was the gerald wallace trade a good deal

[Dexmor]

Every move made has been bad. Can you imagine what the roster would look like if they didnt do the dwill deal. This was also terrible. You just dont trade really high unprotected lotto picks like that and so many for gambling on veterans. Who does that? Not wanting to keep humpries is equally stupid. Love the nets hate mangement.

[PetroNet]

Every move made has been bad. Can you imagine what the roster would look like if they didnt do the dwill deal. This was also terrible. You just dont trade really high unprotected lotto picks like that and so many for gambling on veterans. Who does that? Not wanting to keep humpries is equally stupid. Love the nets hate mangement.

What would we look like had we not done the dwill or other deals? i agree the wallace trade was terrible, but top 10 NBA players like dwill, for that price, thats very reasonable imo.

Harris
Brooks? (do we make that deal with boston if we still had our own pick)
Tristan Thompson?(with the pick we'd have kept by not doing utah trade)
Favors
Lopez

is that team really all that much better? i mean its a solid young team, but does it have more potential then were we currently stand:

Dwill
Brooks
Wallace
hump or a free agent or rookie?
Lopez

in both situations we'd be in good shape cap wise. is thompson/favors that much better then wallace/hump or FA to make up the difference of Dwill over harris? im not sure Dwight howard would be itching to play with devin harris either

[treiz]

I don't like the trade for the record.I understand and agree with what your saying.The only thing i don't agree with is when ppl say we could've signed him in the off season like that would be so easy.Just look at our track record for signing FAs.I don't think Wallace would sign to a Nets team that he knew nothing about besides the fact that we missed the poffs 5 straight years and our best player just opted out.All i'm saying is if you really want Wallace(like BK did for some reason)then you have to make that trade or your not getting him unless you really over pay him.BK got his guy now all he has to do is lock him into a reasonable contract and he'll either be a good vet player on a poff team or a good trade asset.

I understand what you're saying, but do you think Gerald Wallace was worth the value we gave up for him? Gerald Wallace is not worth a lottery pick. He'll never be a good trade asset let alone a lottery pick trade asset due to his age, his injury history or even his ability at this point in his career.

Also, in the offseason. Without the trade we would be one of a few clubs with capspace, add in Deron that I'd say we have a pretty good chance of landing Wallace. He was opting out anyway.

[NyCeEvO]

You know what I find funny? Most of the people who defend (especially on ND) are also the same ones who say they wouldn't trade for Howard regardless of what pick it is.

Now before you point out the differences, let me clarify.

Those people who talk about Wallace is better now than any player (outside of PEB) in the draft, seem to forget the fact that D12 is better than any player in the draft including PEB.

If you're willing to give up your lottery pick that can be anywhere between 6-10 for the 8-10th best SF in the league, why would you be against giving up any draft pick for the 2nd best player and clear cut best center in the league who has yet to reach his prime yet.

[Shaheen]

The burden of proof lies with you. Show us how the trade can end up being good if Dwight and Deron come here, especially considering the fact that the trade doesn't help Dwight and Deron come.

D-Will already said that the trade for Wallace would not change his decision on whether he stays. That's one strike.

D12 didn't list Wallace on the list of players he'd like to play with and since Wallace is no superstar and no current star, I really doubt that D12 is looking to team up with Wallace in particular. Strike two.

And once again, the trade is completely INDEPENDENT of D-Will and D12 coming here.

The scenario that you said would make you approve the trade is if D-WIll, D12, and Wallace are all on the Nets. There is only one main way for that to happen and that's if we get a top 1-3 pick.

But guess what?... If we get a top 3 pick, we still would've had it without the trade (unless we're considering butterfly effect theory). In every scenario that involves Wallace staying here, Lopez would need to be S&T'd for D12. And in doing that, we'd be freed up in cap space thus still being able to sign Wallace.

However, you know what's even better?... If we didn't trade for Wallace and still pulled a deal for Howard, we wouldn't be obligated to get Wallace and players better than Wallace would want to come to BK, whether it be through signing a new contract with us, S&T'ing to us, or waiting to come to us next year.

Now, that was my shot at explaining things.

You haven't empirically proved that your statement is right. You've just made the statement that 'the trade would be good if we end up getting D-Will, D12, and Wallace'. Now, prove to us that you're right, otherwise this thread should be locked because it's useless to continue this conversation if you can't prove your point.

Youre entire response is avoiding the issue. Stop adding like I'm defending the trade or saying the trade will convince Dwight or Deron to play here. All I said was it would be a good deal in retrospect if we end up getting both because Wallace would be more valuable than a rookiel

I know the trade is independent of those two coming here. I know it won't convince them to come here, but it seems loike you're not even reading what I'm saying.

It COULD end up being a good deal in the case that we get those two. Its not a good deal overall or right now. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?

As for the whole Wallace signing here, I don't buy it. Wallace has huge incentives to stay here because we can pay him the most. He probably would not sign here once we already had two max fas coming here.

We don't know if he would come. But in my scenario he would already be here for sure.

The point you are making do not apply to my argument. That's why I don't know what to say to you anymore.

I'm not defending the trade. I'm merely saying it could work out in the end.

[jeff1624]

Because you can't evaluate a trade using hindsight.

[Jersey Generals]

It won't be hindsight after Wednesday, it'll just be flat out bad. And then all of the apologists can come to the dark side.

[Shaheen]

Because you can't evaluate a trade using hindsight.

I'm not evaluating the trade, that is the problem with all you people. I made a comment saying the trade could end up working out fo us and you all just assume I'm saying the trade was good.

Stop assuming things.

[NyCeEvO]

I finally understand what you're saying but the reason you're getting so much backlash is because you're not using the right terminology and it's throwing off what you're really trying to say.

Here's what you say and how we all interpret what you're saying: "The trade was bad, but it will turn out great (in hindsight) if we get D-Will and D12."

But that's literally all you're saying. You're not including all of the external factors that we've all brought up and have mentioned.

But you also said statements like this:

Stop adding like I'm defending the trade or saying the trade will convince Dwight or Deron to play here.

Then...

It COULD end up being a good deal in the case that we get those two. Its not a good deal overall or right now.

In the first statement you say that you're not defending the trade at all, but in the second statement you're actually defending the trade, whether you meant to or not, since you're still saying that the 'deal COULD be good'. When you say anything about the trade for Wallace, we rip into it because that trade in particular could've been handled much better.

What you're actually trying to say is the simple statement: "It would be cool (even after all that has happened) if we were able to have D-Will, Wallace, and D12."

That's not something that any of us are arguing. We all agree on that point. And this is what you should've said from the start.

When you keep saying, 'I'm not defending the deal...it's bad right now but it could be good', you're on the borderline of contradicting yourself. You're saying that you're not talking about the particulars of the trade and all of other stuff we mentioned, but in order to establish that it COULD or has the potential to be good, we have to re-visit the particulars of the trade and the outcomes.

Here's the best analogy that I can come up with:

You make a deal where there's a 95% chance that you end up losing money, but there's a 5% you could make a huge return (like a mini-lottery).

You're simply saying, 'in the end, i could make a lot money back', which in and of itself is a true statement.

We've been arguing that doing a deal that would put you at such financial risk isn't smart to begin with. And that is also true in and of itself.

In the most technical sense, we're both right.

However, if it happens again where the entire board is misinterpreting what you're saying, you should probably look at what you're saying to see why you're being misinterpreted. In this case, it was just because you were using wrong terminology. Just a little a clearer explanation and we could have saved ourselves a few pages of arguing.

No hard feelings....

[Jack wore plaid]

Yes because there is no way the corrupt NBA will allow your team to move to Brooklyn without a top lottery pick to build upon.

[vincecarter4pres]

Yes because there is no way the corrupt NBA will allow your team to move to Brooklyn without a top lottery pick to build upon.

If we jump top 3 it doesn't mean it's rigged! Jeez! It's a LOTTERY. Deal with it people!

[Shappy]

its a lottery if we win its not rigged its just lucky

[N Ireland Nets]

I don't give a damn if its rigged or not so long as we get a top 3 pick.

If we don't it's clearly rigged and the NBA is a joke, if we do it's just the luck of the lotto






.....see what I did there

[DBoys]

I'm surprised to see that you guys still are discussing this trade based on irrelevancies, and haven't picked up on what it did. That's the only way to decide if you like it or not. If this has actually been fleshed out elsewhere, my apologies for not seeing it.

