Author Topic: Trade idea for Big Al  (Read 1958 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Trade idea for Big Al
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2015, 03:52:35 PM »

Offline Jon

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6500
  • Tommy Points: 385
So we trade two expiring contracts and a 1st round pick for one expiring contract?  This doesn't make sense for us at all.

I tend to agree.  Unless we're talking about a late first round/early second round pick.  We have too many picks as it is.  And if Danny really thinks that Big Al could help us win a playoff series, maybe it is worth it in terms of helping to attract other free agents next year. 

But I'm not completely sold on that.  Still, given how many youngster we already have, something is going to have to give with these picks at some point. 

Well it's one thing to consolidate, improve an asset, and it's another to just waste them. And you'd simply be wasting them.

Even if we have no intentions of keeping Sullinger, Sully at the very least has trade value all the way through draft night and so does whatever picks are used.

Big Al would also diminish our defense, and would instantly become an even greater injury concern. He'd also limit our options in free-agency.

All this for a questionable upgrade for half a season with a certainty of a meaningful reduction in assets for a player that can be had, if we want (I have no doubt Big Al would jump at the opportunity) next Summer. And I have my doubts we'd want him. The time to acquire him was a couple of years ago when we had KG still around. I would've loved it then.

I generally agree.  I think Sullinger could be better used. 

BUT

If Danny knows that Sullinger's value isn't what we think it is and he's eventually going to be able to get little or nothing for him, I do think there's potentially some value in getting Big Al, maybe going a little further in the playoffs, and then trying to use that as a selling point to a big free agent this summer. 

I agree, however, that we likely could do better and I'm certainly not opposed to resigning Sullinger either. 

Re: Trade idea for Big Al
« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2015, 03:56:32 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19003
  • Tommy Points: 1833
So we trade two expiring contracts and a 1st round pick for one expiring contract?  This doesn't make sense for us at all.

I tend to agree.  Unless we're talking about a late first round/early second round pick.  We have too many picks as it is.  And if Danny really thinks that Big Al could help us win a playoff series, maybe it is worth it in terms of helping to attract other free agents next year. 

But I'm not completely sold on that.  Still, given how many youngster we already have, something is going to have to give with these picks at some point. 

Well it's one thing to consolidate, improve an asset, and it's another to just waste them. And you'd simply be wasting them.

Even if we have no intentions of keeping Sullinger, Sully at the very least has trade value all the way through draft night and so does whatever picks are used.

Big Al would also diminish our defense, and would instantly become an even greater injury concern. He'd also limit our options in free-agency.

All this for a questionable upgrade for half a season with a certainty of a meaningful reduction in assets for a player that can be had, if we want (I have no doubt Big Al would jump at the opportunity) next Summer. And I have my doubts we'd want him. The time to acquire him was a couple of years ago when we had KG still around. I would've loved it then.

I generally agree.  I think Sullinger could be better used. 

BUT

If Danny knows that Sullinger's value isn't what we think it is and he's eventually going to be able to get little or nothing for him, I do think there's potentially some value in getting Big Al, maybe going a little further in the playoffs, and then trying to use that as a selling point to a big free agent this summer. 

I agree, however, that we likely could do better and I'm certainly not opposed to resigning Sullinger either. 

I like the angle you're bringing to it... I just think it's too much risk for my liking for limited or negative returns.

But whatever, I think we're in general agreement that this is a bad idea except in a very very narrow set of circumstances.