Dan Gilbert
Former Cavaliers GM
Sophomore
Posts: 457
Apr 4, 2024 17:22:13 GMT
|
Post by Dan Gilbert on May 19, 2012 14:06:05 GMT
Trade 76 Tristan Thompson $3,726,600 $3,894,240 $4,062,000 $5,138,430 $6,777,589 75 Anthony Parker $2,250,000Total Outgoing - $5,976,600 Trade 77 Wilson Chandler $7,400,000 $7,400,000 $7,400,000 $7,400,000 $7,400,000 67 Craig Brackins $1,404,960Total Outgoing - $8,804,960 I have cap space to take on the extra. I accept this deal because I still think Wilson Chandler is a quality starter in the NBA. I'm sure the Nuggets IRL still plan on using him as a starter since he started a majority of the games he played until he got hurt. He'd a pretty good defender at a spot where you need defense. Brackins is a project but you can never have too may bigs. It's tough to give up Thompson but I think in the long haul it will benefit us to have a guy like Chandler.
|
|
Isiah Thomas
Former Heat GM
Rookie
Posts: 103
Aug 12, 2012 23:58:26 GMT
|
Post by Isiah Thomas on May 20, 2012 1:28:18 GMT
Since you're trading Thompson and Jamison who will be your starting PF
|
|
Dan Gilbert
Former Cavaliers GM
Sophomore
Posts: 457
Apr 4, 2024 17:22:13 GMT
|
Post by Dan Gilbert on May 20, 2012 1:35:44 GMT
It's gonna be warrick for now but I have other things in the works
|
|
|
Post by Allen Iverson on May 20, 2012 4:05:55 GMT
I accept. This trade gives me a rising star Tristan Thompson, which I believe, will start for the Cavs IRL next season because of Jamison's expiring contract. Also got a veteran with Parker, a reliable shooter from outside and someone that brings in the the leadership that my young backcourt players need.
|
|
JP Inawat
Former Suns GM
Sophomore
Posts: 289
Aug 25, 2013 16:50:14 GMT
|
Post by JP Inawat on May 20, 2012 6:01:46 GMT
It's gonna be warrick for now but I have other things in the works You can make Lopez C and Varejao PF..
|
|
Dan Gilbert
Former Cavaliers GM
Sophomore
Posts: 457
Apr 4, 2024 17:22:13 GMT
|
Post by Dan Gilbert on May 20, 2012 13:41:59 GMT
It's gonna be warrick for now but I have other things in the works You can make Lopez C and Varejao PF.. Yeah, I had that in mind after I posted too
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 20, 2012 14:10:39 GMT
Sorry I don't think I can accept this trade because of the inclusion of Tristan Thompson.
Mr Gilbert it's obvious your team is in rebuilding mode so I've no idea why you would want to trade away exactly the kind of player you should be keeping. Thompson may not have performed hugely yet but his potential to do so vastly outweighs the worth of Wilson Chandler in this deal.
Also whilst Anthony Parker is old (b. 1975) he's expiring and you could get a lot more for him.
I reject.
|
|
Dan Gilbert
Former Cavaliers GM
Sophomore
Posts: 457
Apr 4, 2024 17:22:13 GMT
|
Post by Dan Gilbert on May 20, 2012 14:23:30 GMT
One game, lol. You're probably right, but with the crop of PF in this years draft, I figured I could add a piece like Chandler at a position that's hard to find good talent both on offense and defense, and pick up another solid option at PF in the draft. Let's face it, this team is not making the playoffs with what I have.
And no, I can't get more for Parker, believe me, I've tried, lol.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 7:36:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2012 14:41:23 GMT
There have been trades MUCH MORE unfair in this league than this one....
|
|
Lucas Lutkus
Former Bobcats GM
Sophomore
Posts: 684
Jul 16, 2013 9:57:53 GMT
|
Post by Lucas Lutkus on May 20, 2012 15:08:14 GMT
I think it's still unfair Sacramento.
Tristan Thompson has shown great development last season and is growing up to be a very good player in the near future
Wilson Chandler is a very good player, but he has already reached his peak.
If Cleveland is in rebuilding mode, like he said, i don't think he should give away a rookie for an experienced player like that.
It's almost the same thing of me trading Bismack Biyombo for, for example, Danillo Galinari. Galinari is a great player and would fit well in my roster, but i'm not going trade a prospect to a very good player, not if i'm rebuilding.
|
|
Dan Gilbert
Former Cavaliers GM
Sophomore
Posts: 457
Apr 4, 2024 17:22:13 GMT
|
Post by Dan Gilbert on May 20, 2012 15:21:12 GMT
I'm not giving away a rookie. I don't think Chandler has reached his ceiling yet. He's only 24 and was the Nuggets best player last season. He just signed in China and missed the whole NBA season because his team was playing for a championship.
