CHI/NY/BOS 3 team trade idea

[Moranis]

With Deng out of Chicago and rumors that Chicago is going to amnesty Boozer this summer I thought this trade might make sense for all 3 teams.

BOS - Stoudemire, Bargnani, 2015 NY 2nd
CHI - Humphries, Brooks
NY - Boozer, Wallace, Bass, Sacramento 1st (from Chicago)

Boston shaves a year from Wallace and gets a look at Bargnani and Stoudemire and picks up a future 2nd to replace the one they gave up in the Lee trade.

Chicago shaves the year off of Boozer's contract (and even less money this year) without needing the amnesty clause for the pick they got for Deng.  Humphries should be a capable rotation player for them and they get a look at Brooks.

New York takes on the extra year of Wallace, but picks up Boozer who fits more into their win now mode and also gets a potential 1st rounder something they need badly.

[Fafnir]

Still doesn't make sense for the C's.

We'd be taking on $17 million in salary next year, an increase of from $18 to $35 assuming Humphries/Brooks aren't retained with new deals, for a 2nd round pick.

Teams usually require a lottery pick or 2 lower first round picks for that sort of salary dump. Not to mention it could put us in luxury tax range depending on other moves.

All for the paltry return of dumping $10.1 million of Wallace's deal in 2015-2016. That year we only have committed salary for Green, Olynyk, and Sullinger anyways.

[Moranis]

Still doesn't make sense for the C's.

We'd be taking on $17 million in salary next year, an increase of from $18 to $35 assuming Humphries/Brooks aren't retained with new deals, for a 2nd round pick.

Teams usually require a lottery pick or 2 lower first round picks for that sort of salary dump. Not to mention it could put us in luxury tax range depending on other moves.

All for the paltry return of dumping $10.1 million of Wallace's deal in 2015-2016. That year we only have committed salary for Green, Olynyk, and Sullinger anyways.

depends what you think of Bargs and Amare. I actually think Bargs/Sully & Amare/Olynyk are very nice groupings and could potentially be a very solid big man rotation (with Fav as the 5th guy).  I also don't see Boston doing anything this summer in free agency so I don't mind the salary next year (and cutting the year off of Wallace is huge as it will allow Boston the ability to re-sign Rondo and still bring in a top tier free agent, with Wallace on the books that isn't possible without other trades) and both Bargs and Amare are nice expiring contracts to use as trade bait this summer or next year if they aren't working out.

[pearljammer10]

Dont like it. Bargs is just not a smart player. I'd rather use Humphries contract for something of value.

[Fafnir]

Still doesn't make sense for the C's.

We'd be taking on $17 million in salary next year, an increase of from $18 to $35 assuming Humphries/Brooks aren't retained with new deals, for a 2nd round pick.

Teams usually require a lottery pick or 2 lower first round picks for that sort of salary dump. Not to mention it could put us in luxury tax range depending on other moves.

All for the paltry return of dumping $10.1 million of Wallace's deal in 2015-2016. That year we only have committed salary for Green, Olynyk, and Sullinger anyways.

depends what you think of Bargs and Amare. I actually think Bargs/Sully & Amare/Olynyk are very nice groupings and could potentially be a very solid big man rotation (with Fav as the 5th guy).  I also don't see Boston doing anything this summer in free agency so I don't mind the salary next year (and cutting the year off of Wallace is huge as it will allow Boston the ability to re-sign Rondo and still bring in a top tier free agent, with Wallace on the books that isn't possible without other trades) and both Bargs and Amare are nice expiring contracts to use as trade bait this summer or next year if they aren't working out.

Amar'e is damaged goods, can't count on him to produce. He's a nice post up C but can't defend at all anymore, no mobility.

Bargs is a net negative on the court and always has been. We'd pay them more money for worse performance.