Why not swing the fences on Biyombo and add some reliable backups?

What's the big risk? You can always add a guy like Faried in free agency because of their limitations. I say we re-tool and give this group one more shot personally but just bring in a little firepower.

How about trying to trade Rudy, Claver, and some salary filler to Minnesota for Flynn, then sending Flynn to Phoenix for a S&T Brooks (at 3-4 million a year, 3 year)? He can still backup Andre but just split time, and I think that'd be a great balance (though not a ton of defense there).

We could trade Freeland/Claver for Turiaf possibly as NY could probably get some vets (Vince Carter?) who want to win on the cheap anyways and Dantoni does well with foreigners. Then he could be our insurance/cheerleader/intimidating guy off the bench.

We could draft Biyombo (maybe trade up picks with cash), and he could sit on the bench this year and learn from defense minded vets who learned how to utilize their limited offensive games in Camby and Turiaf.

Miller/Roy/Wallace/Aldridge/Oden?
Brooks/Matthews/Batum/Turiaf/Camby

reserves: Mills, Johnson, Williams, Biyombo, Johnson

Nice balance of vets (Camby, Miller), guys in their prime (Roy - what's left, Aldridge, Wallace, Turiaf, Matthews, Brooks), and still youth (Batum, Oden, Biyombo, etc.)

I just feel like it's fleeting to pursue Nash or other over the hill guys. I like our roster on the whole if Roy can find a niche he can contribute to somewhere. There's still some potential, the guys have never played together healthy, and there's a lot of court IQ. I say we cut the dead weight/failed experiments and add some reliable players who you know what you're gonna get with. Brooks = streaky but good shooting, limited defense. Turiaf = energy, defense, decent passing.

Camby and Miller have meant so much to the team the last two years and are really good with the young guys so I'd want to make a large upgrade if we lost them not a moderate upgrade.

 

If we want to take on the spirit of low contact likelihood/swing for the fences, then I'd rather keep Flynn in your trade chain. Flynn is more likely a strike out than a home run, but Brooks is a sacrifice bunt. He can help advance the team a little, but he won't make a major impact. Flynn has a small chance of becoming something interesting. If we're keeping Miller anyway, then Flynn makes a potentially fine backup.

I don't think rights to Freeland or Claver count as trade chips at the moment, since neither seems all that inclined to come over for the foreseeable future (working from memory on recent things people have posted about them).

 

From B-Edge:

 

He is very raw, but he's supposed to be an incredibly hard worker who they say can contribute now on defense. The same knocks were said of Ibaka. But I think practicing with a team that has Aldridge, Oden (potentially), Turiaf, and Camby would give him plenty of steep improvement on the little things, or playing the ACB another year could help too. I just think with Turiaf you can get what Faried is supposed to give you now, and then grab potential with a guy like this who has an extremely high motor (which was always the knock with a lot of the athletic foreign guys, including Sene, Ibaka - that's changed).

 

If it's at 21, I would definitely consider it.

 

Thats way to much to give up for Flynn who Minnesota is thinking of trading straight up for tony douglas. I'd also rather keep Flynn just like Minstrel said.

 

Freeland wants to come over right now, and Claver wants to come over after next season. They are VERY trade-able especially considering the lockout to a team looking to rebuild/retool.

 

VERY trade-able? Some of us really need to stop overvaluing our prospects so much

 

I'm not overvaluing them. in fact I don't even put a value on them, I simply said I think there very trade able. I think people will take them especially rebuilding teams, there not gonna be the main part of a trade nor are we going to get a serviceable player for just an overseas player and a pick, but they can defiantly be used to sweeten a pot.

 

I have heard NOTHING om Freeland wanting to come over "right now" - you have a link?

 

I like Biyombo as the next Theo Ratliff. Amazing defense and maybe a dunk or two during a game. The rawness tag shouldn't bother the Blazers as long as they are just looking for D and any offense is icing on the cake.

 

Biyombo? A guy who can't even win a game of one on none?

no thanks....

 

Well then what exactly do you mean by "very tradeable?" If you mean that we could throw them into any kind of deal without moving the interest needle one way or another then I suppose you're right they are very tradeable, but if you mean that teams would let either of them push a deal over the top then I think you haven't been paying attention.

 

I guess Dikembe Mutombo sucked since he wasn't a great ball handler or shooter.

 

If that's his potential, and he can truly be that anytime soon then:

Ratliff was a game changer from a defensive standpoint, you simply couldn't attack the paint when he was in the game.

 

There's zero chance Biyombo falls to 21.

 

lol...Mutumbo was 10x the player Biyombo is now...

 

I'm definitely on this bandwagon. Seems like every year the New Hot Thing from last year and/or the year before's draft lose their bloom, and that's when it's time to bargain shop. Flynn, John Wall, Wesley Johnson, Gordon Hayward....although I guess Wall isn't going to be had for a song. But Wall's first year stats weren't really that mind-blowing (15.8 per).

Maybe Rashard Lewis/Wall in exchange for Camby/Batum + change. They dump an albatross of a contract in Lewis and get some youngsters. We get a lineup of Wall/Matthews/Crash/Aldridge/Oden, with Andre Miller and Lewis coming off the bench. *shrug* Not many teams want to trade a guy chosen #1 in the draft after just one season, I suppose....