Doesn't it make more sense to buy out Pierce and have him sign with brooklyn

[rasta1]

I feel like it would be better that way

We wouldn't need to take back Wallace's Contract; also Brooklyn gets him for less money

Keep the rest of the trade the same with KG and Terry being traded

and the same people coming back and picks without Wallace

Wallace could actually help the Nets

[gpap]

But the problem with that is not only do you still lose Paul Pierce, but you also get one less player for him in return.

I personally think Wallace is a decent player and happy to have him.

[freshinthehouse]

I feel like it would be better that way

We wouldn't need to take back Wallace's Contract; also Brooklyn gets him for less money

Keep the rest of the trade the same with KG and Terry being traded

and the same people coming back and picks without Wallace

Wallace could actually help the Nets

We wouldn't get the same amount of draft picks in return.  And without Pierce they aren't taking Terry.

Plus, I'm happy PP gets to go to a winner and still get his full salary for the year.  It's a win/win for him.

[rasta1]

They'd still get Pierce via free agency

[LarBrd33]

I feel like it would be better that way

We wouldn't need to take back Wallace's Contract; also Brooklyn gets him for less money

Keep the rest of the trade the same with KG and Terry being traded

and the same people coming back and picks without Wallace

Wallace could actually help the Nets

No.  It wouldn't have worked.  KG wouldn't have waived his no-trade clause without Pierce going there as well... and why drag it out.  Also, why would they give up 3 first rounders for kevin Garnett?  That's nuts.  Also, Pierce would be a free agent so why would he sign for dirt cheap with the Nets when he could sign elsewhere.  Just no all around.  Wouldn't have made more sense.

Also... that Wallace contract isn't a big deal.  We're tanking for at least a couple years so it's not like we're going to be signing allstars.  And instead of having 17 mil tied up for KG and Terry next year we'll only have 10 mil tied up for Wallace.  And in 2014-15, Wallace becomes a very valuable expiring trade chip that can be combined with young assets for an impact player... on a team that might be ready to try winning again.

[Sketch5]

We wouldn't get any more cap space, and loose pics.

And there could be a chance we couldn't pic him up this year. Some one else could out bid.

Plus he has a better shot at a title there then here. And I'd rather see the Captain have a shot then be on a 8th seed team.

[fairweatherfan]

Couldn't it make more sense to S+T Bogans for a 1 year deal at a ridiculously high salary and tell Brooklyn to keep Wallace?

[freshinthehouse]

Couldn't it make more sense to S+T Bogans for a 1 year deal at a ridiculously high salary and tell Brooklyn to keep Wallace?

I think the new CBA has rules against that.  Someone smarter than me would have to explain it.

[LooseCannon]

Couldn't it make more sense to S+T Bogans for a 1 year deal at a ridiculously high salary and tell Brooklyn to keep Wallace?

I think the new CBA has rules against that.  Someone smarter than me would have to explain it.

The old CBA had rules against it, too.

Sign and trades have to be for a minimum of three years, although only the first year has to be guaranteed.  Also, Bogans has only played one season for the Nets, so he could only be signed using non-Bird rights, which does not permit him to get a ridiculously high salary.