Twitter rumor - Blazers to deal F Gerald Wallace for picks

[Nikolokolus]

A) LMA is locked up for 4 more years. If you think he's demanding a trade if we trade Wallace (even for just 4 firsts) then we don't need to have a discussion anymore.
B) How does the "hypothetical pipe dream" have no business being in the discussion? Please enlighten me on another team that this summer could have an All-Star in LMA, rights to Oden and Batum, 9 1sts in the next 5 drafts and space for two max players.
C) In your hypothetical, what are you getting in return for LMA (more picks?) that you're forcing Batum to be resigned at an overpaid price as our best player?

I think the term you're looking for here is "straw-man."

 

[RR7]

And if you think moving Wallace leads to Dwight and Deron coming here, discussion also ends just as quickly. You hang on to that pipe dream, if you think it's reasonable, while at the same time, saying we should move pieces, because we can't win now with what we have. I'd say our odds of winning a title this season with our current group are better than our odds of landing Dwight and Deron this offseason. If that's where we differ, we can just agree to disagree. I've seen this pipe dream with Chris Paul for the last 4 years or more, it seems, from Blazer fans. Not going to give a second thought to Deron and Dwight.

 

[RR7]

I think the term you're looking for here is "straw-man."

Same straw man of landing Dwight and Deron, while we're on hypotheticals. Neither is realistic.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Brian,

- How do you know Wallace is not in his prime? Do players magically exit their prime at a certain age? He looks very good to me on both ends of the court. Let his play on the court decide that.

I don't know. All I go by is the entire breadth of basketball history that says players generally get better with age until about their mid-20's (give or take...big men seem to last longer and wings tend to go quicker). I'm not saying that right now he's decrepit. And maybe he'll be an all-star again.

-Who said Batum is chopped liver? And what do you think he has to do with this?

Because I keep hearing from people like RoyToy in this thread that trading Wallace is synonymous with tanking and playing rookies that stink, etc. The reality is that there isn't a ton of difference now between what Wallace will give you in his minutes and what Batum would give you in the same. Wallace is better right now, but the dropoff isn't like going from Przybilla to Pendergraph or something.

- Wallace could test the FA market, but will he give up 11.5 mil? Portland will have a ton of cap space, and can re-sign him easily.

This is a question, not a challenge...where does the 11.5M figure come from? Story's website has a 9.5M player option. Regardless, if he plays as well as people here think he can play, you don't think someone's offering him a long-term deal in a summer where he could be one of the top 5 FAs? And if he can't, why should we pay him 9.5M?

- Since you're so good at thinking "strategically" look at unrestricted free agents who are better than Wallace who would fit in well in Portland. There are some very old players like Garnett, Duncan, Nash. I really don't see any of those guys signing here...Nash maybe, we don't need to lose Wallace to acquire a top level FA.

I'm good at thinking strategically partially because I commprehend that "cap space" doesn't equal "overpaying unrestricted free agents." There are multiple ways to get good players here without making a single free agent signing. Cap space is just a mechanism for doing so. (So are expiring contracts and 1st round picks, for that matter). BUT, one of the scenarios that this trade would allow would be having 30+ million in cap space (or, more than it took for LBJ and Bosh to go to MIA), along with an All-Star-caliber big and a solid set of young, cheaper role players.

-In terms of trading, perhaps we could package him for a nice piece, but this thread is about dealing him for lower end draft picks(which at their positions, would likely give us players who don't pan out, or backups).

Is there somewhere where you (the plurality, not sinobas singly) are thinking that the Blazers can't wait to use NJN's projected #27 pick in 2017 on a Euro SF or something? I keep seeing this odd strawman that "you'll never get someone as good as Crash with a late 1st 6 (sic) years from now." That's nowhere close to the point. I keep asking if someone can tell me which position in the lottery Crash was drafted in. I keep asking if people comprehend that you don't need someone as good as Crash, you need someone who cover the difference b/w Crash and Batum and (preferably) cheaper and in a position of need. I submit that even those who shy away from trade machine rumors and the like can figure out a way to use 30+M in cap space, 8 1st round picks in the next 5 drafts and a pretty solid group of young, cheap talent to find an upgrade at a position of need that makes up for the miniscule difference b/w the production Crash gives you and the production Batum will give you over the next 66 games.

