I am down with that....

BRIGGS wrote:Chandler has proven without a shadow of a doubt that is by far a superior player to either of those guys and getting better by the game---I mean ALL STAR level player. Trading for Melo wont change the need for a 2nd quality big man and a strong bench---we need both--but I think the NET for removing Chandler and adding Melo cost versus production is not going to make this team better--so better to sacrifice these two guys and have the ability to retain Chandler. Time for Donnie to step up and make some deals.

welcome aboard brudah!

now we just need fishmike and its official.

BlueSeats wrote:They get any two of Gallo, Chandler, Fields; plus AR.

No. Either Chandler or Gallo plus Fields, Curry and AR.

BlueSeats wrote:They get any two of Gallo, Chandler, Fields; plus AR.

It sounds good, but if i'm Donnie I wait and see if I can convince the Cavs to give up Verajao. Even as we are now if you can add a kid like that to this group, it totally changes what we can do as a team. On most nights we can score with anyone. Tonight was just an off night. However if you can have rebounding every night, even this game would've been winnable. Just think about how close we got even as poorly as we played, but the real problem was the glass again.

They outrebounded us 51-35 and the got 17 offensive boards. I mean we're not really losing games cuz we can't score it just seems like it. We need better perimeter D and someone else in there with Amar'e to hold down the paint and the glass.

MSG3 wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:They get any two of Gallo, Chandler, Fields; plus AR.

No. Either Chandler or Gallo plus Fields, Curry and AR.

Curry is a given for salary matching, so your "correction" is that you're adamant that either of Wilson or Gallo be retained? I understand that thinking, assuming that they have the higher ceilings, but alternatively Melo replaces their strengths while Fields has intangiables that none of them have, and is more suitable to playing SG, and therefore is a better fit with Melo.

But really the point is to give Denver the choice (so as to make it an attractive offer) knowing we're okay so long as we retain one of them.

BlueSeats wrote:

MSG3 wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:They get any two of Gallo, Chandler, Fields; plus AR.

No. Either Chandler or Gallo plus Fields, Curry and AR.

Curry is a given for salary matching, so your "correction" is that you're adamant that either of Wilson or Gallo be retained? I understand that thinking, assuming that they have the higher ceilings, but alternatively Melo replaces their strengths while Fields has intangiables that none of them have, and is more suitable to playing SG, and therefore is a better fit with Melo.

But really the point is to give Denver the choice (so as to make it an attractive offer) knowing we're okay so long as we retain one of them.

I think that Gallo and Chandler are both very valuable in their own right. If I could chose to keep Wilson I would because I think he's far superior to Gallo. But giving up both would weaken our team too much. Fields is a nice player and a steal in the second round nbut he's already hitting a wall. It's going to take him a few years to reach his full potential and we have a chance to be Elite now if we can include him in a Melo deal. So yea my correction was we have to keep one of Gallo andd Chandler. Plus, Melo controls this thing barring a team willing to take him without signing an extension.

BlueSeats wrote:They get any two of Gallo, Chandler, Fields; plus AR.

Nope then I wont do it. I will not give up Chandler--deal breaker. Im not netting enough thin out my roster and cap out. If that is the case Ill keep everything and let someone else have him--no way.
If they took Chandler and Gallo you would be making a deal that would guarantee us mediocrity for years. With Chandler Melo Amare Felton--you a legit 4--and you would need to make more trades and havr great use of the draft and the MLE. YOU CANNOT win in the NBA as thin as we would be--not happening. If we had melo instead of Chandler--would he have given us better than 30-10? No way. Chandler is a deal breaking player.

nixluva wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:They get any two of Gallo, Chandler, Fields; plus AR.

It sounds good, but if i'm Donnie I wait and see if I can convince the Cavs to give up Verajao. Even as we are now if you can add a kid like that to this group, it totally changes what we can do as a team. On most nights we can score with anyone. Tonight was just an off night. However if you can have rebounding every night, even this game would've been winnable. Just think about how close we got even as poorly as we played, but the real problem was the glass again.

They outrebounded us 51-35 and the got 17 offensive boards. I mean we're not really losing games cuz we can't score it just seems like it. We need better perimeter D and someone else in there with Amar'e to hold down the paint and the glass.

'Luva I think you nailed it weeks ago when you said a deal for Melo was long term thinking. I definitely agree that if bettering our record this year was our primary objective, filling in holes in the front court and bench would be the highest priority. I totally agree that after Felton and Amare, scoring wing players is our next biggest strength.

We definitely need a big, but we're still not sure what type. Some thought AR would be perfect because he can block shots, others thought Turiaf would be perfect because we "don't need any more scoring, just defense and rebounding" etc. I still haven't given up on the triumvirate of AR, Moz and Turiaf, but really, what's better, those three sorta okay bigs or one serious big? Wouldn't you readily consolidate those three guys for consistent big? If only we could. But it is just possible we can consolidate some of our good wing players for a great (I use the term loosely) one.

What can't be under estimated is the need for consistency. As I evidenced in another thread, our record is vastly better when Amare scores 30+ points. I'm sure we could run similar stats on Felton and Chandler/Gallo and find similar patterns. IOW, it's not that it has to come from Amare, but that we need monster games from these guys, and right now that kind of consistency is not there and it's not reasonable to expect it on a nightly basis or against the elites. It's worthwhile to consolidate to upgrade consistency - a consistency that could even extend to Amare's time on the bench.

Defensive players will have to come, but in a way it might even be easir to utilize them once you're no longer trying to spread your offense between all of Fields, Gallo and Chandler.

Build the core this year when we have the assets and opportunity for the marque acquisition, then fill in the missing pieces in the off-season and the following year with those far more readily obtainable pieces on the cheap.

Get yourself that fancy racehorse now while you have the funds, you can buy a new saddle next year.

MSG3 wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:They get any two of Gallo, Chandler, Fields; plus AR.

No. Either Chandler or Gallo plus Fields, Curry and AR.

but briggs is saying that chandler is head and shoulders better than gallo/ fields(which I think is ridiculous..)... so why would denver not just ask for chandler and other pieces? why?