Sap-Related 3 way Sign-and-trade OFFICIAL (Updated)

[sturt]

3 minutes ago, KB21 said:

to the bottom

Can we please reserve judgment on this? You're welcome to your suspicions, but it's when people start talking about their suspicions as cold hard fact that it irks some of us.

[sturt]

41 minutes ago, AHF said:

If Craw can be cut for $3 that gets them relief from 80% of DMC.

What the hell?.... hehe... might as well have said "if DMC can be cut for $3"....

A buyout of a bad contract is a buy out of a bad contract. They don't need to trade a friggin 1st round pick for the pleasure of buying out a bad contract.

 

[sturt]

42 minutes ago, EazyRoc said:

If we get a 1st and a young prospect (or 2) for Millsap, I'd be thrilled.

You're not getting a 1st and a young prospect (or 2) for Millsap.

You're getting... if it goes down, and with every passing minute, there's reason for concern of course... a 1st and a young prospect for LAC renting a portion of our cap space (ie, dumping a contract).

In truth, DEN doesn't even need to be part of this deal as it currently stands.

[sturt]

39 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

Each player can absolutely be traded immediately, they just can't be aggregated in a single trade together.

You're right. Thanks for reminding me. Same reason we could trade Dunleavy but only by himself.

[rd79]

 

[sturt]

9 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

And while a late 1st round pick would be nice, that's not the target either.

The target is definitely Stone.

I think you're on to something, but then you go and overstate it.

Schlenk likely watched Stone play last year for Santa Cruz quite a bit. I definitely can go along with the idea that once a SnT with LAC became a thing, Schlenk's mind instantly turned to Stone... hehe... as it were.

But having said that, 1st round picks that are only protected 1-3 are gold. Period.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

8 minutes ago, sturt said:

Geez. Stop already. Please. There's still more than a fleeting chance that what we come out of this with is cap space to use on other players, none of which we were constrained to take just so some people--ie, who don't get the idea that cap room itself is a commodity (hence the reason teams trade for it all the time, just as LAC is doing here... !!!... )--an have some solace. Even if the SnT doesn't go down, there's something in this for us.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not of the opinion that you should ALWAYS get something for a player leaving you, especially if they don't immediately benefit you financially ( see Dwight deal ).  But when you talk about a guy like Millsap, yeah, you should definitely get something for a talent like that.  So he doesn't get a cookie if he's able to get a little something for Millsap.  That's supposed to happen.

Ferry sold Joe Johnson for pennies on the dollar, but at least he had the sense to use the TPE to get Kyle Korver . . who was the real asset in the JJ trade.  

To your point, the following season saw us have the cap space to add Millsap, Demarre, and a new contract for Teague.  But it wasn't just the JJ expiring contracts that gave us the room.  It was the fact that Marvin was traded for Devin Harris on his final year of his deal the year before . . and because we let Josh Smith completely walk.   

At the end of the day, cap space is important, but only if you're able to get the players that you're targeting.  Too often times, teams with cap space have to spend that money on secondary players, and not the main targets they cleared the space for in the first place.  We missed for many years during the last rebuild, to get that elite player, despite having the available money.  That's why fans poo-poo on cap space, and would rather have talent and draft picks in return. 

[KB21]

7 minutes ago, sturt said:

You're not getting a 1st and a young prospect (or 2) for Millsap.

You're getting... if it goes down, and with every passing minute, there's reason for concern of course... a 1st and a young prospect for LAC renting a portion of our cap space (ie, dumping a contract).

In truth, DEN doesn't even need to be part of this deal as it currently stands.

The deal actually clears a good deal of cap space for Denver, so essentially we are giving Denver and a portion of our cap space.  The Nuggets will then use that space to sign George Hill.

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

you should definitely get something for a talent like that.

 

8 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

At the end of the day, cap space is important, but only if you're able to get the players that you're targeting.

Here's what's missing in this way of thinking.

Please hear me out.

At the end of the day, obtaining a specific player or players for a talent like that is ONLY GOOD IF you're able to get players you actually want on your roster.

