Q-Rich trade possibilties
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 1:00 PM CDT
88 comments
I don't have much in the way of suggestions but I thought it would be helpful to those of our readers who do to put up a list of modest to decent sized trade exceptions from around the league in anticipation of a possible Richardson trade later this week (the really good ones are highlighted...below the fold):
Charlotte:
- $1.2 mil for Jared Dudley, expires 12/10/09
Chicago:
- $1.9 mil for Andres Nocioni, expires 2/19/10
- $1.9 mil for Thabo Sefolosha, expires 2/19/10
Denver:
- $2.1 mil for Chucky Atkins, expires 1/7/10
- $9.7 mil for Allen Iverson, expires 11/3/09
Houston:
- $2.3 for Steve Francis, expires 12/23/09
- $1.4 for Rafer Alston, expires 2/19/10
- $2.5 for Chris Mihm, expires 2/9/10
Miami:
- $4.2 for Marcus Banks, expires 2/13/09
New Jersey:
- $3.7 for Vince Carter, expires July 10
Orlando:
- $6.8 mil for Hedo, expires July 10
I think that about does it. If you see any errors or omissions, please point them out in the comments. Just remember, if Q is moved, he can't be moved in combination with another player from the Wolves. For instance, Q to Denver for the trade exception followed by a sign and trade with Memphis for Rudy Gay in return for, say, Pekovic + the Denver draft pick works while including Corey Brewer in the deal does not.
0 recs |
88 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
VC
CARTER is not on the Nets, he is on the magic, Iverson is a free agent, and we have atkins already
by kalelinri on Aug 12, 2009 1:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
thanks..
….but these are trade exceptions, not players.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a stupid question...
But what exactly is a trade exception? How do some teams get them, and why would you want to trade for one?
by LoveTo on Aug 12, 2009 1:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
with complicated answers
.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q67
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q68
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q69
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q69
As I understand it, a “simultaneous trade” that doesn’t have an exact salary match falls into the 125%+$100K rule, and that difference is a trade exception — however, the difference is not tallied for use in the future and is not what we’re talking about.
In a non-simultaneous trade, the amount of salary not taken back by a team is kept on the books against the team’s salary cap. This “trade exception” can be used to execute future trades for players without giving up players (and their salary) in return. An advantage is that a team is not paying a salary between the present and future trades. Disadvantages are that incoming salaries in the future trade(s) must be 100% or less of the trade exception. Also, the amount of the trade exception diminishes over time and eventually disappears.
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, according to ESPN's Trade Checker
QRich’s salary is a few hundred thousand $$$ larger than Denver’s trade exception held from Allen Iverson. Apparently, no deal there is possible even if there was a reason for Denver to take QRich.
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’re created by the difference in outgoing salaries between both sides of a trade. They are good to have because they don’t count towards the salary cap but can be used in trades to match salary. A team over the luxury tax threshold might give up a player for a trade exception to get under the lux by shedding a player’s salary without taking on anything else.
by Bethke on Aug 12, 2009 1:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
trade exceptions count against the cap
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good call
I guess I meant that they wouldn’t count against the cap for a team that was over the cap and trying to avoid the luxury tax. The trade exception counts against the cap only if you are under the cap.
by Bethke on Aug 12, 2009 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The trade exception counts against the cap only if you are under over the cap.
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and can push a team past the luxury tax threshold.
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
WRONG
When factoring in the luxury tax, a team salary is used, see question 14 of your website.
Here is the quote for your reference of one of the items included in a team’s salary calculation which is what is used to determine the Luxury Tax.
The combined amount of any Mid-Level, Bi-Annual, Disabled Player (see question number 19) or Traded Player exceptions (see question number 69) available to the team (see question number 20), if the team is under the salary cap. (Teams may renounce these exceptions, in which case they no longer are included in team salary.)
Notice that Trade Exceptions only count on a Team’s Slary if you are under the salary cap, an exception does not count towards a team’s salary for Luxury tax purposes.
by Ebomb on Aug 12, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Wolves could wait a while
QRich
Gomes
Atkins
for
AK47
Knicks pick
Utah saves 6 Mill this year, 18Mill next, gets replacement SF
Wolves get a SF for 2 yrs. that fits well with JEFF/LOVE
probable lottery pick in deep draft
by WinTheLottery on Aug 12, 2009 1:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
will kill for that trade
but something tells me AK47 isn’t in kahn’s plans.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kirilenko expires in 2011...
