Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by joec32033:



Come, on Isles, my point is very clear. You also understand my point because it was you who asked me to go find the info when I mentioned these players by name when drawing a comparison between them and Zach.

Either way, my point is that no one is as completely untradeable as you're making Zach out to be. These guys that I mentioned had comparable bad reps as Zach or where considered as untradeable at one point or another and they were shipped out and their former teams were able to extract some meaningful value from them-as opposed to overpaying to get a team to take a guy off our hands.

I asked about the specifics of the trades because I didn't want to comment until we knew exactly what you were trying to say.

I never said anyone was untradeable but players do get harder to trade when they accumulate more baggage and are no longer worth their contract. The harder they are to trade, the more you need to sweeten the pot.

The Knicks have so much to gain from getting rid of Randolph and every team knows it. Dropping down 10 spots is not overpaying.

I still don't understand the rush to drop down those 10 spots when getting rid of him now has absolutely now real value to us within the next 3 years if we do.

We trade him-especially for that package-and great he's off the team and we are dropping 10 spots in the draft. That's the difference between getting a guy like Eric Gordon and a guy like DJ Augustine. The farther we drop the more questions we are going to have about the guy we are going to pick.

I'm all for trading Randolph, but I am not going to shoot myself in the foot to do it because it I will not see the benefits for over three years. On top of that, his value is very fluid and alot can change in that 3 years. Too much can change, imo, to give up so much just to get rid of him.

Celtics dropped 14 spots, picked Rondo instead of Brandon Roy how did it hurt them? It will only hurt you if you don't have a plan in place after you make certain trades. This is the point posters like you and others fail to understand.

Oh. So if you had Brandon Roy, you would be fine with trading him straight up for Rajon Rondo?

You also have to understand, the Celtics are a HUGE exception to the rule because I can't remember a team doing what they did. They dropped down but acquired Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen in the process.

Because Danny had a plan his first target was Iverson, next was Shawn Marion(who probably was still going to be a precursor to landing Garnett). I don't want to hear this cry me a river excuse that Boston was an exception. The heart of the matter is if you have a solid plan in place doesn't necessarily mean a team will get burned by giving a lottery pick away. I've already named other examples in this thread as proof. Houston giving up Gay for Battier, Boston giving up Green(5th pick 2007) and a near expiring(Wally) for Ray Allen. Neither team got worse after their trades.

Tell you what, you want to keep using Boston as an example, Boston used ALL of it's youth(prior draft picks that it didn't trade) to get Garnett and Allen.

Delonte West(24th pick in 04), Wally Szerbiak(Ricky Davis trade-included Marcus Banks(13th pick in 03) and Justin Reed(40 in 04), and the No. 5 pick(Jeff Green) for Ray Allen.

Ryan Gomes-Boston draft pick, Gerald Green-Boston lottery pick, Al Jefferson-Boston lottery pick , Theo Ratliff, Sebastian Telfair-Portland lottery pick, a 2009 first round draft pick (top three protected) and a return of Minnesota's conditional first round draft pick previously obtained in the Ricky Davis-Wally Szczerbiak trade. Minnesota also receives cash considerations in the deal.

There is absolutely no parallel you can draw between Boston and us. In all Boston used 3 lottery picks(Jeff Green, Jefferson, Gerald Green-possibly 4 with the return of Minny's conditional pick). Boston decided to win a Championship NOW, we are trying to rebuild. Boston already had a franchise player in place in Pierce(#10 pick by Boson in 98), we don't. If you want to tell me that somehow Walsh is going to put together a championship team within 2 seasons.

Also your whole Rondo premise is wrong. The Celtics traded a future first for Rondo. A pick they haven't given them yet.

You also keep talking about how Memphis hasn't benefited from the Rudy Gay trade. Tell me where Houston has gone since acquiring Battier. Doesn't seem it helped Houston all that much either.

Once again if Donnie manages to acquire 2 all-stars(one arguably the best player in the league), that's one thing. However we are talking about Reggie Evans!

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by joec32033:



Come, on Isles, my point is very clear. You also understand my point because it was you who asked me to go find the info when I mentioned these players by name when drawing a comparison between them and Zach.

