PDA

View Full Version : Help Me Understand The Value Of Sign and Trade Superstars...



Clippersfan86
06-19-2013, 11:17 PM
Okay so back last month when I brought up the idea of CP3 sign and trade for Chandler Parsons I got criticized heavily because apparently due to lack of leverage S&T deals NEVER get value that good or fair supposedly. If this is true.. why is this stupid Griffin+Bledsoe for Dwight rumor (which isn't legit anyways) being talked about and accepted as realistic all week long by every major sports media source, analysts and fans alike.

Sure it's a completely made up rumor and not possible anyways with the Lakers being a tax penalty team.... but my question is basically why is it accepted when it's the Lakers doing it? Also what do YOU feel the value of free agent superstars signed and traded are? Half of what they would be normally? 75 percent? How valuable?

nycericanguy
06-19-2013, 11:26 PM
In this case the Clippers have alot of reasons to give up alot.

1) Because the Clippers desperately want to keep CP3, and bringing in Dwight would assure that.

2) Because for the Lakers to trade DH to the Clips, they would have to get back something VERY substantial.

3) The Clips cannot sign Howard outright, so they have no leverage.

4) unless they expect the Lakers to take back Butler, the Clips actually don't have any contracts that would match up without Griffin.

Also the Lakers CAN do a S&T, since they would not be the team acquiring the free agent.

Unique situation, but most S&T's a team would never get back a Griffin/Bledsoe package.

Clippersfan86
06-19-2013, 11:28 PM
In this case the Clippers have alot of reasons to give up alot.

1) Because the Clippers desperately want to keep CP3, and bringing in Dwight would assure that.

2) Because for the Lakers to trade DH to the Clips, they would have to get back something VERY substantial.

3) The Clips cannot sign Howard outright, so they have no leverage.

4) unless they expect the Lakers to take back Butler, the Clips actually don't have any contracts that would match up without Griffin.

Also the Lakers CAN do a S&T, since they would not be the team acquiring the free agent.

Unique situation, but most S&T's a team would never get back a Griffin/Bledsoe package.

I still think value wise around the league based on price, upside, selling tickets ALL GM's in the NBA would take Griffin+Bledsoe for Dwight. Especially since he's such a bad chemistry guy. Meaning the Lakers are getting the better end of the deal even though Dwight has a decent chance to walk for nothing (FAR greater than CP3).

I understand if the Rockets are the ones forcing the Clippers hand with the S&T angle for CP3.. but the Lakers getting MORE than fair value for a guy about to walk anyways? Not logical in the slightest. Rockets on the other hand have to do way more to lure the much happier CP3 than they do Dwight.

lpdunks8
06-19-2013, 11:40 PM
I still think value wise around the league based on price, upside, selling tickets ALL GM's in the NBA would take Griffin+Bledsoe for Dwight. Especially since he's such a bad chemistry guy. Meaning the Lakers are getting the better end of the deal even though Dwight has a decent chance to walk for nothing (FAR greater than CP3).

I understand if the Rockets are the ones forcing the Clippers hand with the S&T angle for CP3.. but the Lakers getting MORE than fair value for a guy about to walk anyways? Not logical in the slightest. Rockets on the other hand have to do way more to lure the much happier CP3 than they do Dwight.

Let's say CP3 wants Dwight on his team and Dwight wants to play with CP3. The Clippers call the Lakers and offer crap (Jordan, Butler, etc.). The Lakers tell them to kick rocks and nothing happens. The reason Blake/Bledsoe is the rumor is because people know the Lakers would rather let him walk (and have $51M in cap space in 2014) than take garbage with longer contracts back.

Simple concept really.

Clippersfan86
06-20-2013, 12:01 AM
Let's say CP3 wants Dwight on his team and Dwight wants to play with CP3. The Clippers call the Lakers and offer crap (Jordan, Butler, etc.). The Lakers tell them to kick rocks and nothing happens. The reason Blake/Bledsoe is the rumor is because people know the Lakers would rather let him walk (and have $51M in cap space in 2014) than take garbage with longer contracts back.

