Another trade idea

by twasserm on Nov 25, 2008 9:17 AM PST Comment 30 comments

I'm a relative novice to the Trade Machine, but I was tinkering some this morning and I thought I'd ask for comments on this.

Sacramento gets: Alexis Ajinça, Julian Wright

New Orleans gets: Mikki Moore, Raymond Felton

Charlotte gets: Mike James, Houston's 2009 1st rounder from Sacramento (I don't know how to include this in the Trade Machine)

Why Sacramento does it: we give up Moore and a late first rounder to get two young prospects in their rookie contracts, one of whom could potentially be a long-term backup for Hawes and the other of whom was a late lottery pick at SF, a position where we're still tinkering. And now that we've learned how to type "Donté", we're in prime position to learn how to type "Ajinça".

Why New Orleans does it: They were expected to contend this year and have looked fairly mediocre, so something has to change. Their most glaring need: backup big men. Mikki Moore is among the league's best backup big men and thrives with a good point guard who runs the floor well. Neither Wright (10.9) nor James (9.3) have been getting major minutes, especially given what they're paying James. Felton would get them a replacement backup point guard for the one they lose (James) and a replacement young prospect for the one they lose (Wright).

Why Charlotte does it: At first, I wrote the trade with Charlotte getting James and a 2nd rounder. I couldn't convince myself that they'd do it. Now, with that 2nd rounder changed to a late 1st round pick, here's why they go for it:

--Larry Brown notoriously loves trades, and right now has essentially the roster he inherited.

--Larry Brown has been frustrated with his point guard play, the drafting of Agustin shows that the management doesn't like Felton as a long term option, and Agustin has recently showed that he is ready to be a serviceable backup with potential to be a long term starter.

--Larry Brown has had his greatest success with scoring point guards (Billups and Iverson), and James is a scoring point guard.

--James has a bit of the swagger that Jordan loves in a player.

--Charlotte doesn't have much invested in Ajinca-- he was their second first round pick of 2008, taken at #20 with Denver's pick after taking Agustin #9 with their own pick. Getting another late 1st rounder recoups that loss.

So what do you think? Like I said, I'm a relative novice at the Trade Machine, so feel free to tell me how ridiculous this is. Who doesn't do this and why? Are we getting enough for Moore and Houston's pick? If you wouldn't be willing to do this as written, would you do it if we changed Houston's 1st to our 2nd round pick?

(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)

1 recs | Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

not bad

but i don’t think charlotte would do it. they give up too much, and get back too little. the way i see it they would either have to start augustin and all his rookie-ness (regardless of whether he may be ready), or start james, who i do not think is of starter quality for this league any longer. charlotte could probably get much more for felton.

by sactoreg on Nov 25, 2008 9:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Charlotte's starter

I was envisioning James starting this year for Charlotte with Agustin coming off the bench. Not the most formidable point guard rotation ever, but didn’t the drafting of Agustin at #9 show that Charlotte wants him to start eventually anyway? James is a serviceable stopgap starter while Agustin gets serious minutes as a backup and develops so that he can start next year.

by twasserm on Nov 25, 2008 9:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Charlottle may

need a shooting guard thrown in

Douby?

Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !

by lietothegirls on Nov 25, 2008 9:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I wanted to do that, but the salaries don’t work when you add Douby. Charlotte would need to give up something more— perhaps a cheap 4 named Jermario Davidson who I’ve never heard of and apparently hasn’t played a game yet this year. He could go to NO or SAC and likely get waived once he shows up.

Might NO be willing to send a second rounder to Charlotte to sweeten the pot a touch for them (or perhaps even a first)? If they want to win now, picks might not matter as much to them if they’re filling a perceived need in a good backup big while getting a good backup pg thrown in to boot…

by twasserm on Nov 25, 2008 10:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The trade adding Jermareo and Douby

here

by twasserm on Nov 25, 2008 10:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Does it work financially?

Cuz if it does I like your idea.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Nov 25, 2008 11:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why not?

The only problem is the roster spot Sac would have to open up. Anyone know for SURE when SAR’s spot is available?

MM for two prospects with upside would be a steal – even with the Houston #1 thrown in.

I think NO needs both a back-up big and another player who can slash to the hole but. . . .

like sactoreg, I wonder if LB would think its an upgrade.

Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !

by lietothegirls on Nov 25, 2008 9:47 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

Looking at NOrleans

I’ve had this impression from watching but now have actually looked up thier stats.