Either way, my point is that no one is as completely untradeable as you're making Zach out to be. These guys that I mentioned had comparable bad reps as Zach or where considered as untradeable at one point or another and they were shipped out and their former teams were able to extract some meaningful value from them-as opposed to overpaying to get a team to take a guy off our hands.

I asked about the specifics of the trades because I didn't want to comment until we knew exactly what you were trying to say.

I never said anyone was untradeable but players do get harder to trade when they accumulate more baggage and are no longer worth their contract. The harder they are to trade, the more you need to sweeten the pot.

The Knicks have so much to gain from getting rid of Randolph and every team knows it. Dropping down 10 spots is not overpaying.

I still don't understand the rush to drop down those 10 spots when getting rid of him now has absolutely now real value to us within the next 3 years if we do.

We trade him-especially for that package-and great he's off the team and we are dropping 10 spots in the draft. That's the difference between getting a guy like Eric Gordon and a guy like DJ Augustine. The farther we drop the more questions we are going to have about the guy we are going to pick.

I'm all for trading Randolph, but I am not going to shoot myself in the foot to do it because it I will not see the benefits for over three years. On top of that, his value is very fluid and alot can change in that 3 years. Too much can change, imo, to give up so much just to get rid of him.

Celtics dropped 14 spots, picked Rondo instead of Brandon Roy how did it hurt them? It will only hurt you if you don't have a plan in place after you make certain trades. This is the point posters like you and others fail to understand.

Oh. So if you had Brandon Roy, you would be fine with trading him straight up for Rajon Rondo?

You also have to understand, the Celtics are a HUGE exception to the rule because I can't remember a team doing what they did. They dropped down but acquired Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen in the process.

Because Danny had a plan his first target was Iverson, next was Shawn Marion(who probably was still going to be a precursor to landing Garnett). I don't want to hear this cry me a river excuse that Boston was an exception. The heart of the matter is if you have a solid plan in place doesn't necessarily mean a team will get burned by giving a lottery pick away. I've already named other examples in this thread as proof. Houston giving up Gay for Battier, Boston giving up Green(5th pick 2007) and a near expiring(Wally) for Ray Allen. Neither team got worse after their trades.

Tell you what, you want to keep using Boston as an example, Boston used ALL of it's youth(prior draft picks that it didn't trade) to get Garnett and Allen.

Delonte West(24th pick in 04), Wally Szerbiak(Ricky Davis trade-included Marcus Banks(13th pick in 03) and Justin Reed(40 in 04), and the No. 5 pick(Jeff Green) for Ray Allen.

Ryan Gomes-Boston draft pick, Gerald Green-Boston lottery pick, Al Jefferson-Boston lottery pick , Theo Ratliff, Sebastian Telfair-Portland lottery pick, a 2009 first round draft pick (top three protected) and a return of Minnesota's conditional first round draft pick previously obtained in the Ricky Davis-Wally Szczerbiak trade. Minnesota also receives cash considerations in the deal.

There is absolutely no parallel you can draw between Boston and us. In all Boston used 3 lottery picks(Jeff Green, Jefferson, Gerald Green-possibly 4 with the return of Minny's conditional pick). Boston decided to win a Championship NOW, we are trying to rebuild. Boston already had a franchise player in place in Pierce(#10 pick by Boson in 98), we don't. If you want to tell me that somehow Walsh is going to put together a championship team within 2 seasons.

Also your whole Rondo premise is wrong. The Celtics traded a future first for Rondo. A pick they haven't given them yet.

You also keep talking about how Memphis hasn't benefited from the Rudy Gay trade. Tell me where Houston has gone since acquiring Battier. Doesn't seem it helped Houston all that much either.

Once again if Donnie manages to acquire 2 all-stars(one arguably the best player in the league), that's one thing. However we are talking about Reggie Evans!

Boston had 3 First round picks of their own 2 were 14 and below. You are correct in the technicalities of the Rondo trade but you can look at in in two ways Danny gave up pick 7 for a bunch of fodder and a 2008 second round draft pick, which would be like dropping totally out of the 2006 draft or Danny gave up pick 7 and a future first to drop 14 spots to pick Rondo. You're crying over the order in which Danny accomplished this, which is irrelevant. There's no rule in how you get there as long as you get there. We don't have to acquire pick 15(2004), pick 13(2004), pick 13(2003), pick 24(2004), pick 18(2005), pick 7(2006), pick 5(2007), future first(2009) to land a big fish. If you look at some of the picks or lottery talent Danny gave up to get Garnett what was the average lottery position between Green(18), Jefferson(15), and Bassy(13) by my math they avg pick 16. I remember at the time our fans were crying over the fact Boston gave up way too much, then when they start winning fans turned and said Mchale was an idiot. Just like they are crying right now we'd give up too much in the Zach trade. BOSTON IS FORMIDABLE. Looks like pick 16 can have it's value huh!