- Why are you even brining up Deron and Dwight? Deron wants to be in NJ, he demanded a trade to go there. Dwight wants to be in a big market. Your "strategy" is like dumping a cute, nice girl because you're fantasizing about getting a super model. I"m not against dealing Wallace if the right trade comes along, but dealing him for crap so something unlikely "might" happen is dumb.

First, Deron wants to be in NJ so much that he turned down an extension b/c he doesn't like playing for 20-win teams and wants to see what the market is like when he signs his max contract this summer. My "strategy" is more like dumping the cute girl who's already on the downside, who makes you buy jewelry from Tiffany's (expensive) and says she'll never marry me b/c she doesn't want to have kids (can walk for nothing either this summer or the next). I bring it up b/c they're the big ticket FAs this summer, and have said they really want to play together. Maybe they don't want to come here b/c Adidas doesn't want Dwight in NikeTown, or b/c Portland is a podunk backwater NBA town. But it shouldn't be because we held on to Wallace (and/or Batum or Matthews) thinking that they'd be really great if they could ever reach/get back to their ceiling and wasted the cap space on someone who won't be here in 18 months.
You're not the only one, but the view that 4 1st rounders is "crap" isn't really one that most people would agree with.

 

[Draco]

B) How does the "hypothetical pipe dream" have no business being in the discussion? Please enlighten me on another team that this summer could have an All-Star in LMA, rights to Oden and Batum, 9 1sts in the next 5 drafts and space for two max players.

We couldn't keep Oden or Batum if we wanted cap room for two max free agents, they'd both need to be cut. We'd also have to cut Crawford, Felton, and obviously Wallace.

 

[BrianFromWA]

And if you think moving Wallace leads to Dwight and Deron coming here, discussion also ends just as quickly. You hang on to that pipe dream, if you think it's reasonable, while at the same time, saying we should move pieces, because we can't win now with what we have. I'd say our odds of winning a title this season with our current group are better than our odds of landing Dwight and Deron this offseason.

Why is that your calculus? Is "our chance of winning the title with Crash" greater than "our chance of winning the title with Batum" PLUS "our chance of landing a player that is the same level as crash with 4 extra 1sts and 30+M of cap space this summer"? It seems as if you (and the others) are deliberately miscontruing a) the effect Crash has on our team, b) the length of time he'll have that effect, and c) the benefits of having liquid assets like draft picks and cap space.

If that's where we differ, we can just agree to disagree.

You tell me...is that where we differ?

And where did I say "we can't win now with what we have?" I have maintained since the day the rumor started that 4 1sts in exchange for the drop-off we'll have from crash to Batum over the next 6 months is more than a stellar deal. I just brought up Deron and Dwight b/c it's something pretty unprecedented in NBA history, and we could be in line for it. Notice that I said above there are many, many more ways to get quality players utilizing cap space and draft picks than overpaying UFAs.

 

[Draco]

Because I keep hearing from people like RoyToy in this thread that trading Wallace is synonymous with tanking and playing rookies that stink, etc. The reality is that there isn't a ton of difference now between what Wallace will give you in his minutes and what Batum would give you in the same. Wallace is better right now, but the dropoff isn't like going from Przybilla to Pendergraph or something.

You're ignoring the dropoff from Batum to Babbit, or whoever becomes our backup SF. We'd need a player to replace Batum's role for 25+ minutes a night off the bench. Losing Wallace for nothing weakens our team in TWO positions; we'd have a significant downgrade at the starting SF spot and a significant downgrade for our 6th man.

 

[BrianFromWA]

We couldn't keep Oden or Batum if we wanted cap room for two max free agents, they'd both need to be cut. We'd also have to cut Crawford, Felton, and obviously Wallace.

Correct on Crawford and Felton, not quite on Oden and Batum. It also assumes that Wes and Matthews are traded for not much salary (or expiring salary) coming back.
You can keep Oden (assuming that RealGM's 1.5M number is accurate, which I'm dubious on) and Batum --cap holds-- and LMA and all of the euros, rookies and 2nd-year players and have 27+M in space. Not enough for two "full" maxes, but more than Wade/Bosh/LBJ make. If you don't count Oden, you have 31M, which is enough for one 'young" max and one "old' max. If you don't count Oden or Batum, you have enough for LMA, all those other guys, and two full maxes. Or if you kept Oden's cap hold but dumped Babbitt and Freeland and either SMith or Williams. There are a few ways.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You're ignoring the dropoff from Batum to Babbit, or whoever becomes our backup SF. We'd need a player to replace Batum's role for 25+ minutes a night off the bench. Losing Wallace for nothing weakens our team in TWO positions; we'd have a significant downgrade at the starting SF spot and a significant downgrade for our 6th man.