Sign and trade, maybe? A man can dream. Of course, we can’t trade Atkins and another player until September 27th.
by KMils on Aug 12, 2009 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Utah does it, but there's an interesting question in there.
Would you take back AK-47 to have the Knicks’ unprotected? That would give us likely two decent shots at winning the lottery. On the other hand, more first round picks than we would have use for.
by Punisher#8 on Aug 12, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
AK47 might not be in Kahn's plans...
but I bet the Knicks’ first rounder would look pretty good as part of his “player development” grand strategy. The question is whether AK47’s contract (and player value over Gomes, if any) is worth the pick. I’m not sure Utah would do the trade anyway. I’d guess that they’re pretty excited about having the Knicks’ pick, too.
by Madison Dan on Aug 12, 2009 2:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The Hornets seem to be...
…in salary dumping mode. They just pushed Rasual Butler out for a 2nd rounder. Any chance we can nab Julian Wright here?
The other option, to me anyway, is to try and grab something from Golden State. But, I am no trade enthusiast in coming up with scenarios of possibilities.
I think that what this will end up being, if anything, is that We trade Q-Rich for an expiring vet and a young, cheap wing. I just do not see how we do not end up taking on some salary.
by Grover M on Aug 12, 2009 2:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Trade Possibility?
Q-Rich for Josh Smith
Atlanta just signed Marvin Williams and they don’t need two small forwards. We get a young starting SF with great defensive capabilities who can play on a running team. What do you think?
by killerhoopage on Aug 12, 2009 2:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Atlanta won't do it.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Aug 12, 2009 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless they go crazy... please go crazy
Also, isn’t Josh Smith better as a PF?
by aarendsvark on Aug 12, 2009 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought ATL was shopping Smith
.
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2009/6/15/910390/rumor-atlanta-hawks-shopping-josh
The question is would Taylor pay the $6M trade kicker for a player with “a middle school attitude”?
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Josh Smith
but I also tend to think it’s possible to pick up a non-crazy version of him via the draft. He’s a unique player and you obviously can’t duplicate him. I just think it would be the wrong move for this franchise at this point to start importing crazy levels of immaturity. I imagine he’d do better on the Celtics where he had no illusions about being the guy who should shoot perimeter jump shots. Sometimes it’s truly painful to watch him be incredibly selfish and stupid on offense and then race down court to make a nice shot block (which is also sometimes a selfish play).
anyway, I agree, Atlanta would have to be insane to do this trade.
by littleboxes on Aug 12, 2009 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but I think it could be a great move
High risk, high reward. The coach matters — which might be why the trigger isn’t pulled until Rambis was onboard with this deal.
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
The guy has a great nickname—Smoove. Imagine it for a moment, we could either end up with a core of Jefferson Gay Love or Jefferson Smoove Love. Combine that with Jocky Flubio (which now just sounds dirty), and we’d have a team that’d put up some points!
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Aug 12, 2009 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gay is the Key
I am running rampant on message boards/not being as productive at work today pushing the Q Rich and the Charlotte pick to Memphis for Gay and Jaric. Throw in Pekovic. Why not?
1. A fairly, although early, decent pick up in Gay for our big 2010 push (this would essentially be it).
2. Saves MEM over $2 million this year, and $7.6 million next year by getting Jaric off the books. A total of almost ten million bucks, plus the costs of not resigning Gay when they have a flurry of other young guys to resign.
3. Gives MEM another decent 1st round pick, either Charlotte’s or Utahs.
4. Trumps a good amount cap space for next year unfortunately, but does give us another expiring contract to use NEXT season, plus brings back Jaric (comedy, or just buy the guy out). More Hypetheticals: say the Wolves end up with John Wall/Warren. A a package or Jaric, Flynn and a first round pick for the 2010 offseason is enough to get people talking.
5. Gives MEM a TPE of between 2-3 million for them to use themselves between now and the 2010 big offseason. Adds more value.
6. Begins the Jefferson’s Gay Love era in Minnesota.
One could argue the value of Richardson as an expiring in netting the Knicks only Darko, Clips on Telfair, Madsen, Smith, and the Grizzlies only Randolph. But the huge cost savings for the Grizzlies, plus the fact that Darko was also expiring leads me to believe Memphis would not sneeze at this offer. While it is fairly unrealistic, they have to consider it for the $10 million in savings and added flexibility so they could make subesquent terrible moves.
by WallyW0rld on Aug 12, 2009 3:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Isn't there a rule...
