[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

NY Times: Denver's Pick Acquired in Rose trade is NOT LOTTERY PROTECTED
Author Thread
BigRedDog
Posts: 22226
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 1/23/2004
Member: #569
2/3/2006  9:56 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

it's a lot of money to spend for a pick but regardless, getting an unprotected #1 is good.

We get the pick AND the $$. We are NOT buying the pick. Get the facts straight.
fishmike 9/27/2024 11:00 PM Ug I hate this. The idea of Towns is great until you see what a pussy he is. Jules is a dog. DD was a flamethrower locked up cheap for 3 more years. First Leon move I hate
AUTOADVERT
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
2/3/2006  10:38 PM
Posted by crzymdups:

The Denver pick is completely unprotected, per nba.com:

http://www.nba.com/nets/news/kenyon_040715.html

The breakdown of the future picks acquired by the Nets includes: Clippers 2005, protected 1-14 or 2006, unprotected: Philadelphia 2005, protected 1-8 or 2006, protected 1-5 or 2007, unprotected: Denver 2006, protected 1-5, 2007, protected 1-2, 2008, unprotected.

Whoops, I read this slightly wrong, the pick has 1-5 protection.

here's the deal on the Denver pick, if for some reason Zeke decides to hold off on using it:
Denver 2006, protected 1-5, 2007, protected 1-2, 2008, unprotected.
¿ △ ?
NY Times: Denver's Pick Acquired in Rose trade is NOT LOTTERY PROTECTED

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy