Author Topic: Gerald Wallace opts out  (Read 12200 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2012, 03:42:32 PM »

Offline hardlyyardley

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1209
  • Tommy Points: 149
Don't think Wallace is worth 9.5, but what do I know....JD Drew opted out of his with the Dodgers and fleeced the Sox

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2012, 04:14:30 PM »

Offline 2short

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6080
  • Tommy Points: 428
Maybe we see d williams opting out and playing in orlando from all this

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #17 on: June 14, 2012, 04:19:14 PM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3845
  • Tommy Points: 257
I really hope he goes elsewhere, the Nets if they dont resign Wallace, made a terrible terrible trade.

I wish we could sign Wallace on the cheap... I've loved his game for a long long time. We could run a nasty smallball lineup with Rondo, bRADLEY, pierce, wallace, and garnett.

With Green, Bass or JJJ, and Wilcox off the bench?

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #18 on: June 14, 2012, 04:56:15 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Wow.  NJ Nets are just embarrassing.  If Stern can revoke the New Orleans - LAL trade of Chris Paul for basketball reasons how in the H-E-double hockey sticks can the NBA approve the Nets sending a lottery pick to PDX for 16 games of Gerald Wallace?  16 games!

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/8051786/reports-new-jersey-nets-gerald-wallace-pick-option

#1 - The NBA (Stern) didn't "revoke" the New Orleans - LAL deal.  The NBA owned the Hornets.  Ownership (NBA/Stern) decided it was a stupid trade... and it was.  It would have stuck the Hornets with 50 million in mediocre salary (Odom, Scola and Martin)... all three of which had terrible seasons, are already over 30 years old, and would have done nothing to improve an already mediocre team.  The alternative netted them a 23 year old fringe allstar (Eric Gordon) a potential franchise player (Anthony Davis) and the 10th pick.  That's a proper foundation for a rebuilding team.  No brainer.  Hornets ownership (NBA/Stern) should be commended for saving that team from doom.  

#2 - The NBA (Stern) couldn't say "no thanks" to the Brooklyn trade, because the NBA (Stern) does not OWN the Brooklyn Nets.  But you better believe that there have been times when a GM of a team agreed to a deal that the team's owner refused to make.  

#3 - Gerald Wallace was always going to opt out.  Everyone assumes he will re-sign with Brooklyn for 4 years.  That doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid trade, though.

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2012, 05:05:45 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
They're screwed, Orlando will NOT trade Howard for Brook Lopez and no Picks, how the hell did they trade a lottery pick for gerald wallace?

Deron is most certainly leaving, ain't waiting for Dwight Howard.

And even if they're in Brooklyn they won't attract Howard to go there, Howard's gotta come to Boston right ? What other teams can get him now since we're going to have cap space both this summer and the next ?

They bet that Dwight wouldn't re-up with Orlando for one more year.  They probably figured a Deron Williams-Wallace two some would be attractive to Howard.  Not sure why...but again this is Billy King we are talking about.
I'm not sure if that's true.  I think the decision to trade the pick for Gerald Wallace happened after Dwight made it known he was opting-in.  I still say it's most likely that Dwight ends up in Brooklyn.  I think there is incentive on both sides to make a trade... Brooklyn is desperately trying to keep Deron from fleeing and the Magic will want some value for Dwight before he leaves them empty handed in a season.  Dwight has Brooklyn at the top of his wish list... just makes sense.  For all we know, Gerald Wallace will be part of the package heading to Orlando.

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2012, 05:20:44 PM »

Offline thenotoriousjts

  • Kristaps Porzingis
  • Posts: 183
  • Tommy Points: 14
Oh snap. I want him in green.
Feel free to check me out here: https://hardwoodhoudini.com/author/jstevens3/ or here https://hashtagbasketball.com/author/jeremy-stevens

Can't we just bring Gerald Green back?

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2012, 05:27:15 PM »

Offline FrDrake

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 412
  • Tommy Points: 43
Wow.  NJ Nets are just embarrassing.  If Stern can revoke the New Orleans - LAL trade of Chris Paul for basketball reasons how in the H-E-double hockey sticks can the NBA approve the Nets sending a lottery pick to PDX for 16 games of Gerald Wallace?  16 games!

