Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by Vmart:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Vmart:

Posted by islesfan:

The Cavs can send Ben Wallace and Pavlovic, who both expire in 2 summers. The Cavs need to get their team up to a championship level before 2010 and they would have a ton of cap space to sign free agents next year.

I made it through all of 5 teams and found 2 deals that could happen for Marbury's expiring contract.

LeBron doesn't want to play with Marbury.

And that's why they can buy him out and use the cap savings next summer.

Do the Knicks really want to take on Wallace and Pavlovic for two years? I mean it might be better to let Marbury expire a Knick and spread his ashes on top of MSG.

if that trade went down, he'd whine and moan. but since it momentarily suits his argument that there's a deal out there, despite the fact that it does nothing for either team - except clear cap space in a weak free agent year in 2009. what are the cavs gonna do in 2009? bring back boozer? hmm, the owner might object a little since boozer lied to them before.

That's a load of crap. Why would I whine about that trade? How does that go against anything that I've said that I'd like to see happen? I hate Marbury and that would get him out of here. I want them to get a defensive player in the front court and that would get them one. I'm all for Walsh targeting getting under the cap in 2010 and that would drop $20M off their cap in 2010. So what the hell would I be whining about? That's just a lame BS simplistic comment.

Do the Cavs have to prove to LeBron that they're capable of building a championship team around him by the summer of 2010 when he can become a free agent? Wouldn't $20M more in cap space next summer help them do that?

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by crzymdups:

no, i looked for combinations like you mentioned, but not a lot of teams have something that adds up to $22M that makes sense for both parties.

i don't see how adding hinrich's salary is more beneficial than letting marbury expire, either. hinrich is overrated by this board, as i have said before. chicago had a bad offense, hinrich was the lead guard. every time i've seen him he was making non-commital passes and bombing away from the three point line. pass on hinrich. also, really, you'd have to find a team willing to take marbury. that's a public relations hit in a big way for any team.

just buy him out. you want to send fans the right message? end the isiah era? buy him out. i don't mind keeping him on the payroll as long as he is placed on the IR and banned from the team and any practice facilities. he's a gigantic cancer and i want him gone. you really want him here trying to get his numbers for a new contract? i'd rather move on so we can see what the rest of this roster can do and maybe improve the trade value of guys like Crawford, Curry and Zach before 2010.

I'm pretty sure that Skiles' offensive system is a little different than D'Antonio's. I wouldn't judge him based on that. And Hinrich is a solid defensive player.

Why would trading for Marbury be a bad PR move if he's told to go home or bought out right away?

Buying out Marbury is plain stupid. If you don't want him around the team just tell him to go home. Why waste an asset like that?

uh, if buying out Marbury is so stupid why would the Bulls trade for his contract to do just that? 2009 is a weak free agent year anyway.

also, Hinrich's defense would be meaningless here, you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that D'Antoni doesn't care about that end of the court.

Posted by islesfan:



That's a load of crap. Why would I whine about that trade? How does that go against anything that I've said that I'd like to see happen? I hate Marbury and that would get him out of here. I want them to get a defensive player in the front court and that would get them one. I'm all for Walsh targeting getting under the cap in 2010 and that would drop $20M off their cap in 2010. So what the hell would I be whining about? That's just a lame BS simplistic comment.

Do the Cavs have to prove to LeBron that they're capable of building a championship team around him by the summer of 2010 when he can become a free agent? Wouldn't $20M more in cap space next summer help them do that?

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Vmart:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Vmart:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Vmart:

Posted by islesfan:

The Cavs can send Ben Wallace and Pavlovic, who both expire in 2 summers. The Cavs need to get their team up to a championship level before 2010 and they would have a ton of cap space to sign free agents next year.

I made it through all of 5 teams and found 2 deals that could happen for Marbury's expiring contract.

LeBron doesn't want to play with Marbury.

And that's why they can buy him out and use the cap savings next summer.

Do the Knicks really want to take on Wallace and Pavlovic for two years? I mean it might be better to let Marbury expire a Knick and spread his ashes on top of MSG.

Seriously, who the hell cares as long as their contracts expire in the summer of 2010? And they're players that the current team could use.

I care. Why would you want to trade far a has been player in Wallace and a marginal player like Pavlovic and pay them for two years. This deal does nothing for the Knicks. Its a one sided Isiah Thomas type trade.



[Edited by - Vmart on 07-01-2008 11:39 PM]

It's the same reasoning behind signing Duhon for 2 years. Let me guess, you like that signing.

I wasn't for the signing. I wanted Nate to get the run at pg or if they had to use the MLE then I wanted Beno.

