Four Team Trade

AnotherDraftPickBitesTheDust brought this situation up a couple days ago and TheEvilProfessor just inspired me to take it a step further. On the surface, it seems as if Charlotte isn't getting enough, but adding a fourth team I think we can figure out how to get them to comply. If I am wrong and they are thrilled about doing this without the extra incentive, all the better.

This is what ADPBTD originally posted:



Tyson Chandler
Wizards Pick


Well I made this into a four team deal with Indiana. In this situation, there are some minor details that teams might need to work out for incentive, but on the surface it should work out as is. I can't put it through Trade Machine and make it work because they have restrictions on who you can select to be traded right now (player/team options and whatnot). I'll still post what I could add to it to show a close estimate of the trade. These numbers are for this year's salary, so it's just an estimate, but probably moderately close.


To the Timberwolves (In: $30.3M, Out: $24.2M):
Tyson Chandler (Expiring, resign for 1/3(?) the price for some nice Rubio oops)
Washington Pick (Use in package to get the 4th pick and Favors)
Danny Granger (Base year, so I don't know how far off this salary estimate will be. Anyone care to do the work?)
TJ Ford (Player Option, expiring in 2011)

To Charlotte (In: 20.1M, Out: 23M):
Gilbert Arenas
Ryan Gomes

To Washington (In: 17, Out: 16.1):
Boris Diaw
DJ Augustin
Kevin Love
Ryan Hollins (yeah, I found a way to work him in here!)

To Indiana (In: 15M, Out: 18.6):
Al Jefferson
Jonny Flynn
Utah Pick

Roster spots shouldn't be an issue for any teams as there should be plenty of expiring contracts to make room. Right now there is absolutely no need to include Indiana, but I figured we could use them to swap picks with Washington if they need that extra incentive and then we would end up with the Indiana pick instead and then have to include slightly more to move up to 4. Otherwise they could also be used for extra salary or it's possible we could somehow not have to take Ford back or we could grab Hibbert if you think one of these teams is currently getting a steal.

Why we do this trade: We lose out on Love, Flynn, and Jefferson. We get rid of Hollins(!!!!!!) and use Gomes as an incentive for Charlotte to go through with it (cut him and save the cash or keep him and use him if they want). A healthy Tyson Chandler would look really nice next to Rubio in a year if we can resign him on the cheap (Paul-esque alley oops... mmmm). Otherwise he is an expiring next year. We get the perfect 3 next to Rubio and Turner (good shooter, decent playmaker, above average rebounder, good all around basically). TJ Ford can back up Sessions for a year until Rubio gets here. We get somewhere around the 6th pick, which should make it moderately easy to move up for Favors with the Charlotte pick (might still need something else depending on who ends up at 4). We solve the Love/Jefferson deathmatch completely. Did I mention we get rid of Hollins? Do we do it? Are we giving up too much, just the right amount, or am I being a homer?

Why Charlotte does it: Charlotte gets to save a nice chunk of cash in this deal by getting rid of Chandler and Diaw's contracts. They get Arenas. This is something that could definitely kill the deal, but they are saving money so it might be worth it to take on Arenas and hope he can turn things back around. High potential here for them and I'd say relatively low risk for a guy who pulled a gun on someone. He'd be a nice offensive complement for a team that is solid on defense. Does Charlotte do it? Too little, too much, or just right?

Why Washington does it: They finally find a suitor for Arenas and get to end this escapade once and for all. They take on minimal salary, but acquire quite a bit of talent. The way I see it is that they get to get rid of Arenas and then they are trading their pick (possibly Wes Johnson territory) and taking on the contracts of Diaw and Hollins for Love, Augustin, and Diaw (still talented despite the contract). Does Washington do it? Too little, too much, or just right?

Why does Indiana do it: Indiana gives up their star to grab a low post scorer who could look really nice next to Roy Hibbert. They also get to test drive Jonny Flynn in an offense that is much more suited to his skill set. They get rid of 8.5M of dead weight and bad locker room presence (from what I hear... that might not be true anymore). They save a bit of cash and get a draft pick in a deep draft. IF necessary, they would even get Washington's pick in exchange for their own (which would then go to us) and get to grab Wes Johnson. Personally, I think Danny Grangers market value is equal to that deal without the pick swap, but I could be wrong. Another option would be to use the Charlotte pick instead of the Utah pick... but what has more value? The Charlotte pick over the Utah pick or the Washington pick over the Indiana pick? Depends on how much you think the talent drops off between 5 and 10 I guess. Does Indiana do it? Too little, too much, or just right?


 Ultimately, our goal with this trade is to end up with a big, athletic, well balanced lineup that looks something like this (the number in the parentheses is a guess at what the starter's realistic upside could be as an option... and yes I used decimals! No one said I couldn't.):

Rubio/Sessions (2.5)
Turner/Ellington (1.5)
Granger/Brewer (2.25)
Favors/Chandler (2)
Darko/Chandler (If we keep Pek and not Darko, then Chandler starts at 5 with Pek being the 4/5) (4.5)

As you can tell, I don't think any of these guys will really be a superstar #1, but there is definitely potential at every spot.  Any of these guys could turn into a superstar, but it's more realistic to expect them all to be the second option at best. But with 4 second options... that's better than Piston territory (I'd argue they had a couple 2s, a couple 3s, and a 4. Debatable though). I'd say Favors and Turner both have that superstar potential, but I don't think either of them will reach that and I think Favors will probably end up as a really good 4th option who can get his work done in the post when needed. Granger already seems like a pretty solid second option, third at worst. Rubio could be the perfect facilitator for a lineup that is solid throughout. I wouldn't mind if he averaged 4 and 14 with this lineup!

In addition, we have the ability to sign a guy like Mike Miller (or use him as a S&T to get the trade done if needed) or Josh Childress if we need to include Brewer and/or Ellington to get these deals done.

What do you think? Could we pull this off? Is there a team that is giving up too much or not enough?

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior users will need to choose a permanent username, along with a new password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

I already have a Vox Media account!

Verify Vox Media account

Please login to your Vox Media account. This account will be linked to your previously existing Eater account.

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Canis Hoopus

You must be a member of Canis Hoopus to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Canis Hoopus. You should read them.

Join Canis Hoopus

You must be a member of Canis Hoopus to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Canis Hoopus. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.