Simple concept really.

What about something like Bledsoe+DJ+3-4 picks. Still seems very fair for a player with a better than 50 percent chance of walking. No way in hell a player with a good chance to walk next month should net a top 15 player who's 24 with a ton of upside.. and on a 5 year deal (meaning he will be a Laker for at least 5 years to build around).

bholly
06-20-2013, 12:02 AM
As with anything else, it depends on leverage. Many of the S+Ts we've seen (LBJ and Bosh spring to mind) it's been when the team losing the player has little to no leverage, so there's not much return. The fact that it's an S+T doesn't by itself affect the player's value. It's just we've usually seen situations where teams doing the S+Ting have no leverage. People are just generalizing from that to say that you never get any return in an S+T - and those people have no idea what they're talking about. It's really that simple. Leverage.

In the LAL/LAC case, if the Clippers really wanted Dwight, and they felt like Blake (in an S+T) was the only way of getting him, then that gives LAL all the leverage they'd need. Of course, I think they could probably to better by trading Blake somewhere else for some return and massive cap relief, then signing Dwight outright, but whatever.
It's nothing to do with it being LAL (at least for anyone other than the most biased of LAL supporters). It's the situation.

Also, for what it's worth (and for about the millionth time it's been posted and written about), teams over the luxury tax can S+T players all they want. The rule prevents them from RECEIVING S+T players if it puts them over the apron. That's it.

Chronz
06-20-2013, 12:05 AM
Situations are different. Rox have the money to nab CP3, Clips cant sign Dwight without help.

IndyRealist
06-20-2013, 12:07 AM
In general, the team getting the S&T player is getting a deal because they're getting a known quantity that's been in the league for years already, and probably at the top of the game (or the team wouldn't bother). There's only so many top tier players in the league, and trading one away does not guarantee getting one back in return, regardless of what you trade for.

Clippersfan86
06-20-2013, 12:11 AM
Situations are different. Rox have the money to nab CP3, Clips cant sign Dwight without help.

Like said above.. maybe if we had another contract similar to Blake's to trade it wouldn't have to be Blake. The issue seems to be he's the only guy who can make it work financially. Can somebody clear up new S&T CBA rule? I keep hearing a tax team CANNOT take ANY cap in a sign and trade... but then some people keep saying they can, just not new contracts?

bholly
06-20-2013, 12:14 AM
Like said above.. maybe if we had another contract similar to Blake's to trade it wouldn't have to be Blake. The issue seems to be he's the only guy who can make it work financially. Can somebody clear up new S&T CBA rule? I keep hearing a tax team CANNOT take ANY cap in a sign and trade... but then some people keep saying they can, just not new contracts?

You can't receive a player getting S+T'd if you'd end up over the tax apron. You can S+T a player away, and you can receive existing contracts as part of the deal, but you can't take on a player who is being S+T'd.

Pierzynski4Prez
06-20-2013, 12:24 AM
Okay so back last month when I brought up the idea of CP3 sign and trade for Chandler Parsons I got criticized heavily because apparently due to lack of leverage S&T deals NEVER get value that good or fair supposedly. If this is true.. why is this stupid Griffin+Bledsoe for Dwight rumor (which isn't legit anyways) being talked about and accepted as realistic all week long by every major sports media source, analysts and fans alike.

Sure it's a completely made up rumor and not possible anyways with the Lakers being a tax penalty team.... but my question is basically why is it accepted when it's the Lakers doing it? Also what do YOU feel the value of free agent superstars signed and traded are? Half of what they would be normally? 75 percent? How valuable?

1st. As you said Rumor was likely made up, and not actually discussed by teams
2nd. Media will write whatever they have to in order to get people to read, even if the idea was never even brought up internally by teams

Who's accepting this trade?

DODGERS&LAKERS
06-20-2013, 12:25 AM
Just do the deal and smile.

Dwight
KG
PIERCE
Afflalo
CP3

With Doc as a coach. Thats championship caliber

ThunderousDemon
06-20-2013, 12:36 AM
Just do the deal and smile.

