RexBoyWonder wrote:nbhadja wrote:Good. Turner is a overrated scrub. He can't shoot anyways. A first for turner is a ripoff. If we were willing to trade a first it should have been for a center.
Could have had Hawes for a first. Could've probably had him for a second and Cole too.
So you'd trade a very good role player and Miami's depth at PG for a guy who does just what Bosh does, only worse and way more inconsistent ?
You're overrating Hawes because he had a few good games on a bad team (Cavs).
And even on the Sixers he wasn't consistent.
RexBoyWonder wrote:The more you think out the more it looks like either :
1) Philly **** us over.
2) We had no interest in any of Philly's assets.
We gave up Joel + 2 seconds (low chance they become 1 first) just to get Douglas, which has no value. He's basically a filler.
Philly gave up Hawes for 2 seconds and a filler (Clark) which they already cut.
Philly also gave up Turner (and Lavoy Allen) for a very late second (indy's) and a filler (Granger) Which they already cut, and by that move they even added 4 Mil in salary.
So basically, we could have easily sent Joel to Philly for Hawes, they would have gotten the same 2 seconds (probably better) that Cavs gave them. and it would have saved them money.
Or the same with Turner, send them Joel and get Turner, they would have gotten an extra second form what they ended up getting.
This all Joel/Philly/Hawes/Turnder/Indy thing is just **** up. We could've gotten something out of this.
Joel has a player option for next season, that he's gonna use.
The Sixers didn't want any long term salary.
So no, it wouldn't have happened.
The Heat paid 2 2nd rounders for someone to absorb Joel's salary - they wanted to reduce their luxury tax and maybe make room for a possible buyout signature.
The Cavs and Pacers paid in 2nd rounders for Hawes and Turner, while not sending to the Sixers any guaranteed money beyond this summer.