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/8051786/reports-new-jersey-nets-gerald-wallace-pick-option

#1 - The NBA (Stern) didn't "revoke" the New Orleans - LAL deal.  The NBA owned the Hornets.  Ownership (NBA/Stern) decided it was a stupid trade... and it was.  It would have stuck the Hornets with 50 million in mediocre salary (Odom, Scola and Martin)... all three of which had terrible seasons, are already over 30 years old, and would have done nothing to improve an already mediocre team.  The alternative netted them a 23 year old fringe allstar (Eric Gordon) a potential franchise player (Anthony Davis) and the 10th pick.  That's a proper foundation for a rebuilding team.  No brainer.  Hornets ownership (NBA/Stern) should be commended for saving that team from doom.  

#2 - The NBA (Stern) couldn't say "no thanks" to the Brooklyn trade, because the NBA (Stern) does not OWN the Brooklyn Nets.  But you better believe that there have been times when a GM of a team agreed to a deal that the team's owner refused to make.  

#3 - Gerald Wallace was always going to opt out.  Everyone assumes he will re-sign with Brooklyn for 4 years.  That doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid trade, though.

You can squabble over the language if you want ...revoke...approve...rubber stamp?  Whatever.  The fact is the NBA has to approve or reject all trades and David Stern rejected the NO to LAL deal for Paul when many people inside and outside the league thought that was a BETTER deal than the one that eventually brought Paul to the Clips. 

This deal that NJ made for Gerald Wallace was arguably much worse but was approved.  Which means the Stern just did what the other owners wanted him to do...since he is their employee...when he didn't allow the Paul trade to go through for two simple reasons.  The other 29 owners didn't want to see Paul on the Lakers and didn't want to see another superstar dictating what team he went to.  Cuban basically said as much to the media at the time.

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2012, 05:52:09 PM »

Offline action781

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 611
Wow.  NJ Nets are just embarrassing.  If Stern can revoke the New Orleans - LAL trade of Chris Paul for basketball reasons how in the H-E-double hockey sticks can the NBA approve the Nets sending a lottery pick to PDX for 16 games of Gerald Wallace?  16 games!

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/8051786/reports-new-jersey-nets-gerald-wallace-pick-option

#1 - The NBA (Stern) didn't "revoke" the New Orleans - LAL deal.  The NBA owned the Hornets.  Ownership (NBA/Stern) decided it was a stupid trade... and it was.  It would have stuck the Hornets with 50 million in mediocre salary (Odom, Scola and Martin)... all three of which had terrible seasons, are already over 30 years old, and would have done nothing to improve an already mediocre team.  The alternative netted them a 23 year old fringe allstar (Eric Gordon) a potential franchise player (Anthony Davis) and the 10th pick.  That's a proper foundation for a rebuilding team.  No brainer.  Hornets ownership (NBA/Stern) should be commended for saving that team from doom.  

#2 - The NBA (Stern) couldn't say "no thanks" to the Brooklyn trade, because the NBA (Stern) does not OWN the Brooklyn Nets.  But you better believe that there have been times when a GM of a team agreed to a deal that the team's owner refused to make.  

#3 - Gerald Wallace was always going to opt out.  Everyone assumes he will re-sign with Brooklyn for 4 years.  That doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid trade, though.

You can squabble over the language if you want ...revoke...approve...rubber stamp?  Whatever.  The fact is the NBA has to approve or reject all trades and David Stern rejected the NO to LAL deal for Paul when many people inside and outside the league thought that was a BETTER deal than the one that eventually brought Paul to the Clips. 

This deal that NJ made for Gerald Wallace was arguably much worse but was approved.  Which means the Stern just did what the other owners wanted him to do...since he is their employee...when he didn't allow the Paul trade to go through for two simple reasons.  The other 29 owners didn't want to see Paul on the Lakers and didn't want to see another superstar dictating what team he went to.  Cuban basically said as much to the media at the time.

You're missing the point here.

The NO/LAL/HOU deal, David Stern vetoed (revoked actually) as owner of the Hornets, not as commissioner of the NBA.

So, now you're asking him to veto this trade as commissioner of the NBA.  I can't think of a single trade Stern has ever vetoed with his commissioner powers, so I don't see why he'd start now.