Dwight
KG
PIERCE
Afflalo
CP3

With Doc as a coach. Thats championship caliber

I would only do the deal if we knew that we he wasn't coming back for certain.

Blake-Bledsoe and all of the first round picks that they can spare and the second round picks too.

Kevj77
06-20-2013, 12:37 AM
What about something like Bledsoe+DJ+3-4 picks. Still seems very fair for a player with a better than 50 percent chance of walking. No way in hell a player with a good chance to walk next month should net a top 15 player who's 24 with a ton of upside.. and on a 5 year deal (meaning he will be a Laker for at least 5 years to build around).
Lakers aren't going to trade Howard inside their own division let alone to a team in the same building so he can win championships with CP3 who should be a Laker and kill their cap space for 2014 unless they get back something substantial.

bholly
06-20-2013, 12:42 AM
I would only do the deal if we knew that we he wasn't coming back for certain.

Blake-Bledsoe and all of the first round picks that they can spare and the second round picks too.

This part is a huge lol. If Dwight's going (and there's no reason he wouldn't be willing to threaten to walk to Hou and have the Lakers end up with nothing - and they might have to believe him, because he might actually be willing) then the Lakers have zero leverage. They'd be willing to take Blake and they'd be doing backflips compared to getting nothing. Hell, taking the Clipps young superstar over the older, possibly past-his-prime Dwight should be their best case scenario (over keeping Dwight) - that's what they should be aiming for.
They would have no leverage at all to start demanding picks, and in fact if they'd offer picks (if they had any, which they don't) and take on salary if it came down to it.
The only way the Lakers get picks out of that sort of deal, and probably the only way they get Bledsoe, is if Dwight's dumb enough to come out and say he's def staying in LA, regardless of which team, and the Clippers are for some reason desperate enough to get him.

Even if it turns out the Clippers either need Dwight or they're losing both him and CP3, then it's a different story, but the'd still just be able to shed cap room by trading Blake elsewhere and then just signing Blake.

There's no way, at all, that the Lakers get the sort of package you're talking about.

Clippersfan86
06-20-2013, 12:43 AM
You can't receive a player getting S+T'd if you'd end up over the tax apron. You can S+T a player away, and you can receive existing contracts as part of the deal, but you can't take on a player who is being S+T'd.

Oh okay. Thanks.

ThunderousDemon
06-20-2013, 12:45 AM
This part is a huge lol. If Dwight's going (and there's no reason he wouldn't be willing to threaten to walk to Hou and have the Lakers end up with nothing - and they might have to believe him, because he might actually be willing) then the Lakers have zero leverage. They'd be willing to take Blake and they'd be doing backflips compared to getting nothing. Hell, taking the Clipps young superstar over the older, possibly past-his-prime Dwight should be their best case scenario (over keeping Dwight) - that's what they should be aiming for.
They would have no leverage at all to start demanding picks, and in fact if they'd offer picks (if they had any, which they don't) and take on salary if it came down to it.
The only way the Lakers get picks out of that sort of deal, and probably the only way they get Bledsoe, is if Dwight's dumb enough to come out and say he's def staying in LA, regardless of which team, and the Clippers are for some reason desperate enough to get him.

Even if it turns out the Clippers either need Dwight or they're losing both him and CP3, then it's a different story, but the'd still just be able to shed cap room by trading Blake elsewhere and then just signing Blake.

There's no way, at all, that the Lakers get the sort of package you're talking about.

Yes I know. lol :laugh2:

I should have made it more obvious

/Sarcasm

**** the Clippers, I would rather Dwight walk than get any garbage offer from the Clippers and mess up the 2014 plan.

Clippersfan86
06-20-2013, 12:48 AM
This part is a huge lol. If Dwight's going (and there's no reason he wouldn't be willing to threaten to walk to Hou and have the Lakers end up with nothing - and they might have to believe him, because he might actually be willing) then the Lakers have zero leverage. They'd be willing to take Blake and they'd be doing backflips compared to getting nothing. Hell, taking the Clipps young superstar over the older, possibly past-his-prime Dwight should be their best case scenario (over keeping Dwight) - that's what they should be aiming for.
They would have no leverage at all to start demanding picks, and in fact if they'd offer picks (if they had any, which they don't) and take on salary if it came down to it.
The only way the Lakers get picks out of that sort of deal, and probably the only way they get Bledsoe, is if Dwight's dumb enough to come out and say he's def staying in LA, regardless of which team, and the Clippers are for some reason desperate enough to get him.

Even if it turns out the Clippers either need Dwight or they're losing both him and CP3, then it's a different story, but the'd still just be able to shed cap room by trading Blake elsewhere and then just signing Blake.

There's no way, at all, that the Lakers get the sort of package you're talking about.

He's acting as if Dwight is on a 3-5 year deal and it's a straight up trade. Even as such... I wouldn't trade Blake for Dwight straight up. Blake's a SIGNIFICANTLY better locker room influence and teammate. Blake sells more tickets. Blake is 24 and far from his prime where as Dwight seems to be starting to decline already and nobody knows if his back is 100 percent. Even as such.. Dwight was a top 10 player this year, Griffin a top 15... so the gap at least this year, while existent, wasn't huge.

Like I said... VALUE wise (Age, contract, upside, chemistry) Blake is worth more than Dwight right now. So why should the Clippers throw in MORE even if they did want Dwight?

lpdunks8
06-20-2013, 12:49 AM
What about something like Bledsoe+DJ+3-4 picks. Still seems very fair for a player with a better than 50 percent chance of walking. No way in hell a player with a good chance to walk next month should net a top 15 player who's 24 with a ton of upside.. and on a 5 year deal (meaning he will be a Laker for at least 5 years to build around).

Why would the Lakers want Jordan who goes past 2014 with an 8 figure salary? No way!

FYI: I advise people to read CBAFAQ.com to understand the rules of trades and free agency.

lpdunks8
06-20-2013, 12:51 AM
He's acting as if Dwight is on a 3-5 year deal and it's a straight up trade. Even as such... I wouldn't trade Blake for Dwight straight up. Blake's a SIGNIFICANTLY better locker room influence and teammate. Blake sells more tickets. Blake is 24 and far from his prime where as Dwight seems to be starting to decline already and nobody knows if his back is 100 percent. Even as such.. Dwight was a top 10 player this year, Griffin a top 15... so the gap at least this year, while existent, wasn't huge.

Like I said... VALUE wise (Age, contract, upside, chemistry) Blake is worth more than Dwight right now. So why should the Clippers throw in MORE even if they did want Dwight?

Again, the premise is that CP3 wants to play with Dwight and vice versa. Would you risk CP3 leaving by not making a deal that he wants in order to stay? It's all speculation, but that is where the idea came from.

Some have written that they might team up in Atlanta.

Clippersfan86
06-20-2013, 12:53 AM
Again, the premise is that CP3 wants to play with Dwight and vice versa. Would you risk CP3 leaving by not making a deal that he wants in order to stay? It's all speculation, but that is where the idea came from.

Some have written that they might team up in Atlanta.

It was a made up rumor with no merit. Maybe CP3 DOES prefer to play with Dwight although that seems VERY weird. Blake's known league wide as being at the top as the hardest working guy in the league with Kobe and a few select others. Blake's FAR more serious during games. Dwight would PISS CP3 right the fu** up while he's laughing it up on the sidelines so no clue why just because they are friends and may like the idea.... would DEMAND trading Blake for Dwight.

Blake's going to be an undisputed superstar when Doc is coaching him and KG is mentoring him.

Clippersfan86
06-20-2013, 12:59 AM
Lakers are the Lakers. They will be fine regardless. If one team IS going to rape a team in any scenario it's them. That being said... still surprised so many people are accepting this trade idea as if it's a legit, high probability.

bholly
06-20-2013, 01:07 AM
If this is true.. why is this stupid Griffin+Bledsoe for Dwight rumor (which isn't legit anyways) being talked about and accepted as realistic all week long by every major sports media source, analysts and fans alike.

Sure it's a completely made up rumor and not possible anyways with the Lakers being a tax penalty team....


It was a made up rumor with no merit.

What basis do you have for this stuff? If everyone's reporting on it, and analysts are talking about it and accepting it as realistic (as you say), what basis do you have for saying it's made up? What evidence is there for it being made up, any more than any other rumor out there?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's unlikely too - I don't think the Lakers get that much in any Dwight deal with the Clipps. But much stranger things have happened. When you state with such conviction again and again that it's made up - as if you know that for a fact - then you need to have something to back that up. Otherwise the only impact that saying it has is that you come across as a homer and it discredits you - that's seriously the only effect saying that has unless you have something serious to back it up. And giving your personal beliefs about Blake's stardom or whatever isn't evidence.

Clippersfan86
06-20-2013, 01:11 AM
What basis do you have for this stuff? If everyone's reporting on it, and analysts are talking about it and accepting it as realistic (as you say), what basis do you have for saying it's made up? What evidence is there for it being made up, any more than any other rumor out there?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's unlikely too - I don't think the Lakers get that much in any Dwight deal with the Clipps. But much stranger things have happened. When you state with such conviction again and again that it's made up - as if you know that for a fact - then you need to have something to back that up. Otherwise the only impact that saying it has is that you come across as a homer and it discredits you - that's seriously the only effect saying that has unless you have something serious to back it up. And giving your personal beliefs about Blake's stardom or whatever isn't evidence.

Because it literally was. NOBODY that was supposedly a source from the Lakers or Clippers mentioned this, go look it up yourself. This stemmed PURELY from the "CP3 and Dwight have been texting about playing together" then people ran with that and made up the Griffin for Dwight scenario. Donald Sterling LOVES Blake Griffin and sources close to the Clippers over and over have said he would NEVER trade Blake under ANY circumstance, even for Lebron.

I think it's partially due to Blake being his huge cash cow but since Blake's rookie year Don has really went out of his way to make him feel like family and values him greatly. If you can even give me "sources" on this matter I'll but it but there isn't even that. "Dwight and CP3 texted about teaming up" isn't enough. Broussard's reputability is probably the worst of any sports "analyst". This entire thing started with a Broussard report, with a SPECULATION that the Clippers COULD be interested in Dwight for Griffin. Nobody has come out with "sources" on this matter. In fact all "sources including reputable LA ones like Ramona Shelburne have said the teams have never even discussed this and likely would never due to the idea of helping their city "rival" improve.

Clippersfan86
06-20-2013, 01:18 AM
So no... it's not me being a homer. It's that this rumor has ZERO credibility. The most relevant item to this rumor is Broussard saying CP3 and Dwight have TALKED ABOUT possibly teaming up and that CP3 loves his situation so would prefer it be on the Clippers. That's literally IT. So how do you take "CP3 wants Griffin traded for Dwight" from that? Or "Clippers and Lakers may trade Blake+Bledsoe for Dwight"? Stretch isn't even a big enough of a word to define that bogus claim.

bholly
06-20-2013, 01:29 AM
From what I can see, Shelburne's reporting has it as a possibility, and she said that talk about how the Lakers would never work with the Clippers is "overblown". So if she's reputable, as you say, then you have to give that some stock, right?

Look, I'm not saying the teams are talking about it or anything. I really don't know. I'm just saying that at this point it doesn't seem any less credible than any other rumour (except for the very rare Clipps/Cs type where we get info on multiple days of a very close trade), and so your 100% insistence that it is doesn't look so good (particularly given your hyper-partisan reputation here). That's all.

Clippersfan86
06-20-2013, 01:38 AM
Reporting it as a possibility to happen is WAY different,than acting like it's been discussed or has a good chance of happening. Although other sources have consistently said all along Blake is more untouchable than even CP3. View me as a homer in,general fine but in this particular instance it's irrelevant. I'm a native and I'm sick and tired of Lakers homers on the radio doing everything in their power to keep the Lakers involved. Any time Celtics/Clippers trade comes up they throw the out of place Griffin for Dwight rumor in.

