Phx-Suns.Net

O_Gardino wrote:

Split T wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Indy wrote:

ShelC wrote:Anderson seems to be the guy no one wants, that's why they're looking now for a 4th team. We have the room specifically for that, but if we're taking on Anderson's deal we gotta give up Knight and not Bledsoe.

Or both?

I would absolutely do Knight annd Bled for Anderson and future picks. Is Ulis the PG, then, or do we look to bring in a vet like Sessions.

Even if you just want Bledsoe gone, this is a terrible trade. Anderson has one of the 5 worst contracts in the league. He's got more negative value than Knight. You're trading bled for 6 million extra per year on knights contract and two crappy firsts. He's got way more value than that.

Depends on the 1sts.

They'd be coming from Houston, they'll be late 20's.

O_Gardino wrote:I would absolutely do Knight annd Bled for Anderson and future picks. Is Ulis the PG, then, or do we look to bring in a vet like Sessions.

I don't like this trade suggestion. Anderson has a toxic contract, something like $20m/yr for 3 more years. Why would we trade Bledsoe, an actual asset and valuable player, for that? We shit on Bledsoe a lot (myself included) but he's basically an average-level starting NBA point guard in the prime of his career. I am fine with shipping him out if we get good assets back, but those "future picks" would have to be really really good to make me want anything to do with a deal like this.

I'd take on Anderson's contract if we got picks from NY and Houston with no protections on them (at least from Houston) and maybe someone like Hernangomez from NY.

I don't think this trade is perfect, but something along the lines of:

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y6ur6p4t

With 2 or 3 first rounders coming to us. Again, not perfect, and definitely creates a logjam at forward, but maybe you work out a buyout with Anderson or something....

wpmiller42 wrote:I'd take on Anderson's contract if we got picks from NY and Houston with no protections on them (at least from Houston) and maybe someone like Hernangomez from NY.

I don't think this trade is perfect, but something along the lines of:

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y6ur6p4t

With 2 or 3 first rounders coming to us. Again, not perfect, and definitely creates a logjam at forward, but maybe you work out a buyout with Anderson or something....

-18 wins? That's pretty impressive for a team that only won 24 last year.

Cap wrote:

wpmiller42 wrote:I'd take on Anderson's contract if we got picks from NY and Houston with no protections on them (at least from Houston) and maybe someone like Hernangomez from NY.

I don't think this trade is perfect, but something along the lines of:

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y6ur6p4t

With 2 or 3 first rounders coming to us. Again, not perfect, and definitely creates a logjam at forward, but maybe you work out a buyout with Anderson or something....

-18 wins? That's pretty impressive for a team that only won 24 last year.

Woo-hoo!! 6-76!

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:I would absolutely do Knight annd Bled for Anderson and future picks. Is Ulis the PG, then, or do we look to bring in a vet like Sessions.

I don't like this trade suggestion. Anderson has a toxic contract, something like $20m/yr for 3 more years. Why would we trade Bledsoe, an actual asset and valuable player, for that? We s*** on Bledsoe a lot (myself included) but he's basically an average-level starting NBA point guard in the prime of his career. I am fine with shipping him out if we get good assets back, but those "future picks" would have to be really really good to make me want anything to do with a deal like this.

I understand why folks think we could do more, but I believe a couple of things that would make that trade ok for me.
1. Bled will get injured again soon and will not be much of an asset.
2. Knight is toxic in our locker room if he returns, but Anderson would be helpful for the development of our young bigs.
3. Houston is looking at a short window of success. A 2021 pick from Houston is going to be a good pick.

But, hey, if you have a better idea, let's hear it.

O_Gardino wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:I would absolutely do Knight annd Bled for Anderson and future picks. Is Ulis the PG, then, or do we look to bring in a vet like Sessions.

I don't like this trade suggestion. Anderson has a toxic contract, something like $20m/yr for 3 more years. Why would we trade Bledsoe, an actual asset and valuable player, for that? We s*** on Bledsoe a lot (myself included) but he's basically an average-level starting NBA point guard in the prime of his career. I am fine with shipping him out if we get good assets back, but those "future picks" would have to be really really good to make me want anything to do with a deal like this.

I understand why folks think we could do more, but I believe a couple of things that would make that trade ok for me.
1. Bled will get injured again soon and will not be much of an asset.
2. Knight is toxic in our locker room if he returns, but Anderson would be helpful for the development of our young bigs.
3. Houston is looking at a short window of success. A 2021 pick from Houston is going to be a good pick.

But, hey, if you have a better idea, let's hear it.

1. You don't know that
2. Knight hasn't shown any indication of being toxic
3. Harden is locked up through 2023, they'll be fine.