Prohibiting a team from trading for a player they have traded for a certain period? I don’t have time to look it up, but it seems like one of the main restrictions on ESPN’s trade machine.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Aug 12, 2009 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can’t trade for a player you traded away during a season (July 1-June 30). No Quentin Richardson can’t be traded to New York, Memphis, of the Clippers until next July.
by McCleak on Aug 12, 2009 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought the rules was a the recieving team cant trade the player back to the old team for a season? So, we just couldnt trade him to the Clippers?
We could swing a three way using Kenny Thomas’ contract with Sacramento.
by WallyW0rld on Aug 13, 2009 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course
Zgoda could be wrong…….
Only cowards pray for rain.
by Auswolf on Aug 12, 2009 4:04 PM CDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
doubtful
Kahn said QRich could be traded this week. So Kahn is the source.
by Jumping to Pass on Aug 12, 2009 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thank you stop and pop
so good to find a blog where people arn’t bashing my beloved wolves. not to mention great information
by Twolves for ever and ever on Aug 12, 2009 4:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
rubio?
sorry to budge in off the subject. sounds like rubio is coming. anyone got info? other than my least favorite source espn
by Twolves for ever and ever on Aug 12, 2009 4:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Nothing new
The buyout is the issue and it remains the issue. All the rest seems like posturing or at least could be. We’ll have to be patient and wait
We got Rubio!
by Wim (Belgium) on Aug 13, 2009 6:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only trade I can (so far) find that makes any sense...
…is Q to Miami for Mark Blount and Dorell Wright (works according to RealGM). If the awesome Canis Hoopus Google doc salary site has exactly accurate salaries Miami goes from roughly $71.5M to under $69.4M. I believe the Tax number is $69.9. So they save over $3M and get some tax money instead of paying (an always underappreciated part of being under). They might even have room to sign a rookie free agent for the minimum and still be under.
In any case they give up 2 third string guys and save millions, and we flip Q into an C (is Blount a mentor-type?) and a young long athletic guy, both on expiring deals.
Doesn’t necessarily make a ton of sense for us, it would put us at 15 contracts before Rubio (but I assume Chucky is gone), and we use our biggest expiring.
So far, after waaaay too long, that is my best guess.
(678): Words of Wisdom: ordering a pitcher of whiskey cokes, putting a straw in it, and calling it your drink is not socially acceptable
by CaliWolf on Aug 12, 2009 4:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't like it...
Mainly because Blizz didn’t exactly endear me to his style of play during his first stint on the team.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Aug 12, 2009 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha!
I had completely blocked out the Wolves Blount Era! But, yeah, he plays in practice and watches games, and hopefully is a good guy and a pro (I don’t live in Minny, so I haven’t seen many games prior to last season for the last few). But it is hard to find anybody who would want Q or his contract and has something we might even want in return. Everything else is either a lateral move to shave a little bit of money or comes with massive hypotheticals. Like, IF the Bulls think that their high-level of play without Deng last year is sustainable with Johnson added AND they have indications from Wade that he’d sign (townhome anyone?), AND we are completely sold on Deng as the star wing we all want for the next 5 years, then something like Q, Wellington, Pekovic, and Charlotte’s pick might be workable and acceptable to the Bulls (can’t be completed until Sep. 20th according to RealGM). Personally, I would prefer to wait one or two years for this type of move.
(678): Words of Wisdom: ordering a pitcher of whiskey cokes, putting a straw in it, and calling it your drink is not socially acceptable
by CaliWolf on Aug 12, 2009 5:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what is the benefit
of trading an expiring deal for a trade exception? Aside from lower payroll?
Wouldn’t it actually limit our ability to turn the asset into a player before 2010 FA? It is much harder to use a trade exception than it is to trade an expiring.
by Jumping to Pass on Aug 12, 2009 5:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Cap Space
Trading Q for a full trade exception would give us raw cap space that would allow us to pull off moves like Memphis did a few weeks ago where they acquired Denver’s 1st round pick just for taking an expiring contract off of their hands. It would give us more flexibility in making trades since we could take on a much larger amount of salary then we would be giving out. For example:
Washington and Utah are in Luxury Tax Hell right now so say they have major injuries and they aren’t as competitive as they expected so they look to try and get under or near the tax line when the trade deadline approaches. This is where we could help.