I will admit I didn't do much research on Thompson before I pulled the trigger on this deal but I do like some of the other options in the draft this year over him though. I'm pretty sure my pick is going to be Top 5, so I lock up a pretty good wing player, then draft a big who has just as much potential.
I'm not concerned with Parker's expiring because there isn't anyone I'm really trying to go after in this off-season. Most of my contracts come off the books in 2 years, when guys like OJ Mayo, Roy Hibbert, Andrew Bynum, Dwight Howard, Josh Smith etc. are schedule to hit the FA market.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 20, 2012 15:26:15 GMT
I think Gallinari is a bad example. Gallinari actually has trade value.
In this trade Thompson has the potential to be a great player, which gives him a lot of trade value and perfectly fits the Cavs for where they're at as a franchise: rebuilding. Wilson Chandler has very little potential, we already know he's not a great player and he will play a reduced role at most as the Cavs progress.
I don't see any reason at all, other than a misplaced overrating of Chandler, for the Cavs to make this trade.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 7:36:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2012 15:33:05 GMT
I think it's still unfair Sacramento. Tristan Thompson has shown great development last season and is growing up to be a very good player in the near future Wilson Chandler is a very good player, but he has already reached his peak. If Cleveland is in rebuilding mode, like he said, i don't think he should give away a rookie for an experienced player like that. It's almost the same thing of me trading Bismack Biyombo for, for example, Danillo Galinari. Galinari is a great player and would fit well in my roster, but i'm not going trade a prospect to a very good player, not if i'm rebuilding. Well the TC's logic on other trades has been "let the GM's do what they will." You can't tell me this trade is worse, off the top of my head, than ALL of Memphis' trades or the NJ/Dallas Trade that sent Carter and Marion to the Nets for Marshawn Brooks. I think the NJ/Dallas trade is comparable because you have a young guy who shows promises and a team breaking the bank to get him...I mean he is only averaging 12 points a game. In this trade, it is basically Chandler for Thompson...Parker is washed up. Chandler performed well in both New York and Denver, and like CLE said went to China but will be back next year. He's a pretty good NBA Player, and we do not know what Tristan Thompson will become. Sometimes, players on bad teams put up inflated stats (IE: Marcin Gortat) and I think both Brooks and Thompson will prove to be that. Actually, Thompson is averaging 8 and 6....not really all that great considering his team. I could see making CLE take Parker out, even though it kind of goes against what the TC has been saying, but this trade for the most part is fair enough to pass. You guys are acting like Wilson Chandler is a scrub, but heck he put up 9/5 in 8 games for the Nuggets this year. Chandler is only 4 years older than Thompson, and has 5 seasons putting up between 12 and 16 ppg. Additionally, he averages 5.2 rebounds per game and 1.8 assists per game. Thus, I feel as though Chandler is much more proven than Thompson, and you could make the case Chandler is more valuable.
|
|
Dan Gilbert
Former Cavaliers GM
Sophomore
Posts: 457
Apr 4, 2024 17:22:13 GMT
|
Post by Dan Gilbert on May 20, 2012 15:37:13 GMT
Personal opinion of a player.
No one was giving Thompson much value when I was trying to make moves before. Now that I moved him for Chandler he's a perennial all-star type player.
Oh well, not too concerned if this gets accepted or rejected. I've said why I'm doing it.
