[FJ_of _Rockaway]

You know we can have our cake and eat it too.

Observe : ( even though GSW "fans" would shoot it down automatically as it involves them trading their #3 pick to us )

Chicago trades: PF Marcus Fizer (12.3 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 1.6 apg in 25.8 minutes)
PG Jamal Crawford (9.3 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.4 apg in 20.9 minutes)
PG AJ Guyton (5.4 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 1.8 apg in 13.5 minutes)
SG Norm Richardson (2.7 ppg, 0.7 rpg, 0.2 apg in 6.1 minutes)
SG 30th Draft Pick (2.7 ppg, 0.7 rpg, 0.2 apg in 6.1 minutes)
Chicago receives: SG Bob Sura (10.0 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 3.5 apg in 22.8 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -19.7 ppg, -5.5 rpg, and -2.5 apg.

Orlando trades: PG Darrell Armstrong (12.4 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 5.5 apg in 33.3 minutes)
C Andrew DeClercq (2.7 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 0.4 apg in 10.4 minutes)
PF Don Reid (3.3 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 0.4 apg in 10.5 minutes)
Orlando receives: PG AJ Guyton (5.4 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 1.8 apg in 45 games)
SG Norm Richardson (2.7 ppg, 0.7 rpg, 0.2 apg in 11 games)
PF Danny Fortson (11.2 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 1.6 apg in 77 games)
PG Larry Hughes (12.3 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 4.3 apg in 73 games)
Change in team outlook: +13.2 ppg, +7.6 rpg, and +1.6 apg.

Golden State trades: SG Bob Sura (10.0 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 3.5 apg in 22.8 minutes)
PF Danny Fortson (11.2 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 1.6 apg in 28.8 minutes)
PG Larry Hughes (12.3 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 4.3 apg in 28.1 minutes)
Golden State receives: PF Marcus Fizer (12.3 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 1.6 apg in 76 games)
PG Jamal Crawford (9.3 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.4 apg in 23 games)
SG 30th Draft Pick (2.7 ppg, 0.7 rpg, 0.2 apg in 11 games)
PG Darrell Armstrong (12.4 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 5.5 apg in 82 games)
C Andrew DeClercq (2.7 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 0.4 apg in 61 games)
PF Don Reid (3.3 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 0.4 apg in 68 games)
Change in team outlook: +6.5 ppg, -2.1 rpg, and +0.9 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Due to Chicago, Orlando, and Golden State being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Chicago, Orlando, and Golden State had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You have been assigned Trade ID number 614771

WHY FOR ORLANDO





It is assumed for the sake of the exercise that Grant Hill comes back healthy , and that between he and Tracey McGrady , they do the majority of the play creating. Therefore , the underperforming yet talented Larry Hughes could flourish in this system where he is a third scoring option at the 1 spot where he would be matched up on both ends against the opposing point.


Orlando also gets the $4.5M a year role rebounder in Danny Fortson to hold down the PF spot. They don't need Fortson to score with a backcourt rotation of Hughes, Hudson , McGrady, Hill and Miller. Fortson becomes their "Rodman" and is a much cheaper option rather than John Gabriel deluding himself thinking that he is going to get Tim Duncan to come to town. If Steven Hunter can continue to develop his low post game and with another role big man at center to clog the defensive end , the Orlando Magic could be deadly


Fortson is also signed through the next 5 years at around $4.5m per and the maturity of his contract coincides with McGrady and Hill's.


DA is a loss but the liklihood is that he would get ditched next year ahead of 2003 free agency.


Plus they get to deal Andrew DeClerq's contract with Don Reid in lieu of Jud Buechler's , and consequently , they will still be able to clear around $5.5M of Buechler's salary in next year's free agency


WHY FOR GOLDEN STATE

OK so they deal the #3 pick to Chi , but this is all about salary cap / luxury tax maintenance - in being able to avoid it next year if BRI / escrow factors force it to kick in ( they have short term dumpers from the Magic in DA and Don Reid that they can trade by deadline to shed salary )

Other reasons :





GSW , if they did this deal, could not only avoid Luxury tax next year when Twan's extension kicks in , but could also have enough cap space cleared to be a moderate player in the rich 2003 free agency class , with total committed salaries at around $37M for 12 players - including their top 2x2nd rounders as per this mooted proposal that would give them say $10.5M to play with next summer - $6M in cap space to sign outright + $4.5 via the exception.


Damp and Foyle are offensively challenged but can board, block and defend - and provide these roles in the composition of the side. Twan may be a tweener to play the PF role but he has to commit to it and play there and he can play there in a scoring /offensive role with Damp and Foyle at the back.

Fortson is surplus and ties up close around $4.5M - $5M per for the next 5 years - which is a lot of dough to commit over term for a PF when your max player (Twan) should be manning the position

Fizer and Murphy would fight it out for the backup role or could fill starter minutes there to play a two PF line up on the forward line - although I concede that this combo would not be an exceptionally strong rebounding forward line - but as I say you have trade bait to use there down the track in either Fizer or Murphy - whoever loses the challenge.


Larry Hughes has value in the right system but unfortunately it is not in GSW's and his value is not strong right now. Larry's shot selection is poor and needs other creators getting him the ball where he is strong to score. He just wilts under running the attack and in judging his own shot when he is tryong to create it . Plus he has a marginalised position with JRich in the picture.Darrell Armstrong gives you a veteran point that you need ( Mooks does not cut it anymore ) and of course you get Jamal Crawford who ultimately with JRich and Arenas forms a potent bacckcourt. In time , all 3 , when going small could man the 1, 2, and 3 spots which would make for an intriguing combination.


Chicago eats Bobby Sura's salary for the next 2 years which gives GSW further salary cap relief and is part of the strategy in getting the GSW to around $6M in cap space by the summer of 2003


Chicago also gives up the #30 draft pick to GSW .


So effectively , GSW give up the #3 draft pick , Bob Sura , Larry Hughes and Danny Fortson and get back Jamal Crawford, Darrell Armstrong , Marcus Fizer , Andrew DeCLerq, Don Reid and the #30 draft pick .


Armstrong , Reid and DeClerq are all short termers that could be used to shed and position to out maneuver luxury tax but to also position a run into 2003 free agency with around $10.5M


WHY FOR CHICAGO

Marcus is surplus and it is not doing us any good with him sitting on the bench . We need more of a pure role guy who can play PF/C (preferably a vet ) who can work a core 3 man rotation with Tyson and Eddy.

So it really comes down to giving up Jamal and the #30 pick + eating Bobby Sura's salary of around $5M per for the next 2 years and not having any salary cap room for 2003 ...

in order for :

GSW to give us their #3 pick .

Fizer was thrown in for CAP and also for the fact that they lose Fortson + Fizer is an upgrade ( at least nominally ) over Troy Murphy - who would need to challenge for Fizer's spot.

It is no big thing eating Bobby Sura's contract for the following reasons :





This summer's free agency class is weak

We should not anticipate being a player in next summer's free agency class with the core of players we would be committed to which include Rose, Chandler, Curry, Hassell, Williams ( #2 pick ) Dunleavy (#3 pick ) Robinson , Travis Best ( I would like him resigned in this scenario ).


The only thing missing is a vet big man (maybe 2 ) to work in upfront with Tyson and Eddy -(perhaps Malik Rose and Corie Blount with our midlevel exception ) seeing as though Sura should come close to absorbing most of our space next season.


So the Bulls would look something like this :

Center : Eddy Curry
Forward :Tyson Chandler
Forward :Mike Dunleavy Jr
Guard : Jalen Rose
Guard : Jay Williams

Key Reserves :

Center : Corie Blount (FA )
Forward : Malik Rose ( FA )
Forward : Eddie Robinson
Guard : Trent Hassell
Guard : Travis Best
Center : Dalibor Bagaric
Guard : Fred Hoiberg

Injury Reserve :

Bobby Sura
Andersen Varejao - #44 draft pick

NB : If this guy is still in the draft and on the board at #44 he is A MUST HAVE . Ssshhhhh!. Keep him quiet. Please. He has every bit as much talent and promise of Hilario who is probably about a year ahead of where Andersen is right now. But he is going to be something.

It is a long shot - and psychologically a big thing for GSW to get past notwithstanding what we give up - Jamal , Marcus and #30 for #3 ( plus bailing them out on Bobby Sura ) but who knows???

