I’m wth Mike on this:
The “other pieces” in any trade play a crucial role in making it work.
Yes, it’s a Howard for HIlton deal, but that doesn’t mean the other pieces don’t matter.
Since Howard > Hilton, the other piece that goes with HIlton needs to be superior to the other piece that is dealt with Howard.
But here’s the rub; neither can be “nothing,” as Mike put it. And since Morris will start in SF (that’s been announced) and Beasley is basically not as good as lots of guys you could pick up on the waiver wire, the deal needs tweaking. There’s no need for that last piece to be as good as Morris, but it needs to be a functioning fantasy piece with actual production potential.
I think asking for Hogan / Howard for Hilton / Mooris might make hm walk away. Usually when people throw “stink pieces” into deals it’s because they don’t want to give anything but the main piece up, while getting two productive guys back.
But I do think rank Hogan higher than Morris, so in this configuration of the deal, both of the pieces coming to you are superior than their “cohorts” in the trade and that would make it unfairly lopsided in your favor.
Hogan beats Morris, and Howard beats Hilton. Why would he do that deal? It might be the case that he undervalues Hogan. As Mike has pointed out, lots of people do. But your trade partner probably does know that Hogan’s the best he’s got; he’s trying to get Hilton from you.
But I guess you should offer it and see what he says. Maybe he’s dumb enough to take it. That would be a win for you.
But if he says no, then what about Hogan / Howard for Hilton / Kerryon?
That seems like an actual fair trade rather than a one-legged turkey.