Portland gets Prince, Kwame, Wright, Det 1st
Golden State gets Rip, Outlaw, Det 2nd
Detroit gets Biedrins, Oden, and Webster

Webster is our stopgap at SF while the young guys develop, Biedrins starts at C, Oden backs him up while he recovers and develops (we'll see if he can ever really recover or adjust to the NBA game).

Portland gets Prince, whom they've been after, and Wright, young talented PF depth that can potentially play some SF. They get Detroit's 1st (with some sort of top-10 protection in case we bomb), which will probably be mid-late teens. Kwame provides depth behind Przybilla, with Alrdridge being able to play some C as well.

Golden State gets Rip, a pure shooter who plays defense and can play SG or SF in their system. They get Outlaw, who will be a PF and could eveny play some C in their Nellieball system like Stephen Jackson, plus one of our 2nd rounders (whichever is likely higher, I don't remember who's picks we have).

Golden State could send one more contract our way, since this adds a bit to their salary (still works under the 125% rule). Portland still has space left after the trade. We actually clear a bit of cap space here.

DO IT

I like the thought, but I have to think that Portland would get more than that in any Oden deal, especially when they give up Outlaw and Webster, too.

I love the idea of that lineup for us, though.

4 scenarios to help out Golden State money-wise.

1. They send Acie Law to us (They have Ellis, Claxton, and Curry ahead of him at PG. It clears an extra 2+ million in cap)

2. They send Azubuike to us (They just got Rip as a SG/SF, they have Belinelli, Curry and Ellis can play SG, it clears an extra 3+ million this year and again next year)

3. They send Azubuike to Portland. Portland sends Fernandez to us (since he's been complaining lately)

4. They send Law to us and Azubuike to Portland. Portland could possibly send Fernandez to us.

The last scenario clears an extra $5-6m from GS, adds $2m to Portland (still under the cap), and adds $3m to us. We come up just about even on the deal.
GS has a plethora of swingmen, so they don't mind losing Azubuike. Law is their 4th option at PG right now.
Portland upgrades from Fernandez to Azubuike and loses the distraction of Fernandez's complaining.
We get a one year trial of Law since next year is a team option, and a backup for Gordon.


Our team looks like:

Stuckey/Bynum/Law
Gordon/Fernandez/Washington
Webster/Daye/Summers
Villanueva/Maxiell/Wilcox
Biedrins/Oden/Wilcox

It all depends on how they feel about Oden's recovery.

They're getting Prince, the coveted SF.
They're getting Wright, a young big with some solid potential. If he had a healthy year, he and Aldridge would be a ridiculously athletic frontcourt.
They get Kwame as depth at C, plus he's expiring.
And they get our 1st rounder, which will probably be a good pick with as deep as next year's draft is rumored to be.

Webster missed all of last season. He's behind Roy/Fernandez/Batum at SG, Batum/Outlaw/Roy at SF. He's set to make $15m+ over 3 years with a $5m+ player option for a 4th.

You could always take out Outlaw and put in Fernandez. I was just thinking GS would want a bigger player. Fernandez would overlap their already bloated SG/SF spot, though.

Think of it this way, if we swapped Outlaw for Fernandez. Would they do Prince and Wright for Oden? Then its a 1st rounder for Fernandez. Webster's 4yr deal as 3rd string SG/4th string SF for Kwame's expiring as depth at C.

Bayless/Blake
Roy/Batum
Prince/Outlaw/Batum
Aldridge/Wright/Outlaw
Przybilla/Aldridge/Kwame
2 1sts in the 2010 draft

You really think Emmanuel Lewis would play ahead of Austin Daye?

Anyhow, how is his foot? Odd that a foot injury would limit you to 5 minutes in an entire season. He's still very young, though, and if health isn't an issue (in a trade that also includes Grandpa Oden) it could be decent.

However, I don't see nearly enough incentive for Portland to make this deal.

No reason for Portland to give up Oden, the guy they drafted over Durant, for Tayshaun Prince.

No reason for Portland to give up Oden, the guy they drafted over Durant, for Tayshaun Prince.
I think they would choose differently if they could go back.

Why do Portland deal Oden?

There is no one on our roster that we could move for him IMO.

The guy has the potential to be a Franchise big (unlikely due to injuries but he could still be damn good) and you simply don't send them away for a SF.

Especially when you have quiote a few capable swingmen already.

It was really all dependent on how they feel about his recovery. There were some rumors flying around last season that his leg issues would never go away because of their main cause: one of his legs is an inch longer than the other. It could cause all sorts of knee, hip and back problems for him.

If they discovered that it was more of an issue than they had first assumed, and he was never going to become that franchise center, then they may look to move him before it's too late. Highly unlikely, but this is the "fun with trade ideas" area.

If all that is true then we wouldn't want him.

How can this thread be called stock up on bigs when we don't have any? It should be called find some bigs.

We have bigs. They're just not good.

I consider stocking up on something to imply you already have adequate measures of it.

If I'm stocking up on toilet paper it means I already have a reasonable amount and want more in case. It doesn't mean I have a stack of post it notes I have to use for toilet paper that I need to replace with real toilet paper.

I consider stocking up on something to imply you already have adequate measures of it.

If I'm stocking up on toilet paper it means I already have a reasonable amount and want more in case. It doesn't mean I have a stack of post it notes I have to use for toilet paper that I need to replace with real toilet paper.

This needs to become someone's sig.

"We need to stock up on toilet paper" could mean you don't have any.

Wrong. If you were out and went to the store to get some you are either:

A) Getting what you need (whatever amount is normal)

B) Stocking up (getting more than you need for whatever reason).

If you just got what you needed you wouldn't call it stocking up.

Notice it doesn't say current or everyday use:


stock up verb
1. amass so as to keep for future use or sale or for a particular occasion or use;
"let′s stock coffee as long as prices are low"

I like that the example doesn't even use the phrase. Good reference.

Stock up. It means increase your supply. Could be from zero to >0.

It's like the Mad Hatter says. You can't have less than nothing, but you can always have more.

Apparently you haven't solved the carbon monoxide leak yet.

That was funny once, you have to take it up a notch to make it funny again though.