Of thier SGs and SFs, starting and primary back-ups, combine thier shot attempts, then add up what percentage of those are from 3 pt range and you’ll see why I think this is theier biggest weakness right now. About 50% of thier attempts are from 3 distance. None of thier wings goes to the hole (CP3 does from PG). And none of them are exceptional athletes to compensate some for that ala Portland. Except for Chandler they are a perimeter team. Yes, they could use a solid Back-up for Chandler and MM would be fine, but they also really need to change up something at the 2 or 3 position.

I no longer think they’re a contender unless they address that. Not going to sneak up on anyone this year.
It does fix one thing for NOrleans but what they also need is a Salmons type at the 2.

Anyway, I’d certainly do this deal from our perspective.

Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !

by lietothegirls on Nov 25, 2008 10:13 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I don't want Julian Wright

And I don’t think the Hornets need to give him up either. He’s more valuable to them.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Nov 25, 2008 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the core of a deal is here with these players

But I also think that some of the finer points (like leaving Julian Wright) need to be left out.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Nov 25, 2008 11:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Whats wrong with Wright?

He’s still young, there’s some upside there – and we’re talking about MM and Douby.

Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !

by lietothegirls on Nov 25, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

NOthing wrong with him

Would rather have Donte Cisco among other things. I also don’t think Nawlinz is keen on giving him up. So finding another player to make this deal work is very important. I don’t think Wright is it.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Nov 25, 2008 1:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Still, he's a usable/tradable piece

with some experience. I’d jump at that deal and not quibble myself.

Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !

by lietothegirls on Nov 25, 2008 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think New Orleans will do this with Wright included

It’s not whether I want him or not that is the issue here lttg. LOL

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Nov 25, 2008 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You have to give up something to get something

My whole idea in starting this was that NO wants a backup big and we have a good backup big that we’re willing to trade. What would they be willing to give up to get him? Besides Wright, what do they have that we’d want?

by twasserm on Nov 25, 2008 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Of all the players involved in the teams you mentinoed

I’d really like the Kings to take a flier on Adam Morrison. But tha’ts of personal opinion.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Nov 25, 2008 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Adam Morrison is a crybaby.

There is no crying in basketball. Unless your Michael Jordan and you win a championship and dedicate it to the memory of your recently deceased father.

Jordan forgot that when he drafted Morrison, by the way.

Morrison will be out of the league in 3 years.

by Ice_9ine on Nov 25, 2008 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

w.t.f.

You hate JJ but would take a flier on Morrison?

Dude. Duuuuuude.

Donte? Donte'! Donté?!?!
'spect da 'xtra E'

by iashwash on Nov 25, 2008 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Morrison is bigger

And can play with better defenders. Basically, there are more players out there. Look, if you’re going to explore the Mikki Moore options, very few teams will take a flier on him. But New Orleans is rising on that list, if only because they need ot find a way to cheaply get a big and backup PG.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Nov 25, 2008 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Isnt't a defender and/or a rebounder (who can run) preferable?

MM is a proven commodity and a positive force on the bench and in the locker room. Morrison and Reddick are waiver wire players IMO.

by betweentheeyes on Nov 25, 2008 10:40 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

nothing worse than a big guy

who plays like a small one.

Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !

by lietothegirls on Nov 25, 2008 11:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

That`s our frontline all PF`s

I really believe we need at least ONE true C not S.Wiiliams.
I just don`t believe we get 2 young talents for our crap..Why would CHA trade their Starting C,a rook 7 ft. out of France?And N.O loves Wright?I`bet if you proposed this trade to either site you`d be laughed at all the way back to STR.Most trades happen because the player is no use to the team anymore,like his position being taken & benched(ie:M.Moore).

by hudson101 on Nov 26, 2008 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

New Orl 'might'

becauses teams that are close aren’t thinking about three years from now, they’re thinking THIS year.

And the Charlotte folks are just not very smart and may do anything at any moment, either to try to change chemistry or to reduce the cost of the team for a sale to Seattle (?).

Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !

by lietothegirls on Nov 26, 2008 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ummm

They’re thinking the next 2-3 years. Wright might not be as valuable right now, but next year he has the high likelihood of being much more valuable. Wright can develop into a point forward. Having that come off the bench to assist the Paul-less lineup will be significantly more important than Mikki Moore.
I don’t think NO does the deal, as much as they need a backup point and a big. Too much given up for a short term goal that isn’t dramatically more attainable.

Donte? Donte'! Donté?!?!
'spect da 'xtra E'

by iashwash on Nov 27, 2008 11:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs