|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Feb 18, 2010 23:42:31 GMT -5
I know it might be double standard but its two different situation, plus can u really tell me david lee is better than bynum?..Orld had to get rid of david lee, pacers needs to get rid of bynum y....he has what 25 mill cap ,can he replace an andrew bynum or is he putting the pacers in a worst place than before? I don't know y but this trade is shady he says he got offer aging all star JOE JOHNSON 28. Y would u settle for lee and williams an 87 was on the table? I wont say Lee is better than Bynum, but the difference isn't that far off. They both have their faults. Boston offered Johnson for Bynum? from what i herd i even offer gasol and the 6th for bynum.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 19, 2010 0:26:47 GMT -5
I know it might be double standard but its two different situation, plus can u really tell me david lee is better than bynum?..Orld had to get rid of david lee, pacers needs to get rid of bynum y....he has what 25 mill cap ,can he replace an andrew bynum or is he putting the pacers in a worst place than before? I don't know y but this trade is shady he says he got offer aging all star JOE JOHNSON 28. Y would u settle for lee and williams an 87 was on the table? I wont say Lee is better than Bynum, but the difference isn't that far off. They both have their faults. Boston offered Johnson for Bynum? Yes I did, straight up.
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Pacers on Feb 19, 2010 0:48:34 GMT -5
To address that, it was the SECOND best offer I got. I love Joe Johnson(I'm a die hard Hawks fan) but at the same time he is expiring. I would have the cap to re-sign him but I plan on extending Rondo next off season and I'm sure his agent would want him on a immediate contender.
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Feb 19, 2010 2:09:37 GMT -5
let me get this right...if joe and rondo made max on ur current team u would be at 67 mill...next season with kapon and haslem off the books u'll have 10 mill in cap. So y pass up on johnson if ur a real hawks fan. Rondo and joe making max money still gives u mad cap. Hell rondon and joe making 15 mill a year gives u enough money to sign a max player next season.
|
|
|
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Feb 19, 2010 2:49:17 GMT -5
Den, I appreciate your passion in this discussion, but it seems like you are talking down to Indy. Id appreciate you if you mellowed out a little. He's been civil throughout this whole process.
And hes right about Johnson, the player agent would want him on a contender and the extension very well could get rejected.
Btw, we are working on a system that would incorporate having player agents all year long. Dropping hints to whether or not a player is happy in his current situation etc...
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Feb 19, 2010 2:59:07 GMT -5
lol i was, still don't get the logic behind why give up a young stud for partially nothing. What would stop Rondo from not joining a contender next year?
|
|
|
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Feb 19, 2010 3:01:45 GMT -5
lol i was, still don't get the logic behind why give up a young stud for partially nothing. What would stop Rondo from not joining a contender next year? Rondo is still considered a young player. Younger players usually stick to their teams unless something drastic happens. Johnson is 29 in June, he has about 3-4 more years in his prime and then its off to mediocrity.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Feb 19, 2010 23:29:47 GMT -5
And if we cannot come to an understanding, I cannot approve the Lee deal. Ok, just curious, but how can you not approve the Lee deal? it's been voted on and passed and our charts have been updated. Done and done. Also, ORL clearly needed the cap I took in addition to Lee to make his other deals. I took on 9 million bucks in two lousy players as part of the deal, and w/o that, the rest of his offseason doesn't happen. That's a HUGE difference in my Lee trade and this Bynum trade.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Feb 19, 2010 23:30:47 GMT -5
Also, I don't feel that comfortable voting on the SAC/IND trade now that, if I reject, it might screw my team over b/c you'll go back and take away my legit, already accepted trade.
Not really sure what to do about that.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 19, 2010 23:33:07 GMT -5
Guys, this is all a result of sign and trades. Getting rid of them next year should solve a lot of these problems. The Brand deal is different from the other deals being discussed. Brand is on the down slope and his contract that he was signed to is pretty bad and can become an albatross. The Bynum and Lee deals are very similar IMO. An 80+ big man for 2 semi young players with potential rated in the mid 70's. If we accept that one, we have to accept this one. Otherwise its a double standard. I realize it needs to stop somewhere, but the parallels with the 2 deals are almost staggering. I don't really see the comparison. Orlando had to trade Lee due to cap issues. Indy didn't have any cap issues, he just decided to sell a young player on the cheap. In my opinion that is what makes the difference between accepting the Lee deal and rejecting the Bynum trade.
