|
LAC/CHI
Dec 9, 2008 17:16:03 GMT -5
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 9, 2008 17:16:03 GMT -5
LAC Sends: Draft Rights to Marreese-Speights-67 Kosta-Koufos-64
LAC Receives: Spencer Hawes-C-70--$1,558,000- $1,666,700-$2,381,714
Total Incoming: $1,558,000 Total Ougoing: $0
CHI Sends: Spencer Hawes-C-70--$1,558,000- $1,666,700-$2,381,714
CHI Receives: Draft Rights to Marreese-Speights-67 Kosta-Koufos-64
Total Incoming: $0 Total Outgoing: $1,558,000
BTW, if/when Speights and Koufos get signed, these are the salaries they're supposed to get: Marreese-Speights-67--$1,353,100---$1,454,600---$1,556,100---$2,074,300 Kosta-Koufos-64-------$803,400----$863,700----$923,900----$1,450,140
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 9, 2008 17:21:50 GMT -5
Post by Chicago Bulls on Dec 9, 2008 17:21:50 GMT -5
Damn I was just about to hit post to post this but oh well
I accept, Craig Smith hasen't done much in terms of scoring so hopefully getting someone like Speights will help and Koufos will replace what Hawes has done from the bench, plus I feel pretty comfortable with who else I have at SF. (Anthony Randolph,Nicolas Batum)
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 9, 2008 17:30:57 GMT -5
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Dec 9, 2008 17:30:57 GMT -5
This trade doesnt make much sense for Chicago. How are you going to get better if you keep trading away young players that are playing well IRL (Hawes putting up 12 pts and 7 rebs) for guys that are still bench guys (Speights getting minimal PT and Kofus getting 5 mins a game)? It cant be a "salary dump"
Im gonna go ahead and reject this as Hawes is playing at a level of a 75 rated player right now and Chicago can get MUCH more for him than 2 9th men off the bench.
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 9, 2008 18:03:28 GMT -5
Post by Detroit Pistons on Dec 9, 2008 18:03:28 GMT -5
Dont get this trade at all for Chi, as OKC said Hawes is playing like the man and Almond was a 1st rd. pick not to long ago
I reject
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 9, 2008 18:22:03 GMT -5
Post by Utah Jazz on Dec 9, 2008 18:22:03 GMT -5
Can't disagree with the votes so far. Hawes is playing unlike a white man has [/bit of exaggeration] in a long time, and Speights and Koufos haven't proven any much so far. I'll have to reject as well.
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 9, 2008 22:16:21 GMT -5
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 9, 2008 22:16:21 GMT -5
Hmm, i dunno guys, a little more research could do you all good.
Hawes is definitely playing great this season.
but so are Speights and Koufos for the time they're getting.
In just under 14 mpg, Speights is avg 6.5, 4, 1, .6 blk, .5 stl, shooting 48% and 70% from the line.
Koufos is actually getting minutes for Sloan already (unheard of, btw) and he's playing just over 13 mpg, and is avg 4.6, 2.8, .6, 1 blk, shooting 49% and 78% from the line.
Now if we look further, in Koufos' 5 starts, he's gotten 24 mpg, avg 8, 6, 1, 2 BLK, shooting 46%.
When speights has gotten extended playing time (he's actually started recently because Dalembert has been terrible), he's put up lines like these 8 and 6 with a block in 22 min 11 and 8 in 26 min 12 and 6 in 15 min 12 and 3 in 13 min 12 and 7 in 20 9 and 8 in 16 8 and 6 in 15 so that's like 10 ppg, 6 rpg in 18 mpg
Now what's important here is looking at Hawes' rookie year, last year
Hawes in 13 mpg avg 4.7, 3.2, .6, .6 blk, shot 46% and 65% from the line.
my point is Koufos by himself is doing EXACTLY what Hawes did last year, and speights is arguably doing better.
I don't think Chicago did this in any way for a salary dump. I think he likes these other two guys more than Hawes, and I can even understand that.
I'd be willing to take out Afflalo if that will make a difference though.
Speights/Koufos for Hawes.
Anyone ?
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 9, 2008 23:00:15 GMT -5
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Dec 9, 2008 23:00:15 GMT -5
I still dont get it. Why trade for 2 projects, that's what Koufos and Speights are, for a young player that seems to have figured it out? IMO, the Bulls dont need anymore projects. They need guys that are starting to figure it out so that they can improve. Even if Koufos is impressive in his minutes, he still wont get extended PT with Milsap, Boozer, and Okur in front of him. I mean look at it, Boozer has been out for 3 weeks and he still hasn't been able to get consistent PT.
