ESPN article on trading Crash (all merged here)

ohara · Post #1 » by **ohara** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:39 am

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... ons-090217

Very interesting that he says Charlotte should do this trade. By his own analysis, it reduces our wins by 6 games and increases Portlands by 4. Do you think he's focused on the espiring of Raef L.? Is he focused on what Rodriguez and Batum can do for us long term?

What do you think?

Post #2 » by **Paydro70** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:44 am

Given that he calls it "what might be the best asset in the NBA right now in LaFrentz's contract" I'm guessing that's the centerpiece. I don't know why, exactly, unless he really thinks that we are going to attract a serious free agent at some point. Clearly he thinks we're in cap hell, but I don't think he understands how unlikely our situation is to improve by just throwing money at guys.

Felton for Pres · Post #3 » by **Felton for Pres** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:36 pm

Any other French players we could be trading for? It seems like France is the new UNC for the Bobcats.

I hate this trade

Viva la Bobcats!!

Bassman · Post #4 » by **Bassman** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:34 pm

I would hate giving up one of our best players for cap space, another young French project and a poor shooting PG! Jeez! If they did this just to make room I'd be very pis**d! If they did this as part of another move, sending Felts and Nazi to a team for a quality 2 or combo guard, maybe a PF, then perhaps it's worth it. Hard to see the logic in this move alone as it dwould dumb down our talent level.

chabber · Post #5 » by **chabber** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:46 pm

Hypothetical. He doesn't even understand the current situation of our team or why we've been taking on salary all year to acquire better players than what we've had.

A deal like this in the middle of the season would be a 180 turn in our managements philosophy and negate all their previous moves to build a team that can make the playoffs as soon as possible.

coordinator0 · Post #6 » by **coordinator0** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:15 pm

If we were going to trade Crash, this is one of the few deals that I would like. We would get a promising young SF and a pretty big expiring contract. IDK why we would want another PG unless we traded Felts. I really REALLY don't want to Wallace him go. Like chabber said it would not go along with what our FO has done so far this year. It's highly unlikely that this deal goes through. I think that all of the talking heads at ESPN believe that a team that they don't think will make the playoffs just want to trade off all of their good players for cap relief...

Malapropism · Post #7 » by **Malapropism** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:21 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... alk-090217

thoughts?

Post #8 » by **BigSlam** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Sources say the Blazers have intensified their focus on Wallace. He's young, athletic and physical, and he doesn't need to score to be an impact player. He has four years and $38 million left on his contract, which is a lot, but given his age and production the past few years, it's not unreasonable. The problem for the Blazers is that the Bobcats want Portland to take back Nazr Mohammed as part of the deal. That could be a deal-breaker for Pritchard.

It would be nice to move Nazzy - but I'm not so sure about the cost of moving him.

I really don't like Boris at the 3 - assuming our line up would be Felts, Bell, Boris, EO50 and Gana?

ohara · Post #9 » by **ohara** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:54 pm

BigSlam wrote:
Sources say the Blazers have intensified their focus on Wallace. He's young, athletic and physical, and he doesn't need to score to be an impact player. He has four years and $38 million left on his contract, which is a lot, but given his age and production the past few years, it's not unreasonable. The problem for the Blazers is that the Bobcats want Portland to take back Nazr Mohammed as part of the deal. That could be a deal-breaker for Pritchard.

It would be nice to move Nazzy - but I'm not so sure about the cost of moving him.

I really don't like Boris at the 3 - assuming our line up would be Felts, Bell, Boris, EO50 and Gana?

Slam: I would assume if that deal goes down, that we would play Batum at the 3 and keep Boris at the 4. Just my guess if we did this.

coordinator0 · Post #10 » by **coordinator0** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:55 pm

Malapropism wrote:http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=TradeTalk-090217

thoughts?

The last one about the heat says that their looking for a PG and interested in Felts. It also said that they are offering Daquan Cook back in return. Combine him with Wright and that'd be a deal I could live with, especially if we trade Crash and get Sergio/Blake back in return.

Post #11 » by **BigSlam** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:04 pm

coordinator0 wrote:The last one about the heat says that their looking for a PG and interested in Felts. It also said that they are offering Daquan Cook back in return. Combine him with Wright and that'd be a deal I could live with, especially if we trade Crash and get Sergio/Blake back in return.

I mentioned the same combination in the "Trade Felts" thread.

Slam: I would assume if that deal goes down, that we would play Batum at the 3 and keep Boris at the 4. Just my guess if we did this.

Is he starting material just yet?

If this deal did happen, we'd still be lacking a lot of balance on our roster IMO and it would just be a trade to get out of Crash's contract - which I think would be a bit of a waste.

coordinator0 · Post #12 » by **coordinator0** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:08 pm

BigSlam wrote:
coordinator0 wrote:The last one about the heat says that their looking for a PG and interested in Felts. It also said that they are offering Daquan Cook back in return. Combine him with Wright and that'd be a deal I could live with, especially if we trade Crash and get Sergio/Blake back in return.

I mentioned the same combination in the "Trade Felts" thread.
Slam: I would assume if that deal goes down, that we would play Batum at the 3 and keep Boris at the 4. Just my guess if we did this.

Is he starting material just yet?

If this deal did happen, we'd still be lacking a lot of balance on our roster IMO and it would just be a trade to get out of Crash's contract - which I think would be a bit of a waste.

Beat me to it by 11 minutes lol. I don't check out that thread much. Sorry if you think I was trying to steal a little thunder lol. That'd be an amazing deal for us IMO, and I wouldn't to opposed to it if we didn't trade Crash.

Post #13 » by **BigSlam** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:09 pm

coordinator0 wrote:Sorry if you think I was trying to steal a little thunder lol. .

Not at all. Just trying to keep all the Felts stuff there and this thread on the Crash talk.

e4Nf6 · Post #14 » by **e4Nf6** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:59 pm

Can we put a sticky at the top of the Forum that says "FYI, we are not interested in cap room," Why would we make three straight trades that take on salary only to dump it now? When I made my "Does the cap matter" thread it was almost a non-issue, everyone agreed and the thread quickly died. So why does Chad Ford and the Rufusonfire guy seem so fascinated by cap space?

Post #15 » by **fatlever** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:08 pm

UGH!!! utter garbage. i'm so sick of this talk about us giving away players for cap space. the trade deadline cant come fast enough.

Post #16 » by **Walt Cronkite** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:55 pm

Ford has a chat in 5 minutes. I'll be in there blasting away about the Wallace article, just posting here to formally request backup.

countryboi · Post #17 » by **countryboi** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:13 pm

man ford is just talking....they sound more like probable trades than anything

Dexmor · Post #18 » by **Dexmor** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:14 pm

I would think it would be more like

Mek
Diaw
Radman
Bell
Felts

chabber · Post #19 » by **chabber** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:19 pm

I backed you up Walt. Not sure that he'll answer the questions but oh well.

e4Nf6 · Post #20 » by **e4Nf6** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:29 pm

Link for the Chat?