Washington sends us Mike James + Javale McGee and/or picks for conditional 2nd round pick
or
Utah sends us Matt Harpring + Kyle Korver + Ronnie Brewer for Brian Cardinal
We essentially exchange expiring contracts and get young asset/picks for nothing. It actually is better for the other team since we don’t have to send out salary than if we had to give them Q.
by jballer_13 on Aug 12, 2009 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so basicly
The power of the trade exception is that if we use a 9mil player in a trade the other team has to add the 9mil contract to their books and pay the player whereas if we use a 9mil trade exception they don’t have to pay anyone and there’s no 9mil added to their books.
Is this correct? If it is, sounds nice.
We got Rubio!
by Wim (Belgium) on Aug 13, 2009 6:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A trade exception allows a team to take on more salary than they are giving out. The Nuggets sent out $9.7 Mil more in salary when they traded Iverson so they got a $9.7 Mil trade exception to use within one year. The CBA has restrictions on how much salary a team over the cap can take on but using a trade exception allows the Nuggets to take on $9.7 Mil more than they give out so if they really wanted Q they could trade us nothing and using their exception, could take on all of his salary.
I really doubt they would want anything to do with Q since they are already at the Luxury Tax line so they would basically be paying $17.4 Mil for him this year which would be ridiculous given how much they would actually use him.
by jballer_13 on Aug 13, 2009 7:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They don't do the trade wanting QRich...
.. they want his expiring contract. If they don’t make a deal with the Iverson trade exception by early November, they lose this valuable asset. Also, the trade exception can’t be packaged with another player to get another more expensive player. QRich can be packaged for a more expensive player to pair up with Melo and Billups. It also gives Denver more time to make a deal either at the deadline, or even a sign and trade next summer.
Also, I know the ESPN trade machine rejects this deal now, but when I originally posted the trade a couple days ago the exception was $9.7 million. I’m not sure why it was lowered, nor do I know which is currently valid.
by Rumblebee on Aug 13, 2009 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could see the reasoning but they are taking a risk in assuming they could get something for Q around the deadline. They don’t have many other assets to send out b/c they just gave away their 1st round pick this year. If they can’t find an upgrade than they are stuck paying for Q twice since they are already in the tax.
If Kahn pulled this off I would be ecstatic but after talking with some Nuggets fans I just don’t see it being very likely.
by jballer_13 on Aug 13, 2009 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree to the risk...
.. but the fact they have few other options makes me think they will do this. Obviously the reason the deal hasn’t been finalized is Denver is having the same discussion, they will eventually realize it is their best option. A contending team can’t let a $9 mil trade exception disappear.
by Rumblebee on Aug 13, 2009 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My Idea
although it doesn’t make much sense for LAL.
Would be QRich for Ammo + maybe Farmar. Or take back a bad contract like Walton. I would love to get Morrison & give him some minutes @ the 3. Maybe our new coach wants him too???
by Jumping to Pass on Aug 12, 2009 5:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
There are bad contracts
and then there’s Walton’s contract. I think he’s got 3 more years on that thing. It’s a truly awful contract, I’m sure the Lakers would love to get rid of it.
Walton and Ammo aren’t really up-tempo style players. I don’t think it makes sense to trade for them. Now, two of the most athletic guys on the Lakers are Farmar and Shannon Brown, but I don’t think makes sense for the Lakers to trade them b/c their depth at guard isn’t that great.
"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."
by ignign*kt on Aug 12, 2009 8:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does moving Richardson this week have anything to do with this?
http://www.sport.es/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=44&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=636639&idseccio_PK=808
A $5 million (US) buyout is acceptable to Joventut. If Rubio isn’t able to muster that much from sponsors in Minnesota. Could he be dealt to a larger market where he can?
