Trade Proposal with Bulls

by Sabonis4Ever on Jul 15, 2008 11:54 PM PDT

While visiting wonderful Blog-a-Bull, I stumbled across this trade proposal.

If the Bulls are somehow unable to resign Gordon I think that Pax should attempt to pry Webster from the hands of the Blazers. Webster is a good shooter and has great size, he is not the scorer that Gordon is, but he solves the small backcourt issues we have been having since the Duhon/Skiles era. We finally got rid of Duh (Thank you Isaiah D'antoni).

With Webster we would have 2 good young SG's with him and Thabo. I think we should use Derrick and Kirk in a T.J Ford and Calderon tandem at least untill the trade deadline, then possibly trade him (Kirk) and Gooden's expiring deal for a post player (Don't know who?). Webster is a base year player making about 3.5 mil a year. Maybe we can sign and trade Gordon to Portland fro Webster and LaFrentz. We could probally throw in Noce to make the deal works.

I am assuming that Gordon signs for 10 mil. Noce makes about 8.5 mil. which would be a total of about 18.5 mil. LaFrentz makes 12.4 mill and Webster makes 2.9 mil for a total of 15.3 mil. We could throw in someone like Simmons (1.6 mil) if we do not want to use our trade exception to cover the cost that we fall short on.

In this trade we get a young long shooter togive Rose a target to pass too once he gets into the lane. It solves our small backcourt problem. We get a veteran big to back Noad, with another expiring contract. We get rid of Noce's bad contract. The Blazers have aleays coveted the way the Bulls have built their teams. I know they have Bayless, but he is not as proven as BG7. They get a gritty gut who can shoot the three in Noce who could start at the SF spot on their team."

Please do not spread ill will. I think this is a reasonable trade. Martell for Ben Gordon. Thoughts? Does it work on trade machine?

Poll

Trade?

0 recs | Comment 48 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

2 problems:

1. It doesn’t work with our current roster (we would have 3 sgs (Roy/Rudy/Ben) and only 1 servicable sf (outlaw).

2. I would not include Raef in this kind of a deal, we can get more for the expiring contract (look at what LAC did with their cap space).

by premthegrem on Jul 16, 2008 12:05 AM PDT 0 recs

is an undersized 2. Webster is a full sized 3 who plays the two. Conventional wisdom rules against trading big for small unless the small provides a huge asset to the receiving team. This would be a terrible trade in my opinion.

by fat27 on Jul 16, 2008 12:08 AM PDT 0 recs

I can't shake the feeling

that Ben Gordon is one of those “touch-of-death” players, as in, just having him on the team is the touch of death for playoff aspirations. Also the touch of death for anyone else hoping to put up a shot while he’s on the court.

Anyone else get the feeling that he would also be one of those guys who would have a little sensory overload problem with the strip clubs out here in P-town?

Also, I heard someone describe his game as a “catch and shoot 22,” as in he needs to catch and shoot 22 times in order to be effective.

WWSBD?

by nightbluefruit on Jul 16, 2008 12:09 AM PDT 0 recs

For sure

He’s the second coming of Sharif Abdur Rahim.

by robrun2 on Jul 16, 2008 12:14 AM PDT up 0 recs

While there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about a defensively challenged,

undersized SG, the Bulls have made the playoffs with BG 3 of the 4 years. Hard to know how selfish he’d be on a team with more balanced scoring, since that’s not the Bulls’ strong point.

However, as to your point 2, BG has been in the league 4 years without any offcourt issues at all that I can recall – not even a hint of being late to practice – and has a huge reputation as being an all-basketball-all-the-time kind of guy.

If nothing else, taking Rose will at least piss off Pat Riley.

by wjb1492 on Jul 16, 2008 1:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

Hah

No. And not even close. It’s not even because I like Webster that much more than BG. Ok I lied, I like Webster better.

1. Ben Gordon can be a valuable player, but not on the Blazers. He’s a volume scorer, he’s undersized, he can’t play defense, and he just jacks up shots. Basically imagine Allen Iverson if he didn’t drive in the paint as much and had worse passing skills. Yeah, that doesn’t look too hot does it?

We don't need scoring, we need defense. Now Bayless may be the answer in that respect, he may not. But so far, BG has shown that he is absolutely not the answer. The way Bayless drives to the lane with reckless abandon is also pretty valuable on our team. Gordon.... shoots fade-aways, at a bad percentage, in key moments, for a living. Did I mention he is like 6'1"?