Anyway this is just meant to be illustrative that we can perhaps follow our trends of the last 2 drafts and secure two high lottery picks - its just that in doing so , there is a price to pay . And is that price to pay worth keeping Jay and Mike Jr on their shared path ??

For me it would be .

 

[Chops]

Ok, you do realize that this trade would be the largest in NBA history, right? I'm just saying that these big deals rarely ever occur...

Also, IMO,

Jamal
Marcus
#30

is greater than Dunleavy. Dunleavy is good, but I think if we just stay put we would be better off in the long run...

By the way, I can't see GS doing this trade. :no:


P.S

GS cannot trade Larry Hughes because he is a FA.

 

[Devestata]

Man, I have to give you Real GM guys some props. You amaze at how long these posts are. Anyway, if we are talking about trades, here is mine:

Lamar Odom and #8 for #2 and Fizer. LOL!

Fizer is sitting behind Brand again, his worse nightmare comes true. As for us, we get Odom, and 8. We trade #8 for a few role players. Otherwise, I still like Sicky's trade very much.

 

[Songcycle]

Well done FJ. That had to take a long time to work out and it makes good sense.

 

[FJ_of _Rockaway]

Originally posted by KiDcRaWfOrD
Ok, you do realize that this trade would be the largest in NBA history, right? I'm just saying that these big deals rarely ever occur...

No I believe the deal that sent Pat to the Sonics would still be the daddy of them all . Plus , I never inferred it was a possibility - it was just an illustration of what the basis of something that could try and be worked

P.S

GS cannot trade Larry Hughes because he is a FA.

No , Larry is a RFA - which is besides the point anyway. There is always the sign and trade route when teams will hardly be beating down a path to his door - much less the opportunity of the GSW being able to cash him in for a 1st round draft pick.

He needs to be packaged and sent where he can flourish in the right system .

 

[ztect]

One word response in regards to this proposed trade:

YUCK

:no:

Though think we should trade Chandler for Brand, then trade Curry for Cherokee Parks, and ERob for Maggette, and finally hire Coach K to replace Cartwright.

That way we can have an All Duke team.



:uhoh:

 

[HJHJR]

Let me throw out an alternative plan. Draft Jay Williams, sign Michael Redd and Popeye Jones. Redd should come for the mid level exception ($4.6 million) and the Bucks won't match it since they've only got eight players under contract next season but their payroll will stand at $54 million. If the Bucks match our $4.6 million offer and keep Redd that would put their payroll at over $58 million for 9 players and they'd be looking at a huge luxury tax hit.

We should be able to sign Popeye for the veteran's exception ($1.6 million). Jones gives us a veteran presence around the boards who plays defense and rebounds well. With Jones on board Fizer becomes expendable, but more on that later.

So now we're looking at a potential starting lineup of Williams, Redd, Rose, Chandler and Curry.:yes:

We're also in a position to move in a number of different directions, and I'll leave it to other members of this board to figure out what to do next.

We can resign Travis Best and package Crawford and Fizer in a trade. Or...

We can keep Jamal although with Redd on board I don't know how much time he'll get at SG. Redd seems to be Jamal's equal as a shooter and he's bigger and stronger. That leaves us free to work a sign and trade with Best and perhaps use Fizer with Best as a package. Or we can simply let Travis sign elsewhere.

Love to hear your thoughts on this concept.

 

[truebluefan]

Originally posted by HJHJR
Let me throw out an alternative plan. Draft Jay Williams, sign Michael Redd and Popeye Jones. Redd should come for the mid level exception ($4.6 million) and the Bucks won't match it since they've only got eight players under contract next season but their payroll will stand at $54 million. If the Bucks match our $4.6 million offer and keep Redd that would put their payroll at over $58 million for 9 players and they'd be looking at a huge luxury tax hit.

We should be able to sign Popeye for the veteran's exception ($1.6 million). Jones gives us a veteran presence around the boards who plays defense and rebounds well. With Jones on board Fizer becomes expendable, but more on that later.

So now we're looking at a potential starting lineup of Williams, Redd, Rose, Chandler and Curry.:yes:

We're also in a position to move in a number of different directions, and I'll leave it to other members of this board to figure out what to do next.

We can resign Travis Best and package Crawford and Fizer in a trade. Or...

