Official: Boom Dizzle for Mo Williams, p2 has confirmation

Post #261 » by **TheOUTLAW** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:17 pm

People don't forget that folks were saying that the Cavs would have to give up a pick to move Mo. Fact is, they've still got the same number of years on the contract and they've added a high first.

lakerfan10770 · Post #262 » by **lakerfan10770** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:17 pm

Massimo wrote:How come it is a bad trade for the Clippers?

Are we sure that we are talking about Baron Davis who has been overweight and hasn't done "anything" for the Clippers since he was traded? This guy was playing well when he was playing for Golden State but no more my dear! He has been playing pretty awful, he has chronic injuries(not only one injury), since he arrived to the Clippers he has been always fat ass. And he lost his sense of winning in the Clippers as well. He gave up so early in some games that I watched.

It is a great move for the Clippers and it is the worst move for the Cavs.

It is a bad trade because they gave away a very valuable asset to save a few bucks. Baron Davis is terrible, I don't disagree with that at all, but that is why they have buyouts. Plus with the impending lockout, there is a good chance that a large chunk of that money owed to Baron gets wiped away.

This is not even close to a bad move for the Cavaliers. They are similar to the Clippers in that they are not going to attract any free agents so might as well build through the draft and via trades. And this deal gives them a great asset to use for that. Plus there is still the chance that this pick could end up top 3, granted it's low, but what a sucker punch to the gut would that be for the Clippers if it did wind up top 3.

Post #263 » by **TheOUTLAW** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:19 pm

LApwnd wrote:
TheOUTLAW wrote:Yeah, because the Clips are known for drawing free agents and not trying to save money.

more draw then your Cavs, even with James couldn't even get a guy like Ariza to sign there

They've still got the same owner, and he's never been one to spend money. We'll see if that changes.

lakerfan10770 · Post #264 » by **lakerfan10770** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:20 pm

Pharmcat wrote:
YFZblu wrote:
Pharmcat wrote:bad trade for clippers

saving money again? sure blake is happy to hear that

Do people really see this as a "bad" trade? Baron Davis shows up fat every year, will shoot 38% for 1/2 a season, get injured for the second half of the season, and Clippers/Warriors fans won't bat an eye--That's standard operating procedure for him.

I don't uderstand how losing that type of dead weight is a bad thing.

they gave up a lotto pick, and still didnt clean all the money of the books (unless for some reasons Williams doesnt pick up his options, but i dont see why he wont)

If Mo opted out that would be insanely stupid, but I would like the deal a lot more for the Clippers if he did. Still wouldn't love it, but it would make it much more justifiable.

bigball123 · Post #265 » by **bigball123** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:20 pm

This is just an awful trade!

killbuckner · Post #266 » by **killbuckner** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:20 pm

People are REALLY underestimating getting out from under that Baron Davis contract.

Lets be clear. The Clippers still have Mo Williams on the books for the same length contract so they are really getting out of about 6 million of his contract each year for the next 2 seasons.

Just as an example Maxiell is owed about 5 million dollars each year for the next 2 seasons. Detroit and the Clippers have the same number of wins. If Detroit were giving their unprotected first rounder to get an expiring for Maxiell I think they would have no shortage of takers.

Gus McCrae · Post #267 » by **Gus McCrae** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:22 pm

WojYahoonba was saying that the clippers won't have sellers remorse because they have enough youth on their team. They need to get some vets. They've got their young core and it's time to surround them with experienced talent.

lakerfan10770 · Post #268 » by **lakerfan10770** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:27 pm

TheOUTLAW wrote:
LApwnd wrote:
TheOUTLAW wrote:Yeah, because the Clips are known for drawing free agents and not trying to save money.

more draw then your Cavs, even with James couldn't even get a guy like Ariza to sign there

They've still got the same owner, and he's never been one to spend money. We'll see if that changes.

Dan Gilbert mad an ass out of himself this summer, but at least he is not considered a racist (and cheap).

Post #269 » by **dockingsched** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:43 pm

TheOUTLAW wrote:People don't forget that folks were saying that the Cavs would have to give up a pick to move Mo. Fact is, they've still got the same number of years on the contract and they've added a high first.

eh, i never commented on mowill's trade value, but i assume people that said the cavs would need a pick probably meant that the cavs would get an expiring at least, not take on baron davis. its a good trade for the cavs, not sure there's a need for the snide comments towards the clips organization or the somewhat misleading comment about fans thinking the cavs would need a pick to dump mowil.