This Celtics trade has major sources and the teams have admitted to full blown discussions. So night and day different.

bholly
06-20-2013, 01:42 AM
Who's treating it as more than that? Who's saying it's likely? Every article or report I see if super clear about it being a rumour and an outside possibility or whatever. I had to go searching just to find reports, I didn't even know this was a thing.

Clippersfan86
06-20-2013, 01:44 AM
Holly I've been listening to LA sports radios all week at work hoping to hear trade updates and this Dwight for Griffin,rumor is as big of a topic. Max Kellerman today called this a "very high probability". I just feel like this rumor is starting to become way too hyped for what it is.

lpdunks8
06-20-2013, 01:48 AM
It was a made up rumor with no merit. Maybe CP3 DOES prefer to play with Dwight although that seems VERY weird. Blake's known league wide as being at the top as the hardest working guy in the league with Kobe and a few select others. Blake's FAR more serious during games. Dwight would PISS CP3 right the fu** up while he's laughing it up on the sidelines so no clue why just because they are friends and may like the idea.... would DEMAND trading Blake for Dwight.

Blake's going to be an undisputed superstar when Doc is coaching him and KG is mentoring him.

As I said; it was speculation. It has no merit at this point. So, why start this thread?

Clippersfan86
06-20-2013, 01:52 AM
Lp although Dwight trade was my example it's more general than that, that's why I wanted some thoughts on sign and trade value.

bholly
06-20-2013, 02:19 AM
Sports radio people, pretty much without exception, don't know what they're talking about. I don't know who Max Kellerman is, and I've never listened to LA sports radio, but I'm assuming that given it's in LA and it's entire purpose is to be entertainment for LA sports fans, and that sports radio people in general are so bad, that their whole thing is generally pretty Laker-centric rather than talking about actual things. That's not "accepted as realistic all week long by every major sports media source, analysts and fans alike", that's "Lakertainment being Lakertainment". Solution to that is just don't let it get to you. Turn it off. Every minute you listen you're getting dumber, just jump online and you'll get all the info you need just as quickly.

Clippersfan86
06-20-2013, 02:56 AM
Holly great words,of wisdom and fair points.

bleedprple&gold
06-20-2013, 02:24 PM
Okay so back last month when I brought up the idea of CP3 sign and trade for Chandler Parsons I got criticized heavily because apparently due to lack of leverage S&T deals NEVER get value that good or fair supposedly. If this is true.. why is this stupid Griffin+Bledsoe for Dwight rumor (which isn't legit anyways) being talked about and accepted as realistic all week long by every major sports media source, analysts and fans alike.

Sure it's a completely made up rumor and not possible anyways with the Lakers being a tax penalty team.... but my question is basically why is it accepted when it's the Lakers doing it? Also what do YOU feel the value of free agent superstars signed and traded are? Half of what they would be normally? 75 percent? How valuable?

I know this has already been discussed extensively, but let me give you my take.

Let's take for example the Lebron trade. How were the Cavs only able to get back two crappy late 1st round draft picks for the greatest player in the game? The answer is because Miami had cap space and that gives them all the leverage, because they were going to get Lebron one way or another. A S&T must be agreed upon by the three parties involved, the player, the team trading him, and the team receiving him. Because Miami had cap space, they didn't need Cleveland's cooperation to get Lebron. They didn't need to give them back anything. The reason why Miami did it because in the old CBA, you could sign that player for more money and 5 years instead of 4 with a S&T, then with just signing them outright. So the S&T was agreed upon by all parties. Cleveland agrees to do it because they get back at least something for Lebron as opposed to nothing, Lebron agrees because he gets more money, Miami agrees because they get Lebron under contract for an extra year.

