RANDOLPH FOR WALLACE

Moderators: BullyKing, Andre Roberstan, loserX, Trader_Joe, Mamba4Goat, pacers33granger, MoneyTalks41890, HartfordWhalers, Texas Chuck

shagadelic45
General Manager
Posts: 8,496
And1: 99
Joined: Nov 20, 2001
Location: Budapest, Hungary

RANDOLPH FOR WALLACE 

Post#1 » by shagadelic45 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:31 pm

NY and CHI?
Hunter
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,970
And1: 3
Joined: Jan 06, 2008

 

Post#2 » by Hunter » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:33 pm

Thank god you didn't mean Sheed. :lol:
JES12 wrote:Bass just barley turned 23 and is a starting PF on any team without a 8 time all-NBA PF in front of him!
The Guilty Party
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 17,697
And1: 8
Joined: Aug 26, 2002
Location: Zoo Jersey
 

 

Post#3 » by The Guilty Party » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:33 pm

Why would the Knicks do this? Wallace's contract has another 2 and a half years on it.
User avatar
Pugsley_2491
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,253
And1: 3
Joined: Aug 29, 2007

 

Post#4 » by Pugsley_2491 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:54 pm

The Guilty Party wrote:Why would the Knicks do this? Wallace's contract has another 2 and a half years on it.

... and randolph has one year more than wallace
User avatar
BR0D1E86
RealGM
Posts: 17,759
And1: 2,292
Joined: Jul 18, 2002
       

 

Post#5 » by BR0D1E86 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:07 am

Pugsley_2491 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


... and randolph has one year more than wallace


And 20 million additional dollars.

And they're both awful.

I'll take the shorter deal.
User avatar
Jimmy103
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,753
And1: 0
Joined: May 26, 2007

 

Post#6 » by Jimmy103 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:09 am

The Guilty Party wrote:Why would the Knicks do this? Wallace's contract has another 2 and a half years on it.


...and Randolph's has 3 and a half years on it.



EDIT: Sorry, didn't read past that comment, had to react. I know it's a repeat of opinion.
waverider
Pro Prospect
Posts: 940
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 17, 2006

 

Post#7 » by waverider » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:22 am

Thank the heavens that Pritchard moved Zach last summer! Addition by subtraction NEVER has looked SO good for the Blazers! Feels almost like a miracle...lol
jeremy1215
Banned User
Posts: 3,434
And1: 4
Joined: May 31, 2007

 

Post#8 » by jeremy1215 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:29 am

Bulls would accept, we could start Noah at the 5 and we would be pretty solid.

Knicks would accept because they would have someone to cover Curry's deficiencies by rebound and defending tougher post players.
User avatar
SnoBrdrRob
Junior
Posts: 403
And1: 1
Joined: Dec 15, 2001
Location: Ellensburg, WA
Contact:

 

Post#9 » by SnoBrdrRob » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:47 am

I think this deal would be good for the Bulls. Sure Randolph has no value around the league, but his stats dont lie. He provides what the Bulls are looking for. He would allow the Bulls to move Noah to starter, Joe Smith the top big man off the bench. They also have Tyrus Thomas who could be packaged in a deal or kept to improve and take over for Randolph when the time is right...

PG: Hinrich/Duhon
SG: Gordon/Sefolosha
SF: Deng/Nocioni
PF: Randolph/Thomas
C: Noah/Smith
User avatar
moocow007
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 98,229
And1: 25,675
Joined: Jan 07, 2002
Location: In front of the computer, where else?
       

 

Post#10 » by moocow007 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:47 am

Yeah I would probably take this from NY's POV as well. I think Ben Wallace will get much easier opportunities for rebounds and doing his thing next to someone like Curry.
JimmyBulls
Banned User
Posts: 1,628
And1: 2
Joined: Dec 19, 2007
Location: At the local mega-church, and not buying the prayer cloth.

 

Post#11 » by JimmyBulls » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:15 am

This is a deal the Knicks would take, but I think the Bulls would definitely pass on Randolph. He has nice skills on offense, but it really never translated into wins, and at that price the Bulls need wins. Unfortunately, Big Zach is slowing earning a membership to the can put up numbers but you can't win with this guy club. So the Knicks says yes, but the Bulls will reject this deal.
User avatar
BR0D1E86
RealGM
Posts: 17,759
And1: 2,292
Joined: Jul 18, 2002
       

 

Post#12 » by BR0D1E86 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:46 pm

SnoBrdrRob wrote:his stats dont lie.


I actually think the exact opposite.
Cliff Levingston
RealGM
Posts: 22,667
And1: 1,094
Joined: May 29, 2003
Location: Cliff Levingston is omnipresent.
       

 

Post#13 » by Cliff Levingston » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:48 pm

Both guys are net negatives for your team, so why would the Bulls opt to take the one with the longer/larger contract?
Smills91
Banned User
Posts: 23,364
And1: 2
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Location: Ronald Reagan is my political hero.

 

Post#14 » by Smills91 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:49 pm

BR0D1E86 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I actually think the exact opposite.


+1 does ANYONE have an emptier set of stats in the league than Randolph? Maybe Curry? Or is it Jamal Crawford?
User avatar
Friend_Of_Haley
RealGM
Posts: 10,139
And1: 374
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Location: Locked Out

 

Post#15 » by Friend_Of_Haley » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:55 pm

I'd cry if the Bulls trade for Randolph and it doesn't include the Knicks unprotected first round pick. Even then I'd fear the Knicks instantly improving and taking themselves out of top 3 pick range.
Image
User avatar
moocow007
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 98,229
And1: 25,675
Joined: Jan 07, 2002
Location: In front of the computer, where else?
       

 

Post#16 » by moocow007 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:31 pm

Smills91 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



+1 does ANYONE have an emptier set of stats in the league than Randolph? Maybe Curry? Or is it Jamal Crawford?


What exactly is your problem?
dflaschberger
Analyst
Posts: 3,389
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 23, 2004

 

Post#17 » by dflaschberger » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:07 pm

On paper, it's obvious. Both teams need what the player coming in offers. i say the Knicks do it/Pax wouldn't-
However, as a bulls fan, I might try. We make SO MUCH $, we could absord the deal later, maybe?

Return to Trades and Transactions