If spurs is serious about KD, can we get Danny Green?

[Stig]

If Spurs is really going for KD, then they need to unload someone, Danny Green is likely to be traded? He's a good D+3 guy, can we be the facilitator to take Green's contract?

He regressed a lot last year, don't know why, maybe just due to a smaller role in offence, he's $10m though, for another 3 years.

[crimson_stallion]

Why would we want to?

He's basically a poor man's Avery Bradley.

Bradley is a better shooter, a better defender, a better outright scorer, and he is the ultimate team player.  Only use I see in Green would be as a backup SG, and I think he's too expensive for a backup.

As a starter I say no thanks.  Unless we can make a major upgrade to an All-Star or fringe All-Star at the SG spot, I'd rather just stick with Bradley.

[Stig]

He's a better shooter than Bradley, but anyway I'm not suggesting replace Bradley with Green.

If we can't get any big names this summer, we'll need to address the immediate issue of this team going forward, which is shooting. If we are not to sign Turner, we need another guard/sf, as of today we only have two guards can shot: IT and AB, adding a shooter should make sense.

$10m is not a very bad contract, considering Wesley Matthews is getting $17m

[contramundum]

Why would we want to?

He's basically a poor man's Avery Bradley.

Bradley is a better shooter, a better defender, a better outright scorer, and he is the ultimate team player.  Only use I see in Green would be as a backup SG, and I think he's too expensive for a backup.

As a starter I say no thanks.  Unless we can make a major upgrade to an All-Star or fringe All-Star at the SG spot, I'd rather just stick with Bradley.

Think like a GM - if you can swing a good deal to get a productive player on a good contract you do it, if he doesn't fit he's a great trade chip.  With that said I don't see SA giving us such a deal that would add value to our roster and salary.

[saltlover]

Why would we want to?

He's basically a poor man's Avery Bradley.

Bradley is a better shooter, a better defender, a better outright scorer, and he is the ultimate team player.  Only use I see in Green would be as a backup SG, and I think he's too expensive for a backup.

As a starter I say no thanks.  Unless we can make a major upgrade to an All-Star or fringe All-Star at the SG spot, I'd rather just stick with Bradley.

As a move on its own, I agree with you, although I would note that Green had a terrible year shooting by his standards.  It was the first time in his career that he'd shot below 41.5% from deep (excluding his first two seasons in which he played a combined 207 minutes).  Excepting this year, Green has unquestionably been the better shooter.  I would be surprised if he didn't return to that level of shooting in the future.

However, suppose that the Bulls final asking price for Butler is the fourth overall pick and Avery Bradley?  Green would be a nice backup at the wing, behind Butler and Crowder, and would very nice on the floor at the same time as them as well, with Crowder playing the 4.  As a move that just adds depth at one of our better positions, I agree.  But if it's a move the replaces depth should we trade some away for an upgrade, it could be something worth considering, depending of course how much he would cost.

[TheSundanceKid]

Why would we want to?

He's basically a poor man's Avery Bradley.

Bradley is a better shooter, a better defender, a better outright scorer, and he is the ultimate team player.  Only use I see in Green would be as a backup SG, and I think he's too expensive for a backup.

As a starter I say no thanks.  Unless we can make a major upgrade to an All-Star or fringe All-Star at the SG spot, I'd rather just stick with Bradley.

Championship experience for one. He is a better shooter than Bradley, one year doesn't define a career. Even if he was coming off the bench, we need more shooting and if this is what we can get then let's do it.

It would also be insurance in case Bradley or Smart were traded as part of a package for a veteran star

[crimson_stallion]

He's a better shooter than Bradley, but anyway I'm not suggesting replace Bradley with Green.

If we can't get any big names this summer, we'll need to address the immediate issue of this team going forward, which is shooting. If we are not to sign Turner, we need another guard/sf, as of today we only have two guards can shot: IT and AB, adding a shooter should make sense.

$10m is not a very bad contract, considering Wesley Matthews is getting $17m

Firstly, Green shot 33% from three this year - well below what Bradley did.  He's shot better in the past I know, but we can't just ignore a full 79 games of stats either.

Secondly, I do agree we need shooting - but paying out $10M+ a year for backup caliber role players is one way to ruin your future cap flexibility real quick. 

We have Thomas, Bradley and Crowder all making ~ $7M a year and all three of those guys are much better players then Green is.  I'm sure there are other shooters who we could get on cheaper deals, and if not then I'd rather use one of our picks to draft a shooter (Hield / Korkmaz / Murray / Dunn)  rather then blow $10M in cap space over the next 3 years on a role player like Green.

I completely get where you are coming from (we are really desperate for shooting) but I think we need to be very careful not to overpay and risk hurting our future cap flexibility on quick-fix moves.

At the end of the day I think Green is just far too limited.  Bradley is mainly known for his defence and his outside shooting, but he is a better outright scorer then people give him credit for.  He has become pretty strong finishing at the basket lately, he is a knock-down shooter from midrange, and he has improved his dribbling enough that he can get those midrange jumpers off almost any time he wants - hence why he's been able to average 14-15 PPG the past couple of seasons.

Green is really just a very strict 3+D guy.  He can't contribute a whole lot more on offence then pure three point shooting, and he won't impact the game with his on-ball defence the way Bradley does.  If we had to trade Bradley to bring back a star, then I'd want a better player then Danny starting in his place.  If we do get a better player then Bradley back, then I don't want to pay $10M to a backup.

