Aelliott, I was against the Barkley trade because it was giving up too much talent for a player we'd only have for a couple more years. I was all for the Francis deal because he's young. I'd likewise be for the deal for Duncan. There's no question. But it isn't that Francis has changed my opinion; it's that Barkley was old and hurting and Francis and Duncan are young and bound to be great. I would be interested to see how many people would give up Francis to get Duncan. That's the only deal that would hurt. And though I think Duncan is the best player in the league now and for the next 8 years, I don't think I'd want to swap. Sir Scarv's deal of Francis, Thomas and 2 #1s is too much to pay. But a straight up swap would be hard for me to do as well.
I know this is an "arguments sake" thread only but it should be noted that you cannot use the future values of draft picks during a trade to offset known contract salaries of the players involved. According to Larry Coon (The CBA capoligists Guru) Rule#59 states: Draft picks have zero trade value for salary matching purposes.
Sir Scarvajal: No, I wouldn't trade Francis for Duncan. But, again, my question is this: forget matching value for value. What if offseason came and Tim Duncan announced to the Spurs he was leaving (and in the meantime the Rockets cleared capspace of Cato+Walt). If he wanted to come here and play, we wouldn't even have to give up Francis. They would lose him anyway to us, so would have to settle for whatever we were willing to trade.
Stevie is great, but the only player I wouldn't trade for Duncan is Garnett. Duncan is closest you can get right now to Dream Jr., he would be a mainstay of a good team for at least 10 years. Of course if it works, sure I would trade less for Duncan.
