It mention the Wizards and Rockets themselves are talking, so the actual teams must see some benefit to doing it. A little bit different than someone's wild speculation. Though like I mentioned, I dont see the big benefit for Washington except to unload Butler a year early cuz they want to rebuild NOW and want to completely change the face of the franchise NOW. Even though Butler doesnt hurt them much. Wouldnt be so much for oncourt play, would be more about some cap savings and making a symbolic move.
Then why isn't he playing any minutes. Andray Blatche is the young big the Wiz management seem sold on to me (got a good contract, big role in their rotation, still very young).
Understood. I'm not saying that proposing Rockets-Wizards trade scenarios is a pointless exercise. It's not, especially if that story is true and the teams have actually talked. My point goes hand and hand with what that article is saying: that the Wizards want other assets besides McGrady's contract in return for Butler. This is entirely consistent with my post. As far as a "symbolic move" is concerned, I think trading Jamison would be quite symbolic. Trading Butler (and his more cap-friendly contract) for nothing more than cap relief just doesn't make a ton of sense. Especially if valued players like Haywood or Miller (who could either be re-signed or used as assets in sign-and-trade scenarios) also need to be included.
Last I checked, Antawn Jamison and Brendan Haywood still played major minutes in the Wizards' frontcourt. If one or both of those guys is shipped out this year, that opens up a ton of playing time for McGee.
How young were we then.just cause you're old dose it mean you suck.<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6ixyMQX9_wo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6ixyMQX9_wo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Some people on this board act like we can pick and choose from having Iguodala, and Kevin Martin. I'm sure, everyone, and their mothers, including Morey would prefer them as well. But if those deals aren't on the table, especially when they'd want us taking on bad contracts - opposed to the Wizards giving us more cap friendly contracts, for T-Mac, this would be a good deal. I'd much rather have this deal than T-Mac expire..that's for sure.
Yeah, I have gone through a bunch of scenarios involving a three-way deal with Houston, Washington and Cleveland. All of them involve the same basic structure: Washington gets Tracy McGrady Cleveland gets Antawn Jamison Houston gets Caron Butler and Zydrunas Ilgauskas The thinking being that Houston would agree in advance to immediately waive Big Z so that he could re-sign with the Cavs 30 days later. Hopefully, a buyout with at least a little bit of payroll relief for Houston would be involved. Still, I see no way the Wizards do such a deal unless it is getting some pretty good assets in return. For starters, I think the Cavs would need to give up both J.J. Hickson and their 2010 first round pick. Also, the Rockets would probably need to part with some additional assets. Perhaps the 2011 second rounder (the higher of its own or the Clippers')? Perhaps international assets like Eliyahu or Llull? Maybe a future first rounder (not their 2010 pick)? If the Wizards reach a point in the next few weeks where they realize that they aren't going to get significant player assets in exchange for Jamison or Butler, then perhaps they make a deal that would clear a TON of salary off the books and net them some young pieces like Hickson and future picks. Still, I'm not sold on the Wizards management ever reaching that point.
cool first round exit + not enough cap space to sign a legitimate star bro caron and haywood won't cut it especially if we give up another asset
Sounds like somebody was onto something when he posted a scenario EXACTLY like this two days ago. Scenario #1: McGrady/Scola for Butler/Haywood/Mike James http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5066879&postcount=1149
I just don't see why the Rockets do that deal. We get Butler for McGrady, have to include a pick, and have to give up rights to Eliyahu or Llull? Someone explain why that makes sense from the Rockets perspective, because it looks like we trade T-Mac's expiring deal, a pick (possibly a good 2nd rounder), and the rights to two excellent prospects (I'm pretty high on Llull) for Butler the rest of this season and next season. What am I not seeing?
McGrady/Scola for Butler/Jamison/Haywood you have a deal. Jamison ='s the perfect fit in this system, Haywood the perfect back-up and Butler the perfect bargain.
Very rarely do you ever see 3rd teams and 4th teams involved in a trade. Something tells me it's more then just Butler/Haywood i think Washington is inclined to move Jamison to a contender and they'd probably ask for Brooks too.
We be asking for too much. A McGrady for Caron and Brendan seems beneficial for both teams. I'd even welcome Mike James back! Loved the guy when he got minutes.
Scola is such a hard worker out there and brings many intangibles. But he's also the probably the best asset to cut loose. Landry has become the finisher for this team and Scola sits a lot in the 4th. It's either Scola or a PG we'll have to give away to get something
He can produce but I doubt if he can help us to become a winner in the long run. I don't think we are likely to get to a championship with him and Butler.
