positivetension wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
He played well for 5 games?!? Gee gosh! We better trade for him now! He has three years left on his deal, quit trying to rationalize that it's not a bad contract. I guess Bobby Simmons aint that bad either..
I feel sorry for whatever team has to pay a 34-35-36 year old Ben Wallace.
Ok wow, way to twist my words...
Stop calling it a three year deal. You need to stop counting this season. By the deadline, Chicago will have paid for half of this year's salary.
So basically a team is paying for 1 1/2 seasons before Ben Wallace becomes an expiring contract. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Any team can eat a bad contract for a year and a half.
And him playing well under Boylan, though a small sample size, is still worth noting. It's clear that Wallace was playing uninspired ball under earlier because he hated Skiles.