Trade with Dal/San/Cleveland ..would you do it?

[Dirkenstien]

Possible trade scenario which in my opinion may be very plausible for each team involved.

Dallas trades: SF Eduardo Najera (3.6 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 0.5 apg in 15.2 minutes)
PG Tony Delk (9.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 21.0 minutes)
SG Marquis Daniels (3.9 ppg, 0.6 rpg, 0.7 apg in 6.2 minutes)
Dallas receives: PF Chris Mihm (8.3 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 0.6 apg in 18.4 minutes)
C DeSagana Diop (2.8 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 0.7 apg in 17.6 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -5.4 ppg, +3.8 rpg, and -0.7 apg.

Cleveland trades: SF Ricky Davis (16.5 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 4.9 apg in 37.1 minutes)
SF Darius Miles (9.5 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 2.9 apg in 28.6 minutes)
PF Chris Mihm (8.3 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 0.6 apg in 18.4 minutes)
C DeSagana Diop (2.8 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 0.7 apg in 17.6 minutes)
Cleveland receives: SF Eduardo Najera (3.6 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 0.5 apg in 17 games)
PG Tony Delk (9.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 12 games)
SG Marquis Daniels (3.9 ppg, 0.6 rpg, 0.7 apg in 10 games)
PF Malik Rose (9.9 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 1.5 apg in 18 games)
SF Robert Horry (4.2 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.2 apg in 17 games)
Change in team outlook: -6.5 ppg, -4.3 rpg, and -4.4 apg.

San Antonio trades: PF Malik Rose (9.9 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 1.5 apg in 23.8 minutes)
SF Robert Horry (4.2 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.2 apg in 13.6 minutes)
San Antonio receives: SF Ricky Davis (16.5 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 4.9 apg in 16 games)
SF Darius Miles (9.5 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 2.9 apg in 17 games)
Change in team outlook: +11.9 ppg, +0.5 rpg, and +5.1 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

[Nash13]

Heck yes. That doesn't make us the best, but it makes San Antonio worse.

[XERXES]

I don't see SA pulling the trigger on that one. Malik has stepped up and become a "Clubhouse Leader" in the wake of the Admiral's retirement. Why trade a really good guy for a punk - when you don't upgrade talent dramamtically?

But, Dallas or Cleve would probably do it.

[Dirkenstien]

Originally posted by: XERXES
I don't see SA pulling the trigger on that one. Malik has stepped up and become a "Clubhouse Leader" in the wake of the Admiral's retirement. Why trade a really good guy for a punk - when you don't upgrade talent dramamtically?

But, Dallas or Cleve would probably do it.

San Antonio would do it because they need a talented and athletic shooter on the outside to compliment Duncans presence on the inside who can play with Ginobili. Miles provides some athleticism at the 3 with tukyglue.

[kingrex]

We improve inside and lose our energy-guy, a backup guard and a future guard. I would do this, but do it reluctantly.

[LRB]

Sure I'd do it, but IMO we'd have to hold a gun to Clevelands head to give up Diop and Mihm and not recieve one player in return who either starts or is over 6'8" tall. Just doesn't make sense for them.

And I'd still do the Delk for Mihm straight up trade over this one if given a choice.

[FineCubanCigar]

does cleveland have that many roster spots?

[Blonde Bomber]

How bout we cut out Cleveland and just get Malik Rose. Then send Delk for Mihm.

Ahhhhh...those two moves would bring a smile to my face[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Blonde Bomber
How bout we cut out Cleveland and just get Malik Rose. Then send Delk for Mihm.

Ahhhhh...those two moves would bring a smile to my face[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

And what would we trade the Spurs for Malik?

[kg_veteran]

I hate to be the bearer of reality in a patently unrealistic thread, but San Antonio's not gonna do ANYTHING to help us out. They won't trade with us, and they won't be involved in a trade that we're involved in.

[LRB]

I don't know KG, I'm sure they trade Malik and Spares for Dirk. Just no way in hell that we do that.

[kg_veteran]

I said they won't do anything to help us out. I guess I just assumed that everybody would be proposing trades that benefited the Mavericks.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I said they won't do anything to help us out. I guess I just assumed that everybody would be proposing trades that benefited the Mavericks.

Well we would hope that all Serious trade proposals would be that way. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

But you are right, in that none of our Western Conference rivals, and especially SA, are going to do any trade that will help us.

[Dirkenstien]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I hate to be the bearer of reality in a patently unrealistic thread, but San Antonio's not gonna do ANYTHING to help us out. They won't trade with us, and they won't be involved in a trade that we're involved in.

Then again, how much talent would San Antonio be willing to pass up that could make them substantially better? It would be quite naive to assume they would not involve themselves in a trade that would improve their team on a basis of the possibility it could make another organization (Mavs) better.

There must come a time when management of an organization values what they will receive in return more than what another team may be receiving.

[kg_veteran]

I'll concede they might do it if they gave almost nothing and got something (see the San Antonio/Indiana/Sacramento three-way this summer).

[Dirkenstien]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I'll concede they might do it if they gave almost nothing and got something (see the San Antonio/Indiana/Sacramento three-way this summer).

It all depends on what they would be receiving in return. A trade is an advent that can be rated primarily on the overall amount of talent received or lost, therefore making it easy to percieve the notion that if a team was offered a trade that would require them to give up a talent in order to receive another talent, just occupying a different aspect of the game that they may need at that point in time, it is only plausible for that team to atleast thoroughly consider the trade, making it implausible for them to shrug the notion of the trade entirely on the basis that it involves another team in which may be competitive for the simple fact that there are more than one competitive team in this league and any improvement made is improvement that will give them advantage over the majority of competition while on the down side making one source of competition more competitive.

Its a huge compromise, a compromise that should be dealt with carefully, but never ignored.