Posted by misterearl:

EnySpree - give it a rest. Donnie Walsh has been here for all of 15 minutes and you're busting a capillary already?

try decaf

Posted by Pharzeone:

And I think people just want to give Walsh the benefit of the doubt but I wouldn't. The guy has made bonehead moves. The Al Harrington trades is just one example.

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by McK1:

wouldn't getting rid or crawford and curry accomplish the same thing as getting rid of zach?

they should trade curry. probably can get a deal that expires 1 year sooner. they'll have $6 mil less on the cap b/c of zach's deal but not the end of the world.

but looking around the league, everybody is lining it up for 2010. maybe a team should take advantage of that and make deals to acquire talent + salary for that season.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 07-16-2008 09:50 AM]

Posted by nyk4ever:

To be fair, what kind of value did Stephen Jackson have around the league at the time of that trade? I mean he literally just came off fighting in the stands with a bunch of fans. Dunleavy was a good a pickup for them and to get him they had to include Al Harrington who had to be included to get the Warriors to accept Jax.

Posted by LivingLegend:

Posted by EnySpree:

I'm still trying to figure out how trading Zach for nothing and turning Marbs into Camby is rushing it or jumping the gun.........

Its not like Isiah when he traded KVH and Doleac for no reason.......or when he traded jalen for francis then francis and frye for Zach.......

This situation is nothing like that.......its not like donnie traded for shandon and eisley and extend them.

This was "hey donnie want some free money?"......"uh no thanks, I'm waiting for something better than free money".

What's better than free money? I hope you say having your first child, cuz the other option involves someone getting ****ed.

You are missing 2 important points in your rant against Walsh.

1- He believes he can get better value and he knows whether or not this is true more than you or anyone else on the board.
2- Denver wouldn't take Marbury (even of 1-year) because the Camby move allowed them to take back $0 and avoid the luxury tax. Marb's 1-year would have put them far over the threshold costing them more bucks and if they resigned guys like JR Smith and Kleiza it would have put them further in the whole.

Here's my position on Zach and I believe it is very solid and its the way Walsh is approaching him.

- yes it would be nice to move him
- but I will not get raped in the deal and take no value back
- why would I give arguably my best player away for cap relief that I don't need for another 2-years
- I don't know if Zach would play great for Mike D (if it comes to that I run him out there and see what happens)
- If we trade Zach - what happens to our inside scoring if Eddy goes down?

You have to consider all of these things. The best trait a GM can have is PATIENCE. You can't run at every deal that looks pretty good when you know the market may uncover some other opportunities down the road.

Walsh had similar situations to this and he waited and eventually got some value out of a couple of deals.

With Artest -- they said the Pacers would have to take squat back but he waited until he got his hands on Peja and a very large expiring deal.

With Jackson and Harrington he netted Murphy (not a fan) and Dunleavey who was arguably Indiana's best player last season, is a good citizen and will be their primary scorer this year and for a few more years down the road.

Great post LivingLegend, the part that I've bolded is something that I've mentioned on here and I think is something people are missing. Yes, trading Zach right now for a 2nd rounder would be great (just so we get him off the team), but honestlym 2 years from now will we really not be able to get a 2nd rounder for Zach? That option is always going to be there and whats the point of doing it now if you think you can get more before then?