Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ncfan

Hornets in talks for Bradley Beal

Recommended Posts



10 minutes ago, carpanfan96 said:

word is the trade package might end up being Beal and fillers for Batum, Monk, Bridges, Lamb plus a first. 

Link?

Cus that would be terrible for all our assets. Every single one..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bLACKpANTHER said:

Link?

Cus that would be terrible for all our assets. Every single one..

Beal is the player the Wizards least want to trade, he has the most trade value of any player on that roster and for his skill set has a reasonable contract for 2 more years. 

 

Monk + 1st + Lamb and filler isn't going to be enough, so either multiple first round picks or both players on the Hornets outside of Kemba with the most value. 

 

One of the beat reporters for Washington said that A horrible contract plus a pick isn't enough that if Charlotte wanted Beal it would have to up the assets majorly. Agreed with a fan that Monk + Bridges, Lamb and 1st would be the type of deal it would take to get it done.  Will have to find the tweet. 

 

So if it happens, expect the Hornets to give up a ton to get it done. Especially if the Wizards don't want Batums contract and the Hornets have to work with William's as filler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd give up two firsts before parting with Bridges but its indicative of just how horrible Batum's contract is that I'd still probably do the deal with Monk, Bridges and an additional 1st just to get rid of him.  Hard to imagine what our new lineup would look like since we would be giving up 3 or 4 key rotation guys for one starter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really don’t think we should give up bridges. Anyone else is ok though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, carpanfan96 said:

Agreed with a fan that Monk + Bridges, Lamb and 1st would be the type of deal it would take to get it done.  Will have to find the tweet. 

That is not the same thing as "the word"..  more like "the word of a guy on twitter"

Mitch would be crazy to give them Lamb, Bridges, Monk and a first rounder..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bLACKpANTHER said:

That is not the same thing as "the word"..  more like "the word of a guy on twitter"

Mitch would be crazy to give them Lamb, Bridges, Monk and a first rounder..

Even Rick Bonnell went that direction for the Wizards asking price. Wizards are going to want Monk, Lamb and Bridges plus picks because the only way Charlotte can pull it off is by sending horrible contracts back the other way. Only way a team does that is if they get extra compensation. 

 

Regardless if its Williams or Batum, the Hornets will have to add to the pot to make that attractive. 

 

so if straight up trade would be Lamb, Monk and a first round pick top 3 protected. Adding Batum or William's to match salary means you've got to add something else to the mix for Washington to legitimately consider it. I.E and extra first round pick plus Bacon/Willy or Bridges. 

 

That's just what it's going to take. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closest thing I can get to a realistic trade with Washington with out including Bridges. 

 

Williams, Lamb, Monk, Bacon and first round pick(top 3 protected) 2 second round picks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get if they want a lot for him, but the amount of assets people are talking about giving up for him is more than some hall of famers have garnered in past trades, and Beal isn't a hall of famer, lol.  I want to get him, but not by giving up every young player and asset we have now through the next 2 years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Proudiddy said:

I get if they want a lot for him, but the amount of assets people are talking about giving up for him is more than some hall of famers have garnered in past trades, and Beal isn't a hall of famer, lol.  I want to get him, but not by giving up every young player and asset we have now through the next 2 years.  

 

It's not just what they want for Beal, it's what it would take for them to take on Batum contract. Getting rid of Batum alone is going to take a first round pick or young player, then you start to talk about what it would take to get Beal from Washington. That's going to be another young player, draft picks and expiring contracts. 

 

Add these two together and you get multiple young players, multiple fist round draft picks..ext..ext..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Proudiddy said:

I get if they want a lot for him, but the amount of assets people are talking about giving up for him is more than some hall of famers have garnered in past trades, and Beal isn't a hall of famer, lol.  I want to get him, but not by giving up every young player and asset we have now through the next 2 years.  

I like our young guys but I think you're overvaluing them a bit here. Monk hasn't really shown anything yet and while Bridges looks like a player its not like he's been some amazing rookie or anything, he just doesn't totally suck like most of our other rookies.  Add in that we would be dumping a bum with a bad contract in either Williams or Batum (which is even worse than a bad contract) and, the idea this is some kind of huge haul for the Wizards is a mischaracterization imo, even if you throw in a 1st which is probably going to be in the late teens, at best, next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      20,039
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    lavanyathelabel
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      145,884
    • Total Posts
      4,773,818
  • Posts

    • Darn you. Darn you straight to heck. I cannot darn you to heck any more strongly for what you're forcing me to point out. Someone literally just posted the other day a reminder thread of the greatest collapse and most epic comeback in the history of the Super Bowl. The qb at the helm for the winning team on the comeback side was Brady. If you are going to classify the qb who led the greatest comeback in the history of the most important game as a game manager and not a playmaker, I feel like the term loses all relevant meaning. I despise Brady but am forced to point out that if you don't call the qb who has that feat on his resume a playmaker, then realistically no one has the right to that term or the term is meaningless and you're assigning it arbitrarily. In particular I'm perplexed that you would put Rodgers on one list and Brady on the other. Aside from Rodgers greater mobility, what skill does he posses that Brady does not? Are you suggesting that being a playmaker is directly tied to athleticism that allows greater physical mobility and thus elusiveness that typical qb's do not possess? The presence of Manning on your playmaker list clearly says no, which leaves me scratching my head at the basis on which some qb's are on one list, some on the other. Either way, I'm highly mildly annoyed at you for forcing me to bring up Brady's comeback against Atlanta in the interest of intellectual honesty.
    • Oh my, that poor guy. No matter how lights out he has been playing, no matter how great he has been on the field, this is one of those moments when he's just like one of us: hurting and grieving. May God be with his family during their time of loss and through the tough days ahead.
    • He'd make a helluva WR and backup QB.
  • Masters of PIE !

×
×
  • Create New...