Mike Rice last week: "Three-way trade dead ....for now"

[Fez Hammersticks]

Mason & Ireland crosstalk with Max Kellerman and Mychal Thompson for a preview of Lakers vs. Clippers tonight. Steve and John react to what John Ireland's source says about Dwight Howard possibly going to the Nets by Tuesday. ESPN NBA insider Chris Broussard calls in to talk about the Lakers going into the season with this roster.

LA radio show -- 90% he goes to NJ​

Hmm...

 

[Nikolokolus]

The Wallace for picks thing back in play then?

 

[Natebishop3]

As said before, if we deal Wallace we better be getting back unprotected lotto picks.

 

[magnifier661]

Got to be honest with you... I don't know how I feel with Wallace for just picks. Yeah this is a strong draft, but we got at least 3-4 solid years out of Wallace. I would hate for us to make this deal and not have competent GM or management to make the right picks.

 

[RoyToy]

Gerald Wallace for mid-to-late lottery protected 1st round draft picks

lmfao

 

[magnifier661]

Gerald Wallace for mid-to-late lottery protected 1st round draft picks

lmfao

I wonder if the shoe was on the other foot in this forum. What if we had a bunch of mid to late first rounders and cap space and offered it for Wallace? I wonder how this forum would laugh at anyone that even offered it.

 

[magnifier661]

Gerald Wallace for mid-to-late lottery protected 1st round draft picks

lmfao

I wonder if the shoe was on the other foot in this forum. What if we had a bunch of mid to late first rounders and cap space and offered it for Wallace? I wonder how this forum would laugh at anyone that even offered it.

 

[RR7]

My concern about the 4 first rounders is, supposedly NJ was offering up 5 total, us getting 4, Orlando getting 1.
NJ 2012 1st, houston lotto protected 2012 1st. 2014 1st, 2016 1st, 2018 1st.
If we got a Houston lotto protected 1st(until 2016, then turns to a 2nd rounder) and then picks in 2014, 16 and 18, I wouldn't be super thrilled with the deal.

 

[Natebishop3]

The only way I do it is for Orlando's first (NOT protected). Otherwise, fuck that.

Mag, what makes you so sure he'll stay here or that we will want to sink cap space into him?

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Asking for unprotected picks from a team that's likely is going to suck for a while for a 29 y/o is greedy.

I think we parlay the four 1st rounders into a package that brings in an upgrade at the 1 or 2.

 

[Sinobas]

I'd rather keep Gerald Wallace. Our chances of getting a comparable player with those non-lotto picks are very slim. You can only develop so many guys. We don't need all those picks.

 

[B-Roy]

I doubt Wallace is being moved now, after the Crawford signing. Unless the haul is really good (4 late 1sts is not a good haul).

 

[oldmangrouch]

I doubt Wallace is being moved now, after the Crawford signing. Unless the haul is really good (4 late 1sts is not a good haul).

Agreed. 4 late 1sts spread out over an extended period aren't that helpful. A brilliant GM *might* turn them into something of value....but we don't have one of those.

 

[BrianFromWA]

remind me again, what it took to GET Gerald Wallace? Was it more than 4 1sts?

Getting "4 late firsts" doesn't mean you're picking the 30th-best player each draft. It means that you have a piece of currency that has some standard value, and is liquid enough that it can be passed around in trades.

Just like last year, when it was more valuable to have a late-lotto/mid-first round pick from NOH rather than Jerryd Bayless. I don't think we get Wallace if we say "Joel, Dante, Bayless and a 2013 first."

 

[Nikolokolus]

remind me again, what it took to GET Gerald Wallace? Was it more than 4 1sts?

Getting "4 late firsts" doesn't mean you're picking the 30th-best player each draft. It means that you have a piece of currency that has some standard value, and is liquid enough that it can be passed around in trades.

Just like last year, when it was more valuable to have a late-lotto/mid-first round pick from NOH rather than Jerryd Bayless. I don't think we get Wallace if we say "Joel, Dante, Bayless and a 2013 first."

That's exactly what 4 extra picks represent. For some reason most people just zero in on the pick and player it represents on the Blazers' roster. Personally I could give a shit if any of those theoretical picks ever don a Blazers' uniform. They're pieces of currency as you say and in particularly strong drafts they can represent pretty valuable pieces of currency if you possess both extra picks and cap room -- there's a decent chance of trading them for both immediate help in the form of a player you like or possibly moving up if you're willing to take on dead salary.

At some point this team will have a GM and we can only hope they are above average in their competence to negotiate trades. Giving that person extra chips when they take the job also increases the likelihood of attracting a desirable candidate when there are so many other "complications" with the Blazers' GM position.

 

[jlprk]

Getting "4 late firsts" doesn't mean you're picking the 30th-best player each draft. It means that you have a piece of currency that has some standard value, and is liquid enough that it can be passed around in trades.

We haven't had anyone who could do that since Bob Whitsitt. So keep Gerald Wallace unless we get real value, not potential value which depends upon our GM's talent.

 

[RR7]

remind me again, what it took to GET Gerald Wallace? Was it more than 4 1sts?

Getting "4 late firsts" doesn't mean you're picking the 30th-best player each draft. It means that you have a piece of currency that has some standard value, and is liquid enough that it can be passed around in trades.

Just like last year, when it was more valuable to have a late-lotto/mid-first round pick from NOH rather than Jerryd Bayless. I don't think we get Wallace if we say "Joel, Dante, Bayless and a 2013 first."

I think it's easier to say a pick this year for a marginal playoff team, maybe, in trade than it is to say we'll give you a 2018 first round pick. Yes, it's a piece to use in deals. But one that far in the future is going to have a lot less value in deals.

 

[BrianFromWA]

tell that to Det (2003), CLE (2011) and Min (2012).

 

[RR7]

Tell them what?

 

[BrianFromWA]

nevermind, I misread what you said. My meaning was that there is value in long-range, throw-in picks. Like the one in the 1998 trade that ended up being the #2 in 2003, or the one from the Marko Jaric trade that could be a high lotto one this year. You're right that farther-out picks bring you less in return than ones this year, but they're still good to stockpile.

 

[RR7]

I understand there is value in any pick. But those othe rlong range trades were for who/ jaric and Thorpe. Wallace is a better player than both. I think to mvoe him for some picks in '14, 16 and 18 is not a smart move, relative to the value he can give us on the floor.

 

[BrianFromWA]

that's where our disagreement come in, then. If Wallace was traded (forget what for, for a second), Batum would slide to the 3, there would be a couple of more minutes of Crawford at the 2 or Thomas/Smith at the 4. There's a bit of drop-off there, but nothing that I think will cost the team games.

However, if you get a 2012 (or two), 2014, 2016, 2018 pick...you more than make up for the court value lost by getting business value (or trade value, or asset value, or whatver you want to call it). 9 more million in cap space and 3-5 draft picks vs. 17 months of the difference b/w Wallace and Batum? I know we disagree on this, but that's the equation to look at, not "Wallace for some crappy picks half a decade from now"

 

[RR7]

yeah, we can just agree to disagree, and that's fine. I am ok with moving Wallace. I just feel like I'd prefer looking to package him in a bigger deal, either because a team wants him as a player, or because his contract would help to facilitate a deal. Moving him to pick up 4 picks, when some we'll get when half our team is retired, I'm not as interested in. Unless those picks were being moved immediately.
I understand often times you go a step back to eventually go two steps forward. This just doesn't feel like that to me. More like a step back to take a step forward eventually.

 

[jlprk]

This is Pritchard thinking, living in the golden future instead of the here and now. "If we draft perfectly, we'll get a steal in 5 years, and 10 years from now we'll have someone better than all-star Gerald Wallace." Teams rarely draft perfectly.

Even if the odds are as high as 50-50 of getting another Wallace (that's 1 out of 2) then a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Meaning, it's an even trade to trade 1 Wallace in exchange for 2 potential Wallaces (top-5 picks).

 

[Blazinaway]

yeah, we can just agree to disagree, and that's fine. I am ok with moving Wallace. I just feel like I'd prefer looking to package him in a bigger deal, either because a team wants him as a player, or because his contract would help to facilitate a deal. Moving him to pick up 4 picks, when some we'll get when half our team is retired, I'm not as interested in. Unless those picks were being moved immediately.
I understand often times you go a step back to eventually go two steps forward. This just doesn't feel like that to me. More like a step back to take a step forward eventually.

Frankly I don't want picks if we trade Wallace, get me a C like Varajeo and I'll take that and run. If not available fine, as we saw last night Gwall can ball. Now if Wallace turns into picks that can soon get us a guy likae varajeo then that is fine, but I don't want picks to darft and keep. Give this team another key piece like a good C to match with LMA and I'm good for the next 3-4 years.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't want to trade Wallace now. I think he will be the heart and soul of this team. If Nate truly wants to push the tempo (and that's a big if), then Wallace will be crucial for that to happen. You saw last night, it was Wallace and Matthews out on the break every time. He might not have had a great night from the field (1-4) but he was involved in everything. I really want to see what this team can do. I would rather wait until the end of the season and if GWall happens to opt out, so be it, and we get the cap space. I'd rather we hold onto him and see what happens, rather than deal him in for a few mid-range draft picks.

I think this team could be one star away from being something special. I'm curious how much cap space we would have this summer if we kept Wallace, Aldridge, Batum, and Matthews. Crawford is iffy. He might not opt out, but if he does I'm not sure how much he would be worth. Let's say NJ doesn't get D12. I think Deron Williams could be a prime target to be stolen away this summer. That team isn't very promising without adding someone like Howard. If you added Deron to this squad, they instantly become a contender I think.

Deron
Matthews
Wallace/Batum
Aldridge
??

 

[Natebishop3]

They're saying the cap should remain around 58 million through 2012.

Our guaranteed contracts look like this:

Aldridge - $13,000,000
Wallace - $11,437,500 (player option)
Matthews- $6,505,320
Babbitt - $1,892,280
Williams - $1,442,880
N. Smith - $1,404,960

Total - 35,682,940

That leaves Batum, Crawford, Felton, Camby, Oden, Kurt Thomas, etc etc etc as free agents. Of that group, we will want to definitely keep Batum, and I think there's a good chance we will want to keep Crawford and Oden. Thomas and Camby are a crapshoot. Felton will depend on whether we can sign someone else who is better, or on how well he plays this season. If he plays at an All-Star level, we might want to keep him.

Let's say we sign Batum for 4 years, $40 million.

That would put our cap at $45,682,940 which would give us near 12.5 million to offer someone. If we could deal Babbitt for a second rounder or a draft pick of some kind, maybe we could get the extra couple million to offer a max deal to someone like Deron. It wouldn't leave any cap space for Crawford, so if he doesn't opt out after this season that would throw a major crimp into this plan. Or maybe Batum isn't worth 10 million a year. Maybe he's only worth 8 million a year. Maybe offer Batum 4 years and 32 million. That would put our cap at $43,682,940 which would give us enough space to offer max deal.

Or.... maybe we could convince Wallace to opt out and take a smaller deal with good security? I don't think he would get a max deal from anyone at this point in his career, so 4 years and 40 million or 5 years 50 million would put him around 34 or 35 by the time the deal runs out and would give us another 1.5 million to play with.

The question is Crawford. Will he opt out? If he doesn't, his 5 million will make things tricky.

 

[BrianFromWA]

you don't have to worry about signing Nic until after all of our cap space is gone. IIRC his cap hold is 5.4M. So that's the number that goes against the cap until you actually sign him.

 

[Natebishop3]

you don't have to worry about signing Nic until after all of our cap space is gone. IIRC his cap hold is 5.4M. So that's the number that goes against the cap until you actually sign him.

Oooh that's a good point. They said they're already negotiating but I would like to see them wait if that's the case. If we could snag someone like Deron Williams and still keep Wallace and Crawford, I would really like our chances next season.

Deron/Smith
Matthews/Crawford
Wallace/Batum
Aldridge/??
??