Bargnani might not make much sense in Cleveland, as I think most of you already believe. Theoretically he could give us some what Antawn Jamison gave us which opened up some things for Kyrie getting to the basket. But Bargnani doesn't do the things Antawn does closer to the basket, the finishing and quick buckets, as far as I can remember. I'd probably rather have Jamison out of the two, and we know the Cavs didn't want to keep him either.
So the "talks" if there are any, I'm guessing are likely about our ability to absorb other players' salaries in a multi-team deal. If it happens that Bargnani can have a revival in a new system, I wonder if D'Antoni would like to have him, or could make good use out of him. It seems like an obvious fit but I don't know all the details of D'Antoni's system.
So maybe a three way which gets Boobie and Bargnani to the Lakers could help booster their bench and give em a push to the playoffs so we can get some increase in depth and a pick(s) from Toronto in the trade. The Lakers not having much salary to trade that they can really get rid of makes it tough. But here's a try, with some reasoning/rationalizing below...
To Toronto: Blake, Duhon, Walton, Ebanks
To Lakers: Bargnani, Gibson
To Cavs: Hill, Fields, Draft pick(s)
Toronto gets rid of two crippling contracts, improves their bench's depth at the guard spot with vets for the playoff run and get a team guy in Walton who will fit right in (play unselfishly) if he gets any minutes, and Ebanks completes the trade (another expiring), assuming he consents. Overall I think they'd save almost 30 million dollars if they don't resign any of the guys from this trade. That's worth a decent pick or two, right?
Lakers might not make this trade if they're concerned about 2014, but maybe a Dwight Howard (I think he wants to play in Houston next year) trade this year greases the wheels on a deal like this. They get more talent to try and get over the hump this year which is all they care about, sort of. D'Antoni would love to add two more "shooters" if you can sell him the Bargnani is one. He's Italian so maybe it'd be easy. They're taking on a net of 11 million dollars over the next two years, because they have Bargnani's crappy contract but get rid of those guards' and Hill's contracts. They don't have to resign Boobie (or might for less).
Cavs take on 17 million in new money owed over the next 2 years but have added depth at SF/SG and at C/PF that they may have spent anyway, with competent players Fields and Hill. Plus we might get a decent pick or two to work with, don't ask me where they would be. Hill's contract expires after next year and Fields contract is back loaded unfortunately, he's owed 8.5 mil the 2014/15 season.
I don't know what picks if any make this deal worth making. It's probably a horrible trade, don't kill me too hard, but I was just trying to make something work with the circumstances of all three teams.
This trade works according to the trade machine, but I think Ebanks would have to consent?.. With an opening at SF from Field's departure he might get more minutes in Toronto than in LA.
Who says yes? Who says no? And why?
Edit: After some comments (thanks wuck) I realize this deal is quite a gamble. If I could bump it up to two picks from Toronto that could be promised, or one from each of LA and Toronto (I just remembered we're giving them Boobie too), plus the possibility of LA making the playoffs, Cavs could gain up to three mid-late first round picks from this deal, rather than zero gained from letting Boobie and Walton expire (although we'd save $ that way, which we have to do at some point). Odds are we'd end up with just the sure two picks and the Lakers still miss the playoffs.. but I'd like to remit the idea of only getting one sure pick out of this deal. Lakers are getting a huge upgrade in talent and even though they're paying money for it, they are as desperate as anybody else and we should demand a pick from them too (or two from Toronto, as 30M is a lot of saving). Even still, it's a gamble as is the draft itself. Fields and Hill would ease some of that risk. Still not a sure winner as we're starting to get used to with Grant.
.