Let's look at what we have in terms of assets if we were to do the Zach trade with Walsh at the helm

Future(pick 2009)
Philly(pick 16)
Lee(pick 30)
Nate(pick 21)
Chandler(pick 23)
Balkman(pick 20)
Mardy(pick 29)
Morris(free first round draft pick)

Now all we'd have to do is trade any or all combination of players such as Q, Jeffries, Crawford, Malik, Steph, and Curry into a couple more picks between 12-40. I'd imagine we couldn't trade them all, so some players would remain but this would be the premise to exercise the plan.

Last time I checked Houston missed the playoffs the yr before the Battier trade then proceeded to make the playoffs two yrs straight after, while winning 50gms+ a season. Meanwhile Memphis has been LOTTERYTATSTIC since the trade. Now Houston didn't propel themselves anywhere but they didn't lose. Very funny how this is viewed because all we've been longing for is to make the playoffs and if so it's deemed a success but if other teams do it then they F'd up their future, they're going nowhere blah blah..!

Bottom line-after you just listed what we have/would have you are talking all picks under 10. Boston used 3 lottery picks to accomplish what they accomplshed! They're picks had much more value!

Also, as to our side argument regarding Houston/Memphis, you are surprised that Memphis, after trading away a proven player and going on to draft a freshman(?) out of college they should be expected to make the playoffs after making a move that is clearly a long term reward move? It's clear to me why the move was made.

After trade: Houston win percentage
07-08: .671
06-07: .634

Before trade: Houston win percentage
05-06: .415 (Yao played only 57 games, TMac only 47)
04-05: .622

Rockets

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by joec32033:



Come, on Isles, my point is very clear. You also understand my point because it was you who asked me to go find the info when I mentioned these players by name when drawing a comparison between them and Zach.

Either way, my point is that no one is as completely untradeable as you're making Zach out to be. These guys that I mentioned had comparable bad reps as Zach or where considered as untradeable at one point or another and they were shipped out and their former teams were able to extract some meaningful value from them-as opposed to overpaying to get a team to take a guy off our hands.

I asked about the specifics of the trades because I didn't want to comment until we knew exactly what you were trying to say.

I never said anyone was untradeable but players do get harder to trade when they accumulate more baggage and are no longer worth their contract. The harder they are to trade, the more you need to sweeten the pot.

The Knicks have so much to gain from getting rid of Randolph and every team knows it. Dropping down 10 spots is not overpaying.

I still don't understand the rush to drop down those 10 spots when getting rid of him now has absolutely now real value to us within the next 3 years if we do.

We trade him-especially for that package-and great he's off the team and we are dropping 10 spots in the draft. That's the difference between getting a guy like Eric Gordon and a guy like DJ Augustine. The farther we drop the more questions we are going to have about the guy we are going to pick.

I'm all for trading Randolph, but I am not going to shoot myself in the foot to do it because it I will not see the benefits for over three years. On top of that, his value is very fluid and alot can change in that 3 years. Too much can change, imo, to give up so much just to get rid of him.

Celtics dropped 14 spots, picked Rondo instead of Brandon Roy how did it hurt them? It will only hurt you if you don't have a plan in place after you make certain trades. This is the point posters like you and others fail to understand.

Oh. So if you had Brandon Roy, you would be fine with trading him straight up for Rajon Rondo?

You also have to understand, the Celtics are a HUGE exception to the rule because I can't remember a team doing what they did. They dropped down but acquired Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen in the process.

Because Danny had a plan his first target was Iverson, next was Shawn Marion(who probably was still going to be a precursor to landing Garnett). I don't want to hear this cry me a river excuse that Boston was an exception. The heart of the matter is if you have a solid plan in place doesn't necessarily mean a team will get burned by giving a lottery pick away. I've already named other examples in this thread as proof. Houston giving up Gay for Battier, Boston giving up Green(5th pick 2007) and a near expiring(Wally) for Ray Allen. Neither team got worse after their trades.