by wayno on Aug 12, 2009 7:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
BTW above article claims Rubio is very close to signing with Barcelona
by wayno on Aug 12, 2009 7:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Minnesota renounce their rights to Jason Collins (if they haven’t already done so) and waive Atkins. Timberwolves will be around $2.72 million dollars under the salary cap. This allows them to absorb that amount in a trade…
Houston: Brooks + Landry + Battier
Minnesoata: Richardson + rights to Rubio
by wayno on Aug 12, 2009 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rubio isn't getting traded
Unless it’s for Lebron, Kobe, perhaps Superman, Rubio isn’t getting traded for anybody. There’s just far far too much upside in his game, and even if you dispute that then in his ability to put people in the seats. If you were to look for a proto-typical young PG to develop into the next (passing—maybe not so much scoring) Magic for the new Showtime Twolves, who would you choose? At least for me, I can see why Rambis would be so excited for Rubio. It’s a fabulous match—it’s the kind of system where Rubio could develop into a superstar in (best case scenario). Even if that doesn’t happen, the mediocre case scenario is heads and tails above anything we’ve trotted out the last couple seasons.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Aug 12, 2009 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Childress can get an Euro contract equivalent to a NBA deal worth $10 million per year. Can Rubio get more than that in two years time if he has a breakout season? How does Minnesota compete with the rookie scale?
by wayno on Aug 12, 2009 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps you’re beginning to see why drafting Ricky was (and is) such a big gamble.
I believe that the Wolves could “renounce” him, which would make him an unrestricted free agent. Then, they would have to outbid anyone else who is interested.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q44
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q45
So….on one hand, I start thinking “screw it”, QRich and Rubio’s rights make a nice bit of trade bait for players other teams wouldn’t normally trade.
On the other hand, Zgoda just tweeted that Kahn is going to Poland in Sept. to attend the Euro championships and presumably pitch a little something to Ricky.
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The people Kahn needs to pitch to
are in Barcelona. The board of Joventut.
Only cowards pray for rain.
by Auswolf on Aug 13, 2009 1:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Joventut want $5 million...
Scrounge up that much sponsorship money for Rubio to pay that buyout and he’s in Minnesota.
If they don’t risk losing him forever if he has a breakout season. $10+ million per year deal in two years time or the rookie scale?
by wayno on Aug 13, 2009 2:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very few clubs can do what Olympiakos and Real Madrid
can do and financially some of these Euro leagues haven’t hit their nadir yet. Mind you the new NBA bargaining agreement could alter things in the US too.
Plus you need to be willing to live in Greece or occasionally Russia to get that money.
Rubio will still make more money in the US purely through endorsements even if he is never a “max player”.
Only cowards pray for rain.
by Auswolf on Aug 13, 2009 3:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I think everyone is forgetting
is that the US economy is still very much in recession and the $$$$ for promotional/advertising/endorsement that have been historically available are simply not there.
Look at how many events on the PGA tour have lost sponsorship. Golfers have lost product sponsors. NASCAR has lost car and event sponsors. Ad World reported that Adidas is rumored to be looking to cut in half the number of Pro Athletes they sponsor. NIKE has even cut back.
To assume Rubio, who I admit has great “blogger/insider buzz” but far less general population buzz, is going to get large $$$$ endorsement deals right now is in my opinion more than a little optimistic. (If it was such a slam dunk, it would be down by now!!)
by Just A Fan on Aug 13, 2009 9:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
international
not only would RR hsvr nstional contracts, he would also be big in Europe and for marketing there.
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Aug 13, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure I said right now in any event
and the economic downturn, while starting in the US, is everywhere now.
Rubio has been consistent about hid desire to come to the NBA. If the only thing in question was money, then it would be over already.
Only cowards pray for rain.
by Auswolf on Aug 13, 2009 3:48 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Few Questions
1. How would Brooks and Flynn work better than Brooks and Rubio?
2. Why would the Wolves want Shane Battier if according to Kahn they’re not ready to contend?
3. How could Carl Landry start ahead of Al and Kevin Love?
I like all three players- this just doesn’t jibe.
by Jose Cordoba on Aug 12, 2009 8:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
But what about...
…Brooks and Dunn?
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Aug 12, 2009 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're retired.
Well, disbanded, but you know what I mean.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Aug 12, 2009 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Battier’s defense keeps him effective for a long time and his offense continues to improve. So he’s not the big star or cornerstone necessarily, but one very solid brick in the wall.
I’d say “filler” could be Brent Barry (for a year) so that the Wolves could bridge their “2” guard development with I’m all for that deal.
Does it take Ricky’s rights to seal the deal? It all depends on how sure you are that Ricky is coming to the Wolves.