THE WALLACE TRADE WAS NOT ...

I'm seeing the argument but it looks to me like it keeps being debated over irrelevancies.

This was not about having both a pick and Wallace, because Wallace is a free agent and available for money this summer. All they actually got of Wallace was one month of play in a year that was already failed - and now he's back in the "whoever wants to sign him" pool. The fact that the Nets can now pay more than anyone else only comes into play if you think Wallace is a max player - otherwise, other teams can certainly pay him more, and may do so.

This was not about getting assets for a draft day trade, since Wallace can't be traded then.

This was not about getting assets for a SNT of Wallace for Howard (or someone else), because Wallace will be a free agent picking his own destination, and there is no advantage for Wallace in being SNT'ed and having his new team give up talent.

The trade also wasn't made with some expectation of being bailed out by an otherwise bad deal by the lottery drawing, because either way they still gave up a #1 pick for seemingly nothing (for a month of Wallace).

WHY THE TRADE WAS MADE ...THE ONLY REASON THAT HOLDS UP (UNLESS BK IS AN IDIOT) ...

This trade was a trade for 2012 cap space. Pure and simple. Whether it was worth it, you decide. BK gave a #1 pick, either #4-9 in 2012 or whatever in 2013, for 2012 cap space.

But the amount of cap space is more than you might realize.

They will save 3.135M from getting rid of Shawne Williams. (What a stupid stupid contract in the 1st place.) This is a fact that everyone has recognized. As pointed out by JG, for max cap savings under the 2011 CBA the Nets could have waived-and-stretched the cap hit, and had they done so before the end of the 2012 season, the cap hit for 2012 (and for 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015) would have been 627,000.

They MIGHT gain space from getting rid of pick 4-9. The amount of the savings is unknown until the lottery, but can be from 3.105M to 1.973M in scale/cap hold. If they draw pick 1-3, the 2012 cap difference is 0 since they keep the pick. (This represents hard savings if they thought pick 4-9 will be an overpaid scrub that they don't want no matter what.)

They can gain a bit of space by paying Wallace the same amount in free agency but being able to backload it a bit with bigger raises. The amount of 2012 space to be gained depends on the contract he gets, but if we hazard a guess that he'll get $40M over 4 years, the Nets can now start that deal at $8,988,764 as a team that can offer 7.5% raises rather than $9,367,681 as an outside team offering 4.5% raises, saving 378,917 in 2012 cap. If you think Wallace gets a bigger or smaller deal than $40M, then adjust that savings accordingly.

In total here's the swap, and to evaluate it fairly we have to look at it like BK did - without the hindsight of knowing the lottery results. To this point nothing has happened that BK couldn't have already known and factored into his decision.

There's a 75% chance BK gave up a #1 pick (4-9) for somewhere in the neighborhood of $3M to $4M in 2012 cap space. There would also be a savings of hard money, the $3.135M they would otherwise have had to pay S Williams plus the $2-3M they would have paid to the pick each year.

There's a 25% chance BK gave up a 2013 #1 pick for about $1M in 2012 cap space, along with the $3.135M savings of hard money and the savings from not paying the 2013 pick.

Was it worth it?

[Jersey Generals]

That whole post is based on on misthought.

If it was about cap space, it would have been Petro outgoing because Shawne Williams can be stretch provisioned, whereas Petro cannot be, which would give the Nets about 2 million more to work with, had they simply just kept the pick and stretched Williams.

Billy King is just an idiot. Plain and simple.

[DBoys]

That whole post is based on on misthought.

If it was about cap space, it would have been Petro outgoing because Shawne Williams can be stretch provisioned, whereas Petro cannot be, which would give the Nets about 2 million more to work with, had they simply just kept the pick and stretched Williams.

Billy King is just an idiot. Plain and simple.

I did not think of that ...and it certainly changes the numbers. But "what they got" is still cap space and some savings on the Williams deal, agreed?

I'll go back and edit my post to reflect your great input.

[N Ireland Nets]

That whole post is based on on misthought.

If it was about cap space, it would have been Petro outgoing because Shawne Williams can be stretch provisioned, whereas Petro cannot be, which would give the Nets about 2 million more to work with, had they simply just kept the pick and stretched Williams.

