Quote:
Originally posted by: chumdawg
Okay, Boston seriously wants to be rid of Mark Blount, and they are willing to tip Marcus Banks to get it done. (They may wish to trade Banks at any rate, as he appears to be the odd man out up there.) So let's start with something like this:
Blount/Banks for TAW
Boston should like this, if they really just want to be rid of those players. Do we have use for Blount and Banks? Well, we do need a backup 5 who can run the floor and block some shots, who can do things Damp can't. Or so I hear. Blount had an off year last season, but circumstances may have gone against him. Before last year he looked like a good shotblocker if nothing else. He can probably be a capable backup, at least in some sense of that word. (Would Hunter be that much better?)
Banks appears to be able to get after it defensively. He can get some steals, anyway. If you believe he has some upside, you might not mind him as the third point guard.
But of course, that takes on some salary for Dallas, which they don't want to do. Blount and Daniels have similar contracts, though, so let's look at that.
Boston happens to now own a trade exception just the right size to take on Marquis. Would they want him? I guess you can never have enough young talent, if that's the route you are going. So let's call it Blount/Banks for TAW/Daniels, and we get a trade exception out of the deal.
I think that's a hell of a deal for Boston. So I think they owe us something. I think what they owe us is Pierce for Finley and Harris.
So you make the first deal look like this:
Pierce
Blount
Banks
for
Finley
TAW
Harris
This works, I think, though just barely. Maybe the Mavs like the defensive-minded Justin Reed, and that's part of the reason Boston took their option on him? You can throw him into their end of it if you want to. Maybe you throw him in and we throw Benga in. Who knows.
Then the second deal nets us the TE.
We send out about $32MM in salary and take back $21MM or so. So we net a nice savings in the first year. Pierce's and Finley's contracts match in length, as do Blount's and Daniels's (with the exception of the last year of Daniels's deal being a team option). TAW's and Banks's contracts are probably pretty similar in terms of cash outflow, if TAW's contract is mostly covered. But of course, we get some luxury tax savings there.
Now we are probably going to need a #2 PG, which we should be able to get with either the MLE or the TE from Boston. Earl Watson, perhaps? We probably need depth at the swing positions as well, but I think we can get something decent enough to round out the roster here at a short price.
Lineup:
Damp/Blount/DJ
Dirk/KVB/Powell
Pierce/Howard
Stack/Howard
Terry/???/Banks
What do you think?
|
Why would Boston take Finley when they could just keep Pierce? They both have three years left, Pierce is 4 years younger, makes slightly less than Finley, and is by far the superior player? If the Celtics are going the youth route they will not take on bad contracts. They want expiring contracts, good young prospects/players and draft picks plus the trading team will have to take either Raef or Blount or both. Any Pierce to Dallas trade that has Finley landing in Boston will be laughed at everywhere except here!
I think they are high on D. West, so the Celtics will ask for Howard first, not Harris, which we obviously don't want to do. I also think they ask for Terry before Harris. A package of KVH/Terry/PPod or DJ/future pick for Pierce/Raef is what it's going to take and that might not be enough to get him. We might have to take Blount too. I'm all on board for getting Pierce, but to get someone of his caliber we have to give up something in return.