Why would Sac want Hill and Walt when they have two above average small forwards already? I read on many occasions that Sac is very high on Turk. ------------------ Fuggetabout it
I agree with Jeff. The way his last injury has lingered has me worried that he'll never be productive again. He is a fantastic player, but he needs to be durable too to be worthwhile. Plus, HP is right that in a Orl-Sac-Hou trade, Orlando would get Webber and Sacramento would get Hill. We would just get some concessions for facilitating the deal. For Houston to do that, they'd have to be convinced that Webber won't sign with them outright. As for statements that they won't trade Hill: how many times have you heard GMs say a guy is untouchable and turn around and trade him the next day? His declared intentions don't mean much. ------------------ RealGM Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
It seems to me Orlando is loaded at the 3 and Hill would be the one I would try to unload on somebody at his salary. I wouldn't want Hill in a 3-way with Sac and Orl. I would want Webber, McGrady or Miller if we were involved in the process, obviously the middle player is out of the question. Hill might be the player he once was, but he might be a Scottie Pippen player at a Scottie Pippen cost without the Scottie Pippen attitude. While not bad, that isn't tempting enough for me. I prefer to go for a hard sell via free agency for Webber. I like Miller though, and if we could S & T SA plus offer our picks this year (Orl or to Sac via Orl) for Miller that might be reasonable too. Finally, I think Orlando would be nuts not to offer Hill plus extra (picks) for Webber. I don't think Sac is interested however, if push came to shove (losing Webber to us for nothing) I would think hard on whether to take Hill (who might be still a great player) but who obviously is at a great player cost, or clear out the cap space to try to retool next year. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 06, 2001).]
I think you're right, here. What is Doc supposed to say? "We will not trafe Grant Hill! Err, unless we get Chris Webber, I mean". Why would they need us to make this deal? If it's a sign and trade, Sactown just signs Web for the same amount as Hill. Or they throw in a scrub if Hill makes too much and sign Web to the difference. If we are getting the scraps, though, If Sactown gets Hill, they don't need Stoyakovich(sp?) do they? ------------------ Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!
Agree with both your points Jeff. 1. Definitely a warning shot over the bow for any Webber acquisition by Orlando. 2. Hill has looked fragile to me for two years. I would be anxiously waiting for the other shoe to drop, the moment Hill put on a Rockets Uniform. ------------------ As to ANY trade with Orlando, whetrher it is a three-way, or some other confaluted arrangement, I think the bottomline is to acquire Bo Outlaw. [This message has been edited by oeilpere (edited June 06, 2001).]
I disagree with the majority, here. Yes, I believe Hill is injury-prone. But I also think that when you're talking about someone of Grant Hill's caliber, that's a risk you have to take. For me, injury-susceptibility should be a factor when attempting to decide between two relatively similar players or if the player looks like his career is basically finished, a la Jayson Williams. Hill's career isn't necessarily over, and there isn't another player of anywhere near his ability if we presume Webber wants to go to Orlando. So why not make a play for Hill? If he's healthy, we have a playmaker and one of the top-scorers in the game. Heck, Hill can even play defense and rebound. Consider Shandon Anderson replaced . Heypartner: Well, those still sound like good deals to me . I'd rather have Doleac than Collier, and Outlaw's a good player to have on any team for his hustle and defense value. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
If there is really little question about Hill's health, than he would go to Sac, not us. Sac might need to take him on for the PR angle as well, though I again would think twice if I am Sac. Hill is a big risk at his salary, Webber is a very small risk at a similar salary, and the latter in my view will be a greater player for a longer time at this point in their careers. (I admit Hill was a greater player a few years ago, but Webber has become more refined than he was before and Hill may never quite be what he once was.) [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 06, 2001).]
Hill certainly wasn't injury prone in his first 6 years, missing only 25 games total. This ankle injury could certainly make him so if it doesn't heal and become close to 100% again. But complete players like Hill are rare (21.5 ppg, over 6 assists and almost 8 boards for his career), and I agree......it's a risk worth taking. ------------------ My doctor says I am bipolar. I am going to get a second opinion. I have never had intimate desires for polar bears.
silent j, You have it the wrong way. Orlando is the team that needs to move more Salary. Sacramento is not the one needing help in the sign and trade, Orlando is. Hill is being paid $9.66m, but his trade value is only what he was paid the previous contract, which is rougly $7m (according to Bender). His trade value is 50% of new salary or his previous salary, whichever is greater. Webber is already being paid a max'd out amt at $12m (I doubt he takes a decrease), so he really has no BYC implications. That means Orlando will receive $12m in salary, yet only get credit for moving $7m. That is a $5m difference. Sac will get credit for moving Webber's salary of $12m and getting Hill's new contract in return...$9.66m. So they go down in salary and have no worries. Orlando will have trouble moving salary directly to Sacr, as that will just put Sac over the top in a see-sawing math puzzle of staying within the 15% trade rule. Besides, will Sac want any of their dogs, anyhow. My feeling is Outlaw will go to Detroit in a 3 way if this Hill/Webber goes down, in order to help Orl move salary as a return favor for not allowing Vanc to get the #18 pick. There is no way we take on Outlaw's contract as consolation for losing out on Webber...that is ridiculous.
Haven, I'm not saying getting Outlaw is a bad thing. I'm saying that completely eating his contract is ridiculous for the other things we have planned with our precious cap space. We can use it on Mo', Dream, Webber or Davis. Why would we clear $5m in capspace to help a 3-way by eating Outlaw's salary. If you want Outlaw, trade some salary then, in process. Do not renounce Hakeem just to make someone else's sign-n-trade work. Do you see what I'm saying? We have no cap-space as of now to help Orlando in a sign-n-trade. The only way we can help them is to renounce Dream. Now why would you renounce Dream just to absorb Outlaw's $5m salary for Orlando, so they can land Webber? Say goodbye to Dream and likely Davis, if you do that.