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's Compare Upside
Battier Solid Starter- 4th Best Player on Championship team?
Landry Upper-Level- 7th Man
Brooks Possible Starter on Championship team
vs Ricky Rubio- Jason Kidd? Deux?- He’s the best comparsion in that he can potentially dominate a game with Passing Skills.
I’m not trying to knock these players who are all solid. I’m just confused as to why this would be a good idea for the long-term future of this franchise.
by Jose Cordoba on Aug 13, 2009 12:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Josh Childress, rookie scale, and Fran Vazquez.
by wayno on Aug 13, 2009 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brooks is proven, kept the Rockets in the playoff series against the Lakers. He can also play the 1 or 2 alongside another PG. Last season he did so with Alston then Lowry.
If Kahn wants to keep Cardinal for his leadership, he’s upgrading that role with Battier. Battier’s the real captain on the Rockets, he’s the who instructs the other players on the floor. Also having an all-young team that accumulates a lot of Ls can lead to a directionless disaster.
Does Landry have to start? Who on the T-Wolves roster is better than him as the first backup PF or C?
by wayno on Aug 12, 2009 8:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Rubio needs to stay
He’s worth the wait. I mean, Battier is one of my favorite players, but Rubio has too much of that superstar potential. Especially since we’ve got one of my new favorite players holding down the point till he gets here. As for Q, I’m not sure there’s much to be had other than minor salery changes…
by SF on Aug 12, 2009 9:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Realistically...
trading Q-Rich alone will bring someone similar to Darko, ZRandolph, or Telmadsmith.
by PoohRubio on Aug 12, 2009 9:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
it took me a second -- but that's funny!
The good news is that he can’t be traded for any of those guys.
Sincerely, I hope that Kahn is smarter than the rest of us. So far, Josh Smith looks like the best single player deal and that’s kinda scary.
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 10:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Q-Rich to Lakers for Morrison and Vujacic?
by TonyO on Aug 12, 2009 10:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
and just another catfight waiting to happen
by levi_mn on Aug 12, 2009 11:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dare I say it?
Yes, yes I dare:
Q for LMA! You’ve just been Kaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhnnnnnnnnnn’ddddd!!!!!!!!!
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Aug 12, 2009 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Finally -
Someone has said what Kahn is really going for GOD LMA!!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahaha
please no. :(
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Aug 13, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm really confused as to why Kahn would want to trade Q Rich right now.
If he means what he says, that just doesn’t make sense. A 9 million dollar expiring contract is a big trade chip, especially when thrown in a package for an upcoming, potentially star-caliber player.
Why waste it now for limited talent along the lines of Darko Milicic? If Kahn trades Richardson’s contract alone for a minor role player, then that’s very poor management.
It would essentially be a very good backup point guard and a matchup-based effective post scorer (Telfair and Smith) for a Darko Milicic-level talent. And that’s just dumb.
by LoveTo on Aug 13, 2009 1:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
expiring contracts aren't all that...
LaFrentz’s (80% covered by insurance) and WallyZ’s expiring contracts last season couldn’t get anything done at the trade deadline.
by wayno on Aug 13, 2009 9:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anything we could do with the Hornets?
They basically sold Rasual Butler to the Clips for cash and a conditional 2016 2nd round pick.
Only cowards pray for rain.
by Auswolf on Aug 13, 2009 2:03 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking the same thing...
…I am no good at these trade scenarios, expecially when a team like New Orleans seems desperate to get under the lux. But, here is my idea:
Q-Rich for Antonio Daniels + Julian Wright.
I think NO gets under the lux. We Daniels expiring and add a young wing player. No idea of whether that is even remotely plausible, though.
by Grover M on Aug 13, 2009 7:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Julian Wright.. Reminds me of a less-spastic Brewer with a little muscle and some ability to actually handle the rock, plus I think he has an option for 2010..
Unfortunately, the #‘s don’t seem to match up. From what I’m seeing, it looks like NO would actually be taking on extra money through next year with the way you have it set up (correct me if I’m wrong, though!) – Q’s deal is 9.3 mill and Daniels + Wright is 8.8. Maybe throw in Devin Brown too? That would save them .6 million next year, but is that enough for them to give up on Wright? And could we take on 3 players?
Jennings: F*** the Knicks, them n***** is always going to be weak.
by Xand1 on Aug 13, 2009 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A more likely NO scenario....