|
|
Dan Gilbert
Former Cavaliers GM
Sophomore
Posts: 457
Apr 4, 2024 17:22:13 GMT
|
Post by Dan Gilbert on May 20, 2012 15:40:52 GMT
I think it's still unfair Sacramento. Tristan Thompson has shown great development last season and is growing up to be a very good player in the near future Wilson Chandler is a very good player, but he has already reached his peak. If Cleveland is in rebuilding mode, like he said, i don't think he should give away a rookie for an experienced player like that. It's almost the same thing of me trading Bismack Biyombo for, for example, Danillo Galinari. Galinari is a great player and would fit well in my roster, but i'm not going trade a prospect to a very good player, not if i'm rebuilding. Well the TC's logic on other trades has been "let the GM's do what they will." You can't tell me this trade is worse, off the top of my head, than ALL of Memphis' trades or the NJ/Dallas Trade that sent Carter and Marion to the Nets for Marshawn Brooks. I think the NJ/Dallas trade is comparable because you have a young guy who shows promises and a team breaking the bank to get him...I mean he is only averaging 12 points a game. In this trade, it is basically Chandler for Thompson...Parker is washed up. Chandler performed well in both New York and Denver, and like CLE said went to China but will be back next year. He's a pretty good NBA Player, and we do not know what Tristan Thompson will become. Sometimes, players on bad teams put up inflated stats (IE: Marcin Gortat) and I think both Brooks and Thompson will prove to be that. Actually, Thompson is averaging 8 and 6....not really all that great considering his team. I could see making CLE take Parker out, even though it kind of goes against what the TC has been saying, but this trade for the most part is fair enough to pass. You guys are acting like Wilson Chandler is a scrub, but heck he put up 9/5 in 8 games for the Nuggets this year. Chandler is only 4 years older than Thompson, and has 5 seasons putting up between 12 and 16 ppg. Additionally, he averages 5.2 rebounds per game and 1.8 assists per game. Thus, I feel as though Chandler is much more proven than Thompson, and you could make the case Chandler is more valuable. Well said sir . I was gonna post about stats and what not, like the fact Chandler averaged 26 and 11 in China, but whatever, lol.
|
|
Lucas Lutkus
Former Bobcats GM
Sophomore
Posts: 684
Jul 16, 2013 9:57:53 GMT
|
Post by Lucas Lutkus on May 20, 2012 15:42:34 GMT
I think it's still unfair Sacramento. Tristan Thompson has shown great development last season and is growing up to be a very good player in the near future Wilson Chandler is a very good player, but he has already reached his peak. If Cleveland is in rebuilding mode, like he said, i don't think he should give away a rookie for an experienced player like that. It's almost the same thing of me trading Bismack Biyombo for, for example, Danillo Galinari. Galinari is a great player and would fit well in my roster, but i'm not going trade a prospect to a very good player, not if i'm rebuilding. Well the TC's logic on other trades has been "let the GM's do what they will." You can't tell me this trade is worse, off the top of my head, than ALL of Memphis' trades or the NJ/Dallas Trade that sent Carter and Marion to the Nets for Marshawn Brooks. I think the NJ/Dallas trade is comparable because you have a young guy who shows promises and a team breaking the bank to get him...I mean he is only averaging 12 points a game. In this trade, it is basically Chandler for Thompson...Parker is washed up. Chandler performed well in both New York and Denver, and like CLE said went to China but will be back next year. He's a pretty good NBA Player, and we do not know what Tristan Thompson will become. Sometimes, players on bad teams put up inflated stats (IE: Marcin Gortat) and I think both Brooks and Thompson will prove to be that. Actually, Thompson is averaging 8 and 6....not really all that great considering his team. I could see making CLE take Parker out, even though it kind of goes against what the TC has been saying, but this trade for the most part is fair enough to pass. You guys are acting like Wilson Chandler is a scrub, but heck he put up 9/5 in 8 games for the Nuggets this year. Chandler is only 4 years older than Thompson, and has 5 seasons putting up between 12 and 16 ppg. Additionally, he averages 5.2 rebounds per game and 1.8 assists per game. Thus, I feel as though Chandler is much more proven than Thompson, and you could make the case Chandler is more valuable. I agree with you, in my oppinion, sometimes the trade commitee accepts or rejects trades thinking 'will i do this trade?' and not 'will this trade be done in real life?' We've seen worst trades in real life and in the D5, i don't think it's a rejectable trade.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 20, 2012 16:09:26 GMT
Well the TC's logic on other trades has been "let the GM's do what they will." No it has not. Rex there are so many contradictions in your reply here, I really don't like your analysis. Just to point out what I'm saying I'll work with numbers so we're being objective when I point out this one contradiction of many:
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on May 20, 2012 16:23:48 GMT
Its hard to judge the talent of anyone on the Cavaliers this season. They are so spread out talent-wise that the season ended with only Kyrie really differentiating himself from the monotony. Thompson had solid production, but we still don't know if he will pan out. For that reason, I'm going to treat this trade as if it were the 4th overall pick for Wilson Chandler.
I think Wilson Chandler is a somewhat proven guy, and even though he only played 8 games this year, he showed us a lot last season and the year before. He is a great defender and can stroke the three. He is never going to be a star, but will be a solid roleplayer for a lot of years.
So, a solid roleplayer for the 4th overall pick. I'm not too big on rookies, so I would usually accept this deal without a hitch. What I think tips the scale, and what no one seems to be talking about, is Chandler's contract. With this deal, you are locking in $7.4 million over the next 5 years for an injury-prone roleplayer. I think this is the exact type of move that a rebuilding team like Cleveland wants to avoid. If Thompson ends up busting, you can at least opt out and use the cap space towards something meaningful.
