e Hornets tried to swap Coleman for Reeves... There ARE takers for him out there!

Thanos - do you have a link?

On the surface, it looks like Vancouver nixed the deal b/c Coleman's contract (according to NBAtalk) is almost identical to Reeves' giving no cap advantage. At least Reeves is not a malcontent and is in decent shape (although somewhat slow-footed).

Even mediocre big man have some value. IMO, Reeves would do well in the East.


------------------
GATER

 

Not suprising at all, Thanos. Reeves is a decent C capable of putting up nice numbers on occassion. He reminds me of James Edwards, the C who was on the Pistons' championship teams with the "Fu Manchu" (my apologies to our Asian brothers and sisters) mustache. He was a bit one-dimensional, and really only had one shot, a turnaround J. But Edwards was so big and he shot the ball while leaning back and falling away at the same time, making the shot almost impossible to block, that he was very effective and valuable. Reeves has a turnaround that is very similar to Edwards, and like Edwards, his greatest ability is scoring. There will always be a demand in the NBA for Cs that can provide scoring.

------------------
"ON-BEE-TAH-BULL!!", Hakeem Abdul Olajuwon, alumnus, University of Houston

 

I remember seeing something along time ago showing that DC had a contract until '06 or something crazy.... and he makes BC money.

All in all, this isn't the best example for doing the Van/Hou trade.

------------------
We're going to stay together until something happens, if something happens. - Sidney Lowe on Shareef's career in Vancouver.

 

Actually, Coleman will be a free agent the same year as Reeves and is paid almost the same amount.

He is turning out to be a bust for the Hornets, and is not happy with is current condition. The team has been trying to unload him due to his bad character and constant grabbing of negative headlines. The Hornets don't need him or his whining.

Obviously, there are takers for Reeves. But that's only teams that want to get rid of their own overpaid players.

------------------
Nederland 2002

Rocketman95 on board. Check out his latest game recaps.

 

That's not exactly true Ace, the Bulls are interested in Reeves. He is a solid center when playing to his capabilities, can help protect Elton Brand, and is locked up for a while so Chicago doesn't have to worry about him walking. And he's young. I think Bulls would take, especially if all we ask from them is a draft pick should the Rocks be able to make a trade for Rahim.

------------------
If Megatron can become Galvatron, why can't Rocks2001 become RocksMillenium?



[This message has been edited by RocksMillenium (edited January 18, 2001).]

 

Who would you prefer juwan howard or Reeves
Maybe we can get Washington in on the deal


Rocket River
those 100 mil men got over like gangbusters

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

 

I wonder if these "sources say"-type leaks are deliberate ways of telling everyone that yes, talks of some nature or another are going on about such-and-so player, all as a way of hiding a trade that has already been reached in principle---weeks ago. Probably a way to shake teams loose and see if there is one other (or better) offer still out there.

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

 

I think its hilarious that the pro-trade folks are trying to rationalize and brainwash themselves into believing that Reeves could be dumped on someone else. Chicago would only take Reeves IF AND ONLY IF they get Rahim AS WELL. A team will only offer Vancouver their own salary problems ie. Derrick Coleman in exchange for Reeves. Think about it, if the Grizz could have gotten rid of Reeves for cheap, low contract players, they would have done it by now. They arent going to deal Rahim unless someone is stupid enough to take Reeves on as well and no team is going to take on Reeves for cap friendly players. Take a break from fantasy dreamcasting land and be realistic for atleast half a second!

------------------
Check out the Best Source for Draft Info

Draftsource.net

 

I can't believe we actually have to argue about whether or not a team would be interested in Reeves alone. The man is one of the most overpaid players in the league. He makes Juwan Howard's contract look like a steal.

As MManal said, the Bulls would only take Reeves if they got SAR to go along with him. They are one of the teams that do not mind the extra bagagge as long as they get their star player. They're saying that they don't mind Reeves, not that they're interested in him.

How in God's name can you suggest to trade for SAR and dump Reeves in Chicago? Forget it. It's not going to happen. Believe it or not, but NBA teams are not geared towards making life easy for our Houston Rockets.

------------------
Nederland 2002

Rocketman95 on board. Check out his latest game recaps.

 

One way that Vancouver might get rid of Reeves & eventually reduce salary, without having to give up Shareef or Bibby is to trade Reeves to a team that has multiple players they want to get rid of. What that will do, is at least break Reeves salary up into smaller pieces. They could then package one of the smaller pieces with Shareef or Bibby for some cheap, young talent & draft picks. Other teams might be more willing to take a problem child, that doesn't cost much, in order to get Shareef or Bibby. The bottom line is that, if they want to reduce salary, they're going to have to either keep Reeves & trade their best talent away or find a way to chop Reeves salary up into smaller pieces that would be easier for a team to swallow. How fast do you think Shareef would've been snapped up if the salary that was attached was only $3-5 million? Washington could do the same with Juwan Howard. Both players are overpaid, but do contribute to the team offensively & defensively. Teams with albatross salaried players, that they want to get rid of, need to start thinking outside the box, instead of only thinking that they have to get players that are an upgrade.

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


[This message has been edited by Hottoddie (edited January 18, 2001).]

 

While I respect the opinions of others, I must disagree about the Chicago scenario listed above. The Bulls need a solid point guard and, at least, a serviceable center. Bibby makes more sense for the Bulls than SAR. Bib's a guaranteed 15 points and 8 or 9 assists. Shareef and Elton might bump elbows too much. Besides, who would the Bulls give up (to the tune of 20 million bucks) for Reef and Reeves? OK, the Bulls have 5 million cap space. Miller? That's another 4. Tarlac? Approximately 2.5. Fizer? I don't know, they already have Swift and Othella. Etcetera.
I'd like to agree, but I just don't quite see it.

I read the Chicago Tribune every day and the one thing that stands out: Jamal Crawford never plays. Fizer? Only 14 minutes per game. Brad Miller entered a recent game en fuego but was quickly benched. You can't help but wonder what the hell's going down, but it all smacks of impending trade.

If the Bulls can grab Reef and Reeves without completely gutting their team, my "hat-that-I-don't-own-let-alone-wear" is off to them, and I'll say, "Damn, you dudes were right," and my head will turn into either a sucker or a donkey-head and my co-workers will say, "We told you not to browse the Internet at work."

By the way, Reeves has played well lately (for him) and Stromile Swift put up some decent numbers last night, although he got schooled by McDyess.
The one truth of the Bulls and the Grizz: neither team has the correct mix. But oh, for the chance of getting SAR w/o Reeves.

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