Poll: Avery, Jae, Nets 2018 for George

[Smokeeye123]

George will opt out this summer and play for the Fakers at the max.

Paul George cant opt out until after next season.

[jambr380]

How could we still sign Hayward in free agency after that trade? We will already struggle to open the necessary space, making a trade where we take on money makes it even harder. Milsap's max is higher than Hayward's as well.

So the teams wouldn't look like you describe. You'd have to send the Nets 17 in this trade instead of the Nets 18.

Would I make that trade? Tempting for the upgrade in talent but no not without George agreeing to an extension, which I doubt he does.

Paul George will make $19.3M

AB will make $8.8M
Crowder will make $6.8M
The #3 pick (for instance) will make $4.7

For a total of $20.3M

I am sure my numbers are off and I will be corrected, but a basic trade that KGLL has laid out, plus a signing of Hayward should be able to be completed later in the summer after the 30 days has gone by for our rookie signing. Trading for Butler in this scenario is actually a lot easier since he will only make $17.5M next year and, of course, is signed for an extra year.

Anyway, if trading for either George or Butler guaranteed us Hayward, then yes, of course I do the deal (although losing Crowder and our 2017 pick will absolutely obliterate our future cap).

KGLL is proposing that we trade the 2018 pick and keep the 2017 pick.  That is the problem with his numbers.

Oops - my bad and tp for the catch.

KGLL, you may want to start the poll over using the '17 pick instead of '18 so it is a deal that is actually allowable.

If the deal you are proposing 'guarantees' us signing Hayward, then people may look at it as a viable one. If we do however get the #1, then it may not be as palatable (I used #3 in my salary number).

By the time any deal was actually executed, we would already know where the pick landed (and who it was) and whether or not Hayward was signing here.

[Rosco917]

I voted yes on this question. Both Crowder and Bradley are marginal as starters. Both are nice players, but certainly not starters on a true contender. Hopefully Brown will make you forget about the undersized, athletically limited Crowder shorty, and undersized, often injured Bradley will be replaced by the plethora of young talented guards in this draft.

George will give the C's a second scoring option with good positional size, and a solid defender. Teamed with IT, Horford, Smart, and company we'll be at the very least in the ECF for years to come. A stumble by Cleveland, and we're in the show.

[Monkhouse]

That being said, the trade I'm a little hesistant on... I would need a 100% handshake guarantee before I put any picks like the Nets on board...

George is better than AB and Crowder combined respectively in my opinion.

[TheSundanceKid]

How could we still sign Hayward in free agency after that trade? We will already struggle to open the necessary space, making a trade where we take on money makes it even harder. Milsap's max is higher than Hayward's as well.

So the teams wouldn't look like you describe. You'd have to send the Nets 17 in this trade instead of the Nets 18.

Would I make that trade? Tempting for the upgrade in talent but no not without George agreeing to an extension, which I doubt he does.

Paul George will make $19.3M

AB will make $8.8M
Crowder will make $6.8M
The #3 pick (for instance) will make $4.7

For a total of $20.3M

I am sure my numbers are off and I will be corrected, but a basic trade that KGLL has laid out, plus a signing of Hayward should be able to be completed later in the summer after the 30 days has gone by for our rookie signing. Trading for Butler in this scenario is actually a lot easier since he will only make $17.5M next year and, of course, is signed for an extra year.

Anyway, if trading for either George or Butler guaranteed us Hayward, then yes, of course I do the deal (although losing Crowder and our 2017 pick will absolutely obliterate our future cap).

KGLL is proposing that we trade the 2018 pick and keep the 2017 pick.  That is the problem with his numbers.

Oops - my bad and tp for the catch.

KGLL, you may want to start the poll over using the '17 pick instead of '18 so it is a deal that is actually allowable.

If the deal you are proposing 'guarantees' us signing Hayward, then people may look at it as a viable one. If we do however get the #1, then it may not be as palatable (I used #3 in my salary number).