We can keep Jamal although with Redd on board I don't know how much time he'll get at SG. Redd seems to be Jamal's equal as a shooter and he's bigger and stronger. That leaves us free to work a sign and trade with Best and perhaps use Fizer with Best as a package. Or we can simply let Travis sign elsewhere.

Love to hear your thoughts on this concept.

I love it! Just love it! I think it was MBSH that mentioned it first on this board about popeye jones. Im all for it. Redd too!!

 

[Dan Rosenbaum]

Originally posted by HJHJR
Let me throw out an alternative plan. Draft Jay Williams, sign Michael Redd and Popeye Jones. Redd should come for the mid level exception ($4.6 million) and the Bucks won't match it since they've only got eight players under contract next season but their payroll will stand at $54 million. If the Bucks match our $4.6 million offer and keep Redd that would put their payroll at over $58 million for 9 players and they'd be looking at a huge luxury tax hit.

We should be able to sign Popeye for the veteran's exception ($1.6 million). Jones gives us a veteran presence around the boards who plays defense and rebounds well. With Jones on board Fizer becomes expendable, but more on that later.

So now we're looking at a potential starting lineup of Williams, Redd, Rose, Chandler and Curry.:yes:

We're also in a position to move in a number of different directions, and I'll leave it to other members of this board to figure out what to do next.

We can resign Travis Best and package Crawford and Fizer in a trade. Or...

We can keep Jamal although with Redd on board I don't know how much time he'll get at SG. Redd seems to be Jamal's equal as a shooter and he's bigger and stronger. That leaves us free to work a sign and trade with Best and perhaps use Fizer with Best as a package. Or we can simply let Travis sign elsewhere.

Love to hear your thoughts on this concept.

A fantasy scenario would be the following.

(1) Pick JWill.
(2) Trade JWill, ERob, Fizer, and Hoiberg for B Davis, Lynch, and PJ Brown. (I'd throw in a future protected #1 if it was needed and be prepared to give the Hornets $3M as a sweetener.)
(3) Trade Crawford for Wizard's #11 pick. (I'd throw in the #44 pick if it was needed.)
(4) Pick J Jeffries, Niko, Woods, Nachbar, someone who has dropped, or maybe Stoudemire.
(5) Pick Logan or Dickau (or maybe Boozer) with #31 pick.
(6) Sign Michael Redd. (We could renounce Best and have more than the mid-level exception to offer Redd.)
(7) Sign veteran center to veteran's minimum (Garrett, Williams, etc.)

C: Curry, Williams, Bagaric
PF: Chandler, PJ Brown, #44 pick (DeAngelo Collins)??
SF: Rose, Niko, Lynch
SG: Redd, Hassell, Richardson??
PG: Davis, Logan, Guyton or veteran for the minimum??

I think the trades are credible for the Hornets (especially if they are concerned about re-signing Davis) and the Wizards (they need a point guard and MJ loves Crawford, right?).

I was thinking a little more about this proposed trade with the Hornets, and I think it really does make sense for both teams (as long as the trade with the Wizards goes down as well). Think about it from the Hornets perspective.

After a sordid history that alienated both fans and players, the Hornets are now moving to a new city. Their franchise player (Davis) who they need to re-sign has not expressed a lot of love for the franchise and has even spoken out about how great it would be to play in his hometown of LA someday. They have a budding star (Magloire) in a crowded frontcourt, so they would love to unload one of their two aging frontcourt players (Brown and Campbell), both of whom have one year and about $7M left in their contracts. Their other two frontcourt players (Traylor and possibly Nailon, a big SF) both are free agents.

They are loaded at SF with Mashburn, Lynch, Augmon, and Nailon, but are thin at SG with a converted PG (Wesley) their only SG.

So the Bulls offer to trade them Jay Williams who is a younger version of Davis and probably is better known in New Orleans than Davis is. Getting Williams buys the franchise time to repair its image to its fans and players by the time Magloire and Williams need to re-sign.

They also are asked to give up one of the favorite players of the franchise, PJ Brown, and hard-working George Lynch, but both of these players are likely to see their roles get much smaller next year if they stay with the Hornets.

