2024-25 Team Developments: Trades / Free Agents / News / Rumors / Ideas

???? WTF ??????
Why do this?

 

Not a good look.

 

yeah, no way i give reaves or any picks.

it already hurts to give up three rotation guys for one. it's just a big swing at the end of the lebron era. sort of like westbrook, but this one is a better fit and less dangerous because we'll have time to dig out if it goes bad (i.e., lavine is damaged goods).

the real issue is that to do it now, we either lose both gabe and dlo or both rui and vando. i don't love this aspect. especially if we lose both pgs, it might force another move, either offloading reddish to utah to open up a vet min spot for a dennis smith/fultz vet min signing or something larger for an actual pg.

anyway, much ado about nothing, as the article also said that to his knowledge we've had zero interest AND (as i posted a while back) at this point it probably makes sense for chicago to just wait it out. lavine's price can't get a lot lower, even if he's re-injured, imo. the only cautionary issue for chicago were we to make an offer is that we actually are offering some talent, whereas it's possible that in the future, their only offers will be smaller bad contracts.

 

it's a quirk of the contract type. it can net him extra money on the g league squad (where he played last year).

 

Yeah it's a kind of loophole

 

Damn..we are eating 3 years of Lavine's contract at 43M. Giving up Tinkerbell, Rui,and Vanderbilt, while he plays the same position as Reaves,Christie and the rookie? This is supposed to be a good deal?

 

we're not doing it.

also, wtf man? you defend the russ trade to the death, but trading lesser players and no picks for a better, younger one makes no sense? this deal includes moving your least favorite player, too!

 

The Russ trade came with a 47M expiring contract in year two. Lavine has a player option in year 3. I don't like Tinkerbell, no doubt about that, but I'm not exactly thrilled with this particular trade idea either.

Yes...Zach has talent, but for those 3 particular guys? I'd rather wait until the trade deadline on this one Professor.

 

Even as a salary dump, we're still losing 2 spots in an already VERY thin roster. Which combined with Zach's health concerns, aggravates the problem. Then you add losing our most reliable perimeter defender and it's a recipe for disaster.
I could see benefits in taking a gamble if we keep the picks, but the contract is just too large and we can't lose more bodies.

We currently have a 6/7 (if Gabe can play) rotation group of NBA ready guys, we're already 2 short. After that trade we would have 4/5 which is asking for trouble.

Absolutely agree that Slick's being incoherent, but that's his mojo lol

 

lavine's deal expires while we'd be in full rebuild, imo. and we'd have ALL of our future picks to add to his huge expiring for a disgruntled star at that point. in the interim, we may have already gotten a high pick.

suggesting we traded for russ because we might flip him in two years is also pretty nutty, bro. we could have flipped the better players we traded for him, too.

i don't think this deal is there at the deadline, for reasons outlined above. either zach proves to be unable to play (thus we wouldn't do it) or he plays up to his pre-injury standard (in which case we'd have to give up more).

again, it's ok--it's not happening. i just wish i'd read that we at least kicked the tires on it.

 

assuming it's gabe/rui/dlo:

lavine/vet min FA (there are still some ok options imo)/jhs
reaves/christie/lewis
vando/knecht/reddish
lebron/wood
AD/hayes

yes, i just start lavine and reaves in the back court and hand the initiator role to whomever has the least pesky on-ball defender assigned to them.

if we moved vando instead of gabe, you start lavine at sf and gabe at pg.

once again, though--i'm one of the few who saw our summer options and thought standing pat was best. there's a good chance a deal better than this one comes up by the deadline, as slick suggested.

 

Yeah a bench of JHS, Knecht, Christie, Wood and Hayes is terrifying.

Yeah, there's still a couple playable guys in FA. Here's the best ones, imo: Fultz, Hayward, McDermott, Covington, Shamet, Osman, Justin Holiday.
Nothing exciting, but we could grab a couple who could give us some 15 minutes off the bench. Maybe Fultz for PG and Covington for Vando's insurance or Hayward for some experience in the Max/Knecht roles.

Still wouldn't do it, personally. Don't think our roster can sustain such a thin rotation. Our bench sucks and 80% of our lineup is Lavine, Vando(or Gabe), AD and a 40y old Bron. So much injury worries. Even in the playoffs, it's a thin rotation. It's something we could have done if it wasn't for the 3 picked POs (and the draft picks fiasco), allowing us to get more serviceable vet mins.
DLo and Rui give us durability and scoring outside of our top3. They're more important than I actually realized.

Yeah I know you're in the team "stay put if nothing appears", as myself. Always nice to do "what ifs" with you tho

 

Meh..I'd rather keep Tinkerbell, and flip Rui/Gabe and 1FRP for Grant. Then Max/Reddish or Hayes, and maybe a 2nd rd pick for Valenucius.

Keeping Reaves, Vanderbilt, Wood,JHS, the Rook and Tinkerbell.

 

Fudge!

 

What the fudge?!

 

---also Snaq:

"I heal on company time"

 

if grant could be had for rui/gabe/1st, we'd have done it already, imo.

it is curious that max was signed for very similar money to valanciunas.