1. The Lakers are going to give up their most talented point guard so they can pay Luke Walton 10 million dollars a year (including luxury tax) to be a benchwarmer? Where do they Lakers get a quality PG after next season when they're millions of dollars over the luxury tax?
They already have Walton. They're not trading for him. I don't get what you're saying. Just Morrison and his $5 mil expiring contract is equivalent to what you're proposing, maybe a little better since a) there might be some interest in seeing if a former top 5 pick can put it together and b) it saves Houston more money. And Farmar, who was disappointing last season but has talent, is just there to illustrate how easily any team can trump our offer. But Morrison (maybe with another small contract to ensure salaries match) alone is equal or superior to what you're proposing from the Celtics.
I'm not saying Houston does it, all I'm saying is it's a better offer than the pure expiring contracts you proposed. And for LA, particularly if Odom leaves, they have Battier there to back up both Kobe and Artest, and to play with both of them in smallball lineups. Hell, they'll dump a point guard and play with those three guys on the perimeter in crunch time. I think it was Danny Ainge who said you don't need a point guard to win a championship. (i.e., all 4 Lakers champions of the 00s, the Bulls of the 90s, the 84 and 86 Celtics). Battier, Kobe and Artest would be by far the best perimeter defensive crew in the NBA.
2. Why would Cleveland give up anything so Battier can play limited minutes out of position for them? In case you forgot, LeBron's manning the 3 spot for them and they're not looking to limit his minutes by much.
Battier can play the 2 and the 3. They already got Parker to be a bigger 2, but Battier is way superior and would start alongside Lebron and could also play minutes at the 3 with Lebron at the 4. He can also handle opponents' best perimeter player, letting Lebron conserve more on defense. It's a no-brainer for Cleveland, albeit only if they can come up with a trade package. Delonte (suddenly expendable, 2010-11 contract only partially guaranteed) and a couple of minimum contracts is enough. Or they use Z, giving Houston a replacement center, and take on a few more parts.
3. It would be stupid for Washington to give away expiring deals for a role player like Battier, but I'll grant they've done stupider things than that.
Again, Battier would start for Washington alongside Butler, or be their sixth man spotting Mike Miller and Caron Butler, which will give him plenty of minutes. While it might be unrealistic, the Wizards are trying to win now with their Arenas-Butler-Jamison core back healthy - that's why they gave up the 5th pick for two guys who can play now. It wouldn't be stupid for them - Battier is an excellent player. Any team that trades just expiring contracts for him is making a great decision. He's something more than a role player, too.
4. Why would Portland want to use up ANY of their cap space for a player who doesn't address ANY of their needs?
Portland doesn't need any perimeter defense? Portland doesn't need strong veteran leadership? Portland hasn't been shopping for a small forward (Turkoglu was their first choice in free agency)? What are you even talking about?
5. Houston does want to sell tickets for next season, which makes giving Battier away for Orlando's exemption a non-starter.
Exactly how many tickets do Tony Allen, Brian Scalabrine and Bill Walker sell for Houston? You're offering the same on court addition - nothing - but making them pay $6.5 mil for it. And what's more, those contracts are gone next summer and can't be used in a trade after they use their cap space in free agency. An exemption lasts a year, so they can use it up until mid July, or next trade deadline, whenever and if ever they decide to unload Battier. So they can use it to add players after they've used their cap space, something they can't do with Tony Allen and Brian Scalabrine.
I'm not saying any of these teams would get Battier with the trades mentioned, that's just off the top of my head other offers that would match or trump what you're proposing from Boston. There are plenty more. Truthfully, nobody is gonna get Battier for just expiring contracts, but all those other teams and more would be just as interested as Boston. Battier has tremendously high value throughout the league.
The reason why Houston would want just expirings for Battier is if they don't resign McGrady. That would put them 20+ million under the cap. They can then sign one or two stars to play with Yao, then either extend Yao or let him walk after 2010-2011 and have room under the cap to sign someone else.
None of my proposals above offer anything but expirings (or, better yet, no incoming salary), so they're all equal to Boston's offer. It continues to baffle me that you think Boston's expiring contracts attached to inferior, non-rotation players have more value than other teams' expiring contracts. They're the same thing. And you constantly switch around your rationalizations to make it so that if Boston's offer isn't better, then the other team wouldn't want to get Battier. Like I said, any contender in the NBA would be all over giving up a small amount of expiring contracts to bring in a legit player like Battier. You are being nuts if you think your Scal-TA-Walker package would have any chance whatsoever of bringing back Shane Battier.
Topic: Go get Shane Battier right now! (Read 11002 times)