2. Everyone on Blog a Bull hates Nocioni. Yeah. Everyone. Plus he’s being paid 8.5 mil, he’s a role player who isn’t even very good, being paid close to the salary of Devin Harris and Tayshaun Prince. To me it looks like we are taking a crappy contract off their hands. He’s not starter caliber, he’s not even 6th man caliber. Basically he sat on the bench for crappy Chicago team. Travis is our 6th man (and bench SF), so really we are taking an 8million dollar filler player. Gross. I’d rather take Webster making 3mil starting for a comparable player making 8.5. Really it’s not even close.

3. The expiring contract. I would be pretty disappointed if all we do with that contract is trade away Webster for freaking Nocoini and Ben Gordon. Neither of them address our fill our issues at point guard, or small forward, and they sew up 28 million (!!!) in salary. That’s all our cap space in 2009. Gone for a superfluous undersized gunner and a cash-swollen Euro Flopper. That’s almost as bad as what Chicago did with their cap room (Ben Wallace LOL).

If this deal was reworked where we sent Webster, Travis, RLEC, for Deng and filler that’s a different story.

A Time For Heroes,
It's not right for young lungs to be coughing up blood
And it's all
It's all in my hands
And its all up the walls
Well the stale chips were up and the hopes stakes were down
Until Kp came into Town!
'Sing it Petey!

by Dheepan on Jul 16, 2008 12:24 AM PDT 1 recs

Huh

What happened?

I wrote something to the effect of “We don’t need scoring, we need defense. Now Bayless may be the answer in that respect, he may not. But I think I can safely say Ben Gordon, is not, nor will he ever be the answer to the defensive point guard conundrum. Plus, Bayless drives to the rim with reckless abandon, we need that on this team. What we don’t need is a guy like Gordon who shoots fadeaways, at a bad percentage, at key moments, for a living. Did I mention that he is like 6’1”?

by Dheepan on Jul 16, 2008 12:29 AM PDT up 1 recs

Well played, good sir, well played.

by shralpster on Jul 16, 2008 12:31 AM PDT up 0 recs

Did he steal your lunch money when you were growing up?

He is 6-3, has had little to no games missed due to injury, scored 15 points in his rookie year and has gone up since. Only one year older than Brandon. Soots a decent percentage. Has come off the bench recently, so ok in that role. If Bayless works for the best and becomes our starting point guard, and Travis our starting sf, then Ben Gordon is instant points on the second unit. I believe there can be only one. Travis or Martel has to go.

Bayless4Ever

by Sabonis4Ever on Jul 16, 2008 12:39 AM PDT up 0 recs

He's completely redundant

Right now the Blazers have 2 shooting guards. Brandon and Rudy, they both have shown to be competent play makers and shooters (Rudy in Europe of course) now what’s the point of adding another (undersized) shooting guard who has a completely one dimensional game for 10million a year? I don’t see the logic behind that move. The way he plays in Chicago is basically comes to this: BG gets the ball, they run an ISO set, BG dribbles for about 20 seconds and takes a difficult jump shot. He’s an AI clone, except not as good.

And again, you don’t play a bench player 10 million dollars, that’s ludicrous, especially for a player that is so one dimensional.

by Dheepan on Jul 16, 2008 12:54 AM PDT up 1 recs

I don't think Travis will be the starting SF

He’s a weak 3pt shooter.
He’s a poor defender.
He’s a volume scorer, and really that’s his best asset. Putting him in the starting lineup minimizes what he does best, and that is provide some offense when the best players are off the floor.

by Dheepan on Jul 16, 2008 12:55 AM PDT up 1 recs

Travis was one of our best

three point shooters last year. Close to if not over 40%.

Everything else you said is true, though you gave Trout no credit for being a spectacular weak-side defender.

"Life is a meaningless sequence of events in between Blazer championships"

by broggerboy19 on Jul 16, 2008 1:00 AM PDT up 0 recs

But Travis only made like 60 3's from 1 spot on the court

Martell made like 140 and from all over the court.

You don’t hear Nate talking about him as a 3pt threat and that’s why.

by Dheepan on Jul 16, 2008 1:02 AM PDT up 1 recs

Oh and it should be 18mil in salary

by Dheepan on Jul 16, 2008 12:37 AM PDT up 0 recs

Would you feel comfortable

compromising all our depth at sf for Deng? I realize the guy is as close as the Bulls have to an All-star (excluding Rose), but I just don’t know if Deng can play the kind of minutes Outlaw+Webster play. Maybe Rudy/Roy/Batum can fill up the rest of the minutes. Also, Deng will be extremely expensive. I’d much rather have outlaw and webster be role players at the 3 and not eat up a lot of salary, so that we can save it for paying roy/aldridge/oden and maybe fernandez/bayless (depending on how they turn out).

by premthegrem on Jul 16, 2008 12:38 AM PDT up 0 recs

Yes and here's why

Having a 10 man rotation is a little superfluous. We have a lot of players that deserve to play, but they are kind of middle of the road type of ballers, guys that are your 6th, 7th or 8th man on a good team. Players like Frye, Webster, Travis (maybe an exception), and if they fall below expectations Bayless, and Rudy. Now you really don’t need to be really great 2 deep at every position. Consolidating a few of those players for a genuine 2nd tier talent is a good move.

Deng would be that type of player. He can score, he’s a great defender, but he’s also a glue guy and puts the team first. I think a lot of that has to do with his Duke pedigree. If that means we have a scrub coming in like Batum (sorry Sophia) for him playing 10 minutes a night it’s ok. Really what’s important is that you have good depth in the front court and a solid guard rotation.

I think getting rid of 2 of the players I mentioned earlier will really tighten up our rotation. That might mean Roy would play some for the second unit but eventually Batum should take over that role.

Also I don’t think PA is concerned about money.

by Dheepan on Jul 16, 2008 1:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

Also I used superfluous twice on this page

: (

My 10th grade English teacher would be very unhappy.

by Dheepan on Jul 16, 2008 1:34 AM PDT up 0 recs

That makes it super-duperfluous

Mortimer: "It’ll be so nice I’ll need microfracture—ON MY WEINER."

by 92wastheyear on Jul 16, 2008 6:16 AM PDT up 0 recs

I think this is the type of move we should be looking to make. If Deng is our SF then I would be fine with only Batum backing him up as a pure SF. We are going to need to be able to find Rudy some minutes and a 3 guard rotation with Roy/Rudy/Blake or Bayless would get those additional minutes. I assume Roy is going to get around 37 minutes a game so that leaves Rudy with 11 minutes a game and I think he will deserve more than that.

Brett Pill - Lord of the double.

by malarky on Jul 16, 2008 10:06 AM PDT up 0 recs

This would be a great trade.

I think this is another example of Blazer fans overvaluing our players. What exactly does Webster do better than Gordon?

Does he shoot the ball better? No. Gordon has a better percentage from the 3 point line, the foul line, and the field.

Does he handle the ball better. No.

Is he a better play maker? No.

Is he a better rebounder? Barely. (which is pretty sad for a SF)

In a nut shell, Gordon is better at spreading the floor and driving to the hoop. This trade will never happen because it would be a pretty stupid move by the Bulls not the Blazers. You can criticize Gordon’s all you want, but it’s not like Webster has been wowing anyone with his defense either.

But who would play small forward? I don’t know, but think Travis, Rudy, Roy and Batum could probably hold down the fort until we could consolidate some of our other parts into a viable backup.

If somebody hits you with an object you should beat the hell out of them.-Charles Barkley

by Winchester on Jul 16, 2008 12:47 AM PDT 1 recs

It has nothing to do with Webster being better than Gordon

In fact comparing them side by side Gordon is a better player, but he needs the ball and he needs to take a lot of shots. Why do we need another scorer?

This trade is bad for us because

1. We take in 18million in long term salary
2. We use our 13mil trading chip
3. The players we get from this trade don’t make us better.

Explain to me why you would take on 18 million for players that aren’t answers for either point guard or small forward? Nocioni is a bench player making 8.5mil, Ben Gordon is a very short shooting guard making a hypothetical 10million.

If you want a spot up shooter to play along side Roy you don’t need to a player that makes 10 million dollars, and if he’s not going to start what’s the point? This trades means we basically improved our bench. Tell me how Ben Gordon is going to average 19 per game when we have Roy, Rudy, and Bayless all at the guard spot? He would be grossly overpaid. And for his production to price, Nocioni is totally worthless. Travis is the SF off the bench so this leaves him no role, unless you are starting him and in that case, how much better than Martell is he really?

by Dheepan on Jul 16, 2008 1:22 AM PDT up 0 recs

It's just my opinion.