|
|
|
Post by Sacramento Kings on Feb 19, 2010 23:44:12 GMT -5
Guys, this is all a result of sign and trades. Getting rid of them next year should solve a lot of these problems. The Brand deal is different from the other deals being discussed. Brand is on the down slope and his contract that he was signed to is pretty bad and can become an albatross. The Bynum and Lee deals are very similar IMO. An 80+ big man for 2 semi young players with potential rated in the mid 70's. If we accept that one, we have to accept this one. Otherwise its a double standard. I realize it needs to stop somewhere, but the parallels with the 2 deals are almost staggering. Completely agree with your opinion. And if we cannot come to an understanding, I cannot approve the Lee deal. Hope you are a man of your word.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Feb 19, 2010 23:46:14 GMT -5
Also to be clear, I'm not really being held to a consistency issue here, as I did not vote on the LAC/ORL trade. Couldn't, I was part of it. I can't see how OKC will undo like 6 trades at this point though either...trades were posted, accepted by both parties, accepted and approved by the CM...and now he just says "ah nevermind the whole process I set up and we've followed for 4 years, I'm reversing everything".
Guess we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 19, 2010 23:46:38 GMT -5
Just curious. You do understand that Orlando had to trade Lee and Indy didn't Bynum. So how can you say the 2 deals are the same? What is similar other than they both were sign and trades?
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 19, 2010 23:47:59 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with consistency. The deals are not the same. Two different circumstances, two different responses.
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Feb 19, 2010 23:50:38 GMT -5
I got a solution so orld,me,lac,houston,etc all don't get ***over....y don't we just allow the bynum deal but impose conditions such as if the pacers bolts from the league within 3 months the trade just retracted and sac gets fined imposing a cap of 65 mill or he loses his 1st round pick next year .
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Feb 19, 2010 23:53:17 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with consistency. The deals are not the same. Two different circumstances, two different responses. I agree, but in the trade thread, the issue of consistency was brought up I thought. Just expressing how I don't think they're similar either, same as you. Or rather, there are SOME similarities, but needing to move Lee (he already used the players I gave him in that deal to make more deals to improve his team), and needing that cap I took (that's 13% of my cap this year, tied up in worthless players, just for the honor of taking David Lee)...and I had to give him very solid young players too, that was a solid deal IMO. And just like Boston has been saying, ORL had deals already worked out, we knew he really did need the cap and NEEDED to get value for Lee. Indy really does not need to trade Bynum. He is moving him for cap in FA or whatever, but who knows if anyone will go there, and if they do, the best he could possibly hope for (combination of some youth and still skill) is Rashard Lewis, and he's not even that young right now. Just keep Bynum for at least part of the year and get way better value than this later.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 20, 2010 0:08:20 GMT -5
Another difference to me is the position they play. It is a lot easier to get a solid PF then it is a center. 22 year old centers with his potential, already an 80 rating don't grow on trees. Why give up something so valuable when you don't have to, and on top of that, why give him up for cheap.
|
|
|
Post by Sacramento Kings on Feb 20, 2010 1:34:02 GMT -5
Also to be clear, I'm not really being held to a consistency issue here, as I did not vote on the LAC/ORL trade. Couldn't, I was part of it. I can't see how OKC will undo like 6 trades at this point though either...trades were posted, accepted by both parties, accepted and approved by the CM...and now he just says "ah nevermind the whole process I set up and we've followed for 4 years, I'm reversing everything". Guess we'll see. Undo 6 trades?? really?? More like 1 trade...the ORL/GSW trade LAC hasn't made any trades since the Lee one so u still have Lee/Stack/Mason Orl has only moved Chalmers/CDR to GSW for Gay/Greene/Ellington so dramatic with the 6 trade thingy...LOL
|
|
|
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Feb 20, 2010 3:38:22 GMT -5
Bos, its similar because the talent going to the team trading the young big is just about identical cap space aside.
What a pain in the ass. I'm going to admin approve the deal. I dug a hole too deep and there is no winning. 1 side will be upset regardless.
This is the absolute last deal like this. I am strictly going to reject trades not up to par from now on.
In conclusion, if any of you even try a lopsided trade that is not up to par, do not even think about bringing this trade up as a comparison. I will reject it just for anyone trying to justify it that way. Look at this as your warning.
This is being locked away and put in the vault which should never be opened again. I will pretend like this never happened. You all should as well.
Time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 20, 2010 3:56:16 GMT -5
Orlando had no cap space to keep Lee. In other words he had no leverage. Of course he wasn't going to get equal value for Lee. Indy had the cap to keep Bynum. He wasn't forced into a situation of, trade him or lose him for nothing. He had all the leverage in the deal. You can say their similar all day, but their not, not even close. I am convinced SAC has something on people here, lol. Not once, but twice, damn. Kudos to SAC though, well done.
|
|