And whichever "many people" thought that trade was better than the LAC one are idiots and that's why "many people" aren't GMs of franchises.  The LAC trade was a clearly better trade for the future of the franchise in many regards and knowledgeable basketball people capable of seeing "the big picture" all said this at the time of the trade.
2020 CelticsStrong All-2000s Draft -- Utah Jazz
 
Finals Starters:  Jason Kidd - Reggie Miller - PJ Tucker - Al Horford - Shaq
Bench:  Rajon Rondo - Trae Young - Marcus Smart - Jaylen Brown -  Peja Stojakovic - Jamal Mashburn - Carlos Boozer - Tristan Thompson - Mehmet Okur

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2012, 06:00:06 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Wow.  NJ Nets are just embarrassing.  If Stern can revoke the New Orleans - LAL trade of Chris Paul for basketball reasons how in the H-E-double hockey sticks can the NBA approve the Nets sending a lottery pick to PDX for 16 games of Gerald Wallace?  16 games!

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/8051786/reports-new-jersey-nets-gerald-wallace-pick-option

#1 - The NBA (Stern) didn't "revoke" the New Orleans - LAL deal.  The NBA owned the Hornets.  Ownership (NBA/Stern) decided it was a stupid trade... and it was.  It would have stuck the Hornets with 50 million in mediocre salary (Odom, Scola and Martin)... all three of which had terrible seasons, are already over 30 years old, and would have done nothing to improve an already mediocre team.  The alternative netted them a 23 year old fringe allstar (Eric Gordon) a potential franchise player (Anthony Davis) and the 10th pick.  That's a proper foundation for a rebuilding team.  No brainer.  Hornets ownership (NBA/Stern) should be commended for saving that team from doom. 

#2 - The NBA (Stern) couldn't say "no thanks" to the Brooklyn trade, because the NBA (Stern) does not OWN the Brooklyn Nets.  But you better believe that there have been times when a GM of a team agreed to a deal that the team's owner refused to make. 

#3 - Gerald Wallace was always going to opt out.  Everyone assumes he will re-sign with Brooklyn for 4 years.  That doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid trade, though.

You can squabble over the language if you want ...revoke...approve...rubber stamp?  Whatever.  The fact is the NBA has to approve or reject all trades and David Stern rejected the NO to LAL deal for Paul when many people inside and outside the league thought that was a BETTER deal than the one that eventually brought Paul to the Clips. 

This deal that NJ made for Gerald Wallace was arguably much worse but was approved.  Which means the Stern just did what the other owners wanted him to do...since he is their employee...when he didn't allow the Paul trade to go through for two simple reasons.  The other 29 owners didn't want to see Paul on the Lakers and didn't want to see another superstar dictating what team he went to.  Cuban basically said as much to the media at the time.

You're missing the point here.

The NO/LAL/HOU deal, David Stern vetoed (revoked actually) as owner of the Hornets, not as commissioner of the NBA.

So, now you're asking him to veto this trade as commissioner of the NBA.  I can't think of a single trade Stern has ever vetoed with his commissioner powers, so I don't see why he'd start now.

And whichever "many people" thought that trade was better than the LAC one are idiots and that's why "many people" aren't GMs of franchises.  The LAC trade was a clearly better trade for the future of the franchise in many regards and knowledgeable basketball people capable of seeing "the big picture" all said this at the time of the trade.
Yup... exactly.  The Hornets had been losing money every single year and the league was trying to sell the team when it was in good financial shape.  Everything I read prior to the Chris Paul deal suggested that the league-owned Hornets were very transparent in what they'd want in a Chris paul deal... unload bad contracts, bring in young talent and draft picks.  It's the "no brainer" approach to building a team.  Then their moron GM goes and green lights a boneheaded deal to trade Chris Paul for three mediocre over paid dudes in their 30s each making 8-15 mil a year... basically the exact opposite of what they should have done.  It made no sense at the time.  It was stupid.  I'm sure the league/Stern had initially told Dell Demps that he could operate without interference, but they couldn't have foreseen such a moronic trade and they were obligated to kill it and wait for a better deal that would actually benefit the Hornets long-term.   The deal they eventually got left them with 23 year old Eric Gordon, Anthony Davis and a top 10 pick.  That's how you properly build a team.  Not a crap sandwitch of Scola, Martin and Odom.

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2012, 06:07:27 PM »

Offline Lucky17

  • DKC Commish
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16021
  • Tommy Points: 2352
Wow.  NJ Nets are just embarrassing.  If Stern can revoke the New Orleans - LAL trade of Chris Paul for basketball reasons how in the H-E-double hockey sticks can the NBA approve the Nets sending a lottery pick to PDX for 16 games of Gerald Wallace?  16 games!