Id like to hear a more in-depth reasoning from Chicago on why hes trading Hawes, essentially his best player, ratings aside.
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 10, 2008 12:59:28 GMT -5
Post by Philadelphia 76ers on Dec 10, 2008 12:59:28 GMT -5
I'll have to reject this trade also, Hawes has been great this season and has good potential. Almond was a former 1st rounder and has pretty good upside. Like OKC said, CHI doesn't need anymore projects, he already has enough of them.
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 10, 2008 15:10:37 GMT -5
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 10, 2008 15:10:37 GMT -5
I think that is 4 rejects, unfortunately. As said before though, I'd do the deal without Almond if you guys really have a problem with him being in the deal.
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 10, 2008 15:13:16 GMT -5
Post by Orlando Magic on Dec 10, 2008 15:13:16 GMT -5
I think everyone's problem is more with Chicago trading away any and every piece of his team that can even be uttered in the same sentence as the word talented. It's like he wants his team to get worse with every trade!
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 10, 2008 15:26:35 GMT -5
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 10, 2008 15:26:35 GMT -5
Very Well. I'd still like to see Chicago respond, but i can't really say much else than i've already said.
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 10, 2008 20:00:00 GMT -5
Post by Chicago Bulls on Dec 10, 2008 20:00:00 GMT -5
Well I can't really see what more I could say then what LAC have said, only that I'm doing this to get more of a traditional PF to back up Craig Smith who has done nothing but show he is afraid to shot the ball, the only way I could do that with my team as is is by putting love at back up PF and starting Hawes, do to the fact that I promised Smith the starting PF job I can't bench him.
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 10, 2008 21:33:33 GMT -5
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Dec 10, 2008 21:33:33 GMT -5
Well I can't really see what more I could say then what LAC have said, only that I'm doing this to get more of a traditional PF to back up Craig Smith who has done nothing but show he is afraid to shot the ball, the only way I could do that with my team as is is by putting love at back up PF and starting Hawes, do to the fact that I promised Smith the starting PF job I can't bench him. That's over now I believe?
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 10, 2008 21:39:17 GMT -5
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 10, 2008 21:39:17 GMT -5
I was kinda wondering about that actually. Really, if you didn't say "I promise he'll start for x amount of games" then all you had to do was have them start a couple games and you weren't a liar.
If I get a slightly better Center, I'm going to assume there's no problem if I start them over Swift, since all I promised him was the Starting Job...didn't say he'd be starting for any amount of time.
Dunno Chicago's promise to Smith though honestly.
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 11, 2008 17:36:13 GMT -5
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 11, 2008 17:36:13 GMT -5
Anyway...unless someone is going to start changing their mind, it's at 4 rejects...I'd just like to know if this is officially rejected or not?
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 11, 2008 17:40:47 GMT -5
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Dec 11, 2008 17:40:47 GMT -5
I will not be changing my vote. I still believe Hawes is the better player now and he will be the better player down the road.
As for the promise, it lasts through the year.
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 11, 2008 17:44:31 GMT -5
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 11, 2008 17:44:31 GMT -5
is that promise thing just for Smith from Chicago? Because if that goes for Stromile (even though he has just picked up his play), I'd probably argue it.
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 11, 2008 17:45:12 GMT -5
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 11, 2008 17:45:12 GMT -5
Also just to be clear, I'll take Almond out of the deal...I'm gonna change it up top, just to be clear.
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 11, 2008 17:53:40 GMT -5
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Dec 11, 2008 17:53:40 GMT -5
is that promise thing just for Smith from Chicago? Because if that goes for Stromile (even though he has just picked up his play), I'd probably argue it. ? Not sure I follow. Chicago promised Smith a starting job when he signed him. If no date 'till is determined a la myself with Michael Finley, promising the starting job until Dec 15th, he must remain the starter for the whole year.
|
|
|
LAC/CHI
Dec 11, 2008 17:56:34 GMT -5
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Dec 11, 2008 17:56:34 GMT -5
is that promise thing just for Smith from Chicago? Because if that goes for Stromile (even though he has just picked up his play), I'd probably argue it. ? Not sure I follow. Chicago promised Smith a starting job when he signed him. If no date 'till is determined a la myself with Michael Finley, promising the starting job until Dec 15th, he must remain the starter for the whole year. and if he's not you lose a 2nd right? Hell I'll give one of my 2010 2nd's so Chicago can start Hawes
|
|