Tell you what, you want to keep using Boston as an example, Boston used ALL of it's youth(prior draft picks that it didn't trade) to get Garnett and Allen.

Delonte West(24th pick in 04), Wally Szerbiak(Ricky Davis trade-included Marcus Banks(13th pick in 03) and Justin Reed(40 in 04), and the No. 5 pick(Jeff Green) for Ray Allen.

Ryan Gomes-Boston draft pick, Gerald Green-Boston lottery pick, Al Jefferson-Boston lottery pick , Theo Ratliff, Sebastian Telfair-Portland lottery pick, a 2009 first round draft pick (top three protected) and a return of Minnesota's conditional first round draft pick previously obtained in the Ricky Davis-Wally Szczerbiak trade. Minnesota also receives cash considerations in the deal.

There is absolutely no parallel you can draw between Boston and us. In all Boston used 3 lottery picks(Jeff Green, Jefferson, Gerald Green-possibly 4 with the return of Minny's conditional pick). Boston decided to win a Championship NOW, we are trying to rebuild. Boston already had a franchise player in place in Pierce(#10 pick by Boson in 98), we don't. If you want to tell me that somehow Walsh is going to put together a championship team within 2 seasons.

Also your whole Rondo premise is wrong. The Celtics traded a future first for Rondo. A pick they haven't given them yet.

You also keep talking about how Memphis hasn't benefited from the Rudy Gay trade. Tell me where Houston has gone since acquiring Battier. Doesn't seem it helped Houston all that much either.

Once again if Donnie manages to acquire 2 all-stars(one arguably the best player in the league), that's one thing. However we are talking about Reggie Evans!

Boston had 3 First round picks of their own 2 were 14 and below. You are correct in the technicalities of the Rondo trade but you can look at in in two ways Danny gave up pick 7 for a bunch of fodder and a 2008 second round draft pick, which would be like dropping totally out of the 2006 draft or Danny gave up pick 7 and a future first to drop 14 spots to pick Rondo. You're crying over the order in which Danny accomplished this, which is irrelevant. There's no rule in how you get there as long as you get there. We don't have to acquire pick 15(2004), pick 13(2004), pick 13(2003), pick 24(2004), pick 18(2005), pick 7(2006), pick 5(2007), future first(2009) to land a big fish. If you look at some of the picks or lottery talent Danny gave up to get Garnett what was the average lottery position between Green(18), Jefferson(15), and Bassy(13) by my math they avg pick 16. I remember at the time our fans were crying over the fact Boston gave up way too much, then when they start winning fans turned and said Mchale was an idiot. Just like they are crying right now we'd give up too much in the Zach trade. BOSTON IS FORMIDABLE. Looks like pick 16 can have it's value huh!

Let's look at what we have in terms of assets if we were to do the Zach trade with Walsh at the helm

Future(pick 2009)
Philly(pick 16)
Lee(pick 30)
Nate(pick 21)
Chandler(pick 23)
Balkman(pick 20)
Mardy(pick 29)
Morris(free first round draft pick)

Now all we'd have to do is trade any or all combination of players such as Q, Jeffries, Crawford, Malik, Steph, and Curry into a couple more picks between 12-40. I'd imagine we couldn't trade them all, so some players would remain but this would be the premise to exercise the plan.

Last time I checked Houston missed the playoffs the yr before the Battier trade then proceeded to make the playoffs two yrs straight after, while winning 50gms+ a season. Meanwhile Memphis has been LOTTERYTATSTIC since the trade. Now Houston didn't propel themselves anywhere but they didn't lose. Very funny how this is viewed because all we've been longing for is to make the playoffs and if so it's deemed a success but if other teams do it then they F'd up their future, they're going nowhere blah blah..!

Bottom line-after you just listed what we have/would have you are talking all picks under 10. Boston used 3 lottery picks to accomplish what they accomplshed! They're picks had much more value!

Also, as to our side argument regarding Houston/Memphis, you are surprised that Memphis, after trading away a proven player and going on to draft a freshman(?) out of college they should be expected to make the playoffs after making a move that is clearly a long term reward move? It's clear to me why the move was made.