I'm not counting Batum to Babbitt.

The rotation goes from Felton/Wes/Crash/LMA/Camby with Crawford, Batum and Smith/Thomas off the bench to Felton/Wes/Batum/LMA/Camby (and I don't think it's a "significant downgrade", but whatever) with Crawford, Smith and Thomas off the bench. If anything, Wes plays more 3 in a "smallball" lineup with Felton/Crawford/Wes playing together if Batum can't go. So no, there isn't a "significant" downgrade at even one, much less two, positions. And even if there was, what happens when Crash leaves this summer?

 

[Draco]

I'm not counting Batum to Babbitt.

The rotation goes from Felton/Wes/Crash/LMA/Camby with Crawford, Batum and Smith/Thomas off the bench to Felton/Wes/Batum/LMA/Camby (and I don't think it's a "significant downgrade", but whatever) with Crawford, Smith and Thomas off the bench. If anything, Wes plays more 3 in a "smallball" lineup with Felton/Crawford/Wes playing together if Batum can't go. So no, there isn't a "significant" downgrade at even one, much less two, positions. And even if there was, what happens when Crash leaves this summer?

Ok so you think Craig Smith is basically as valuable off the bench as Nic Batum. But you also think Batum is about as valuable as Gerald Wallace.

So combining those if you believe Wallace is about as valuable as Craig Smith I understand wanting to dump him for late first round picks.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I used to be of the school of thought that 4 1st round picks would be a gold-mine. Recent history has beaten that out of me. The draft has turned into a crap shoot - emphasis on crap!

That is not to imply that Wallace should be untouchable. The reasons enumerated in favor of a trade are legit - just not for draft picks!

 

[BrianFromWA]

Your conclusions really need some work. I think that Ray Felton, Jamal Crawford, Wes Matthews and Craig Smith playing a few more minutes a game is much more plausible (and valuable) than your assertion that Nic's 24.5mpg would go to Luke Babbitt. And no, I don't see it as a significant downgrade for those 4 to be playing more mpg.

 

[BrianFromWA]

The crazy thing is that the lunacy here is making it sound like I don't like or appreciate Wallace. I've been wanting him on our team since I watched him in Sacramento, and have been pushing to get him in trade (even trading Batum for him) for 3 years (remember the RLEC Super-Expiring?)

The facts are that this is a guy who has played in POR for a grand total of 25 games. He's 29, and his PER and DRtg peaked in 2006 and has steadily, if slowly, declined since then. My assumptions are that he will either play well enough to get a long-term deal this summer (I'd bet on this), or not well enough that his contract will prevent us from the cap space to use to get players better than he will be in the next 4-5 years (via trade or signing). If you can get 4 1sts for him, while opening up more room this summer, I think that's a great deal. If you can trade him this year and get a comparable player/value for him, great.
But if he stays past the trade deadline, there's really only 3 things that can happen.
1) He signs with another team (leaving us with nothing) b/c he played well enough to get a long term, high $ deal.

2) He doesn't play well enough for #1, so he picks up his player option b/c he couldn't get more than 9.5M (or 11?) guaranteed from anyone else.

3) he signs an extension with POR, meaning that we're tying up cap space in a player in his 30's for the next few years who's already been on the decline and who's played 72 games once in his career.

I love the guy, I love his game and the way he plays. But there's a business side to this, too.

 

[Draco]

I used to be of the school of thought that 4 1st round picks would be a gold-mine. Recent history has beaten that out of me. The draft has turned into a crap shoot - emphasis on crap!

That is not to imply that Wallace should be untouchable. The reasons enumerated in favor of a trade are legit - just not for draft picks!

