomas could play together), Brooklyn, and Philadelphia.  Out West you have Sacramento, Denver (if they aren't sold on Mudiay), New Orleans, and Dallas.  The league isn't exactly awash of locations for Thomas.

Now I'm sure plenty of teams wouldn't mind Thomas as a super sub.  He would fit perfectly in that role on the Spurs for example, but if you are acquiring Thomas to come off the bench the value is even less.

[PhoSita]

Bad karma? We rescued IT from Phoenix, took him to the playoffs twice, gave him a starting gig that got him an All-Star selection and basically turned the entire team over to him this year. I think we've done right by him.

I also don't find IT all that entertaining.

The Celts uncover a gem, and their team is vaulted back to being competitive and worth watching ever since he shows up in town.

IT has been good for the Celts, and the Celts have been good for IT.

Then, not two years later, you go ahead and trade him?  For some hard to define future value?  All because "We can't win a championship with IT as the main guy"?

That's spitting in the face of the basketball gods, if you ask me.

Take your fun to watch and competitive teams where you can get 'em.  Don't throw away consistent hardworking star players on affordable contracts as if they're easily replaced.

[PhoSita]

I'm sorry you don't see the point in this thread and feel like you have to shoot it down. Now that you did can you move to another thread please.

What I'm trying to do is push you to justify your premise.

Are we conducting an audit, here?  Evaluating our assets just for the sake of having an accounting of the team's total trade value?

Or is there an IT-specific point here?

If there is, what is it? Why do you want to have this conversation about his trade value if not to suggest the potential benefit to the team in trading him?

Isn't it on topic, then, to point out that I find it very difficult to envision how it would be beneficial for the team to trade him right now?


Go and pose the question to a bunch of Blazers' fans: "What's Damian Lillard's trade value?"  I imagine you'd get a none-too-friendly reception. 

Because while you could start up that discussion, in theory, and the Blazers could trade him, in theory, it's hard to imagine that being a genuine topic of interest for the Blazers or their fans.  The convo would be a non-starter, because Dame is the heart of that team and any package of assets for him would fail to replace what they'd lose by trading him: a focal point, an identity, a player worth watching on a nightly basis. 

While IT isn't on the same level as Dame -- probably not, anyway -- I don't think the situation with the Celts is that different.

[otherdave]

The team seeking a trade typically has to accept lesser value in return so you are only stating the obvious.

While I don't agree with your premise, necessarily, I think you have to ask yourself:

If it's virtually guaranteed that you get less value by trading IT than keeping him, then what is the point of engaging in this discussion?

Sometimes you have to take a half step backward in the very short term to take 2 steps forward in the long term.

Only Danny knows if IT is in the long range plan.  All of these IT threads (rightly or wrongly) assume that he is not.  If he is not, then trading IT sometime in the next 12? months represents trading him at or near his peak value - even if you are not receiving equal value at the time, its still peak value.  C's are probably not winning a banner in the near future.

So of course a 21 year old Jokic (as an example -  fill in any name you want) is not the same value as a 27 year old IT.  But you may be tempted to make the trade if you think a 27 year old Jokic will  fit the team pretty well, when the C's may be better positoned to really contend. 

Such a trade might very well mean the C's win fewer games this season (and provide less entertain for you), but Danny makes the big bucks to plan several years out (i.e. 3 year timeline to get KG).  None of us get to see what these GMs offer one another, but I trust Danny to make the right call.

I get that you (and many others) are big IT fans and I respect that.  I am sorry that some of these threads are truly offensive to big IT fans, but for the rest of us, it is interesting to ponder and speculate on this blog what could be coming down the pike.  I suspect the speculation is going to pick up between now and the February trade deadline, so IT fans hang in there - its going to be a bumpy ride - none of us know what is going to happen.  This is my olive branch

[droopdog7]

Three trade ideas to consider,
Bucks
IT for Jabari Parker and a pick.
Starters=Smart, AB, Crowder, Parker, Al

Pelicans
IT, Crowder, AJ and Nets 2018 for Anthony Davis
Starters=Smart, AB, Brown, AD, Al

C's, Pacers and Kings
IT for WCS and Miles Turner. (Kofous and IT to Pacers. Teague and Allen to Kings)
Starters=Smart, AB, Crowder, Al, Turner


Of course the Davis deal is my choice though you give up additional pieces you get a top 10 player. Also the C's would still have room to add a max deal like Hayward if he so decides to leave Jazz. How would Smart, AB, Hayward, AD and Al do in east?