After trade: Houston win percentage
07-08: .671
06-07: .634

Before trade: Houston win percentage
05-06: .415 (Yao played only 57 games, TMac only 47)
04-05: .622

Rockets

Houston never got worse sorry no matter how you slice it and Memphis never improved at all even when Gasol and Gay were playing along with their other lottery talent. As fas as what Boston had in the fold well we don't have too much time to build assets to go after Lebron to get under the cap and have a chance to acquire a player such as him or other premium talent but it's worth a shot. Heck if we fail we'll just be in the lottery come 2011 we ain't going anywhere anyway even with pick 6 in the fold.

Houston never got worse sorry no matter how you slice it and Memphis never improved at all even when Gasol and Gay were playing along with their other lottery talent.

As fas as what Boston had in the fold well we don't have too much time to build assets to go after Lebron to get under the cap and have a chance to acquire a player such as him or other premium talent but it's worth a shot. Heck if we fail we'll just be in the lottery come 2011 we ain't going anywhere anyway even with pick 6 in the fold.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by TrueBlue:

[quote]Posted by BRIGGS:


Philly(pick 16)
Lee(pick 30)
Nate(pick 21)
Chandler(pick 23)
Balkman(pick 20)
Mardy(pick 29)
Morris(free first round draft pick)

Now all we'd have to do is trade any or all combination of players such as Q, Jeffries, Crawford, Malik, Steph, and Curry into a couple more picks between 12-40. I'd imagine we couldn't trade them all, so some players would remain but this would be the premise to exercise the plan.



[quote]Why in the world do you want to trade down so far? Look at that list--no stars. Tell me when were Paul Pierce Ray Allen and KG picked? Most stars in the league were a top 10 pick or wouldve been if they had done 1 year of school. So why do we want a lesser talent--what exactly am I getting out of it? I think it is very clear that the talent level has a serious drop off after 12-13. Take Zach Randolph out of the equation--forget him for a second--do you still want to trade down?

Briggs you've yet to clearly prove pick 6 is going to be clearly better than pick 16. Just a bunch of because Briggs said so bull crap from you.


I think this draft clearly takes a turn around 12-13 or so. You cant answer the direct question--take Zach out of the equation--do you want to still trade down as you preference that low? And where exactly were KG Ray Allen and Paul Pierce picked?

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Getting rid of salary does what? were still over the cap--so for me it does nothing. So this conversation really is goofy. What pick is better 6 or 16? I really like 6 in this draft and I think that sentiment would be agreed upon by most people. Whether it be Mayo Bayless Randolph Gordon Alexander Lopez Westbrook Mcgee--I want my pick of the litter at 6. At 16 the only guarantee is that its highly doubtful anyone on this list is still there. Id rather end up with a Mayo at 6 than whoever is left at 16

If we stopped with just trading Randolph and had no further plans to get under the cap the move could prove to be questionable but that isn't the mindset. Mayo is being heavily rumored as gone by 3 and Bayless by 4. You can't prove that any of those players will be better than Arthur, CDR, Greene, Jordan, Rush, Augustin, Galinari,. LOL @ you Mcgee is slated to be drafted on most mocks below 16. I know you threw him in there as a save face because you jocked him hard during the yr but what does this tell you? You'd be admitting that Evans + McGee would suffice for Zach and 6.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Houston never got worse sorry no matter how you slice it and Memphis never improved at all even when Gasol and Gay were playing along with their other lottery talent.

Gay was a ROOKIE!! They only played together 2 years and played under 2 different coaches!! The 2nd year he blossomed into a 20 point scorer!!

As fas as what Boston had in the fold well we don't have too much time to build assets to go after Lebron to get under the cap and have a chance to acquire a player such as him or other premium talent but it's worth a shot. Heck if we fail we'll just be in the lottery come 2011 we ain't going anywhere anyway even with pick 6 in the fold.

I agree it would be nice to get LeBron and it would be awesome to get him but building the team around that scenario is just plain crazy. Build around what you can control with the flexibility to do whatever you can when you need to. LeBron isn't coming to a team that has no players on it. If nothing else the draft is a great place to get talented players on the cheap. Look at the money these rookies make in their first 4 years. It's relative pennies. The best way to be salary flexible is to use the draft and draft well to get some cheap talent. I mean damn Chris Paul makes less than Jamal Crawford until 2010.

