Thread Tools

Display Modes

**B_&_B** · 02-21-2005, 09:28 PM

I just heard a couple of interviews with different reporters in Utah on ESPN Radio, and not one of them thinks this deal will happen. None of them think Utah will trade Boozer.

mediocre man · 02-21-2005, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hap

multiple punchine post!

1: ah, I see you've had the Liberace special?

2: ah, I see you got married in Vegas..

3: I see you've been to the Ranch...

You forgot

4: I know. My Uncle Rudy used to be a showgirl.

Ed O · 02-21-2005, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hap

from what those in the know said, (and not just fans who refuse to blame anyone but John Nash because we all know every trade that we stupid fans come up with that he doesn't do have to be his fault) Toronto backed out and wanted to try to force Portland to accept Rose (by implying they had a "better deal" (Nets trade)), and Portland said "screw you, you aren't going to play with us again"...and this called the Raptors bluff, and they got hosed in the trade because they tried to screw Portland over.

So in the end, they got screwed over. And got exactly what they deserved.

How have the two teams done since the aborted deal?

Portland: 10-19
Toronto: 13-16

Which team got exactly what they deserved, I wonder?

Irrespective of whether Toronto pulled out of another deal, and irrespective of whether one thinks Portland's offer (whatever it was) was worse than New Jersey's, the fact is that Portland's offer was not enough to get Vince Carter.

And the Blazers are worse off for not making a deal. It might have made good business sense to be fiscally responsible and not take on Rose's deal, and it might give some people consolation to give the Raptors "what they deserve" but I would much rather have a good basketball team with a superstar than a bunch of expiring contracts and a rotten team.

Ed O.

**Trader Ed** · 02-21-2005, 10:12 PM

I doubt anyone can say who got hosed positively... all the internet tabloids contradict each other on a daily basis. You could put both Babcock and Nash in teh same room and hear both sides of the story, and you would probably still shake your head.

But being a homer, we tend to want to believe it was all Toronto's fault.

But as Ed points out. We still stink! We need to make a deal... I do not want expiring contracts... I want a winner!

**Dan** · 02-21-2005, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

How have the two teams done since the aborted deal?

Portland: 10-19
Toronto: 13-16

Which team got exactly what they deserved, I wonder?

Irrespective of whether Toronto pulled out of another deal, and irrespective of whether one thinks Portland's offer (whatever it was) was worse than New Jersey's, the fact is that Portland's offer was not enough to get Vince Carter.

And the Blazers are worse off for not making a deal. It might have made good business sense to be fiscally responsible and not take on Rose's deal, and it might give some people consolation to give the Raptors "what they deserve" but I would much rather have a good basketball team with a superstar than a bunch of expiring contracts and a rotten team.

Ed O.

the problem with "not making the deal" is this..

say I offer you a 67 Chevy Wagon + a 67 Chevy Corvette, which my "wife" wants me to get rid of. You only want the 67 Corvette..

You and I dicker back and forth about what the transfer should be. you offer me a 68 Camaro, but only if I don't include the Wagon. You don't want the wagon because it needs a new engine, and is an eye sore.

So finally, we agree. I'll send you the Vette for the Camaro, and things are fine. But 15 minutes before we agree to meet and exchange cars, I tell you that I really want to get rid of the Wagon too, and that I demand you include your 66 Chevy Truck. Now, you're 66 truck is in much better shape than my wagon, so you're a little miffed. You say no, and demand that I stick to my word. So I agree with you, that I'll try my Vette for your Camaro.

Then, I change my mind again. I say that I have a better offer, and that I again, demand you take my wagon. You again, say no, and after more dickering, we agree again. Corvette for Camaro.

Next thing you know, I change my mind again, and I go "know what? screw our agreement. I know that you and I shook hands, and agree'd. If you want my corvette, you have to take my wagon. Otherwise, I'll have to go with my other offer, which will take my wagon with my corvette."

so you, after being jerked around, tell me to go jump off a cliff.

But the thing is, the trade I make with my corvette, isn't on par with a Camaro. I end up trading my really nice 67 Corvette, for a 1984 Yugo, a 74 Pacer, and a 1962 Dart (and 2 engines).

So, instead of having a Camaro for my Corvette, I traded it for a pile of crap, a pile of crap, a rusted pile of crap, and two things i don't know if they run.

Now, my front yard is littered with 3 cars and 2 engines...

and it's all your fault.