One look at this year is a perfect example of how a move like this could hurt us in the future.  Even in this massively rising cap scenario, we would still need to cut 3-4 guys from our roster (Sully, Jerebko, Amir, etc) for us to have enough cap space to sign two max free agents.  You add Green @ $10M a year and suddenly any chance of us being able to add two max guys goes down the toilet. 

I know everybody is saying that we only go for this IF we can't get a big pickup this offseason, but why put all our eggs in one basket?  Why do we just give up if we don't get that big name guy this year - why not try to maintain that cap flexibility and take another big run next year?  Why add massively overpaid long term contracts in to the mix and threaten that future flexibliity?

If we were a legit contender and adding an extra shooter for depth could put us over the top, then I'd say go for it.  But right now we are a couple of major moves away from being seriously entertained as a contender, so overpaying for role players makes little sense. 

[moiso]

Why would we want to?

He's basically a poor man's Avery Bradley.

Bradley is a better shooter, a better defender, a better outright scorer, and he is the ultimate team player.  Only use I see in Green would be as a backup SG, and I think he's too expensive for a backup.

As a starter I say no thanks.  Unless we can make a major upgrade to an All-Star or fringe All-Star at the SG spot, I'd rather just stick with Bradley.

Green is a tall man's Avery Bradley.  Green is the better shooter, both are very good defenders and ultimate team players.  Bradley has had the green light to create more shots for himself and is probably better at it.

[pearljammer10]

I like Green but I wouldn't go out of my way to give him multiple assets or dish out too much cash for him... As much as I dislike Avery Bradley I would rather keep him then overpay for Green.

[Csfan1984]

I'd give them Hunter and 35 pick for Green. Sure team ends up taking in salary but shooting off the bench is a team need. Also if Spurs get KD should C's just go full rebuild how on earth can C's beat that team in next 3 years?

[Stig]

He's a better shooter than Bradley, but anyway I'm not suggesting replace Bradley with Green.

If we can't get any big names this summer, we'll need to address the immediate issue of this team going forward, which is shooting. If we are not to sign Turner, we need another guard/sf, as of today we only have two guards can shot: IT and AB, adding a shooter should make sense.

$10m is not a very bad contract, considering Wesley Matthews is getting $17m

Firstly, Green shot 33% from three this year - well below what Bradley did.  He's shot better in the past I know, but we can't just ignore a full 79 games of stats either.

Secondly, I do agree we need shooting - but paying out $10M+ a year for backup caliber role players is one way to ruin your future cap flexibility real quick. 

We have Thomas, Bradley and Crowder all making ~ $7M a year and all three of those guys are much better players then Green is.  I'm sure there are other shooters who we could get on cheaper deals, and if not then I'd rather use one of our picks to draft a shooter (Hield / Korkmaz / Murray / Dunn)  rather then blow $10M in cap space over the next 3 years on a role player like Green.

I completely get where you are coming from (we are really desperate for shooting) but I think we need to be very careful not to overpay and risk hurting our future cap flexibility on quick-fix moves.

At the end of the day I think Green is just far too limited.  Bradley is mainly known for his defence and his outside shooting, but he is a better outright scorer then people give him credit for.  He has become pretty strong finishing at the basket lately, he is a knock-down shooter from midrange, and he has improved his dribbling enough that he can get those midrange jumpers off almost any time he wants - hence why he's been able to average 14-15 PPG the past couple of seasons.

Green is really just a very strict 3+D guy.  He can't contribute a whole lot more on offence then pure three point shooting, and he won't impact the game with his on-ball defence the way Bradley does.  If we had to trade Bradley to bring back a star, then I'd want a better player then Danny starting in his place.  If we do get a better player then Bradley back, then I don't want to pay $10M to a backup.

One look at this year is a perfect example of how a move like this could hurt us in the future.  Even in this massively rising cap scenario, we would still need to cut 3-4 guys from our roster (Sully, Jerebko, Amir, etc) for us to have enough cap space to sign two max free agents.  You add Green @ $10M a year and suddenly any chance of us being able to add two max guys goes down the toilet. 

I know everybody is saying that we only go for this IF we can't get a big pickup this offseason, but why put all our eggs in one basket?  Why do we just give up if we don't get that big name guy this year - why not try to maintain that cap flexibility and take another big run next year?  Why add massively overpaid long term contracts in to the mix and threaten that future flexibliity?

If we were a legit contender and adding an extra shooter for depth could put us over the top, then I'd say go for it.  But right now we are a couple of major moves away from being seriously entertained as a contender, so overpaying for role players makes little sense.

Many valid points, but I'd argue his contract is not that bad as long as his shooting slump is not permanent, and I think he is getting his shot back during the playoff, he's 16/33 so far.

Green is also a very good defensive player in his own right, quote from this article: https://airalamo.com/2016/04/21/my-nba-all-defensive-first-team-ballot/

"Green lead all guards in Defensive Box Plus/Minus, Defensive Rating, Defensive Real Plus-Minus, and was first for specifically shooting guards in Defensive Win Shares"

I agree the 3 years contract is a bit too long, but 3+D guys are quite popular these days, with an inflated cap space, I don't think it's too hard to move him when needed.