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/8051786/reports-new-jersey-nets-gerald-wallace-pick-option

#1 - The NBA (Stern) didn't "revoke" the New Orleans - LAL deal.  The NBA owned the Hornets.  Ownership (NBA/Stern) decided it was a stupid trade... and it was.  It would have stuck the Hornets with 50 million in mediocre salary (Odom, Scola and Martin)... all three of which had terrible seasons, are already over 30 years old, and would have done nothing to improve an already mediocre team.  The alternative netted them a 23 year old fringe allstar (Eric Gordon) a potential franchise player (Anthony Davis) and the 10th pick.  That's a proper foundation for a rebuilding team.  No brainer.  Hornets ownership (NBA/Stern) should be commended for saving that team from doom. 

#2 - The NBA (Stern) couldn't say "no thanks" to the Brooklyn trade, because the NBA (Stern) does not OWN the Brooklyn Nets.  But you better believe that there have been times when a GM of a team agreed to a deal that the team's owner refused to make. 

#3 - Gerald Wallace was always going to opt out.  Everyone assumes he will re-sign with Brooklyn for 4 years.  That doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid trade, though.

You can squabble over the language if you want ...revoke...approve...rubber stamp?  Whatever.  The fact is the NBA has to approve or reject all trades and David Stern rejected the NO to LAL deal for Paul when many people inside and outside the league thought that was a BETTER deal than the one that eventually brought Paul to the Clips. 

This deal that NJ made for Gerald Wallace was arguably much worse but was approved.  Which means the Stern just did what the other owners wanted him to do...since he is their employee...when he didn't allow the Paul trade to go through for two simple reasons.  The other 29 owners didn't want to see Paul on the Lakers and didn't want to see another superstar dictating what team he went to.  Cuban basically said as much to the media at the time.

You're missing the point here.

The NO/LAL/HOU deal, David Stern vetoed (revoked actually) as owner of the Hornets, not as commissioner of the NBA.

So, now you're asking him to veto this trade as commissioner of the NBA.  I can't think of a single trade Stern has ever vetoed with his commissioner powers, so I don't see why he'd start now.

And whichever "many people" thought that trade was better than the LAC one are idiots and that's why "many people" aren't GMs of franchises.  The LAC trade was a clearly better trade for the future of the franchise in many regards and knowledgeable basketball people capable of seeing "the big picture" all said this at the time of the trade.
Yup... exactly.  The Hornets had been losing money every single year and the league was trying to sell the team when it was in good financial shape.  Everything I read prior to the Chris Paul deal suggested that the league-owned Hornets were very transparent in what they'd want in a Chris paul deal... unload bad contracts, bring in young talent and draft picks.  It's the "no brainer" approach to building a team.  Then their moron GM goes and green lights a boneheaded deal to trade Chris Paul for three mediocre over paid dudes in their 30s each making 8-15 mil a year... basically the exact opposite of what they should have done.  It made no sense at the time.  It was stupid.  I'm sure the league/Stern had initially told Dell Demps that he could operate without interference, but they couldn't have foreseen such a moronic trade and they were obligated to kill it and wait for a better deal that would actually benefit the Hornets long-term.   The deal they eventually got left them with 23 year old Eric Gordon, Anthony Davis and a top 10 pick.  That's how you properly build a team.  Not a crap sandwitch of Scola, Martin and Odom.

NO got incredibly lucky getting the #1 pick. They very well could (should?) have ended up with the #4 pick.

Additionally, they still could potentially lose Eric Gordon to free agency. Had they not gotten the #1, I bet the odds of Gordon leaving would have increased.

So, in an alternate universe, the Hornets could have ended up with a top-10 pick for Chris Paul, instead of whatever the package from Houston could have gotten them. Let's not pretend that the Hornets couldn't have flipped those assets at a later time.
DKC League is now on reddit!: http://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2012, 06:08:28 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10153
  • Tommy Points: 348
Not a crap sandwitch of Scola, Martin and Odom.

This made me laugh.
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'

You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.

C.S. Lewis

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #26 on: June 14, 2012, 07:00:24 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Wow.  NJ Nets are just embarrassing.  If Stern can revoke the New Orleans - LAL trade of Chris Paul for basketball reasons how in the H-E-double hockey sticks can the NBA approve the Nets sending a lottery pick to PDX for 16 games of Gerald Wallace?  16 games!