These are similar assumptions we made when trading for Knight. We assumed Knight would continue to improve and that the Lakers would get better and make that pick not so valuable. What if we make this trade and Bledsoe has a Lowry like career and all we get is the 28th and 26th picks in 2019/2021?

Sorry, not a fan of that trade at all.

Split T wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Indy wrote:

ShelC wrote:Anderson seems to be the guy no one wants, that's why they're looking now for a 4th team. We have the room specifically for that, but if we're taking on Anderson's deal we gotta give up Knight and not Bledsoe.

Or both?

I would absolutely do Knight annd Bled for Anderson and future picks. Is Ulis the PG, then, or do we look to bring in a vet like Sessions.

Even if you just want Bledsoe gone, this is a terrible trade. Anderson has one of the 5 worst contracts in the league. He's got more negative value than Knight. You're trading bled for 6 million extra per year on knights contract and two crappy firsts. He's got way more value than that.

I am not sure he does. It takes you two hands to count all of the PGs a team would want over Bledsoe. That really limits his value. PG is stacked in the league.

Regarding Knight not showing an indication of being toxic....he was absolutely a pro last year given the situation. We're asking for trouble if we head into training camp with him on the roster in the same situation. Check out the "Brandon Knight is done in Phoenix" thread and what Gambo had to say.

Split T wrote:These are similar assumptions we made when trading for Knight. We assumed Knight would continue to improve and that the Lakers would get better and make that pick not so valuable. What if we make this trade and Bledsoe has a Lowry like career and all we get is the 28th and 26th picks in 2019/2021?

That is what's happening. At least according to LaVar Ball, the Lakers are making the playoffs this year.

If there were a team that actually wanted Knight on the court playing for them, he'd probably already be there. It's looking like the only way to move him is to package him with an asset to make him a problem on the end of someone else's bench.

ShelC wrote:Regarding Knight not showing an indication of being toxic....he was absolutely a pro last year given the situation. We're asking for trouble if we head into training camp with him on the roster in the same situation. Check out the "Brandon Knight is done in Phoenix" thread and what Gambo had to say.

This. I really appreciate Brandon's public professionalism last season. I would not press my luck.

Superbone wrote:

Split T wrote:These are similar assumptions we made when trading for Knight. We assumed Knight would continue to improve and that the Lakers would get better and make that pick not so valuable. What if we make this trade and Bledsoe has a Lowry like career and all we get is the 28th and 26th picks in 2019/2021?

That is what's happening. At least according to LaVar Ball, the Lakers are making the playoffs this year.

Lakers could be decent this year, but the West is so loaded they won't move up the standings much. Ball-KCP-Ingram-Randle-Brook is decent and could win some games. My point was more based on the Lakers getting good in 2016 and 2017, which they didn't. They just happened to be bad enough and lucky enough to keep their pick.

https://twitter.com/daldridgetnt/status/885575648739172352
There's also this from the San Antonio Express

League sources tell the Express-News the Spurs didn’t offer Simmons their mid-level exception, which would have given him a salary of $8.4 million next season. That is the limit for a restricted free agent with two years in the league in the first year of a new contract.

After talks on a new contract stalled, a sign-and-trade with the Phoenix Suns was proposed that would have brought center Tyson Chandler of the Phoenix Suns to the Spurs for Simmons. But the Spurs were reluctant to assume the remaining two years and roughly $26 million on Chandler’s contract.

bajanguy008 wrote:League sources tell the Express-News the Spurs didn’t offer Simmons their mid-level exception, which would have given him a salary of $8.4 million next season. That is the limit for a restricted free agent with two years in the league in the first year of a new contract.

After talks on a new contract stalled, a sign-and-trade with the Phoenix Suns was proposed that would have brought center Tyson Chandler of the Phoenix Suns to the Spurs for Simmons. But the Spurs were reluctant to assume the remaining two years and roughly $26 million on Chandler’s contract.

Too bad. Would have been a good situation for Chandler.

Split T wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:I would absolutely do Knight annd Bled for Anderson and future picks. Is Ulis the PG, then, or do we look to bring in a vet like Sessions.

I don't like this trade suggestion. Anderson has a toxic contract, something like $20m/yr for 3 more years. Why would we trade Bledsoe, an actual asset and valuable player, for that? We s*** on Bledsoe a lot (myself included) but he's basically an average-level starting NBA point guard in the prime of his career. I am fine with shipping him out if we get good assets back, but those "future picks" would have to be really really good to make me want anything to do with a deal like this.

I understand why folks think we could do more, but I believe a couple of things that would make that trade ok for me.
1. Bled will get injured again soon and will not be much of an asset.
2. Knight is toxic in our locker room if he returns, but Anderson would be helpful for the development of our young bigs.
3. Houston is looking at a short window of success. A 2021 pick from Houston is going to be a good pick.