And.

How much more likely is it that you will obtain players you actually want on your roster from a sizeable pool of players than from a single team's roster?

Granted, the advantage of selecting tangible assets from that single team's roster is that the assets are locked-in already to a predetermined price.

So, I'm not anti-SnT in the least.... but the SAME THING you said for the one ALSO APPLIES to the other option... bottom line, you want to get assets you actually want. And there is NO MAGIC to obtaining those assets via one method over the other method.

(and... a re-read of your post suggests you maybe agree with all of that... not sure.)

[sturt]

5 minutes ago, KB21 said:

The deal actually clears a good deal of cap space for Denver, so essentially we are giving Denver and a portion of our cap space.  The Nuggets will then use that space to sign George Hill.

How so? DEN doesn't have to re-sign Gallo regardless if they don't want to. That LAC can't sign him w/o relief means nothing to DEN if they have no interest in holding on to Gallo in the first place. That's Gallo's and LAC's problem.

[GameTime]

Hou 2018 1st, Barton or Arthur, and Stone is a pretty good deal by Schlenk considering Sap could of walked for nothing thanks to Budcox's incompetence. 

[Lurker]

This is the exact kind of deal that needs to be made as long as it goes through. I'm not sure why Denver has incentive to make this deal.

[Alex]

1 minute ago, Lurker said:

This is the exact kind of deal that needs to be made as long as it goes through. I'm not sure why Denver has incentive to make this deal.

Yeah I don't understand this at all.  What is the point of Denver's involvement here.  

[KB21]

10 minutes ago, sturt said:

How so? DEN doesn't have to re-sign Gallo regardless if they don't want to. That LAC can't sign him w/o relief means nothing to DEN if they have no interest in holding on to Gallo in the first place. That's Gallo's and LAC's problem.

https://www.peachtreehoops.com/2017/7/4/15917734/nba-free-agency-2017-paul-millsap-atlanta-hawks-denver-nuggets-clippers-trade

Bob details it here.  Basically, they are able to open up cap space by doing a S&T for Paul rather than signing him with cap space.  Sure, they don't "need" to do it, but if they want to sign George Hill with cap space, they "have" to do it this way.

[bird_dirt]

43 minutes ago, Alex said:

Yeah I don't understand this at all.  What is the point of Denver's involvement here.  

Denver will be receiving draft compensation for facilitating the Gallo move. Nobody does something for nothing, so my guess is they are working out what draft pick is coming from. 

Hope folks realize this ahead of time before they go ape-shit over the Hawks sending a pick to Denver.

Quote

Denver is expected to receive draft compensation for facilitating the deal with Gallinari, who played the past six seasons for the Nuggets.

Sources: Clippers working on 3-way sign-and-trade to acquire Danilo Gallinari http://es.pn/2sAj5Ad
via @ESPN App http://es.pn/app

Edited July 4, 2017 by bird_dirt

[mrhonline]

Good.

[GameTime]

Deal not reached yet

 

[Alex]

5 minutes ago, GameTime said:

Deal not reached yet

 

Hope it falls through.  Hawks get the short end of the stick as it stands.

[EazyRoc]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

You're not getting a 1st and a young prospect (or 2) for Millsap.

You're getting... if it goes down, and with every passing minute, there's reason for concern of course... a 1st and a young prospect for LAC renting a portion of our cap space (ie, dumping a contract).

In truth, DEN doesn't even need to be part of this deal as it currently stands.

Is that a bad thing ? Would you have rather given Millsap 30 mil a year at 34 ?

[sturt]

4 minutes ago, GameTime said:

Deal not reached yet

 

In light of the fact that we routinely find out that there is a significant lag in the time between what is reported and what is actually going on, I was inclined to think the deal probably just couldn't work out.... I mean, as said before in the last month, a SnT is difficult enough when you've only got 3 stakeholders (2 teams and the player) having to be satisfied... and now, this, is 5 stakeholders essentially, albeit, with Sap already having made a commitment which does at least simplify one part of it.

But maybe it will still yet, given this.