Bulls fans hate Nocioni, but they also hate Hinrich, Hughes, Wallace, Reisendorf, etc..

I admire the guy for putting out a reasonable and well thought out trade proposal. There have been far worse trades proposed by Bulls fans.

We have five guys who can play small forward on this team. We wouldn’t be loosing a lot if we traded Webster (especially for a guy who is a better 3 point shot.)

If somebody hits you with an object you should beat the hell out of them.-Charles Barkley

by Winchester on Jul 16, 2008 2:16 AM PDT up 0 recs

Bulls fans of the Blog-a-Bull variety only like players on rookie contracts

who have yet to reach their potential. We’ll undoubtedly hate BG and Lu next year, too.

If nothing else, taking Rose will at least piss off Pat Riley.

by wjb1492 on Jul 16, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up 0 recs

We always coveted the way the Bulls have built their teams?

Really?

by 2dVs4u on Jul 16, 2008 1:00 AM PDT 0 recs

Eh kind of

We admired how Paxson accumulated young talent through the draft. The SA model. I don’t really know if Paxson is still on top of his game though, whether it’s the owner or not, his contract negotiations with Gordon and Deng, coupled with the Kobe rumors tanked the 2007-2008 season for the Bulls. Plus I think Noah with the 9th pick was retarded, I’m still very iffy about Tyrus Thomas, and I think Rose might be overhyped, but we’ll see.

by Dheepan on Jul 16, 2008 1:26 AM PDT up 1 recs

Hmmmm ?

“aleays coveted” ? Dude, wake from your stupor and
get a grip, KP is building it the culture style. You just need
the ricest owner in sports and a rabid fan following and
your doing it Blazer style.

COINCAST + BLACKOUT = NO BLAZERVISION > sucks

It's GO time !

by walkoff41 on Jul 16, 2008 1:53 AM PDT up 1 recs

KP admitted he admired the way Pax built the team through the draft.

“Coveted” is the wrong word. It should be more like “emulated” and then “surpassed”.

Koponen - PG of the future. Book it.

by Blazerholic on Jul 16, 2008 8:20 AM PDT up 0 recs

Yeah I gotta back Dheepan here

By adding Bayless who seems to like to shoot we will not have enough shots to go around as it is and why would we want to add another volume shooter to the team?

I think that as we are constructed and our new additions pans out as we hope:

Bayless-G who can D smaller PGs, hit the outside 3, and drive to get to the line

Oden-dominant big man with lots of blocks and boards, great D

Rudy-sparkplug off the bench, long range gunner, alley oop catcher extraordinare

and the rest of the team does what it does, the only position I think that we would need to fill is a starting SF who can D up HARD and hit open 3s to keep the D from sagging in on Oden, LMA and opens up the court for Bayless and Roy.

The ONLY people I am looking to trade for sign are, in order:

Prince-great fit, good shot, great D, good age as well
Marion-little older but still one of the greatest athletes in the league, good 3pt, excellent D
Battier-Good age, good shot, great D
Childress-good, age, good D, good shot, upgrade from Webster? maybe not
Ron-Ron-
“Come on, baby
Let’s get nuts!
Yeah (Crazy)
Let’s go crazy

Are we gonna let de-elevator bring us down?
Oh no, let’s go crazy! (Go crazy!)
I said let’s go crazy! (Crazy, crazy!)
Let’s go, let’s go!

Ahhh!

Crazy”

We need that glue guy in the starting lineup, to allow Balyess, Oden, Roy and LMA to get their shots and not worry about theirs. So any trade NOT involving any of those players sign me off.

by SpyderRyder on Jul 16, 2008 2:04 AM PDT 0 recs

Childress!

He is so perfect for this team.

Defense is great.

4th highest true shooting percentage in the league. (Behind two centers and Brent Barry)

Basketball IQ is amazing.

Scrappy.

If somebody hits you with an object you should beat the hell out of them.-Charles Barkley

by Winchester on Jul 16, 2008 2:20 AM PDT up 0 recs

I also think he is the perfect fit.