**** at that package for Davis.  He's pretty close to untouchable.

It is ridiculous that people think IT, Crowder, AJ and Nets 2018 is laughable. Davis is a guy who averages 65 games in a season and won't be getting his team into the playoffs again. Sometimes you have to look at spreading out the talent because one guy isn't a team. Davis is a top ten player yes but IT is a top level PG and top 20 player. Crowder is a top level SF and locked up super cheap. That is two positions you upgrade who are on cheap contracts beyond this year. You also score a Nets pick which lets face Nets may be worse in 2018. And cap space this coming season. That isn't garbage.

Remember Love put up great numbers in Minnesota so let's not go crazy about Davis' big numbers on a bad team. If Davis came here he would be a 20 and 9 guy with above average defense is all. Still good but its not what he is doing now in New Orleans. And that isn't even sustainable. Hell, he is already having health issues so he will require long term rest managment in which he sits games out. That may be the rest of his career given the history. So that's another factor that goes into is he even worth trading for at a top ten player price. Health, bloated numbers, and defense against top big are concerns with Davis so he isn't untouchable.

At first I was thinking you can't be serious but I guess you are.  Seriously R O T F L M A O now.

Davis won't be taking them to the playoffs again?  Dude is 23.  Think about that for a second.  While we keep waiting for people like Smart and Rozier to take the next step, Davis is a bonafide superstar and is only a year older than these two.  Davis has a long long way to go before NO should even consider trading him.  And, trades of stars have almost always befitted the team getting the star, not the other way around.

And Davis would average 20 and 9 here?  Okay.  Not even sure what to say to that, expect, Davis would instantly be the centerpiece of any team except the Cavs and Warriors.  His numbers are only going up over time.

No amount of reasoning is going to make that package remotely close to acceptable.  100 AJ's don't equal one Anthony Davis.  35 Crowders don't equal one Anthony Davis.  Five IT's don't equal one Anthony Davis.  Things don't work that way.  Superstars are a rare commodity.

[snively]

Bad karma? We rescued IT from Phoenix, took him to the playoffs twice, gave him a starting gig that got him an All-Star selection and basically turned the entire team over to him this year. I think we've done right by him.

I also don't find IT all that entertaining.

The Celts uncover a gem, and their team is vaulted back to being competitive and worth watching ever since he shows up in town.

IT has been good for the Celts, and the Celts have been good for IT.

Then, not two years later, you go ahead and trade him?  For some hard to define future value?  All because "We can't win a championship with IT as the main guy"?

That's spitting in the face of the basketball gods, if you ask me.

Take your fun to watch and competitive teams where you can get 'em.  Don't throw away consistent hardworking star players on affordable contracts as if they're easily replaced.

We didn't really uncover a gem. IT could always score. He put up 20ppg for Sacramento on great efficiency before getting buried in Phoenix' guardapalooza. We've just let him crank his usage up to Allen Iverson levels and surrounded him with good defenders.

And I don't want to trade him for a bag of balls. I want to trade him for somebody like Jokic - a remarkable 4/5 2-way prospect locked up for another 2 years on a rookie deal.

I don't see how that's spitting in the face of the Basketball Gods.

[snively]

I'm sorry you don't see the point in this thread and feel like you have to shoot it down. Now that you did can you move to another thread please.

What I'm trying to do is push you to justify your premise.

Are we conducting an audit, here?  Evaluating our assets just for the sake of having an accounting of the team's total trade value?

Or is there an IT-specific point here?

If there is, what is it? Why do you want to have this conversation about his trade value if not to suggest the potential benefit to the team in trading him?

Isn't it on topic, then, to point out that I find it very difficult to envision how it would be beneficial for the team to trade him right now?


Go and pose the question to a bunch of Blazers' fans: "What's Damian Lillard's trade value?"  I imagine you'd get a none-too-friendly reception. 

Because while you could start up that discussion, in theory, and the Blazers could trade him, in theory, it's hard to imagine that being a genuine topic of interest for the Blazers or their fans.  The convo would be a non-starter, because Dame is the heart of that team and any package of assets for him would fail to replace what they'd lose by trading him: a focal point, an identity, a player worth watching on a nightly basis. 

While IT isn't on the same level as Dame -- probably not, anyway -- I don't think the situation with the Celts is that different.

Portland doesn't have a lotto pick from BK incoming. They just committed an insane amount of salary to mediocre roleplayers in the belief that Lillard was an MVP-caliber player capable of leading them to the next level. It makes sense for them to freak out at people questioning their foundation.

IT is not our foundation and thank goodness. He's our leading scorer and the media face of our team, but he's not even our best player. We built an offense around him, but if we're serious about adding major star talent, he's gonna be heading back to his Sacramento/Phoenix 3rd option/6th man type of role. You know, the role that earned him a just above mid-level contract and got him traded for a late first. He was undervalued then but you are overvaluing him now.