# 3 way trade- NY-SA-UTAH



## nyksju (Feb 11, 2003)

heard about this scenario
-NY Trades : Spree, KT, Ward
-NY Gets : Ostertag, Andre Kirilenko (AK-47) 

-SA Trades : Speedy Claxton (S&T) 
-SA Gets : Spree, John Amaechi 

-Uta Trades: Ostertag, Amaechi, AK-47 
-Uta Gets : Speedy, KT, Ward 

NY does it cuz kirilinko is a stud and it gives nky a good future
SA does it b/c with spree they'd have a great chance at repeating and would not loose Speedy w/o a return
Utah does it to fill the pf spot

what do you think? Utah seems to get the short end but Harpring is a good sf and they get players that can try to fill Stock and Malones shoes


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

Interestingly enough, I've been thinking of KT ending up in a Jazz uniform next season lately, too. BUT I've been thinking of Utah, New York, and ATLANTA, not San Antonio (can't imagine that they're serious about trading for Spree), working something out. Remember, the Hawks need to dump some payroll if they want to be able to match any offer for Jason Terry (a contract starting at around $6-$7 mil, probably), and when you're desperate for somebody to bail you out on your luxury tax problems, you have to give something for nothing, as we've seen over the past two summers in luxury tax-motivated deals.

So...

Kurt Thomas to Utah;
Theo Ratliff to New York;
DeShawn Stevenson, Travis Knight (expiring contract), and a future Jazz first round pick to Atlanta

The Knicks get their center, the Jazz get their Mailman replacement (for essentially nothing, that pick will turn out to be a mid-teens pick in a few years, mid-teens first round picks aren't the most valuable commodities in the world), and the Hawks can afford to re-sign Jason Terry, avoid the luxury tax in 2003-04, and reduce payroll in 2004-05 by letting the contracts of Knight and Stevenson expire in the summer of 2004.

Another team that needs to dump a few million in payroll in order to avoid the luxury tax is Minnesota, who I don't think will trade Terrell Brandon AFTER all this summer, as it turns out. KG and Wally World obviously clash. Wally World makes about $8 mil next season, I believe. Stephen Jackson will get a contract that starts in the $4-$5 mil neighborhood. So, again, when a team wants to get below the luxury tax threshold, they have to give up more than they get in return. So...

Wally World to San Antonio;
a re-signed Stephen Jackson and a future Spurs first round pick to Minnesota

Minnesota will have more weapons next season than they had this previous season for KG to work with. Cassell, Kandi, Hudson, and Jackson is definitely an upgrade over Wally World, Nesterovic, and Hudson, don't you think?

Minnesota will be able to sign a nice veteran again NEXT summer with their MLE IF KG agrees to a paycut. Remember, KG makes about $28 mil this season. The most another team can offer him is about $12-$13 mil. Minnesota can offer him $30ish mil. I think what we'll see happen is for Minnesota to turn the tables on KG here. In order for KG to add one more piece to the puzzle, he'll have to take a big paycut, I'm talking from $28 mil to $18-$20 mil here. IF he takes the paycut, Minnesota can add another piece to the puzzle, and he can advance in the playoffs; if he DOESN'T agree to a paycut, not only can Minnesota not add a much-needed additional piece via their MLE in the summer of 2004, BUT the best offer he can get from another team will PALE in comparison to the $18-$20 mil that Minnesota will be pushing for.

In other words, KG will look like somebody who is motivated exclusively by money by insisting on getting the maximum amount of money that Minnesota can offer him, and even the paycut that Minnesota will insist on is significantly better than the next-best offer he'll be able to get.

Finally, the Celtics need to dump some payroll, and I still think we'll see Antoine Walker head to Denver for Marcus Camby and a future first round pick. Walker will obviously be an upgrade over whoever Kiki plans on starting at PF at the moment, while moving Antoine for Camby allows the Celts to avoid the luxury tax for the second year in a row. Keep an eye on Antoine, I'll be surprised if he isn't moved in a luxury tax-motivated deal, which means he'll need to get traded to a team with cap room, either Miami, San Antonio, Denver, Utah, Washington, or the Clips. He'd be an awfully interesting fit in San Antonio, as well.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

Utah will not trade Andrei, let alone for scrubs.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

This is one of the better trades I've seen. Player-wise, the Knicks get the short end, but they unload Spree's contract. I looked at it like five times trying to figure out why it would be a bad idea, but I couldn't find anything. I don't know how others will feel, but I like it.