Rockmaninoff · Post #270 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:46 pm

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but the Clippers will save the difference between Davis' and Williams' respective contracts and they won't have to pay a guaranteed salary to a top 10 pick. That's going to equate to savings of more than $10 million dollars per year, for the next two years.

All that said, still a great deal for the Cavs, and a good financial move by the Clippers.

C'mon Cavs · Post #271 » by **C'mon Cavs** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:48 pm

The Cavs better have this year's draft all figured out. And Irving better come out.

9abovetherim · Post #272 » by **9abovetherim** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:52 pm

Does this mean Jessica Alba isn't a Clipper fan anymore?

mcfly1204 · Post #273 » by **mcfly1204** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:54 pm

C'mon Cavs wrote:The Cavs better have this year's draft all figured out. And Irving better come out.

Moreso, the Cavs better have some serious luck with those ping pong balls.

lakerfan10770 · Post #274 » by **lakerfan10770** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:55 pm

Rockmaninoff wrote:I don't know if it has been mentioned, but the Clippers will save the difference between Davis' and Williams' respective contracts and they won't have to pay a guaranteed salary to a top 10 pick. That's going to equate to savings of more than $10 million dollars per year, for the next two years.

All that said, still a great deal for the Cavs, and a good financial move by the Clippers.

That is an unusual spin on it. Kind of sounds like what the Lakers do with their late 1st round picks. But I have never heard of any team not wanting the burden of paying their lotto pick rookie scale contract money for two seasons.

Keep in mind that the impending lockout could greatly mitigate some of the savings that the Clippers will receive in this deal. Also, not that it matters to the Clippers what the Cavs will do with B-Diddy, but chances are he gets bought-out after next year (well I guess they could have bought him out too).

Baseline Runner · Post #275 » by **Baseline Runner** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:56 pm

the overwhelming odds are that it'll be an 8-10 pick, which is good but most likely not franchise changing good.

Some players drafted 7-15 in the last 30 years.

Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Amare Stoudamire, Dirk Nowtizki, Tracy McGrady, Paul Pierce, Reggie Miller, Kevin Johnson, Karl Malone, Chris Mullin, John Stockton, Clyde Drexler

Those are all franchise players who no one viewed as a lock to be a good player, much like the players in this draft. Then there are dozens all-star caliber players like Shawn Marion, Richard Hamilton, Ron Artest, Joe Johnson, Andrew Bynum, etc., who have been drafted in that range.

Gus McCrae · Post #276 » by **Gus McCrae** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:57 pm

mcfly1204 wrote:
C'mon Cavs wrote:The Cavs better have this year's draft all figured out. And Irving better come out.

Moreso, the Cavs better have some serious luck with those ping pong balls.

http://espn.go.com/nba/lottery2011/mockdraft

lotto mockdraft pretty cool

Malapropism · Post #277 » by **Malapropism** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:02 pm

Could the Cavs have the 1st and 2nd pick? Has that ever happened before?

Bobbcats · Post #278 » by **Bobbcats** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:05 pm

Not going to read this thread but I hope someone mentioned this will be like last time Byron coached Baron. He can not be happy about this move

gflem · Post #279 » by **gflem** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:08 pm

LApwnd wrote:
TheOUTLAW wrote:Yeah, because the Clips are known for drawing free agents and not trying to save money.

more draw then your Cavs, even with James couldn't even get a guy like Ariza to sign there

Again, someone trying to rewrite history. Ariza didnt come to Cleveland because Lecon wouldnt commit to re-signing here. Ariza was smart to not sign when Lecon wouldnt tell him he was re-signing. And, yes we know it is hard to get players to come here, but if this team were in LA it would be easy. Gilbert is a far better owner than Sterling.
Anyway, nobody is going to get me down today, our team just traded Mo Williams for a top 10 pick. Thank You Clippers for this and for laying down to end the 26 game losing streak.

lakerfan10770 · Post #280 » by **lakerfan10770** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:09 pm

Malapropism wrote:Could the Cavs have the 1st and 2nd pick? Has that ever happened before?

In 2001 the Bulls had the #4 pick (Eddy Curry) and then traded Brand for the #2 pick (Tyson Chandler). But not quite the same thing.

The Celtics had 2 chances to win the lotto in 1997 (to get Tim Duncan) and wound up with #3 & #6 (Chauncey Billups & Ron Mercer, Pitino called them the back-court of the future... :lol:

).

Edit: Oh and let's not forget Minnesota drafting Rubio & Flynn with the #5 & #6 picks in 2009.