Hottoddie, I don't know. All I can really offer the board is trading mathematics, and objectivity regarding whether I believe a trade is fair to both sides. <font size="1">Hedo/Outlaw would make it interesting for us, but Hedo would probably require Cato rather than Walt, for SAC to be interested. Does anyone want Cato? What surprised me after seeing your RealGM trade was that I actually tried the math on your exact trade yesterday replaced Walt with Cato. I come about $1m shy of 15% trade rule violation for Sac, but I was counting on my fingers. That RealGM stuff people post makes my eyes hurt.</font> I apologize to pops if my "constricting a balloon" analogy and "pops pops out placing ideas in our heads" made it sound like I believe his stuff is bogus. It was a play on words pops, and I hope it brought a chuckle. I forgot my smilie, again . I always enjoy reading your enthusiastic musings. But I believe many people jump on one iota of hint from pops and blow up that balloon into...we will get Indiana's prized possessions not Sac...wooohooo. That's all I can offer is objectivity to say..."I doubt that". oeilpere has far more info than I would even really want, much less be able to get. that said, subtle little pick-ups like Turkoglug and Harrington would be killer...and worth helping a sign-n-trade by renouncing Dream and giving the trade some of our cap space. Both those players have stars starting ahead of them, so it is conceivable to me that we could pry them away. More than that just seems like we are stealing something that Sac would want. So, count me being the one who bores everyone with objectivity and reality that trades are painful and historically only show about 60/40 fan base agreement with them. The subtle pick-ups is what excites me for this team, the little-bitty picks that fit perfectly or come very cheap. I am in total "save our cap space" mode and trade nothing but picks and Cato. One thing to remember about all Rocket's participation in 3-way sign-n-trades, they mean we must renounce Dream, because we are most likely the 3rd team who is there to absorb mismatching salaries. Our participation should probably best be viewed similarly to us spending cap space on a free agent. To me, that is the only reason we would participate in a 3-way sign-n-trade, to outright purchase someone's peripheral player to make a blockbuster work. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 07, 2001).]
heypee, there needs to be more objectivity. I swear, there are too many posts suggesting we get studs for utter crap. Heypee, how about this lineup: Marc Jackson/#4 draft pick/COllie Webber/Fizer SAR/Langhi/Bull Mobes/Forte Francis/Mooch we give up our 3 draft picks and Cato and Wiz and other people for SAR and stuff then we sign Webber. Fooolz. ------------------ snap crackle pop
Heypartner, I tried it with Cato also & came up with this: Houston sends LOS to Orlando. Houston sends Cato to Sacramento. Sacramento sends Hedo to Houston. Sacramento sends Webber to Orlando. Orlando sends Outlaw to Houston. Orlando sends Hill to Sacramento. This deal works with last years numbers, but like you said it comes up a little short with next years salaries: Houston sends $8,300,000 out & receives $6,278,580 back. Sacramento sends $14,016,080 out & receives $16,865,250 back. Orlando sends $15,927,750 out & receives $15,100,000 back. Sacramento will be just under $2 mill under the cap next year, so this deal wouldn't work. It comes up short by about $600,000. However, if they were to substitute either Pollard, Funderburke, or Barry for Hedo, then it would work. I don't think we need Barry, but would Pollard or Funderburke be worth going after? For that matter, would Sacramento want to part with one of their big men & as you mentioned, would they really want Cato? ------------------
True, I've been out of town for a week, but reading all these posts makes me wonder if anybody remembers that Orlando just screwed us. Before we do ANYTHING that might help them, we'd better get a lot more than just table scraps! I'm happy as long as Orlando and Detroit get only cold pricklies and absolutely no warm fuzzies. ------------------
Thank you, can you say that again?!! ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Guns kill squirrels than REDRUM to fools across the nation?
Doc Rocket implies that Grant Hill is coming because he says that the player would have to be healthy first. Who else is out there that the healthy scenario applies to? I can't think of anyone, but I really have trouble with the idea of bringing Hill in. Hill's agent made his condition worse by having him rehab too soon to make it look like he was healthy. Now Hill is paying the price. The Magic also have a history of not giving the whole story on a players' injuries. Penny Hardaway got a lot of heat from the Magic because they said he was sitting out without really being injured. They said he was trying to up his price. Then Penny gets to Phoenix, and lo and behold, the guy still ain't right. It has been said, but Doc Rivers' saying he won't trade Hill doesn't mean a whole lot. Now, let's talk reality. Who do we give up to get Hill? Cato? Get serious. Walt, Carlos, and some draft picks? Yeah, right. To get a player like Hill you have to give up somebody serious. Would you give up Francis to get him? Mobley? I can see, based on the way TMAC and Miller played this year, that Orlando might be willing to part with Hill. It is difficult to see him landing here without more info. The Rocket Guy http://www.TheRocketGuy.com ------------------
What about Theo Ratliff?I don't think he'll be ready until we're 1/4 of the season in or something.Atlanta is also a team,possibly looking to get out of the 3 spot. Hill's salary escalates each year from 12 mil. next year to 17 in 2007. ------------------ If I had my life to live over,I would have liked to have ended up as a sportswriter - Richard M. Nixon,1969 [This message has been edited by hardwood (edited June 09, 2001).]
Grant Hill's not going anywhere. Half the reason he moved to Orlando was because it would better his wife Tamia's music career. ------------------ [This message has been edited by tacoma park legend (edited June 09, 2001).]
