wallace to NJ

dflaschberger · Post #1 » by **dflaschberger** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:36 pm

A twist on the wallace to NJ I saw posted here. I put it on the NJ board and got 2 "ok's" and a third "probably". Would we do it (I cannot see NOT doing it)

Wallace and curry, plus our #1 this year (top 12 protection this year, top 3 next, noone in 2010) for nacbar, magloire and Collins

NJ gets a good D minded center. He would HAVE to improve with Kidd. Plus, they need some youth so the pick is welcome. The 3 they give up are relatively useless (except nachbar, I guess)

We would do this, right? We don't need a #17 pick (where we'll end up)-we have too many young guys needing minutes now. We save A TON of $ and Collins can play a little

ptpablo · Post #2 » by **ptpablo** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:38 pm

I would rather hold on to Wallace and bench him than give up assets to dump a FA acquisition.

Cliff Levingston · Post #3 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:45 pm

To get Ben Wallace out of here; Cliff Levingston would do this... even though our pick would be gone along with it (ICLO). But, if the pick is lower than 12th, Cliff Levingston isn't sure we'd get a guy worth a whole lot anyway.

Cliff Levingston played around in the checker, trying to add Duhon or Griff (a veteran who could feasibly help them) but couldn't get anything to work without adding some guys that NJ probably wouldn't want to give up.

Our biggest fear after this is that Collins would step right in for Wallace, taking up 30 minutes per game with his solid defense and dreadful offense. Hopefully next season, we'd look like this:

1. Hinrich, Gordon
2. Sefolosha, Gordon
3. Deng, Nocioni
4. Thomas, Nocioni, Smith
5. Noah, Gray, Collins

Red Larrivee · Post #4 » by **Red Larrivee** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:48 pm

I think we can do better. I don't mind trading Wallace at all, but this deal just comes off as too forced.

Post #5 » by **dougthonus** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:50 pm

What advantage is there to doing this vs buying Wallace out?

Owners save money.

As such, I'd rather have the owners not save money and instead improve the team.

Art Vandelay · Post #6 » by **Art Vandelay** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:51 pm

I just don't understand trading for the Nets gar-bage. Marcus Williams, or a young guy like that,fine.. but how Magloire's name keeps getting brought up sucks. Mr blindfolded dunk shouldn't come anywhere near the Bulls.

Cliff Levingston · Post #7 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:00 pm

dougthonus wrote:What advantage is there to doing this vs buying Wallace out?

You get the money off the payroll with an expiring vs. a buyout.

We could make the trade, then buy out all 3 guys and be in much better shape from a cap/tax standpoint.

dflaschberger · Post #8 » by **dflaschberger** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:23 pm

cliff, as usual, you speak clearly. The buyout would not help us any, better to bench him and use him as an expiring (huge waste of resources).

collins would be used some, Magloire would be cut and Nacbar could be sent on to a third team for something?

Cliff Levingston · Post #9 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:35 pm

dflaschberger wrote:collins would be used some, Magloire would be cut and Nacbar could be sent on to a third team for something?

Who gives a flying **** about Collins or Magloire. We could buy them both out, or just keep Collins on the roster in case we can use his expiring contract (next season) in a deal.

Nachbar would open the door to a Noc trade, since he can give us enough of what Nocioni does for a much cheaper price.

JeffJordan · Post #10 » by **JeffJordan** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:46 pm

Seriously... Ben Wallace is not that bad of a player. Not sure how Magloire helps us that much. He is slower than a glacier. I don't like any of these Nets rumors.

Post #11 » by **Ben** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:04 pm

dougthonus wrote:What advantage is there to doing this vs buying Wallace out?

Owners save money.

As such, I'd rather have the owners not save money and instead improve the team.

Cliff Levingston wrote:
You get the money off the payroll with an expiring vs. a buyout.

We could make the trade, then buy out all 3 guys and be in much better shape from a cap/tax standpoint.

Doug, you have written several times that trading Wallace for an expiring contract (one that comprises only part of Wallace's salary, to be sure, way more than zero) is no different from buying him out or sending him home, and several times I have responded in the way that Cliff has. The expiring contract takes money off of our payroll and gets us that much further from lux tax territory, which could be important if we want to re-sign Deng and Gordon.

I haven't seen you respond. You know more about NBA rules than I do, so I would like to know if Cliff and I are missing something? :dontknow:

dflaschberger · Post #12 » by **dflaschberger** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:08 pm

no way, it's MUCH better to do a deal like this than buy him out. Collins would be useful to use-maybe nachbar too. This deal would be awesome for us

Post #13 » by **dougthonus** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:17 am

Doug, you have written several times that trading Wallace for an expiring contract (one that comprises only part of Wallace's salary, to be sure, way more than zero) is no different from buying him out or sending him home, and several times I have responded in the way that Cliff has.

I have done no such thing, and I'm sorry that I have previously missed your question to respond. I would gladly, very gladly, trade Wallace for an expiring contract.

There are 2 scenarios that I can recall where I said "this is not better than buying him out".

1) This one. We are giving up a 1st round pick. Is 2 years of cap flexibility where we aren't under the cap and can't sign anyone worth a 1st round pick that might be in the lottery?

I don't believe it is. If you think it is, I can understand where you are coming from, but to me this just lines the owners pockets and does not help the team get any better. We do not gain any talent, we do not really gain the ability to get more talent, we just give up a draft pick to get rid of a guy 2 years early.

2) Kwame + Vlad for Wallace.

Wallace's contract is shorter than Radmanovic's contract. Thus, while we will save total money, we will have a 7 million dollar higher pay roll in the only year we're under the cap which, to me, is the only year that really matters.

Trade Wallace for shorter contracts. Hell yes. Give up a 1st rounder to get him out of town a year earlier? Hell no. Trade him for longer contracts with lesser overall values that impact our potential under the cap year with LeBron, Wade, and Bosh as UFAs, hell no.

Post #14 » by **Ben** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:21 am

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

AirP. · Post #15 » by **AirP.** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:34 am

Someone who thinks they have a legit shot at a championship is going to be somewhat interested in Ben Wallace to play defense against Tim Duncan. We used him to make Shaq work harder, someone else could use him to make Tim Duncan work harder in the playoffs. We just have to wait around and see. The Lakers would seem the most logical team to use him, at PF next to Bynum... you can't tell me Wallace in the place of Kwame and Rad doesn't give them a better chance to win a championship and it allows Odom not to worry about playing PF once Bynum comes back.

The whole question is, is a team willing to give up part of their future(cap space, young player) for a better chance of winning a title today, I think there will be atleast one team out there that will say yes.

Post #16 » by **coldfish** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:42 am

JeffJordan wrote:Seriously... Ben Wallace is not that bad of a player. Not sure how Magloire helps us that much. He is slower than a glacier. I don't like any of these Nets rumors.

I have no idea how you can hate Tyrus as bad as you do but think that Wallace "is not that bad".