Pops and/or Hibachi
Two players that have commensurate potential risk and reward: Pops Mensah-Bonsu, and Gilbert Arenas. Could and should the Wolves go after either or both?
Toronto is going to waive Pops, and is expected to try pick him back up on a 10-day contract if he clears waivers. Is the Wolves front court so good that they can afford to ignore the high-energy D-League superstar?
On the other side of the cost/benefit scale, the Washington Post says that Gilbert is so untouchable in the NBA right now that the Bullets Wizards would have to include some combo of picks, prospects, and expirings to get anybody to take the prolific shooter scorer, and may have to take back a bad contract as well. Is there any combination of assets that the Wolves and Wizards could swap that would cause you to pull the trigger on be interested in taking back what has been described as "one of the worst contracts in the league"?
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
One angle to consider on Silly Gilly . . .
. . . is that depending on the “morals clause” in his contract and any subsequent criminal complaints, the Deal from Hell could be voided. Could an enterprising POBO with league office connections be able to pull off something like, “Hey Gilbert, it’s in our right to void your contract completely. Instead of taking that drastic measure, let’s redo it for say, five years at five million per, mmkay? Sign here, here, and here.”
I'd go more along the line of:
We’ll pay you the rest of this season and the next two, but you agree to opt out after that. It would make him a valuable expiring contract in two years.
Of course, I wouldn’t even consider it unless Washington throws in their 1st rounder (unprotected) next summer! They might just go for it.
Sounds like a good way to
lose a couple more draft picks.
Arenas
I don’t think I’d make Arenas a trade target option at this time
Illinois: My governor is a bigger crook than your governor
I'm the only one who voted for "Yes, if... ?"
Getting Javale McGee could set our frontcourt rotation for years and years.
A first-rounder from Washington would likely be a pretty good one, especially if they replace Arenas and McGee with Cardinal and Blount.
It’d tie up our cap space, but rolling the dice on Arenas returning to form (and he’s really good when he’s healthy, right? If this gun thing blows over, why can’t he be an explosive 25 ppg scorer?) in addition to adding two other valuable, young pieces and without giving up ANY talent? It would be a risky move, but I like it.
McGee
The talent package is there, but by accounts, McGee is quite deficient in the BBIQ area.
I don’t think that Washington can trade their pick at this point either being they traded last years.
Overall the deal would be a huge risk, but it’s not like Arenas isn’t good anymore. He’s just not quite the star he once was and he’s got a massive contract.
McGee...
..is the son of a WNBA player. 1st in the league. He better have BBIQ.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Even at his peak, Arenas wasn't that good
He always was a chucker, who at his best got to the line just often enough to make it worthwhile from an efficiency standpoint. However, we might never see semi-efficient Gilbert again, given his injuries and other issues. Not to mention you still have to decide whether to play him at PG and have your offense suffer or at SG and have your defense suffer.
Make him a SG and find a big facilitating PG
who can play D on SG. Oddly enough that might be Rubio someday if he can add enough mucle).
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 7, 2010 9:25 AM CST up reply actions
Can't do it...
I really want the Wolves to find a deal like this one, where we can prey on a team in financial trouble, but that Arenas contract is going to look a lot like Steve Francis’ and Stephon Marbury’s old ones that had high 8-figures left on it with zero or negative production. I think his career is headed south. Fast.
Too much money to consider for a draft pick or young player like McGee.
I kinda like it
He’s just the type of gunner we need. A shooter with range. An assasin. Deadly from anywhere on the court. He steps in the gym and he’s ready to shoot.
If we get good, we’d be on TnT, and Kevin Harlan would have to be very careful not to use his “right between the eyes!” line.
Seriously, this is not my first choice (and I think that Washington is PRAYING) right now that they can void his contract), but let’s say we get to the deadline, and Gilbert looks like he’s healed and is playing well, the contract can’t be voided, and the Bullets are even more desperate to unload him. Say they are in line to get a top 5 pick in the draft. Wouldn’t you take that pick, McGee and Gil? I’d throw Flynn in there as well. If he’s healthy, I’d like to see Gil playing with Rubio.
Good points
and I’m sorry to shoot down your proposal, but before we take aim at the Wiz first pick for next year, since the Wolves already bagged their pick from this year, wouldn’t Washington be prohibited from trading that pick due to the can’t-trade-first-round-picks-in-consecutive-years restriction?
If all guns are outlawed, 75% of NBA players will be outlaws
Couldn't we fix that by giving them Utah's pick?
If I remember correctly, the rule is that you can’t have no first-round picks two years in a row. It doesn’t necessarily have to be their own. So:
Blount, Cardinal, etc., Utah pick, Flynn (?)
for
Washington pick (top 10), Arenas, McGee
I like it.
Is the rule two picks in a row can't be traded
retroactively? Two picks in a row in the future can’t be traded, but does the league back date like a Democrat tax increase??
This could actually be an ideal scenario for a three team trade. The Wolves could get another team’s 1st rounder while not having to absorb the entire cost of Arenas??
In regards to the picks
I don’t think you can trade a future first if your current year first has already been traded. It was to prevent teams from including 2+ firsts in one deal or something like that. I think they can trade their first.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 6, 2010 9:23 AM CST up reply actions
And to restate: I believe if we were to send Washington our lowest first, they could in turn send us their lotto first. A team just needs a first round draft pick, not specifically their own first round draft pick, in consecutive years, unless you sign a player to an under the table contract.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
Your restatement is incorrect
TheEvilProfessor had it right. The rule prohibits you from owing consecutive 1st rounders, not trading them. As Washington’s debt of the 2009 pick has already been paid, they are free to once again trade away their 2010 1st rounder without needing any sort of their pick/Utah pick swap.
I wish I could see it
but I just don’t. That Arenas contract is so bad, especially with the cap likely to go down for at least one more season, that I just can’t see enough other assets coming from Washington to make it worth while.
I know.
I first put a post together on “Hey, if we gave Washington all of our dreck, and they gave us Gilbert plus all their good stuff, it’s so crazy it just might work.” But between the injuries, the wackiness, and the guns ablazing, there is just no way you can concieve of a trade that makes sense.
Honestly though
Buy low sell high right?
IF Arenas is:
Guilty: Contract waived
Innocent: Slightly higher trade value (we get McGee and a first and we then trade him with a pick and net McGee? Or something close to that).

by 
