----------



## TiMVP2 (Jun 19, 2003)

I would love this to happen speaking as a spurs fan it rocks


----------



## pavlo11 (Jul 8, 2003)

I see the Jazz making any deals with anyone until they find out about Maggette. If the Jazz get Maggette they would probably trade Harpring but no way are they trading AK


----------



## edyat (Jun 30, 2003)

spurs are definitely loving this one


----------



## nyksju (Feb 11, 2003)

so it sounds like SA would def do it and so would the Knicks but Utah would be heisitant to trade AK. since SA is gettin the best of the dealmayb they would throw in a 2nd rounder to Utah to sweeten the deal


----------



## carveyman (Jul 21, 2003)

that would be a great trade for SA but NY loses spree and KT? and utah gets screwed. 
everybody should go here and vote:
http://pub.alxnet.com/poll?id=2383297


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

This trade could never happen spree isnt a knick no more he already is a spur

Spurs Traded Rose got Spree
Knicks Traded Spree gto Van HOrn
76ers traded horn get rose


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> This trade could never happen spree isnt a knick no more he already is a spur
> 
> Spurs Traded Rose got Spree
> ...


Link please???
You're the second person to mention this but I can't find a story anywhere.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Someone said it was just reported on ESPNews, so there may not be a story up on the web yet.


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

If thats true that the worst news i've ever heard. The knicks will be cursed.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> This trade could never happen spree isnt a knick no more he already is a spur
> 
> Spurs Traded Rose got Spree
> ...


Does this trade really make any of them any better? Spree's living off his rep at this point. He's rapidly aging and he's probably already lost a couple of steps. That reduces his slashing and transition buckets. He's never been a good shooter either and he's only getting worse. Once you factor in the high turnover rate you have an incredibly inefficient player. I'd continue to let Ginobili develop if I were SA. The Knicks don't get any better either. What the hell does KVH do for them? They're already loaded at that position. When you have Thomas, Sweetney, Harrington, McDyess, and Weatherspoon at PF, why the hell would you want to add another guy to that mix? Typical Layden. Rose does nothing for the Sixers either. They've already got a Malik Rose-type player in Kenny Thomas. Maybe he adds some depth to the bench but he's no better than KVH. I see nothing more than a move to bring a Philly kid back home. Talent-wise, this does nothing for the team's involved. Maybe there is some contractual motivation for making these moves.


----------



## carayip (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> This trade could never happen spree isnt a knick no more he already is a spur
> 
> Spurs Traded Rose got Spree
> ...


This is actually a pretty good trade for SA. Spree even at his age now is hands down a better player than Rose and will be a reliable 2nd/3rd option Spurs need. Plus, they get rid of Rose's overpaid long-term contract. Spree's contract expires in 2 years, right at the time they need to throw big money at Parker.

Philly of course get rid of Van Horn's big contract and reduce the payroll so it makes prefect sense for them. Anything they get is a bonus.

Knicks well... they get a frontcourt scorer to make a run at a playoffs spot next season. They are never rebuilding anyway.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>carayip</b>!
> 
> 
> This is actually a pretty good trade for SA. Spree even at his age now is hands down a better player than Rose and will be a reliable 2nd/3rd option Spurs need. Plus, they get rid of Rose's overpaid long-term contract. Spree's contract expires in 2 years, right at the time they need to throw big money at Parker.
> ...


Carayip is, of course, exactly right, this is exactly what is going on here. The Spurs want to move Malik Rose's longterm deal--I believe last year was the first year of a seven-year deal, and he clearly is going to be one of the league's most overpaid players within 2-3 years--and, while Spree makes more over the next couple of years than Rose, Spree's contract expires in the summer of 2005. Spree doesn't have a lot of value these days, fellas; when Philly, a team that is DESPERATE to dump Van Horn, is balking at trading Van Horn for Spree straight up, that's not exactly what I'd call a ringing endorsement. Spree-to-San Antonio will get a ton of hype from the media and fans, especially since a certain ex-NBA head coach is currently a Spurs assistant, but this deal is about money, not about basketball.