By the time any deal was actually executed, we would already know where the pick landed (and who it was) and whether or not Hayward was signing here.

Yes, the proposed scenario cannot financially happen so it's misleading. As discussion in the thread has shown, using the Nets 17 instead is far less favourable to us.

Even if you are "guaranteed" Hayward after this trade, you are guaranteeing yourself one hefty luxury tax when you pay IT and George in 2018. If you intend to play George at SF, it may make more sense to try and build the trade around Crowder and the Nets 17 but keep Bradley. He would cost less in 2018 than Hayward, albeit as a lesser player. I don't think it would be a negative though as it may allow us more flexibility in the future and Bradley is kryptonite to a lot of the elite point guards in the league.

[Monkhouse]

How could we still sign Hayward in free agency after that trade? We will already struggle to open the necessary space, making a trade where we take on money makes it even harder. Milsap's max is higher than Hayward's as well.

So the teams wouldn't look like you describe. You'd have to send the Nets 17 in this trade instead of the Nets 18.

Would I make that trade? Tempting for the upgrade in talent but no not without George agreeing to an extension, which I doubt he does.

Paul George will make $19.3M

AB will make $8.8M
Crowder will make $6.8M
The #3 pick (for instance) will make $4.7

For a total of $20.3M

I am sure my numbers are off and I will be corrected, but a basic trade that KGLL has laid out, plus a signing of Hayward should be able to be completed later in the summer after the 30 days has gone by for our rookie signing. Trading for Butler in this scenario is actually a lot easier since he will only make $17.5M next year and, of course, is signed for an extra year.

Anyway, if trading for either George or Butler guaranteed us Hayward, then yes, of course I do the deal (although losing Crowder and our 2017 pick will absolutely obliterate our future cap).

KGLL is proposing that we trade the 2018 pick and keep the 2017 pick.  That is the problem with his numbers.

Oops - my bad and tp for the catch.

KGLL, you may want to start the poll over using the '17 pick instead of '18 so it is a deal that is actually allowable.

If the deal you are proposing 'guarantees' us signing Hayward, then people may look at it as a viable one. If we do however get the #1, then it may not be as palatable (I used #3 in my salary number).

By the time any deal was actually executed, we would already know where the pick landed (and who it was) and whether or not Hayward was signing here.

Yes, the proposed scenario cannot financially happen so it's misleading. As discussion in the thread has shown, using the Nets 17 instead is far less favourable to us.

Even if you are "guaranteed" Hayward after this trade, you are guaranteeing yourself one hefty luxury tax when you pay IT and George in 2018. If you intend to play George at SF, it may make more sense to try and build the trade around Crowder and the Nets 17 but keep Bradley. He would cost less in 2018 than Hayward, albeit as a lesser player. I don't think it would be a negative though as it may allow us more flexibility in the future and Bradley is kryptonite to a lot of the elite point guards in the league.

I still take George over Hayward preferrably. I think Hayward has cemented himself as an perfect 2nd scorer, who can put 20-25 PPG on a decent contender with the right amount of shots/USG %

[__ramonezy__]

That offer only makes sense if he agrees to re-sign. Else I would remove Bradley from the offer.

My biggest problem with the 2018 Nets pick is that it may not be as valuable given how the Nets actually finished last season... if they can entice a Caldwell-Pope in the off-season I'm not sure they are the worst team next season.

[Monkhouse]

That offer only makes sense if he agrees to re-sign. Else I would remove Bradley from the offer.

My biggest problem with the 2018 Nets pick is that it may not be as valuable given how the Nets actually finished last season... if they can entice a Caldwell-Pope in the off-season I'm not sure they are the worst team next season.

Huge if.

Really don't understand why people really want to play for the Nets. It would be absolutely dismal to know your franchise has really no opportunity to go up, except pray some free agents give your team any consideration, and that the best player Brook Lopez is most likely going to leave.

