Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,866 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
...to a full-year contract, TODAY, but Mo intends to play Cook ahead of him. All this according to Quick.

Something very wierd going on with the Blazers' PG situation right now.

PBF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,866 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
JQ just said it in his weekly O-Live chat. Matter-of-factly and with no waver in his voice. The Blazers are signing Eddie Gill to a full year contract today, but that Mo intends to play Cook ahead of him.

PBF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,927 Posts
waaaaaaah?

Why would they sign someone to a full year contract that hasn't even played for us and keep another guy on a 10 day contract-all at the same position????


there has got to be some wheeling and dealing going on!

Maybe that sutff about Damon to GS has some meat to it? Did that include Sheed or was it another option?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,866 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I know it seems wierd. But that's what he said. They'll have the streaming audio file up for people to listen to sometime after the chat wraps up.

PBF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,264 Posts
well, it really makes sense to me.

we've got Sheed, Stepania and Dale at center, and Randolph can play it too in short stints.

at PF we have Randolph, Sheed and Dale

at SF we have Miles, Woods, Patterson, Sheed and Outlaw

at SG we have Anderson, Stoudamire, Woods and Person

at PG we have Damon, Qyntel (GAAAAH!) and a CBA graduate with 12 minutes of NBA experience.

if you were looking to add some quickie depth to our roster before the cutoff, I think you add it at the point guard position regardless of how optimistic you are about Cook.

if Damon blows a knee (and I'm afraid I'm guilty of wishing for that many times in the past) right now we ONLY have Omar and *shudder* Qyntel Woods.
 

·
Schilster Supreme
Joined
·
13,610 Posts
He can't be traded at all. Even if it were a multiyear deal a Sign and Trade can't happen unlees the original signing is by the team he played for most recently.
 

·
Schilster Supreme
Joined
·
13,610 Posts
BTW why a remainder of the season deal? I men if they are gonna let Cook play over Gill why do that? Unless a 3 for 2 or 2 for 1 is going to go down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,264 Posts
myself, I take it as a sign from Nash that he either:
a) has a trade already worked out and that roster spot won't be needed to execute it

or

b) is signaling to everyone that he doesn't really want to execute anymore trades for the rest of the season.

why else fill a roster spot today that you could just as easily fill in a week?

it's almost certainly b), because signing Gill could happen after the trade just as easily and present less risk to the team.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,465 Posts
so, do they think gill is better than cook, since they gave him a "real" contract?

and still cook will play and gill won't. the only explanation that I can come up with is that they want to see if cook deserves a "real" contract too...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
I wonder if Gill wouldn't sign a 10 day deal, but WOULD sign a deal for the rest of the year, so Portland had to sign him to a full year deal if they were going to get him.

But why would they want him THAT badly? Especially if Cheeks really plans on playing Cook ahead of him?

It's strange. Maybe it's simply that Portland couldn't sign him to a 10 day deal without putting another player on the IL, and Portland needed to have a 12 man active roster.

Ed O.
 

·
Schilster Supreme
Joined
·
13,610 Posts
Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
so, do they think gill is better than cook, since they gave him a "real" contract?

and still cook will play and gill won't. the only explanation that I can come up with is that they want to see if cook deserves a "real" contract too...
I wondered that myself, then I though "wait a minute, Gill would need to prove himself as well"

I find it odd. The team that waited til the last day to pickup a player to make 12, suddenely signs 2.

Maybe (not likely just throwing it out there) Portland is ready to kind of bag it for the year and is moving Damon plus 1 elsewhere? I highly doubt it, but ya never know.
 

·
Schilster Supreme
Joined
·
13,610 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
It's strange. Maybe it's simply that Portland couldn't sign him to a 10 day deal without putting another player on the IL, and Portland needed to have a 12 man active roster.

Ed O.
From Our Buddy Larry ****.

63. What is a 10-day contract?
A 10-day contract is just that, a player contract which lasts ten days (or three games, whichever comes later). These contracts are used to replace players who are on injured reserve. A team may sign a player to two 10-day contracts in one season (they may or may not be consecutive). After the second 10-day contract, the team can only retain the player by signing him for the remainder of the season.

Ten-day contracts are available to be used starting January 5 (or the first business day thereafter) each season.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,509 Posts
When is Outlaw eligible to come off the IR?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
When is Outlaw eligible to come off the IR?
I think he needs to be on for 5 games, which (assuming he went on before the game last night) means he needs to sit out 4 more.

Ed O.
 

·
Schilster Supreme
Joined
·
13,610 Posts
He was just put on it as of Tuesday. He has to sit out 5 games if the roster is full. If there is an available spot he can come off. So far he has missed only 1 game.

It looks to me that someone had to go IR for Cook to be signed to a 10 day deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,411 Posts
what if.....

we are preparing to trade Damon to GS for NVE who rthen would retire and we would get the cap room from his salary.


I can only dream.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top