Since the Spurs apparently don't have anything better to do with their cap room this summer (not at this point, anyway), they may as well make a move that improves their chances at longterm viability. Does this mean that they can let Stephen Jackson walk this summer? Maybe. Probably what it means is that they'll pursue a sign-and-trade involving Jackson. They'll want to trade him for a replacement backup PF/C, somebody whose contract expires within a couple of years. 

One possibility is for Philly to sign-and-trade Derrick Coleman and for the Spurs to sign-and-trade Stephen Jackson. The Spurs get Spree and D.C., the Sixers get Rose and Jackson. The players would obviously get included in this deal. Jackson replaces Van Horn as the starting SF in Philly, Spree replaces Jackson as the starting SG in San Antonio, D.C. replaces Rose as the backup big guy in San Antonio, Rose replaces D.C. as the starting C in Philly. Jackson to a longterm (six years?) deal starting at MLE money, D.C. to a two-year deal starting at around $3.0-$3.5 mil.

San Antonio after this deal:

PG Tony Parker (36 mpg)
SG Latrell Sprewell (32 mpg)
SF Bruce Bowen (24 mpg)
PF Tim Duncan (40 mpg)
C Radoslav Nesterovic (32 mpg)

Key reserves: Emanuel Ginobili (32 mpg), Derrick Coleman (16 mpg), Jacque Vaughn or some other dirt-cheap veteran PG (12 mpg), Kevin Willis (8 mpg), Steve Kerr (8 mpg)

End of the bench (no PT): Pepe Sanchez (let go by Detroit, the Spurs have to fill out their roster somehow), Luis Scola (last year's second round pick)

I used to be a big Spree fan during his prime--wow, that dude had guts--but he's really slipped over the past couple of years. Still, is he really any worse than the erratic Stephen Jackson at this point? I doubt it. And D.C., assuming he responds reasonably well to Gregg Popovich's coaching style, is an upgrade over Rose, plus, as discussed above, he's way cheaper. Vaughn isn't quite as good as Speedy Claxton as the backup PG, but keep in mind that Speedy rarely played for the Spurs last year, he didn't play much until late in the playoffs. Popovich wasn't much of a Speedy fan. He's not much of a Rose fan, either; Rose spent a good chunk of last season in the doghouse.

Philly after this deal:

Starting lineup

PG Eric Snow (32 mpg)
SG Allen Iverson (40 mpg)
SF Stephen Jackson (32 mpg)
PF Kenny Thomas (40 mpg)
C Malik Rose (32 mpg)

Key reserves: Aaron McKie (16 mpg), Samuel Dalembert (16 mpg), Greg Buckner (12 mpg), John Salmons (12 mpg), Sam Clancy (8 mpg)

End of the bench (no PT): Amal McCaskill, Kyle Korver

Stashed on the IR: Todd MacCulloch, Efthimios Rentzias, Willie Greene

Philly will obviously miss Larry Brown, but they won't miss Keith Van Horn, that's for sure. The team above should be a pretty decent run-and-gun team. They'll slip, but they're still good enough to be considered a shoo-in for the playoffs. And their payroll has been reduced drastically; they can even afford to make a market value offer to, say, Elden Campbell this summer and still stay below the luxury tax threshold after this deal.


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

I dont think this trade happened, why hasnt it been on any news stations yet? Nice try though, i almost beileved it.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jmonty580</b>!
> I dont think this trade happened, why hasnt it been on any news stations yet? Nice try though, i almost beileved it.


Apparently, this thing is imminent. The Knicks are totally sold on trading away Spree and getting back Van Horn; the Sixers are totally sold on dumping Van Horn and getting back a relatively productive and FAR CHEAPER player in return; and the Spurs are totally sold on adding Spree. I see the trade ideas posted around here, most of them are total garbage and I don't even comment on them, but this one makes perfect sense.

So, what's the holdup? My guess is that the Spurs want to make sure they end up with a solid backup PF/C here. Trading away Malik Rose and getting no Rose-esque player back in return isn't going to work. My guess is that Stephen Jackson is also bound to be involved in this deal, and that the Spurs want to essentially move Rose for Spree and Jackson (in a sign-and-trade) for a Rose replacement. Perhaps this means Derrick Coleman, or perhaps a mystery fourth player from a mystery fourth team.