If it was one potentially good first round pick that had a chance of becoming anything at all like the Hornets got in the CP3 deal, I would be all over it. But we're talking about late lottery protected first rounders. Yes late first rounders have some value, but not close to the value of the teams best or second best player. I would rather have one good asset then 4 significantly less valuable assets. The team that gets the single best asset in a trade nearly always comes out on top in the long run. It's so easy to re-load mediocre assets at any offseason down the road.

 

[RR7]

Deron turned down an extension from NJ because of the big gap in money he would lose from waiting until this offseason, versus extending now. Nothing at all to do with 20 win teams, or wanting out of NJ. Same reason Paul kept saying he would not extend anywhere, and same as Dwight.

 

[illmatic99]

Don't forget, there are roster spots and salary space that need to be considered for draft picks as well. 4 extra first round picks can cost nearly 7-8 mil to keep depending on the #s. That eats into the capspace that we could potentially have for free agency.

Then again, draft picks are pretty liquid and easy to move.

 

[blazerboy30]

I love the guy, I love his game and the way he plays. But there's a business side to this, too.

Please provide the business-case analysis showing that several really bad seasons followed by a really good season (if that even occurs) is a better business decision than continuing to make the playoffs, even if it results in a first round exit.

You're making the claim that trading Wallace for future picks is a better business decision, but you really can't back it up.

 

[Masbee]

I love the guy, I love his game and the way he plays. But there's a business side to this, too.

Right, the business.

But, see, here is the problem, there is no legit confirmation that Wallace could be or could have been traded straight up for FOUR! 1st round picks. It was a complicated 3 team deal that likely had a lot of moving parts.

This value back (4 picks) keeps being thrown around as if it is gospel.

I seriously doubt that (effectively) the Blazers could ship out Wallace (and nothing else of value), and recieve back 4 1st round picks that aren't more than 4 years out (and nothing else of negative value).

So. Now that we have disposed of a fantasy trade that wasn't going to happen and isn't going to happen (ie, a strawman) a serious discussion can happen where the merits of trading Wallace for a more likely return can commence.

Begin.

 

[Rhal]

The crazy thing is that the lunacy here is making it sound like I don't like or appreciate Wallace. I've been wanting him on our team since I watched him in Sacramento, and have been pushing to get him in trade (even trading Batum for him) for 3 years (remember the RLEC Super-Expiring?)

The facts are that this is a guy who has played in POR for a grand total of 25 games. He's 29, and his PER and DRtg peaked in 2006 and has steadily, if slowly, declined since then. My assumptions are that he will either play well enough to get a long-term deal this summer (I'd bet on this), or not well enough that his contract will prevent us from the cap space to use to get players better than he will be in the next 4-5 years (via trade or signing). If you can get 4 1sts for him, while opening up more room this summer, I think that's a great deal. If you can trade him this year and get a comparable player/value for him, great.
But if he stays past the trade deadline, there's really only 3 things that can happen.
1) He signs with another team (leaving us with nothing) b/c he played well enough to get a long term, high $ deal.

2) He doesn't play well enough for #1, so he picks up his player option b/c he couldn't get more than 9.5M (or 11?) guaranteed from anyone else.

3) he signs an extension with POR, meaning that we're tying up cap space in a player in his 30's for the next few years who's already been on the decline and who's played 72 games once in his career.

I love the guy, I love his game and the way he plays. But there's a business side to this, too.

Wallace is my favorite player and i'v been wanting him on the Blazers as long as you have. I do think if the right deal comes around we can't say he is untouchable, the only untouchable on the Blazers roster should be LMA. The deal that everyone is talking about is 4 1st that are spread out over 4 to 8 years depending on who reported it (Hollinger had it as 4 picks going to us from NJ that were one every two years, while Marc Stern had it down differently). That deal for late picks that won't be lottery picks are something that I would only do if LMA and everyone else goes down with an injury and we are forced to rebuild otherwise that is a lot of middling talent that would take us up to 8 years to cash in on, i'd much rather wait for a different deal that would give us picks in the next 2 years or young players that we can try and have hit there stride while LMA is still in his prime.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I used to be of the school of thought that 4 1st round picks would be a gold-mine. Recent history has beaten that out of me. The draft has turned into a crap shoot - emphasis on crap!

That is not to imply that Wallace should be untouchable. The reasons enumerated in favor of a trade are legit - just not for draft picks!