**Dan** · 02-21-2005, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trader Bob

I doubt anyone can say who got hosed positively... all the internet tabloids contradict each other on a daily basis. You could put both Babcock and Nash in teh same room and hear both sides of the story, and you would probably still shake your head.

But being a homer, we tend to want to believe it was all Toronto's fault.

But as Ed points out. We still stink! We need to make a deal... I do not want expiring contracts... I want a winner!

the thing is tho TB..If Toronto didn't want to deal with Portland because we wouldn't take Rose's contract..why did they end up trading Carter..WITHOUT ROSE...and for 3 players that argubably will not play on their team very much, and cost them more over the long run?

**SheedSoNasty** · 02-21-2005, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hap

the thing is tho TB..If Toronto didn't want to deal with Portland because we wouldn't take Rose's contract..why did they end up trading Carter..WITHOUT ROSE...and for 3 players that argubably will not play on their team very much, and cost them more over the long run?

To screw us. We're the league's black sheep, so it's fitting.

**Trader Ed** · 02-21-2005, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hap

the thing is tho TB..If Toronto didn't want to deal with Portland because we wouldn't take Rose's contract..why did they end up trading Carter..WITHOUT ROSE...and for 3 players that argubably will not play on their team very much, and cost them more over the long run?

Did I mention anything about any players being named? No....

Who says Toronto did not want to deal with us because we would not take on Rose's contract? Does anyone really know????

Do we know exactly what was talked about?

Nooooooooo... and that is my point... no one knows!

Go ahead point me to a realiable source of what the deal was, and who turned it down.

Its all tabloid fodder, and he says she says...

Ed O · 02-21-2005, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hap

the problem with "not making the deal" is this..

Now, my front yard is littered with 3 cars and 2 engines...

and it's all your fault.

I have no idea why you think they got garbage. Let's look at what they got...

Eric Williams: his minutes have dipped because of the Raptors' depth at the 3, but he's a good player who's giving them almost 19 minutes a game and has started 18 of 26 with the team.

Zo: worthless. Or worse, because of his contract.

Aaron Williams: worthless. His contract isn't expiring, but he's a big guy who provides decent depth.

Philadelphia's First Round Pick in 2005 (protected 1-8) or in 2006 (protected 1-5) or in 2007 (unprotected): currently about the 15th overall pick. Pretty darn nice pick.

Denver's First Round Pick in 2006 (protected 1-5) or in 2007 (protected 1-2) or in 2008 (unprotected). This should be another mid-first rounder.

So they got one guy who's in their rotation, a end-of-bench backup, and two nice first round picks.

I'm not sure what they would have got from Portland, but mere cap relief in the form of Damon, NVE, or SAR (none of whom would be playing much more of a significant role on their team than Eric Williams has, even if they were healthy) is worth far less than both of those first rounders.

Arguing about whether the Nets' offer was better than the Blazers' or not is pretty pointless, though, considering (a) we don't know what Portland offered, and (b) the Nets clearly preferred the Nets' offer, since they ended up taking it.

Ed O.

**Dan** · 02-21-2005, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

I have no idea why you think they got garbage. Let's look at what they got...

Eric Williams: his minutes have dipped because of the Raptors' depth at the 3, but he's a good player who's giving them almost 19 minutes a game and has started 18 of 26 with the team.

and wants out apparently.

Quote:

Aaron Williams: worthless. His contract isn't expiring, but he's a big guy who provides decent depth.

Philadelphia's First Round Pick in 2005 (protected 1-8) or in 2006 (protected 1-5) or in 2007 (unprotected): currently about the 15th overall pick. Pretty darn nice pick.

Denver's First Round Pick in 2006 (protected 1-5) or in 2007 (protected 1-2) or in 2008 (unprotected). This should be another mid-first rounder.

So they got one guy who's in their rotation, a end-of-bench backup, and two nice first round picks.

a guy who wants out of their rotation too..

Quote:

I'm not sure what they would have got from Portland, but mere cap relief in the form of Damon, NVE, or SAR (none of whom would be playing much more of a significant role on their team than Eric Williams has, even if they were healthy) is worth far less than both of those first rounders.

Arguing about whether the Nets' offer was better than the Blazers' or not is pretty pointless, though, considering (a) we don't know what Portland offered, and (b) the Nets clearly preferred the Nets' offer, since they ended up taking it.

Ed O.

I think it's a given they offered (and the raptors agree'd to) taking Shareef. Thats 14 million saved off their cap. + any picks we'd send em.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes