Chad Fraud thinks the Grizz got hosed...
Chad Fraud thinks the Grizz got hosed...
-
GrizzledGrizzFan
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,571
- And1: 161
- Joined: Jul 29, 2005
- Location: Just south of Memphis, as the crow flies...
-
-
crazy_diamond
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,105
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jul 29, 2005
- Location: spain
-
GrizzGT
- Junior
- Posts: 384
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 12, 2004
- Location: Grizz Fan 1st ... but also on Warrior bandwagon since 4/6/06
Atlanta - Childress is okay, but he will get paid FMV going forward, so what benefit does he really provide? 1 Draft pick (2010), granted it will be more valuabe than the LAL pick (in all liklihood) but nothing of value until then, not a good deal IMO.
Chicago - This is a better deal. The only problem is that this deal is not realistic. Bulls would have to pay Lux Tax, which they are unwilling to do. So there is no chance this deal ever happens. Sorry.
Golden State Warriors - This is a better deal, but there is no way that GSW make this deal. Lux Tax concerns and giving up too much.
Clippers - You really think Clips would have given E Brand and an unprotected 1st?
Heat - Picks would have to be 2010 and 2012, so not as good IMO. Cook vs Crit is basically a push IMO and expirings are equal, but in spite of picks probably being better, I am not for waiting until 2010.
Nets - this deal isn't even legal as Nets wouldn't have enough players and we would be way over max. If legal, it would probably be slightly better. I have serious reservations as to whether Nets would actually do this deal.
Orlando - I'm not a fan of JJ Redick. Picks might be better, maybe not. This is a push at best IMO.
Phoenix - I would have made this deal, Phoenix would not. After Marion opts out, and Atlanta makes playoffs, is ATL pick really worth more than J Crit, and two Laker picks. Not a "slam dunk" that this is a better deal.
San Antonio - At best this deal is a push, but it is worse IMO. Spurs picks would be no better than LAL, and I have no idea who Ian Mahinmi is? If he is really a prospect, make your case for why this is better.
Toronto - Don't believe Toronto would do this deal. If they would, then I don't like it because on the surface, it looks to me as if they are giving up too much.
Chicago - This is a better deal. The only problem is that this deal is not realistic. Bulls would have to pay Lux Tax, which they are unwilling to do. So there is no chance this deal ever happens. Sorry.
Golden State Warriors - This is a better deal, but there is no way that GSW make this deal. Lux Tax concerns and giving up too much.
Clippers - You really think Clips would have given E Brand and an unprotected 1st?
Heat - Picks would have to be 2010 and 2012, so not as good IMO. Cook vs Crit is basically a push IMO and expirings are equal, but in spite of picks probably being better, I am not for waiting until 2010.
Nets - this deal isn't even legal as Nets wouldn't have enough players and we would be way over max. If legal, it would probably be slightly better. I have serious reservations as to whether Nets would actually do this deal.
Orlando - I'm not a fan of JJ Redick. Picks might be better, maybe not. This is a push at best IMO.
Phoenix - I would have made this deal, Phoenix would not. After Marion opts out, and Atlanta makes playoffs, is ATL pick really worth more than J Crit, and two Laker picks. Not a "slam dunk" that this is a better deal.
San Antonio - At best this deal is a push, but it is worse IMO. Spurs picks would be no better than LAL, and I have no idea who Ian Mahinmi is? If he is really a prospect, make your case for why this is better.
Toronto - Don't believe Toronto would do this deal. If they would, then I don't like it because on the surface, it looks to me as if they are giving up too much.
-
GrizzledGrizzFan
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,571
- And1: 161
- Joined: Jul 29, 2005
- Location: Just south of Memphis, as the crow flies...
-
"every team must have at least 13 players under contract at every moment"
Not completely true. If a team moves under 13 due to a transaction, they have 2 weeks to correct that. Much in the way we did when Jones wasn't re upped after his 2nd 10 day stint.
I'm sure in some of those scenarios Jacobsen and Brown could have been pitched in to make up imbalances.
Also note, my gripe isn't necessarily with any of the specifics of these "deals", it's with the fact that if Wallace had played his cards right and made a deal closer to the deadline, he could have done better.
Sorry, there's just no way in hell I'm ever going to believe that the LA/Memphis deal is the absolute best the Grizz could have done.
Not completely true. If a team moves under 13 due to a transaction, they have 2 weeks to correct that. Much in the way we did when Jones wasn't re upped after his 2nd 10 day stint.
I'm sure in some of those scenarios Jacobsen and Brown could have been pitched in to make up imbalances.
Also note, my gripe isn't necessarily with any of the specifics of these "deals", it's with the fact that if Wallace had played his cards right and made a deal closer to the deadline, he could have done better.
Sorry, there's just no way in hell I'm ever going to believe that the LA/Memphis deal is the absolute best the Grizz could have done.
-
crazy_diamond
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,105
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jul 29, 2005
- Location: spain