In any event, I'm not sure if we've ever seen a four-way in the NBA, but it could happen, simply because these three teams have apparently totally hammered out the specifics. And, as for Malik Rose being "Tim Duncan's best friend on the team"--disregard that garbage, Rose's contract will become a problem in the end for whoever he's playing for, the Spurs know this, that's why they want to move him, they aren't going to keep the guy because he's Duncan's buddy, this is A BUSINESS, but they DO appreciate what he brings to the table for them and they need to make sure they replace him somehow. And moving Stephen Jackson for a Rose replacement--hopefully a Rose upgrade, preferably a veteran whose contract expires in a couple of years--is probably the way to go, since it will be impossible to give Spree AND Ginobili AND Jackson enough minutes to keep all three dudes happy.

Look around the league, look for a PF/C who makes around $5 mil next year, a guy who the Spurs could trade a re-signed Stephen Jackson (full MLE) straight up for, a guy whose team isn't all that crazy about, a team that could totally use Stephen Jackson. That's your mystery fourth team.

Ten possible Stephen Jackson-for-x deals for the Spurs:

1 Othella Harrington (in which case S.A. can work out a sign-and-trade involving Jackson with another team, possibly for a backup PG)
2 Donyell Marshall
3 Marcus Fizer
4 Clifford Robinson (Jackson could start at SF for Detroit)
5 Adonal Foyle
6 Stromile Swift (future Spurs 1st thrown in?)
7 Anthony Mason (packaged with Joel Pryzbilla somehow?)
8 Ervin Johnson (packaged with a future 1st round pick)
9 Robert Traylor (packaged with George Lynch or Stacey Augmon)
10 Keon Clark (very much in the Kings' doghouse, very available)

Probably the most likely options here are Harrington and Robinson. Each dude's contract expires after two years (Uncle Cliffy has a team option for a third year that will almost certainly be declined), same time as Spree's deal expires, so either guy makes sense from a financial standpoint for the Spurs. Keep in mind that the free agent class of 2005 will be just as spectacular as the free agent class of 2003. The Spurs, after moving Rose and getting back Spree and, say, Uncle Cliffy in return, should have only Duncan, Nesterovic, and Ginobili (assuming they can afford to re-sign him next summer) on the payroll that summer (Parker will be a restricted free agent who they will re-sign after using their cap room on other players). That means that the Spurs will again have around $15 mil in cap room, enough to make a max offer to somebody really, really good. HOWEVER, by standing pat, and holding onto Rose's lousy deal, the Spurs will be UNABLE to make such an offer. Don't think that this isn't the ultimate reason why the Spurs are interested in moving Rose and getting Spree back in return, because it is.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

Why does everyone think SA wants to trade Stephen Jackson? IMO Pop loves the kid and I doubt he'll be in anything but black and silver next year.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> Why does everyone think SA wants to trade Stephen Jackson? IMO Pop loves the kid and I doubt he'll be in anything but black and silver next year.


I think my explanation above should answer this question. It's not that the Spurs WANT to trade Jackson, it's that they want to move Rose's longterm contract, get Spree, and replace Rose's minutes in the rotation. The obvious way to replace Rose's minutes is to trade Jackson for a guy who can do that. Spree, Ginobili, Jackson--one of these three has to go, and it isn't going to be Ginobili, and it's not going to be Spree, either, otherwise, why would the Spurs bother to trade for him? It's going to be Jackson. Another possibility is to sign-and-trade Jackson for a solid backup PG and to sign Derrick Coleman to a two-year deal starting at about $3.0-$3.5 mil, but that move adds payroll, which makes re-signing Ginobili next summer THAT MUCH TOUGHER.

Remember, the Spurs want to make sure they can re-sign Ginobili next summer, he's a big player for this team right now and figures to become an even bigger player for them over the next several years.


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

Im not saying that the trade doesnt make sense, even though i dont like KVH and most knicks fans dont Layden seems to be having wet dreams about him. 

My comment was directed at the fact that BabyBlueSlugga7 

said "This trade could never happen spree isnt a knick no more he already is a spur

Spurs Traded Rose got Spree
Knicks Traded Spree gto Van HOrn
76ers traded horn get rose"

That was complete lie because i didnt hear anything about it last night and its now 2:38pm and i still havent heard anything about it. Wouldnt it have been on espn or in the papers by now?


----------