Brett Pill - Lord of the double.

by malarky on Jul 16, 2008 10:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

lol

I just imagined Ron-Ron talking to Travis in the locker room

Ron-Ron: Yo Travis that was some shot there
Travis: Yeah, I just got it an shot it, and woo there go tha game
Ron-Ron: Yeah man, I feel you. You know since I just got traded here I feel like I wanna get to know the town a little, my team mates and stuff
Travis: Sure Ron, what do ya wanna do?
Ron-Ron: I don’t know, are there are any strip clubs or clubs we could go to? Where do Brandon and Lamarcus hang out after games?
Travis: I don’t know anything about that. Usually after games I just go home and sometimes we play xbox live.
Ron-Ron: What? Cmon Travis you don’t have to hold out on me man.
Travis: I’m not kidding Ron, none of us are real party animals around here.
Ron-Ron: (Looks around puzzled, glances around him, notices Jerryd stoically tying his neck tie) You sure? What about Jerryd? He looks like he’s about to go out somewhere
Travis: Nah that’s just J-Bay, no one really knows what he does outside of basketball….
Ron-Ron: TRAVIS, I can’t take this man. I can’t take this. I just got out of Sacremento! You’re tellin me none of you get crunk and wake up in the middle of the MLK boulevard 3 hours before shoot around? MY MUSIC IS GOING TO SUFFER!
Travis: Shucks Ronnie, you’ll get used to it. I just got NBA 2k9 wanna try it out?
Kp walks in: We’re building a winning culture around here Ronnie! You’ll love it!

by Dheepan on Jul 16, 2008 2:26 AM PDT up 3 recs

Rec

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jul 16, 2008 3:30 AM PDT up 0 recs

I think there's a subtle thing going on here

I’m now suspecting Jerryd Bayless is a highly paid assassin when not playing basketball. I’d believe it. Start the rumor!

Kevin Pritchard is a 4.0 Draft Day Student

by rmcdougall on Jul 16, 2008 9:11 AM PDT up 0 recs

No thanks

We have plenty of 2-guards and combo guards. The only deal I’d be interested in working with the Bulls at this point would be to try and get Luol Deng. He’d be our answer at the 3. If Webster can improve his ball handling, he would make a decent 2-guard if needed.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on Jul 16, 2008 2:17 AM PDT 0 recs

If we are weak anywhere

it is at SF.

Talent for talent, this isn’t too bad. But it doesn’t fit.

If Martell doesn’t pan out, we are thin at SF. If we trade him without getting a SF, we are very thin at SF.

We just upgraded at backup (and future starting) PG. In a year or two, we’ll be really, really strong at PG, with Bayless starting, and either Blake or Koponen (if he can actually beat out Steve) backing up. Travis is a great backup SF. The only place we need an upgrade is at starting SF. Martell may be that upgrade, if he improves his D and bumps his 3 pt percentage up 3-4%. If he is, how would this trade help us? If he isn’t, how would this trade help us?

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jul 16, 2008 3:35 AM PDT 0 recs

Im sure this has been stated

But Gordon would clog our SG position so much so that we would almost certainly alienate Rudy, as well as Bayless.

Ben is a tremendous player, however he hardly, if at all, fits into our roster.

Pass.

Vote Sam Bowie as Greatest "Other" Blazer Ever.

by Outlaw is Rejector on Jul 16, 2008 3:36 AM PDT 0 recs

Why can't Rudy take Websters minutes at the 3 and 2?

If somebody hits you with an object you should beat the hell out of them.-Charles Barkley

by Winchester on Jul 16, 2008 4:03 AM PDT up 0 recs

Webster never plays the 2 for us

and Rudy is too thin, he’ll be abused by SFs.

We could go small with Rudy/Roy/Bayless, and play zone or have Roy defend the 3. But Rudy isn’t a 3.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jul 16, 2008 8:03 AM PDT up 0 recs

I guess it's a fair trade but it doesn't make sense to me

I’m not hating, just too many players and too much salary, when it’s basically a Webster for Gordon trade.

"France is a place where the money falls apart in your hands but you can't tear the toilet paper" - Billy Wilder

by tominhawaii on Jul 16, 2008 4:06 AM PDT 0 recs

Wishful Thinking

It won’t happen. It doesn’t improve the SF spot, and it gives us too many guards. Further, it kills our cap space. We don’t need another guard right now. We need to let the ones we have play. Bayless and or Rudy could be every bit as good as Gordon in a year or two. If anything, it will be the SF position we study for a possible use of cap space and trade in the spring. You don’t, after all, pay someone $10 million a year to come off the bench. After all, you can get a Josh Howard for $10 million a year as well. Or a Baron Davis for $13 million, etc. etc.