But, hey, if you have a better idea, let's hear it.

1. You don't know that
2. Knight hasn't shown any indication of being toxic
3. Harden is locked up through 2023, they'll be fine.

These are similar assumptions we made when trading for Knight. We assumed Knight would continue to improve and that the Lakers would get better and make that pick not so valuable. What if we make this trade and Bledsoe has a Lowry like career and all we get is the 28th and 26th picks in 2019/2021?

You're salty today, Split. I like it!

1. That's why I said I Believe. But he has a history of getting injured literally every other year in his career, and his value can't be super high as it is.
2. If we bring him back, it'll be rough. He's not a dick, bt it's rough working closely with an unhappy coworker, especially on a small team.
3. The Rockets aren't the Knicks, but I find it hard to imagine a team selling assets and role players to build on Harden, Paul, Melo, and Mike D is going to be good 4 years from now.

I'm not taking a gamble on a draft pick that might be good 4 years from now.

O_Gardino wrote:

Split T wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:I would absolutely do Knight annd Bled for Anderson and future picks. Is Ulis the PG, then, or do we look to bring in a vet like Sessions.

I don't like this trade suggestion. Anderson has a toxic contract, something like $20m/yr for 3 more years. Why would we trade Bledsoe, an actual asset and valuable player, for that? We s*** on Bledsoe a lot (myself included) but he's basically an average-level starting NBA point guard in the prime of his career. I am fine with shipping him out if we get good assets back, but those "future picks" would have to be really really good to make me want anything to do with a deal like this.

I understand why folks think we could do more, but I believe a couple of things that would make that trade ok for me.
1. Bled will get injured again soon and will not be much of an asset.
2. Knight is toxic in our locker room if he returns, but Anderson would be helpful for the development of our young bigs.
3. Houston is looking at a short window of success. A 2021 pick from Houston is going to be a good pick.

But, hey, if you have a better idea, let's hear it.

1. You don't know that
2. Knight hasn't shown any indication of being toxic
3. Harden is locked up through 2023, they'll be fine.

These are similar assumptions we made when trading for Knight. We assumed Knight would continue to improve and that the Lakers would get better and make that pick not so valuable. What if we make this trade and Bledsoe has a Lowry like career and all we get is the 28th and 26th picks in 2019/2021?

You're salty today, Split. I like it!

1. That's why I said I Believe. But he has a history of getting injured literally every other year in his career, and his value can't be super high as it is.
2. If we bring him back, it'll be rough. He's not a dick, bt it's rough working closely with an unhappy coworker, especially on a small team.
3. The Rockets aren't the Knicks, but I find it hard to imagine a team selling assets and role players to build on Harden, Paul, Melo, and Mike D is going to be good 4 years from now.

Haha, you could be right. I guess we'll see what happens. Moving Bledsoe for two future firsts feels like a backwards move to me. That's trading a quarter for two dimes. I think we need to be packaging our quarters for dollar bills.

Split T wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Split T wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:
I don't like this trade suggestion. Anderson has a toxic contract, something like $20m/yr for 3 more years. Why would we trade Bledsoe, an actual asset and valuable player, for that? We s*** on Bledsoe a lot (myself included) but he's basically an average-level starting NBA point guard in the prime of his career. I am fine with shipping him out if we get good assets back, but those "future picks" would have to be really really good to make me want anything to do with a deal like this.

I understand why folks think we could do more, but I believe a couple of things that would make that trade ok for me.
1. Bled will get injured again soon and will not be much of an asset.
2. Knight is toxic in our locker room if he returns, but Anderson would be helpful for the development of our young bigs.
3. Houston is looking at a short window of success. A 2021 pick from Houston is going to be a good pick.

But, hey, if you have a better idea, let's hear it.

1. You don't know that
2. Knight hasn't shown any indication of being toxic
3. Harden is locked up through 2023, they'll be fine.

These are similar assumptions we made when trading for Knight. We assumed Knight would continue to improve and that the Lakers would get better and make that pick not so valuable. What if we make this trade and Bledsoe has a Lowry like career and all we get is the 28th and 26th picks in 2019/2021?

You're salty today, Split. I like it!

1. That's why I said I Believe. But he has a history of getting injured literally every other year in his career, and his value can't be super high as it is.
2. If we bring him back, it'll be rough. He's not a dick, bt it's rough working closely with an unhappy coworker, especially on a small team.
3. The Rockets aren't the Knicks, but I find it hard to imagine a team selling assets and role players to build on Harden, Paul, Melo, and Mike D is going to be good 4 years from now.

Haha, you could be right. I guess we'll see what happens. Moving Bledsoe for two future firsts feels like a backwards move to me. That's trading a quarter for two dimes. I think we need to be packaging our quarters for dollar bills.

Where does he have that value, though?