Billy King is just an idiot. Plain and simple.

I did not think of that ...and it certainly changes the numbers. But "what they got" is still cap space and some savings on the Williams deal, agreed?

I'll go back and edit my post to reflect your great input.

Also Wallace can be extended on his current deal and traded at any time after the extension to his current deal. So basically he can be traded at any point before he opt's out

[DBoys]

That whole post is based on on misthought.

If it was about cap space, it would have been Petro outgoing because Shawne Williams can be stretch provisioned, whereas Petro cannot be, which would give the Nets about 2 million more to work with, had they simply just kept the pick and stretched Williams.

Billy King is just an idiot. Plain and simple.

I did not think of that ...and it certainly changes the numbers. But "what they got" is still cap space and some savings on the Williams deal, agreed?

I'll go back and edit my post to reflect your great input.

Also Wallace can be extended on his current deal and traded at any time after the extension to his current deal. So basically he can be traded at any point before he opt's out

Not really. In practical terms he is untradable.

He cannot be traded unless he specifically exercises his option for another season. The new CBA effectively killed the extend-and-trade option by limiting the contract that can be offered in such an extension (he could only add one more year, with a 4.5% raise).. He won't pass up free agency for that, and without his 100% cooperation he can't be traded at all.

[N Ireland Nets]

Not really. In practical terms he is untradable.

He cannot be traded unless he specifically exercises his option for another season. The new CBA effectively killed the extend-and-trade option by limiting the contract that can be offered in such an extension (he could only add one more year, with a 4.5% raise).. He won't pass up free agency for that, and without his 100% cooperation he can't be traded at all.

I've read several times, not sure if its actually written into Wallace's contract or what, that he can be extended for an extra 3 years for $30m odd that would extend on top of his current deal which runs until 2013, seems like a it's not a choice of Wallace's but a team decision. Then he is able to be traded instantly from there on.

Wallace has until June 13 to decide if he'll pick up his one-year player option worth $9.5 million. Until that date, the Nets can sign him to a two-year extension on top of the one-year player option.

Going the extension route, Wallace would earn his one-year player option cash next season and then receive seven percent raises the following two years.

So yeh the Nets have until June 13th to make a decision on extending Wallace and then he can be traded

[DBoys]

Not really. In practical terms he is untradable.

He cannot be traded unless he specifically exercises his option for another season. The new CBA effectively killed the extend-and-trade option by limiting the contract that can be offered in such an extension (he could only add one more year, with a 4.5% raise).. He won't pass up free agency for that, and without his 100% cooperation he can't be traded at all.

I've read several times, not sure if its actually written into Wallace's contract or what, that he can be extended for an extra 3 years for $30m odd that would extend on top of his current deal which runs until 2013, seems like a it's not a choice of Wallace's but a team decision. Then he is able to be traded instantly from there on.

That's total horse-hockey and whoever said it is full of pure crap. There has never been an ability for an NBA team to have an option to unilaterally extend a player deal for 3 seasons, under this or prior CBAs.

Wallace has until June 13 to decide if he'll pick up his one-year player option worth $9.5 million. Until that date, the Nets can sign him to a two-year extension on top of the one-year player option.

Going the extension route, Wallace would earn his one-year player option cash next season and then receive seven percent raises the following two years.

So yeh the Nets have until June 13th to make a decision on extending Wallace and then he can be traded

You have either misconstrued what you're hearing, or you're being fed a line of bull.

The first thing you have in error is that the Nets have any ability to act at this point, without Wallace's agreement, to add to his years. They have none.

Between now and June 13, WALLACE can choose to add a year (player option), and then he and the Nets could agree together to extend for one more (but it takes both agreeing) at a 4.5% raise and he could be traded simultaneously with his permission (extend-and-trade). After June 13, if he doesn't add that option year, he could be extended for two years under mutual agreement (with 4.5% raises) and he could be traded simultaneously with his permission (extend-and-trade).

Each of those extensions (with him adding a year via his option, or without) could be done for one year longer than above and have 7.5% raises, but then he can't be traded.

He can only get 4 years (or 5) by saying no and becoming a free agent.

The Nets can't add any more years or trade him to any destination without his full approval.