From the Bulls they get a somewhat promising PF prospect (Fizer) that points to a future frontcourt of Magloire, Fizer, Nailon (maybe), Traylor (maybe) and Haston (maybe). Getting Fizer makes it easier to not re-sign Traylor or Nailon. They are another center prospect away from being set in the frontcourt. The future #1 from the Bulls, even if it is heavily protected, could solve that problem.

Robinson provides them another option at SG. He is quick enough to guard SGs, although I suspect Mashburn would play SG on offense. Also, Hoiberg gives them bench support at the SG position that they just don't have right now.

Financially, this saves the Hornets this year, since they don't have to re-sign both Nailon and Traylor, and saves them next year, since they won't have to pay Davis's big new contract (even though Brown's salary does not come off the books). And by the time JWill's contract needs renogiated, ERob's contract will about be over.

Charlotte also gets a lot younger with this deal. It would decrease the average age of the team by about one full year, while decreasing the average age of the main players by even more than that. So the Hornets decrease their salary, get younger and better in the future, and alleviate a major re-signing that could get them off on a bad foot in their new city, without sacrificing too much in the present. This sounds like a very good deal to me for the Hornets.

For the Bulls, I can't see much reason to be against this overall scenario. Chicago isn't LA, but Davis surely would see the amazing future of this team. Heck, its prospects for 2002-2003 would not be too bad.

 

[FJ_of _Rockaway]

Originally posted by ztect
One word response in regards to this proposed trade:

YUCK

:no:

Though think we should trade Chandler for Brand, then trade Curry for Cherokee Parks, and ERob for Maggette, and finally hire Coach K to replace Cartwright.

That way we can have an All Duke team.



:uhoh:

Don't forget Hassell for L8 - now we're smoking !!:yes:

Anyway forget about your ignorant prejudices - the trade is designed to deliver the #3 pick to Chi .

On reflection , instead of delivering Fizer to the GSW , it may be better to replace Fizer with Mike Miller , such that Fizer ends up in Orlando in a two way PF rotation with Danny Fortson - Fizer for offense ; Fortson for rebounding and triggering the break . GSW gets the pure shooter at the 3 that they lack.

So GSW would get : DA, Mike Miller, Crawford , the #30 draft pick + Cap dumpers De Clerq and Don Reid ( DA only has 1 year left too ) In doing this deal they stay well under the LT radar because they move long term contracts in Sura and Fortson from their books . They also free up close to $10M to go shopping in the 2003 free agency free for all. Yeah its a crap deal for the Warriors all right when they won't be able to get the guy they really want - yeah that's right - that no talent A hole bum from Duke ( like the rest of them ) Jay Williams.

Magic give up salary dumpers and get Larry Hughes to polish up and split duties at the 1 spot with Troy Hudson. They buy young front court help in one of the league's best rebounders in Fortson and a front court scorer in Fizer that provides 3rd string offense behind Tmac and Hill. They still have Jud to dump next year ahead of 2003 free agency - yet they were able to dump the $2.5M DeClerq will take up as he extends 1 year past this summer.

And of course we are not going to be a player in 2003 free agency - we have our team in place . All we need are low level role playing vet additions - which is why we sacrifice our salary cap room in the short term and commit to Sura's crappy contract for the next two years - that hopefully, would make it attractive enough to GSW to do the deal for Luxury Tax/ Free Agency targeting reasons , AS WELL AS , getting Mike Miller, Jamal , DA and the #30 pick for the #3 pick .

Anyway , its a matter of choice as to who you would pick with the #3 pick after Jay will certainly get taken at #2. Personally I would take Dunleavy . If I could be bothered to research your position on RealGM , I guess you like the rest of the SLAM reading constituents would probably be on C-Butt's or QWoo's nuts.

Gotta love them bad boys

One final piece of advice. I could not give a rats left testy that you do not like the trade and I most certainly do not take it personally . But what does tick me off is that this board has started off on good footings and it would be a shame if in the infancy of this board we had ignorant prejudices that destroyed the integrity of a thread . Try to do a little better and at least argue your case properly and respectfully instead of lacing it with ignorant warblings lacking in style or substance.

There are plenty of other boards you can go to if that is your thing

 

[Songcycle]

Williams and Dunleavy with the 2 and 3, that is mulltiple rings with what we got.

 

[Dan Rosenbaum]

FJ:

There are a number of reasons why your proposed trade at the top of this thread does not work.