I actually agree with you on this. In other words if we trade him, it needs to be for a younger equally talented player. And probably at a different position. So we look for a team that needs a player like Wallace that has a duplication of good young talent at PG, SG, or Center to send us back.

That won't be easy to find but it is possible if that team believes they can re-sign Wallace.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Right, the business.

But, see, here is the problem, there is no legit confirmation that Wallace could be or could have been traded straight up for FOUR! 1st round picks. It was a complicated 3 team deal that likely had a lot of moving parts.

This value back (4 picks) keeps being thrown around as if it is gospel.

I seriously doubt that (effectively) the Blazers could ship out Wallace (and nothing else of value), and recieve back 4 1st round picks that aren't more than 4 years out (and nothing else of negative value).

Fortunately, your "serious doubt" can be rectified by a little reading. It's not really fair, I spent an entire day scouring everything I could find about it, and I realize than many are going off of opinions not based on reporting, but assuming they're correct.

First, there was Stein and Wojnarowski.

Portland Trail Blazers swingman Gerald Wallace to the Magic along with Nets center Brook Lopez as two of the main pieces Orlando would receive in exchange for Howard. Other players would have to be added to the deal to make the salary-cap math work, but sources said Portland would receive multiple first-round picks as part of the exchange for surrendering Wallace and facilitating the trade.

Portland could extract as many as 3 draft picks for Gerald Wallace in possible multi-team Nets deal for Dwight Howard, league sources say.
Privately, Portland believes Gerald Wallace has evolved into Blazer "heart and soul" and are hesitant to move him for picks and cap space.

Maybe the "heart and soul" comment did something, b/c then we saw this from Amick--verifying that is was a "complex, three-team deal":

The deal would have sent Howard, small forward Hedo Turkoglu and point guard Chris Duhon to the Nets; Blazers small forward Gerald Wallace, Nets centers Brook Lopez and Johan Petro, and possibly a first-round draft pick to the Magic; and a whopping four first-round draft picks to the Blazers.

But we weren't done yet. NJN was going to the mattresses, according to Ford:

Nets offered everything they could for Howard: Brook Lopez + FIVE 1st Rd picks. Theirs in 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 + Rockets 2012 pick

So. Now that we have disposed of a fantasy trade that wasn't going to happen and isn't going to happen (ie, a strawman) a serious discussion can happen where the merits of trading Wallace for a more likely return can commence. Begin.

So now that we've affirmed that there's more to it than what you'd believed, how about starting with what HOU's lotto-protected pick, our own pick and NJN's pick would get in the loaded 2012 draft, shall we? And not just in players, but in trade potential. Seems a bit more predictable than your insistence on focusing on a 2018 pick, right?

 

[Natebishop3]

You couldn't get both Deron and Dwight this summer, but I think Deron is a very reasonable target if the Nets fail to acquire Dwight Howard.

I posted this breakdown in another thread a while back:

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.

 

[Masbee]

So now that we've affirmed that there's more to it than what you'd believed, how about starting with what HOU's lotto-protected pick, our own pick and NJN's pick would get in the loaded 2012 draft, shall we? And not just in players, but in trade potential. Seems a bit more predictable than your insistence on focusing on a 2018 pick, right?

Stein said multiple. Could be anything. Most plugged in guy last few years (Woj) said 3.

3 is not 4.

3 is 3. 25% less.

No info on how many years away those picks are. Anything after 3 or 4 years away from now, and those picks have nearly zero current value, either to us or to other teams in a trade.

There is no info about lottery protection, which teams the picks come from, etc.

There is no info about the other parts in the trade that are essential to make the salary numbers work.

All of that matters a lot as to the real value of a deal. I don't consider 3 picks, none of them possible lottery picks, and 2 of them 3 or more years out and a crap player on a matching contract to be anywhere the same as 4 picks in the next 4 years with two of them not lottery protected and no eating a crap player.

I very much doubt this trade was a sweet deal for us like some are implying here.

 

[Draco]

The Nets taking on Okur's contract and resinging Humphries have also killed any potential Wallace trade. The Nets don't have the cap space to take on lopsided salary in a trade, which is the only way we could send Wallace to Orlando and not have to take salary back in return. I'm fairly certain we arn't interested in taking on Hedo's contract