With all that being said, I'm still going to accept this deal. There's a lot going on here, and at the end of the day it really comes down to personal preference. Chandler had some signs of greatness, and he could easily develop into a Danny Granger type guy- which might warrant the extra salary being taken on. At the very least, Cleveland is getting a guy who is going to be a guaranteed started for the next few seasons. Thompson is still unproven, so there's no reason to overrate him. If both teams want to do this deal, I see no reason to reject.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Longley on May 20, 2012 17:45:20 GMT
I really don't see how this is any worse than Boston's trade with the Jazz - a more fitting comparison in my opinion, than my trade with Brooklyn. At least in this case, Cleveland is getting a 24-25 year-old player that's shown promise to be an above average starter(overall talent, not position-wise).
Don't tell me you're going to count him out just because of this season - He didn't even get a training camp and was placed in a roster where everyone is ready to contribute and there is always a ready replacement. Off the bat, he got 28 minutes. This is clearly a team that understands that he's a talented man and just needed him to get his game settled down after playing against a level of competition far lower than the NBA. Heck, the fact that they signed him to a 5-year contract immediately should at least show you that the Nuggets are looking to commit to him in the long-term.
He's a good player. Definitely has room to grow. I'd just really like to know when 25 became the ceiling for growth.
Cleveland is not only getting a proven talent, but a man with decent potential. Philly is getting a big-man with high but I'm pretty sure, not star upside. At least Cleveland isn't getting a 27-28 year old career role-player for their Top 5 pick.
|
|
JJ Savage
Founding OKC Thunder GM
Rookie
Posts: 111
Mar 18, 2014 14:23:29 GMT
|
Post by JJ Savage on May 20, 2012 17:47:04 GMT
This trade should definitely go through. The TC thinks way too much about potential. Thats the only problem i have with the TC. The GMs here have a plan with there team. They know what there doing. Let the trade go through. It matches up well ratings wise. Sure Thompson has potential, but you make it sounds like Chandlers 37 and retiring next year. Chandlers still mid 20's. hasnt hit his peak yet. The TC really needs to tone it down with all this immediate rejecting of deals. I can understand if its something like Lebron for Sefolosha. But in deals that are similar with ratings, there should not even be a discussion. Just my 2 cents. Trade should go through
|
|
Juan Pablo
Former Jazz GM
Rookie
Posts: 29
Jun 8, 2012 11:21:56 GMT
|
Post by Juan Pablo on May 20, 2012 17:56:51 GMT
I really don't see how this is any worse than Boston's trade with the Jazz - a more fitting comparison in my opinion, than my trade with Brooklyn. just a simple question, why were our trades accepted then?
|
|
Dan Gilbert
Former Cavaliers GM
Sophomore
Posts: 457
Apr 4, 2024 17:22:13 GMT
|
Post by Dan Gilbert on May 20, 2012 17:58:16 GMT
Too be fair, it was only Ian who rejected it, lol.
Still got plenty of other TC votes left
|
|
|
Post by Danny Longley on May 20, 2012 18:01:26 GMT
I really don't see how this is any worse than Boston's trade with the Jazz - a more fitting comparison in my opinion, than my trade with Brooklyn. just a simple question, why were our trades accepted then? Just because a trade was accepted doesn't mean it's fair. I'm sorry man, but I just really feel like you gave up way too much and could have gotten way more for a pair of lottery-picks. And I was saying if that trade got through, why not this?
|
|
JP Inawat
Former Suns GM
Sophomore
Posts: 289
Aug 25, 2013 16:50:14 GMT
|
Post by JP Inawat on May 20, 2012 18:05:42 GMT
I understand where Ian is coming from, but IMO, the committee should be more lax with dealing with trades. I agree with OKC that only those severely unfair trades should be rejected, because I believe we all have a vision for what our teams should look like. We wouldn't agree to any trades if we feel that it would cripple our franchise, right? And if there is a GM whose vision is to intentionally ruin their franchises, then they should be fired.