(1) According to everything that I have seen, the Warriors will be at about $46M for 10 players after they sign the #3 pick. Given that they have no free agents that of their own that they are going to spend more than $5M on, they are in very little danger of going over the luxury cap (unless they choose to), which is likely to be anywhere from $52M to $56M. They are in a similar position in 2003-2004. Are there retired players or old contracts that I am missing in my calculations using hoopshype?

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/golden_state.htm

(2) Guyton and Richardson are free agents and (I believe) cannot be traded until July as sign and trades. Since the trade would take place after the draft, the salaries for the #3 pick would have to be counted. I am not sure how the rights to the second round picks would count for salary cap purposes.

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/chicago.htm


(3) DeClerk's salary for 2003-2004 is a team option, so Orlando can clear that salary if they want to.

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/orlando.htm

So cap-wise the trade does not work, although it would have worked prior to the trade deadline this year. More importantly, you can say that Orlando getting Duncan is a pipedream and you may be right, but until the owners believe that, trades like this that worsen the 2003-2004 cap position will not happen. Everything that they have said publicly suggests that they still think they can go after a full boat free agent in 2003-2004.

Since it is hard to imagine how the trade could possibly occur, there isn't much of reason to speculate about the merits of the trade.

 

[fear7]

It seems to me that many of the qualities of Dunleavy are surplus to our needs.

He maybe a great shooter but if we have either JC/JWill and Jalen why do we need a shooter?

He maybe able to create for team mates but again JC/JWill and Jalen are able to do that.

His weaknesses are our general team weaknesses. If we start the season with JC and Jalen our D on the wings will be weak. Dunleavy will not help us there.

What we need is someone to guard the other teams best wing player most of all, 2nd finish the shots Jalen and either JC/JWill create, 3rd if possible stretch defences with 3 point range.

Maybe Hassell can fill this role. Maybe ERob can. Someone like Matt Harpring could do a acceptable job. But Dunleavy does really seem to fit.

Since Dunleavy is being advocate by posters I respect I would like to hear why Dunleavy would be such a good fit for the Bulls.

Maybe they see the Bulls having different team needs, maybe they think Dunleavy has different qualities. So Dunleavy supporters lets here it.

 

[truebluefan]

Originally posted by fear7
It seems to me that many of the qualities of Dunleavy are surplus to our needs.

He maybe a great shooter but if we have either JC/JWill and Jalen why do we need a shooter?

He maybe able to create for team mates but again JC/JWill and Jalen are able to do that.

His weaknesses are our general team weaknesses. If we start the season with JC and Jalen our D on the wings will be weak. Dunleavy will not help us there.

What we need is someone to guard the other teams best wing player most of all, 2nd finish the shots Jalen and either JC/JWill create, 3rd if possible stretch defences with 3 point range.

Maybe Hassell can fill this role. Maybe ERob can. Someone like Matt Harpring could do a acceptable job. But Dunleavy does really seem to fit.

Since Dunleavy is being advocate by posters I respect I would like to hear why Dunleavy would be such a good fit for the Bulls.

Maybe they see the Bulls having different team needs, maybe they think Dunleavy has different qualities. So Dunleavy supporters lets here it.

We have a very good thread on dunleavy in here.

http://www.basketballboards.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=361

 

[Songcycle]

Way to go trueblue, thanks!

 

[Machinehead]

Originally posted by NCBullsFan
Hey Ztect, don't let FJ drive you away.

Umm I don't want to drive anyone away - I would just like someone to engage in an intelligent discussion and state their case if it is alternate in a respectful manner instead of subjecting the board to such scorching repartee such as : " This blows"

On the RealGM boards, you are one of the best at scouring the internet for useful information.

I agree. .

Every board needs some folks who increase the grumpiness factor.)

Perhaps so. It takes all types - just like obviously intelligent posters such as yourself who bring up excellent points and well researched hypotheses but then let themselves down by obsessing on how to take everyone down who disagrees with you and in the process using tone and style that is irritating and needling (whether it is purposefull or not).

If you feel compelled to speak up for Z ( who I am sure can speak up for himself ) and tisk tisk and finger wag to buy into something that had nothing to do with you ( other than to reassert yourself and your positions in your prior Dunleavy diatribes ) , I can do the same - and in doing so , mention to you that I found your tone and manner to Jammer and others in the Dunleavy thread was smart arsed and disrespectful - as it is in this thread yet again.