The idea is to help the Knicks Wallace and Pavolvic do not meet this criteria.


[Edited by - Vmart on 07-01-2008 11:50 PM]

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by crzymdups:

wouldn't it make more sense to buy out Marbury and try out a few undrafted rookies, rather than hope the 36yr old Ben Wallace can find the fire on a rebuilding team?

Seriously, you have no idea what I'm talking about do you? You honestly think that trade would have something to do with hoping that Ben Wallace finds some kind of fire instead of getting 2 serviceable players who have large contracts that expire in 2010.

Posted by Vmart:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Vmart:

Isles, you should let Marbury's contract expire or have the Knicks buy him out and concentrate on dealing Zach for Wallace and Pavlovic. That makes more sense for the Knicks.

That would be fine with me as well but I think there's a hell of a lot better chance of Marbury being traded in that deal than Randolph. If you don't understand why the Cavs would trade for Marbury, how can you possibly justify them trading for Randolph? That would only guarantee that LeBron leaves in 2010.

You made it clear why the Cavs would trade for Marbury, but I just don't understand why the Knicks would trade him for a pile of crap to keep around for two years.

why, it's obvious: to make it more appealing for Cleveland to keep Lebron so Isles can complain about the plan of getting cap room rather than drafting jerryd bayless.

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by islesfan:



That's a load of crap. Why would I whine about that trade? How does that go against anything that I've said that I'd like to see happen? I hate Marbury and that would get him out of here. I want them to get a defensive player in the front court and that would get them one. I'm all for Walsh targeting getting under the cap in 2010 and that would drop $20M off their cap in 2010. So what the hell would I be whining about? That's just a lame BS simplistic comment.

Do the Cavs have to prove to LeBron that they're capable of building a championship team around him by the summer of 2010 when he can become a free agent? Wouldn't $20M more in cap space next summer help them do that?

so the plan is to spend an extra $20 million to help the Cavs convince Lebron to stay in Cleveland? that trade does NOTHING for us. NOTHING. ben wallace is washed up. you want slow lateral movement? look at big ben these days. sasha is a decent shooter, but he's not worth $20 million, and he's not worth helping the cavs rebuild.

admit it: if isiah made this trade, you would add it to the pile of teams he'd helped rebuild. i'm all for giving a team cap room a year early - BUT IT HAS TO HELP US, TOO.
[Edited by - crzymdups on 01-07-2008 11:46 PM]

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by islesfan:



That's a load of crap. Why would I whine about that trade? How does that go against anything that I've said that I'd like to see happen? I hate Marbury and that would get him out of here. I want them to get a defensive player in the front court and that would get them one. I'm all for Walsh targeting getting under the cap in 2010 and that would drop $20M off their cap in 2010. So what the hell would I be whining about? That's just a lame BS simplistic comment.

Do the Cavs have to prove to LeBron that they're capable of building a championship team around him by the summer of 2010 when he can become a free agent? Wouldn't $20M more in cap space next summer help them do that?

so the plan is to spend an extra $20 million to help the Cavs convince Lebron to stay in Cleveland? that trade does NOTHING for us. NOTHING. ben wallace is washed up. you want slow lateral movement? look at big ben these days. sasha is a decent shooter, but he's not worth $20 million, and he's not worth helping the cavs rebuild.

admit it: if isiah made this trade, you would add it to the pile of teams he'd helped rebuild. i'm all for giving a team cap room a year early - BUT IT HAS TO HELP US, TOO.
[Edited by - crzymdups on 01-07-2008 11:46 PM]

I'm not saying it keeps him there but they sure as hell have to try to improve the team to help convince him to stay. And AGAIN, I'm just throwing out teams that can trade for Marbury after you told us that you went through all the teams and couldn't find any that have contracts totalling Marbury's that end by 2010.

Getting 2 serviceable players who total $20M that comes off the cap in 2010, helps us more than just sending Marbury home.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by crzymdups:

Duhon is 25. Wallace is 38 going on Mutombo.

And you're reasoning that it would be worth taking a flier on Kirk Hinrich because D'Antoni is a better offensive coach doesn't apply to Duhon who has had the same coach as Hinrich with less minutes? Pfft.

Then why is Walsh only signing Duhon for 2 years?!? BECAUSE HE WANTS CONTRACTS THAT EXPIRE IN 2010! Guess what year Wallace's and Pavlovic's contracts expire?

Hinrich is a starter in this league and he was 2nd team all defense in 2007. He was also highly thought of enough to participate with Team USA. Who the **** is Duhon?