actually kiki consulted with mcdyess and got the OK from him before doing the deal. mcdyess gets it. he might stay. if not, we trade and get something. no biggee. we got over a year to figure out what to do with dice.
for mcdyess? you guys are insane. you act like mcdyess is 'injury prone' after one injury. trade him for baker, googs or other stupid contracts for terrible players? you havent even seen if mcdyess has come back yet. what is up with the horrible posts today? wow.
you can't serously still be complaining about the trade proposals on this board - after waht we saw in real life???
This could potentially work out for the Nuggets. From my understanding, in following they will have 0 to 2 current players under contract-depending on McDyess and Posey, and then their only other players under contract will be first rounders between now and then. Assume you keep those, you have a pair of starting forwards. Throw in 2 very high lotto picks in 2 years (Jason Williams this year?), and about 30 mill in caproom in 2003, and they could have a very good team. While it may be true that money doesn't always equal into big signings, there will be LOTS of names on the market-so that there will be lots to go around. Denver has a great family atmosphere (according to Mike Hampton ) and a pretty good sports tradition. Potentially, they could have a similar situation to the Magic, except with even MORE caproom, and an all-star or two in place (McDyess, maybe top 5 pick). However, they could've done a LOT better if they kept TAW's contract. NVE+Raef with Avery thrown in could've attracted something much better. Basically, they'll suck for 2 years, then perhaps be able to stock a loaded team for a decade or more.
Don't roll eyes at me. Either I believe that Eddie Griffin will be better than the player traded for, or the salary difference so large that it would be prohibitive to overcome, or this player is a prospective free agent I am unsure about resigning. So, there are no players in the NBA I would trade Eddie Griffin for. And I can criticize Kiki, because it was a moronic, bordering on brain-dead trade he executed.
yes i can. your deals have no point. you guys look at ppg and box scores to determine whats fair or not. you think winning 30 games a year with nve, taw and dice is better than winning 20 for a few then making the playoffs. mediocrity sucked. we were going nowhere. your deals made it harder to improve. kikis at least gave us a shot later on. you guys refuse to accept anything about this trade except the mere talent given up and what was received (salaries, cap space, attitudes, age, future means nothing for some reason).
agreed. thats all i ask for. just undestand the reasoning behind the trade and look at what we had before. its a very huge gamble but one where you look and say "hey, why the hell not? what did they have to lose?" we had nothing. we had a team with like the 8th highest payroll 20 games out of the playoffs bound to long term huge contract deals for role players. whats the point?
thats fine. weve talked about this (dice vs griff) but please dont pull that i wont trade griff for anyone stuff. thats just pure insanity. just silly talk and pure homerism. as for the trade, its been discussed here (probably more than anywhere else amazingly ) and if you want to purely look at raef vs howard and nve vs hardaway comparisons and make your judgements based on that, well thats on you. thats just not the sign of a true nba fan. you might be just upset that we did help dallas alot (which hurts me alot as i hate dallas...my least fav team...my utah jazz if you will) but the fact is we did fine ourselves. not now. not tomorrow. but after that. but in no way does that take away from the sillyness of not wanting to trade griff for anyone. whoa.
You're insane. You demand that we be realistic in terms of trade demands, and then when puedlfor assumes that things such as "the salary cap" and 'free agency" should be considered implicit in such a statement, you criticize him. That's not being a homer. It's taking into account league rules. You amuse me. You defend your GM on the basis of cap dynamics... then refuse to grant puedlfor the same defense. That's hyprocritical.
"salary cap" and "free agency" should not be implicit in the statement. they are THE MAIN FOCUS AND POINT of the entire trade in itself. factors that should be always at least considered by even the most casual nba fan. basic nba knowledge that is being completely ignored for some reason. this is a smart nba board. theres something you guys arent telling me cuz i know 99% of you guys know this. what im saying is to not want to trade griff, for NOT MCDYESS (i can accept this) but for NO NBA PLAYER is insane. period. i bet most of you would easily trade him for a few nba players. thats like me saying this trade was the best trade i coud potentially think of that worked on realgm. HELL NO IT WASNT. that boston deal that nve shot down - i lvoed that and was pissed when it didnt go through. but for the situation we are in, this deal works. i can live with it. all i ever asked for from kiki (or trade ideas online) was to help denver NOW or help us LATER. most trades here did neither (not even close). at least kiki gave me one of the two.
Nugzfan, many of us here DO get what's going on in this trade. Here's what I posted immediately following the trade: <i>"Well, for Denver, this deal was all about getting rid of discontent and getting under the cap for rebuilding... Howard's 20m contract expires in a year, and Hardaway in 2... Especially, TAW's bloated contract which is 5 years out. NVE's contract is 4 years out, Johnson's is 2 ... LaFrentz was thrown in to sweeten the deal, and they knew he was on his way out anway, in a year ... he was necessary in order to get rid of TAW off the books. And they end up with a first round pick, an OK cheap role player in Donnell Harvey, who also provides backup at PF, a relatively cheap PG to replace NVE, and a temporary solution to an injured McDyess. They got rid of two very disgruntled players, and the ability to go after Duncan or some type of franchise player in a year, replacing NVE. If you are looking at it from a rebuilding perspective, its not a bad trade, eliminating unrest... Could they have gotten more? Probably... but they obviously didn't like what offers they got right now, and this gives them another year to figure out what to do. For Dallas, this is a deep pocket game, and since Cuban doesn't care about luxury tax, they just gained 2 starters, and a valuable backup at PG for a backup PF, PG and low 1st pick. And if they don't work out, they gained valuable trading chits for future trades... They really needed LaFrentz, and will make sure he gets the red carpet treatment, so he resigns when his contract is up... Dallas is so far over the cap, they can't just sign guys, they have to trade for them, or resign their own players. So, they now have a starting center, a starting SG, and NVE/Johnson to trade, as well as the other players now expendable, such as Bradley ... it wouldn't shock me to see them waive TAW... but he can actually provide them some depth at SF ... And they can afford to let him sit on the end of the bench, if they have to. Both people got what they wanted... but it does seem that Dallas made out like bandits (that Cuban trade for Howard looks like a stroke of genius now), and balanced out their team ... and they WILL be a much better team because of it. Hey, Nash and VanExel ... that'll be one of the better backcourts in the league...</i> OK, Nugzfan, I do understand that this was done for cap purposes, and because NVE and LaFrentz' value was continuing to go down due to their discontent. But why would McDyess want to stay through the rebuilding process they are obviously going to go through? I'll bet Kiki explained that the Nuggets were stuck in mediocrity, which is probably obvious to Antonio as well, and there is some type of promise to get him to an up and coming playoff team, where McDyess can shine and love to live. I don't think Denver has turned out to be what he hoped when he signed with them. Obviously, this will put you guys in the lottery for at least the next 2 drafts. So, hopefully you get two good rookies and 2 good players in FA after you let Howard go. Losing 2 of your best players will help you be sure you stay at the top of the lottery, and maybe you'll get lucky enough to get either Jason Williams or Yao Ming this summer, and maybe even pull off Lebron James next year. It'll take another 3 to 5 years for you guys to get back in the playoffs. By then, McDyess will not have much left. Why would he want to stay? And why would Denver want to keep him, when he'll only get frustrated, and you would do best to trade him at the top of his value in the marketplace for someone who would mature at the same time as your rookies. Getting someone like Griffin, Gasol, or Brown would seem to be perfect for you guys, especially if you could add another player on the last year of his contract, and gain further cap space. <b>That being said, I'm not sure I'd trade Griffin for McDyess... </b>
To make the financial dynamics of trading Grif make sense, it would require trading for somebody still on a rookie scale contract. Players that are still young, but off rookie scale: Kobe TMac Vince KG Duncan Dice etc That leaves a group of relatively new players such as: Brand Odom Chandler Curry Gasol B Davis Mike Miller S Swift L Hughes etc The question is: Would you trade Griff for somebody that is still on a <i>rookie</i> scale contract? The salary differences among that group are minimal and shifting a few minor pieces to balance the numbers would not have a huge roster impact on either team. Mango
Of course they are implicit. You can't have a trade without dealing with them. If it were possible to trade Griffin for Shaquille... we'd do it. But we couldn't do that. We'd have to trade Griffin and half the team. Puedlfor assumed this in his statement. I merely find it ironic, that you, who insist in realism in Rockets trades... would not understand this. Perhaps you just like realism when it involves things swinging your way.
mango/haven; i think i wasnt clear. when i was talking salary cap and things like that, it was in reference to the den/dal trade, not at all talking about trading griff. personally i dont think you should trade griff for dice either. i totally accept that and will agree with all of you. i was just questioning not wanting to trade griff for ANYONE. basically i was going on about two different discussions, in the same thread...
ok well a few of you get it. thats cool. as for dice, maybe hell stay. maybe not. defintely a higher chance than most think (which is 0). but i think the reason he might stay is similar to the reason he came back - he likes denver and he just wants to win in denver. kiki is finally giving him that chance that issel never did. but even if he leaves, we get compensated (unless he REALLY wants to play in utah).