If you can manage to drop the me v everybody / Devils Advocate obsession which comes throuigh load and clear in your posts , you are an intelligent and enjoyable person to converse with . Disagree all you want - just try not to be so smug and obsessive in the process. Its annoying. Even when points have been conceded to you in debate - you still labour the issue. See what I mean ? I hope so.

I have learned a valuable lesson on this board. Pick on Dunleavy at your own risk. If you offer too little justification, you get accused of being a troll (FJ), and if you are too persistent in presenting justification, you get accused of being an IRS agent (Dickie).

If you are into learning lessons on the board try this one on . People will only give you the same amount of decency and leeway in how they receive you as you yourself are prepared to give them .

That's all.

Peace

BTW , I will come back to you after I go and find some more research on the issues you raised as to the trade above.

With regard to GSW's position I had tried to make some assumptions on the Real GM factor salary system and had arrived at their payroll higher than your/hoophypes $47M - I had them at around $50M as I had overestimated Twan's salary by around $2M. In any respect if the tax limit is at the lower end of the range at $52M /$53M - that's still $5M -$6M to spend on 5 players. It can be done but it is getting up there. By having salary cap dumpers in DA and Don Reid by trade deadline next year , they can be a player ( a cap cleanser ) and maybe pick up a good role player and a 1st round pick + long term they are rid of Fortson's contract and Sura's contract in the summer of 2003 when we both agree (I think ) as to roughly how much cap space they would have to target free agency signings ( their cap should be approx 34M in my example )

You may be right on the other issues- but I am not convinced about DeClerq ( I thought his team option was last summer which guaranteed him a further 2 years as it was a bone of contention at the time that he would not be cleared out by the summer of 2003 - I will check with Howard Mass and come back to you on this ) and in addition I am not convinced about FA sign and trade points you raise , in that from memory in the Reef/Pau trade last year I thought the deal was not ratified ( even though it was announced at draft ) until much later - I can't remember what the exact issue was - but it is my belief that the deal can be done conditional upon it being fomrally ratified when time dictates allow .

Maybe if I can find some proof of this ,this may once again create some merit in discussing this trade ( If that is OK with you of course )

 

[settinUpShop]

in response to FJ's lecturing...

i'm not sure what was said in the other thread, but Z Tech's post in this thread isn't worth getting riled up about. What is it, the not so smiley smiley faces gettin to ya?

That said, it is very true that egotistical tirades get very little accomplished. It is posible to use the agrivation or frustration that one might have for whatever reason towards researching your point more. But frankley such research becomes tedious and only more frustrating.

The open exchange of ideas should aim at opening our minds to possibilities. And debating a point is a time tested form of such an exchange. Keep it clean, and enjoy other people's perceptions and expectations.

my piece,
for peace.

 

[Chops]

FJ, Larry Hughes is a RFA, but he still cannot be traded on draft day. If we are going to involve our picks, then that means that we have to wait a month for free agency to start until we can trade them off. I for one do not want some unhappy draftee sticking around for a month.......

 

[Machinehead]

Re: in response to FJ's lecturing...

Originally posted by settinUpShop
i'm not sure what was said in the other thread, but Z Tech's post in this thread isn't worth getting riled up about. What is it, the not so smiley smiley faces gettin to ya?

I think that in the interests of constructive argument , "YUCK" and a half assed Duke analogy does not really do anything for the integrity of thread .

The open exchange of ideas should aim at opening our minds to possibilities. And debating a point is a time tested form of such an exchange. Keep it clean, and enjoy other people's perceptions and expectations.

Exactly my point which is why I made comment in the first place

 

[Machinehead]

Originally posted by KC
FJ, Larry Hughes is a RFA, but he still cannot be traded on draft day. If we are going to involve our picks, then that means that we have to wait a month for free agency to start until we can trade them off. I for one do not want some unhappy draftee sticking around for a month.......

I already made this point above in response to NC - in terms of the deal being delayed before it can be ratified - but then there is the issue of the draft pick's $ counting on cap once they are drafted - regardless of whether they are signed or not ( I am not sure on this and am seeking answers )