I would prefer a deal at the end of September that would send Songalia + Atkins for Daniels + Wright. NOH then cuts Atkins and possibly sneaks back under the luxury tax line so this deal would be far more attractive to them. They would have to take on salary next year but they weren’t planning on being players in the 2010 free agent market so it would make sense to save themselves lots of money this year. The one major issue is that if the cap and tax line come down next year they could be paying far more than they would this year.
by jballer_13 on Aug 13, 2009 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only way Rubio
gets traded is if Kahn feels that he is getting better long-term assets. To many teams trade for the win now type that we all view who wins the trades through this lens. There would have to be a serious yound prospects on a rookie deal or a superstar included in the package. I just don’t see other teams including a superstar and if they are still high on your young prospect…they won’t want to include them either. I will personally start email spamming people to get Kahn fired if he does a deal like trade rubio for above average but not very good players.
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 13, 2009 7:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Strikes me that Kahn is fishing.
He’s just put out a line with a big expiring at the end of it. I’m sure that he has been in contact with teams, or has an idea of who would be interested. Still, openly stating this seems to be a way to see if anyone is getting a little anxious to get something squared away right now. Otherwise, I don’t think we’d hear anything that could pin Kahn down.
by Krotz the Wall on Aug 13, 2009 10:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Would you consider Richardson to be on the same level as Josh Smith and Rudy Gay? I would compare Richardson to Mike Miller, so he’s average. Teams aren’t going to trade an asset for him, unless they are desperate to get under-the-cap. I would love to see the Wolves get something for Richardson, but don’t want to see another linear deal.
Addtionally, I don’t see Rubio going anywhere. TheEvilProfessor, why would you want Kahn to be fired? I’d hate to see Kahn get fired.
Has anyone seen TimAllen?
by firedavidkahn on Aug 13, 2009 2:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
My only point was that if I saw
a change in course like trading Rubio for a mid level talent with a huge contract, I would be disappointed and that would be the first real indicator of Kahn’s talent evaluation. I was being a little dramatic. I don’t think that they will trade him either. I was just saying.
By the way you have to see the irony of discussing the firing of kahn with firedavidkahn where firedavidkahn is defending david kahn. ")
by TheEvilProfessor on Aug 13, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was only kidding
I still think Kahn’s a bozo.
by firedavidkahn on Aug 13, 2009 11:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Few Points
1. There is no chance of a Rudy Gay sign and trade. What appeal is there for Memphis to dump Gay for Cap Space in 2010? I would think a Josh Smith trade is unlikely although if his contract is undesirable with a couple 1’s added- perhaps.
2. Mike Miller’s a vastly better player than Quentin Richardson going off of Win-Score Numbers.
3. I tend to doubt Rubio’s traded just because of the potential marketing value for this franchise. His presence is the only hope to sell Season Tickets. This doesn’t even bring up his basketball skills.
4. I haven’t seen Tim Allen nor do I generally see most posters on this blog. I’m unsure if he’s afraid to have further debates about Syntax.
by Jose Cordoba on Aug 13, 2009 3:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
OT: Rubio...sorry
I know that’s not what this post is about, but lets be honest. We can’t really be sure about anything Twolves wise for next season until the Rubio situation is resolved. IMO running isn’t as important if we don’t have Rubio leading it. So my question is simple:
I know that we’re just waiting on the buyout and hoping to agree to a figure. It looks promising that Rubio will come over. But what I want to know is when we can expect this to be resolved by? Is there a good chance we go on like this for another month or two? I’m hoping some of you have the answer. I am just tired of checking all the news all time only to hear the same thing. I don’t want to spend my time trying to see who’s lying in the Euro media, I just want to be able to check what happened AFTER it is resolved. If anyone has some ideas, that’d be sweet.
Great, now Kansas City has TWO delusional GM's who think that contending in 2010 is still a possibility. Note to an NFL GM: if you win 2 games one year, dont expect signing four players whose ages sum to 141 and expect to make the playoffs the next year. Super reach for Tyson Jackson, huge contract to a QB who's still very much a question mark, questionable FA signing, why have we already given Pioli the benefit of the doubt? On the other hand, I have nothin to say about Dayton Moore, he's dead to me.
by RoyalFlush on Aug 13, 2009 4:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