[BitterJim]

I voted yes on this question. Both Crowder and Bradley are marginal as starters. Both are nice players, but certainly not starters on a true contender. Hopefully Brown will make you forget about the undersized, athletically limited Crowder shorty, and undersized, often injured Bradley will be replaced by the plethora of young talented guards in this draft.

George will give the C's a second scoring option with good positional size, and a solid defender. Teamed with IT, Horford, Smart, and company we'll be at the very least in the ECF for years to come. A stumble by Cleveland, and we're in the show.

Ugh, I hate "_____ wouldn't be a starter on a contender" arguments.  What people seem to mean most of the time is "______ wouldn't be the best/second best player on a contender".  Zaza freakin' Pachulia starts for this year's Finals favorite, but Bradley couldn';t start on a contender? Give me a break.

Bradley would start for the Cavs right now, and probably would have started for them last year as well.  He'd likely start over Danny Green on the Spurs this year, too. Are the Spurs and Cavs not "true contenders" this year? And the Cavs last year, were they not "true contenders"?

[Monkhouse]

I voted yes on this question. Both Crowder and Bradley are marginal as starters. Both are nice players, but certainly not starters on a true contender. Hopefully Brown will make you forget about the undersized, athletically limited Crowder shorty, and undersized, often injured Bradley will be replaced by the plethora of young talented guards in this draft.

George will give the C's a second scoring option with good positional size, and a solid defender. Teamed with IT, Horford, Smart, and company we'll be at the very least in the ECF for years to come. A stumble by Cleveland, and we're in the show.

Ugh, I hate "_____ wouldn't be a starter on a contender" arguments.  What people seem to mean most of the time is "______ wouldn't be the best/second best player on a contender".  Zaza freakin' Pachulia starts for this year's Finals favorite, but Bradley couldn';t start on a contender? Give me a break.

Bradley would start for the Cavs right now, and probably would have started for them last year as well.  He'd likely start over Danny Green on the Spurs this year, too. Are the Spurs and Cavs not "true contenders" this year? And the Cavs last year, were they not "true contenders"?

I agree.

I hate hearing that stupid straw man argument..

I mean Crowder isn't going to start on most contenders, but AB is probably one of the most valuable two way players on any team. You could've made that argument two years ago, but his vast improvements in scoring, and rebounding have proved that debate a farce.

[Surferdad]

That offer only makes sense if he agrees to re-sign. Else I would remove Bradley from the offer.

My biggest problem with the 2018 Nets pick is that it may not be as valuable given how the Nets actually finished last season... if they can entice a Caldwell-Pope in the off-season I'm not sure they are the worst team next season.

Huge if.

Really don't understand why people really want to play for the Nets. It would be absolutely dismal to know your franchise has really no opportunity to go up, except pray some free agents give your team any consideration, and that the best player Brook Lopez is most likely going to leave.

Money, plain and simple.  Like many teams, the Nets will have cap space and if no contender flirts with KCP, then the Nets could throw $15mm (or whatever) at him and see if he bites.

[Diggles]

I think I do this trade:


IT
Brown
PG
AL
Amir

3 Bench Players
Terry
Smart
KO

Would this above team beat this team

IT
Bradley
Jae
AL
Amir

Bench
Terry
Smart
KO

Or Brown

I think you have to do this trade..

[Eja117]

He doesn't want to be here

He wants to win, he'll like it here just fine if it's as part of one of the best teams in the league.

I'm under the impression (possibly wrongly) he made it clear he wants to be a Laker. Not so sure he wants to win

[Phantom255x]

Paul George, like most players/teams in the East, struggle to get by Lebron.

But how exactly does joining the Lakers help???

I mean, no way even if the Lakers add George + Ball they are beating Golden State, or San Antonio, or even Houston. West is 10x harder to navigate than the East IMHO, especially if PG13 joined a team like BOS, TOR, or WAS.

[positivitize]

PG wants to be a laker. I'm not trading anything for him to have him walk away from us in FA.
I'd do a sign and trade though.