Gordon doesn’t just kill cap space at a position where we don’t even know if we have a need. His $10 million – for a non-starter- undermines our ability to keep the core we want going together downstream.

by Eben Calder on Jul 16, 2008 5:43 AM PDT 0 recs

The only way...

we even talk to the Bulls is if they are giving us money on the dollar for there trash. Not that any of these players can’t play, they can, but they don’t fit and that is WAY more important than just talent. You gotta want to be on this team. You gotta want to play the game the right way, Roy’s way. Jack is still crying. He knew what he had going on here. if he could change the past he would go back and tell KP that he would play here for any basic good money and for whatever minutes were available. You stay here you have a chance to win more rings that you have fingers.

by Blazersaurus on Jul 16, 2008 7:23 AM PDT 0 recs

I would be seriously disappointed if the Blazers use RLEC just to get Gordon

Webster for Gordon swap? As a player yes, as an estimated $10 mil. contract we can’t match without giving up others no.

Coach, I promise I wasn't running hard ...

by Norsktroll on Jul 16, 2008 7:34 AM PDT 0 recs

I'm agreeing with most...

that adding another combo guard would further create a log jam in the Blazers’ back court. However, if Deng were coming over in a similar deal it would be a completely different situation. I’d take that length and quickness for defense in a second. Deng and Webster also both play the 3 so it doesn’t make much sense from the Bulls standpoint to have both of those players on the same team competing for minutes. Will they play Martell at the 2?

Another thing to take in to consideration is that we won’t want to take back more players than we shell out in a trade as was suggested in the original posting.

“We could throw in someone like Simmons (1.6 mil) if we do not want to use our trade exception to cover the cost that we fall short on.”

Sorry Bulls, that trade exception is going to get used if we deal because, while we have the money to pay for a scrub contract, a roster spot is much more valuable. Of course there’s always the deep pockets of PA for a buy-out.

Finally, I would like to see Sergio included in whatever deal for RLEC because I think our Finnish guy is a better prospect in the long run and he won’t see the light of day behind Blake, Sergio, Bayless and Roy. Without Sergio taking up the backup PG minutes, Petteri will get at least a little PT when he’s not tearing people up in Idaho.

by rip_city_fan on Jul 16, 2008 7:37 AM PDT 0 recs

Not a fan

IMO Gordon is a shoot first pass never ball hog.

"Joel Przybilla... all the rest is potential, Joel is fact." -ken

by blakebilla on Jul 16, 2008 8:00 AM PDT 0 recs

I'm with several others here...

on paper it looks like a good trade.

But it doesn’t really work, as it actually tweaks with our balance. We get another PG (we’d have, what, 5?) and another kinda-sorta SF.

Meh. It’s not very appetizing, but at least it’s not absurd.

Playing basketball... is like playing poker while running on a treadmill at full speed with people swinging a Louisville Slugger at you. -Dave on 95.5 The Game

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 16, 2008 10:51 AM PDT 0 recs

Paper Trade

I agree, on paper it looks good, and I think it could even work roster wise. Nocioni plays SF which answers a lot of questions, and I’ve always thought he was a underappreciated player (until he became overpaid). Ben Gordon is a SG, not a PG. But he could play alongside Roy who could probably even play SF and use his quickness against many SFs in the league. Probably not enough shots to go around though. Not ideal, but it could work.

However, I would be against it because of the contracts. I thought KP obtained RLEC in order to have cap space available at the right time (to sign our young franchise players). It doesn’t seem like that’s worth jeopardizing for these players.

by MavetheGreat on Jul 16, 2008 11:44 AM PDT up 0 recs

Seems like he brings the ball up court a lot.

As a SG it’s even worse. We’ve got SG’s (Roy, Rudy, Marty) and combo gaurds (Roy, Bayless).

Yep. Contractually it obligates us pretty heavy.

Playing basketball... is like playing poker while running on a treadmill at full speed with people swinging a Louisville Slugger at you. -Dave on 95.5 The Game

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 16, 2008 12:18 PM PDT up 0 recs