|
|
JJ Savage
Founding OKC Thunder GM
Rookie
Posts: 111
Mar 18, 2014 14:23:29 GMT
|
Post by JJ Savage on May 20, 2012 18:18:05 GMT
Couldnt agree more JP. Like i said before. Each team has a vision, or a plan of where there team is going to go. I wanted to deal Westbrook, so i did, for what i thought was a great replacement in D-Will. The TC should really have an overhaul, and only be able to reject deals that are completely one sided/unfair.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 7:36:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2012 18:31:27 GMT
Well the TC's logic on other trades has been "let the GM's do what they will." No it has not. Rex there are so many contradictions in your reply here, I really don't like your analysis. Just to point out what I'm saying I'll work with numbers so we're being objective when I point out this one contradiction of many: How is that a contradiction? You are acting like Thompson is great while Chandler is par, yet Thompson put up 8/6 while Chandler put up 9/5. Basically, I am saying that they are pretty comparable and while perhaps you prefer Thompson over Chandler others, myself and Cleveland included, might prefer Chandler. Oh, and I would like for you to point out another perceived "contradiction" so I could set the record straight for you. As far as my statement about the TC letting the GM's "do as they will", let me show you some quotes from committee members. At this point in their careers, Conley is the superior PG, however I don't believe this will be a crippling move to the Grizzlies franchise as Calderon is a decent replacement. I accept pending Memphis approval of the trade. I accept, Mayo has his limitations like Charlie V. I feel like Detroit is getting the better end of the deal as they are getting the player on a better contract but this isn't enough to warrant a reject. I don't think you're getting ripped off you're getting a proven player for a possible bust. If Brooklyn wanted he could put wallace at PF and start prince at SF. He also gets a couple million in cap space. I mean its not that bad of a trade especially with Brooklyn's improvements already. I'll accept. I gotta say I don't like this either. Prince is a 32 year old guy who's on the downside of his career. He has very little trade value so wont really make much of an improvement if you plan to re-trade him and you've already got Gerald Wallace at Small Forward so he'll hardly make any difference in your W/L ratio. I just don't understand it. That being said, this deal is only a bad one depending on how your pick turns out. Plus you proved yourself to be a long term GM back in the old D5 days so I'm willing to accept based on what I hear from the rest of the committee. Sounds like you guys are willing to let GM's build their team the way they want, so why not in this instance?
|
|
Juan Pablo
Former Jazz GM
Rookie
Posts: 29
Jun 8, 2012 11:21:56 GMT
|
Post by Juan Pablo on May 20, 2012 18:45:36 GMT
just a simple question, why were our trades accepted then? Just because a trade was accepted doesn't mean it's fair. I'm sorry man, but I just really feel like you gave up way too much and could have gotten way more for a pair of lottery-picks. And I was saying if that trade got through, why not this? you don't have to be sorry 'tol'. just like you, me and every other gm's in this league , we all had plans for our team imaginable or unimaginable. as far as i am concern this league wont be coined as a fantasy league or so if not with this trades and of those write ups we had in the D5PN MEDIA CENTER threads. i agreed and accepted this trade if thats what the -gm's involved- believed that will make their team in the win win situation. basically i am part of this league because i wanted to experience what it is to run an association in a more realistic way.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on May 20, 2012 19:49:16 GMT
I've gotta accept this one too. I happen to be a Chandler fan, and also like Tristan's upside. That being said, I feel like there should be consistency in the voting.
If Kanter (#3 pick) & Burks (#12 pick) are worth Brandon Bass (solid starter but never a star) and two scrubs.
THEN Tristan (#4 pick) & Anthony Parker (aging decent but decaying player) are worth Wilson Chandler (solid starter with more upside than Bass left (he's 2 years younger)), & a scrub.
I actually dislike the Kanter trade a good deal more, but that's partially my personal opinion on Bass v. Chandler...on overall value, this CLE/PHI trade is pretty decent.
Also, I never got a chance to vote on that BOS/UTA trade, so I feel like there's no problem with me saying that I dislike that trade a lot more even though it went through. Anyway...
Accept.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on May 20, 2012 20:10:41 GMT
If I was the gm of the Cavs I would never do this trade but I don't think it should be rejected. Tristan Thompson is basically Kenyon Martin in my opinion. They have very similar numbers and are both offensively limited PFs who rely on their energy and toughness. Given the choice between a non-injury prone Martin and Chandler I would choose K-Mart for sure but the difference is not rejectable in my opinion.
Also given the fact that a lot Thompson's value is based on potential that makes this deal even less rejectable for me. Rejecting trades based on what players might become is a dangerous game to play because it is way too subjective and as previously said if the Jazz - Celtics deal can get accepted then this trade should be accepted too.
|
|
|
Post by Aubrey Graham on May 20, 2012 20:36:23 GMT
IMO, this trade is no worse than the UTA - BOS trade which I accepted so I will accept this one as well. Would this be a move I'd make I'd make I was in CLE's shoe? Prob not but I trust CLE has a plan. Thompson is a good young piece to have but can be replaced through the draft or FA easily
|
|