Scubetrolis wrote:Quick...didn't we turn down a trade with Tyson Chandler at one point because he had a bad toe or something? Am I mis-remembering?
No, that was OKC.
Moderators: bwgood77, lilfishi22, Qwigglez
Scubetrolis wrote:Quick...didn't we turn down a trade with Tyson Chandler at one point because he had a bad toe or something? Am I mis-remembering?
lilfishi22 wrote:Wow got to work, opened up realGM and saw the this thread go from 60 something pages to 100 over night....
Someone want to give me an quick update?
Scubetrolis wrote:lilfishi22 wrote:Wow got to work, opened up realGM and saw the this thread go from 60 something pages to 100 over night....
Someone want to give me an quick update?
We were LMA second choice after eventually signing with San Antonio.
Not confirmed, though, gaining traction.
lilfishi22 wrote:Zero Tolerance wrote:lilfishi22 wrote:Wow got to work, opened up realGM and saw the this thread go from 60 something pages to 100 over night....
Someone want to give me an quick update?
- We signed Tyson Chandler to strengthen our pitch to LMA.
- Sarver, Babby, McDonough, Knight, Bledsoe, Horny, Watson, and Chandler all attended the meeting with LMA
- They met for about 2 and a half hours, LMA was very impressed with our pitch.
- Now it looks like its between us and San Antonio to sign him.
Sounds like an expensive punt....
rsavaj wrote:sunsfever68 wrote:rsavaj wrote:
=Signed Tyson Chandler to 52/4. Immediately brought Chandler into our meeting with Aldridge alongside Babby/McDonough/Horny and Bledsoe/Knight/Earl Watson(mentor to LMA in PDX, now one of our assistant coaches)
=Lost Wright to Memphis
=Waiting to hear on LMA's decision which won't be announced today since he's still meeting the Knicks tmw. Stein and Berger say we'ved moved alongside SAS in contention to land him, but there's this unknown Euroleague reporter David Pick who just tweeted out that LMA is going to SAS, so nobody really knows what to do with that info
=If LMA agrees, we'd have to work a sign and trade with PDX to make salaries work, since we used all our cap space on Tyson Chandler
Can we not ship Tuck/Mook to Cle for Haywood expiring to shed contract in separate deal and sign Aldridge outright and go over the cap?
Cle needs wings who can shoot. We have alot of wings
Yeah I think that's an option. Don't know the specific cap numbers though so not sure how much we need to free up.
PassWarden wrote:[tweet]https://twitter.com/IAmDPick/status/616377753797984256[/tweet]
Kennedy RT'ed
ShawnBronald wrote:PassWarden wrote:[tweet]https://twitter.com/IAmDPick/status/616377753797984256[/tweet]
Kennedy RT'ed
So did Dave King.
He's just some random guy trying to get the scoop on a 50/50 decision (and he picked the favorite!). If LMA signs with the Spurs, he will claim to have reported it first. If not, he'll simply say he got inaccurate info and no one will care. Sad move on his part, I guarantee he has no source and LMA hasn't made up his mind yet.
rsavaj wrote:Definitely costly, but 13 mill in today's money = 8 mill with the new cap. Plus they're banking on him mentoring Len, adding some toughness to our team, being a leader in the lockerroom(AKA the "dear Morris twins, please STFU" guy), and just being a nice addition.
Interesting move. Not too thrilled if it doesn't land us LMA, but love that we tried. McDonough has some gargantuan balls.
sunsfever68 wrote:rsavaj wrote:sunsfever68 wrote:
Can we not ship Tuck/Mook to Cle for Haywood expiring to shed contract in separate deal and sign Aldridge outright and go over the cap?
Cle needs wings who can shoot. We have alot of wings
Yeah I think that's an option. Don't know the specific cap numbers though so not sure how much we need to free up.
reputable source said 9M (one of AZ reporters)
tuck+Mook=10M. Haywood contract 10M. works perfectly. Cavs need wings.
JMac1 wrote:saintEscaton wrote:JMac1 wrote:
That's your opinion, but it seems like mine is more in line with the people that matter.
What is that supposed to mean?
It means saying something that other people posted is a joke is ridiculous, especially when the team decides to do it. No matter if the team gets it right or wrong, they know more than us at the end of the day.......saying something along the lines of I don't agree with it or it is a bad idea is acceptable, but calling it a joke is a little more offensive. Basically you are calling someone else's OPINION a joke. Sometimes it maybe, but not in this case, so I just decided to put a mirror in your face.
lilfishi22 wrote:rsavaj wrote:Definitely costly, but 13 mill in today's money = 8 mill with the new cap. Plus they're banking on him mentoring Len, adding some toughness to our team, being a leader in the lockerroom(AKA the "dear Morris twins, please STFU" guy), and just being a nice addition.
Interesting move. Not too thrilled if it doesn't land us LMA, but love that we tried. McDonough has some gargantuan balls.
Well if there's one good thing to come out of this is that the rumors of a DeAndre Jordan/Tyson Chandler trade won't happen anymore so I'm hoping DJ walks and leaves the Clippers with nothing
bwoolf2 wrote:Chandler brings two things regardless of LMA, 1. leadership 2. rebounding averaged almost twice as many rebounds per game as our highest per guy.
Scutt wrote:letsgosuns wrote:With or without LeMarcus Aldridge, there is no way in hell the Suns are a worse team today with Tyson Chandler than they were yesterday without him. Suns biggest problem was that they were horrible inside and had no resistance other than Len. The addition of Chandler changes that.
True, they are no worse a team, but how much better does a 32 year old Chandler really make them? Enough to justify giving him 52 million over 4 years?
We are paying a 32 year old, with a history of injury problems, 52 million dollars. He averaged 11 and 10 last year. It is not unreasonable to think that Alex Len couldn't average 11 and 10 next year. What Tyson Chandler brings to the actual basketball court at this point in his career, is not far off from what Len can give us, and Len is 21 and on a rookie contract. He does provide a veteran presence and gives us depth at the 5, but again, is that really worth 52 million dollars?
bwgood77 wrote:JMac1 wrote:saintEscaton wrote:What is that supposed to mean?
It means saying something that other people posted is a joke is ridiculous, especially when the team decides to do it. No matter if the team gets it right or wrong, they know more than us at the end of the day.......saying something along the lines of I don't agree with it or it is a bad idea is acceptable, but calling it a joke is a little more offensive. Basically you are calling someone else's OPINION a joke. Sometimes it maybe, but not in this case, so I just decided to put a mirror in your face.
I think his point is your earlier sentence regarding "people that matter". Everyone here matters equally.
rsavaj wrote:sunsfever68 wrote:rsavaj wrote:
Yeah I think that's an option. Don't know the specific cap numbers though so not sure how much we need to free up.
reputable source said 9M (one of AZ reporters)
tuck+Mook=10M. Haywood contract 10M. works perfectly. Cavs need wings.
That was Dave King, bright side of the sun blogger. The reason it's 9 mill is because of some sort of exceptions we get when we're an "over the cap" team, which was why it made sense to sign and trade Wright for Chandler. Once Memphis signed Wright, I asked Dave if this changed that 9 mill number; he said he thinks we could still be an "over the cap" situation if we keep thornton and green's cap holds on the books.
It's all a little over my head, to be honest. Let's just wait and see how it shakes out.