I don't give a F what Gay blossomed into show me how Houston suffered? Houston switched up coaches and got better while enduring a major injury to a Franchise player.

Why is DW talking about having cap flexibility to go after a FA such as Lebron? Why did D'Antoni say he could invision Lebron playing the 4 in his system if it's such a pipe dream? Look I agree it's going to be very difficult to land Lebron but unless we unload salary and generally unloading bad contracts comes with a price, we'll have zero shot at Lebron or any other premium talent for the matter.

You just need a solid plan.




[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-09-2008 12:10 PM]

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by BRIGGS:


Mcgee will not last past 12. Also I believe Mcgee's best style of play-although he is a very good athlete for his size--is the standard convetional low post tradional 5 man. With a standing reach of 9.65 with good ballhandling skills a nice 12 footer once a team gets this guy trained in the post--he will be a monster to contain. He is what Nate Robinson said--the big man who can go up and get it above everyone else. He's a two year project like Bynum--but his reward could be elite C material. Since hiring Dantoni I dont think it would be a good pick although I think they need to view him in 2-3 workouts before the draft. If we were playing traditional halcourt basketball--he would be number 1 on my list and I think hes the 4th best prospect in the draft no matter what.

I just figured I'd post this for you Briggs...

Seven-footer JaVale McGee of Nevada impressed the Suns in a workout over the weekend and has become a possible lottery pick.
"He can literally be as good as he wants to be," Suns VP of basketball operations David Griffin said. "He's the kind of guy that excites you when you walk into a gym and say, 'Oh my, did you see that?' Yeah, (drafting him) would be a leap of faith, but Amaré (Stoudemire) was a leap of faith too, and sometimes you have to take some chances." The Suns have the 15th pick this year, courtesy of the Hawks.

I agree with everything he said. I could care less about what Knicks management and their channing Frye approach or what any poster says--the guy has undeniable talents for a 7 footer with franchise level potential. Now who has the vision to take him?

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Houston never got worse sorry no matter how you slice it and Memphis never improved at all even when Gasol and Gay were playing along with their other lottery talent.

Gay was a ROOKIE!! They only played together 2 years and played under 2 different coaches!! The 2nd year he blossomed into a 20 point scorer!!

As fas as what Boston had in the fold well we don't have too much time to build assets to go after Lebron to get under the cap and have a chance to acquire a player such as him or other premium talent but it's worth a shot. Heck if we fail we'll just be in the lottery come 2011 we ain't going anywhere anyway even with pick 6 in the fold.

I agree it would be nice to get LeBron and it would be awesome to get him but building the team around that scenario is just plain crazy. Build around what you can control with the flexibility to do whatever you can when you need to. LeBron isn't coming to a team that has no players on it. If nothing else the draft is a great place to get talented players on the cheap. Look at the money these rookies make in their first 4 years. It's relative pennies. The best way to be salary flexible is to use the draft and draft well to get some cheap talent. I mean damn Chris Paul makes less than Jamal Crawford until 2010.

I don't give a F what Gay blossomed into show me how Houston suffered? Houston switched up coaches and got better while enduring a major injury to a Franchise player.

Why is DW talking about having cap flexibility to go after a FA such as Lebron? Why did D'Antoni say he could invision Lebron playing the 4 in his system if it's such a pipe dream? Look I agree it's going to be very difficult to land Lebron but unless we unload salary and generally unloading bad contracts comes with a price, we'll have zero shot at Lebron or any other premium talent for the matter.

You just need a solid plan.




[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-09-2008 12:10 PM]

You can't tell me Houston doesn't wish it could go back and redo that trade. But that is neither here nor there. We can agree to disagree on that.

Regarding having a solid plan, I agree with that. But I don't think a "solid" plan is focusing on a guy that is not currently on your team 2 years down the road.

I personally don't think the plan is LeBron or bust. I think Walsh is way to smart for that.
Imo, the plan is to put a solid team together with the cap flexibility to either sign LeBron outright or try to make a Garnett-like trade/sign-and-trade to obtain him. I really believe this is a much more prudent, efficient, and just plain better plan.

I said several times myself it isn't Lebron or bust it's a shot at Lebron or other premium talent or flexibility to move forward from that point.