Now with the new CBA, the incentive for S&Ts has been greatly reduced because no longer can you get a player for 5 years instead of 4. A S&T is treated as one transaction, so its not like you are re-signing with your own team, and then they decide to trade you. So now players can only get the max five years if they stay with their own team. This essentially means teams with cap space no longer have any incentive to send anything back to the team that they are signing their player away from. The only reason S&Ts will be done in the new CBA is because the team that player wants to go to is over the cap. You will never see a guy like Lebron being traded for a couple of draft picks again. With the new CBA, teams are going to want something valuable in exchange for their star players if they are going to cooperate to do a S&T to a team over the cap. A team might be less demanding on what they expect back if they are way over the cap anyway, and won’t be able to do anything with the cap space freed up by losing that player. If they are really afraid that player will walk to a team with cap space and they do end up getting absolutely nothing back, then they may be more inclined to do the S&T and hope to get “something” for that player. But with the new CBA cap space is often times more valuable than players now.

With that tidbit, enter Dwight’s scenario. The Clippers don’t have any cap space, so they must do a S&T for Dwight, and the salaries need to closely match. Which means Clips need to send out almost $20 mil to make this deal work. Now the Lakers are in a unique situation (for them) that they will have cap space for the first time since they got Shaq in ’96. Whether the team losing its star needs to get “something in return” is also dependent on whether losing that player will get them below the cap to sign somebody else, because then you are not really losing your guy for nothing, you are getting cap space to get somebody else. If the Lakers lose Dwight without trading him, they still gain $20 mil in cap space, so basically they are gaining whoever they are able to get with that cap space, so they are not really losing him for “nothing.”

Now, the Lakers would only have any incentive to do a S&T if the player they can get back in the S&T is better than the player they think they can get in free agency with the cap space that will be freed up. So that means, they need to get something really good, or they will just let him walk. They are not going to take back garbage because they feel the need to get “something” for him. The Lakers know they are an attractive destination for free agents, so they know they will get somebody with that cap space. Whether they can get somebody better than Blake Griffin is debatable. But also the fact that sending him to the Clips means Dwight pairs with CP3 making a really good team, and if the Lakers become contenders again, they are going to be facing a team that they helped build for many years, so that means they better be getting back something extra damn good in this case from the Clips. And that is why anything less than Blake and Bledsoe, the Lakers will not agree to it.

bleedprple&gold
06-20-2013, 02:29 PM
Like I said... VALUE wise (Age, contract, upside, chemistry) Blake is worth more than Dwight right now. So why should the Clippers throw in MORE even if they did want Dwight?

Lol, homer much? Sorry, but Dwight is better than Blake.

Dwight = Blake offensively - about the only thing both can do is dunk.

Dwight >>>>>> Blake defensively. That is where the difference lies and why Dwight is significantly more valuable.

Chacarron
06-20-2013, 03:49 PM
Holly I've been listening to LA sports radios all week at work hoping to hear trade updates and this Dwight for Griffin,rumor is as big of a topic. Max Kellerman today called this a "very high probability". I just feel like this rumor is starting to become way too hyped for what it is.

Don't pay attention to Max Kellerman. llullz

JasonJohnHorn
06-20-2013, 04:47 PM
Often times the sign-and-trade is just a way to get something back. The Cavs did a sign-and-trade for LBJ for a first round pick. They were losing him anyways, but doing the sign-and-trade allowed the Heat to sign him to five years (giving LBJ more money) and gave the Cavs a pick.

Sometimes you get nothing back (Seattle did a sign-and-trade for Lewis a few years back and I think they just got a second rounder) because they just want to help the player get the money they want after having been with the organization. Sometimes they get a trade exception back. Sometimes you can get expring contract, which was the case with Grant Hill, and Detroit ended up getting Ben Wallace there.


With Dwight and CP3, there are teams they both want to go to that don't have cap space, so if they do decide to move and want one of those teams, then LAC and LAL can get something back. Perhaps CP3 and Dwight want to go to Brookyn? CP3 for D-Will and Dwight for Lopez + Humph? That would be god trades for all three teams involved I think. If a team your all-star wants to go to doesn't have the cap space, you can leverage that to get something back in return.


So, quick re-cap. Reason to do a sign-and-trade

1. You are nice and want to help the player get their money.
2. You want a trade exception.
3. You want a draft pick.
4. Your player wants to go to a team with no cap space and you leverage that into a trade.