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/8051786/reports-new-jersey-nets-gerald-wallace-pick-option

#1 - The NBA (Stern) didn't "revoke" the New Orleans - LAL deal.  The NBA owned the Hornets.  Ownership (NBA/Stern) decided it was a stupid trade... and it was.  It would have stuck the Hornets with 50 million in mediocre salary (Odom, Scola and Martin)... all three of which had terrible seasons, are already over 30 years old, and would have done nothing to improve an already mediocre team.  The alternative netted them a 23 year old fringe allstar (Eric Gordon) a potential franchise player (Anthony Davis) and the 10th pick.  That's a proper foundation for a rebuilding team.  No brainer.  Hornets ownership (NBA/Stern) should be commended for saving that team from doom. 

#2 - The NBA (Stern) couldn't say "no thanks" to the Brooklyn trade, because the NBA (Stern) does not OWN the Brooklyn Nets.  But you better believe that there have been times when a GM of a team agreed to a deal that the team's owner refused to make. 

#3 - Gerald Wallace was always going to opt out.  Everyone assumes he will re-sign with Brooklyn for 4 years.  That doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid trade, though.

You can squabble over the language if you want ...revoke...approve...rubber stamp?  Whatever.  The fact is the NBA has to approve or reject all trades and David Stern rejected the NO to LAL deal for Paul when many people inside and outside the league thought that was a BETTER deal than the one that eventually brought Paul to the Clips. 

This deal that NJ made for Gerald Wallace was arguably much worse but was approved.  Which means the Stern just did what the other owners wanted him to do...since he is their employee...when he didn't allow the Paul trade to go through for two simple reasons.  The other 29 owners didn't want to see Paul on the Lakers and didn't want to see another superstar dictating what team he went to.  Cuban basically said as much to the media at the time.

You're missing the point here.

The NO/LAL/HOU deal, David Stern vetoed (revoked actually) as owner of the Hornets, not as commissioner of the NBA.

So, now you're asking him to veto this trade as commissioner of the NBA.  I can't think of a single trade Stern has ever vetoed with his commissioner powers, so I don't see why he'd start now.

And whichever "many people" thought that trade was better than the LAC one are idiots and that's why "many people" aren't GMs of franchises.  The LAC trade was a clearly better trade for the future of the franchise in many regards and knowledgeable basketball people capable of seeing "the big picture" all said this at the time of the trade.
Yup... exactly.  The Hornets had been losing money every single year and the league was trying to sell the team when it was in good financial shape.  Everything I read prior to the Chris Paul deal suggested that the league-owned Hornets were very transparent in what they'd want in a Chris paul deal... unload bad contracts, bring in young talent and draft picks.  It's the "no brainer" approach to building a team.  Then their moron GM goes and green lights a boneheaded deal to trade Chris Paul for three mediocre over paid dudes in their 30s each making 8-15 mil a year... basically the exact opposite of what they should have done.  It made no sense at the time.  It was stupid.  I'm sure the league/Stern had initially told Dell Demps that he could operate without interference, but they couldn't have foreseen such a moronic trade and they were obligated to kill it and wait for a better deal that would actually benefit the Hornets long-term.   The deal they eventually got left them with 23 year old Eric Gordon, Anthony Davis and a top 10 pick.  That's how you properly build a team.  Not a crap sandwitch of Scola, Martin and Odom.

NO got incredibly lucky getting the #1 pick. They very well could (should?) have ended up with the #4 pick.

Additionally, they still could potentially lose Eric Gordon to free agency. Had they not gotten the #1, I bet the odds of Gordon leaving would have increased.

So, in an alternate universe, the Hornets could have ended up with a top-10 pick for Chris Paul, instead of whatever the package from Houston could have gotten them. Let's not pretend that the Hornets couldn't have flipped those assets at a later time.

On your first point:  A team of Odom, Scola and Martin would have obviously been a "better" team than the one they fielded for a season, but not long term.  Let's just assume that team would have won as many games as the Rockets... who almost made the playoffs, but got stuck with the 14th pick.  Perpetual mediocrity.   Trading Chris Paul for young talent and draft picks was essentially a way to go into "tank mode" (which I fully support under these circumstances) and the team more than likely was going to end up with a top 5 pick to go with the #10 timberwolves pick they got from the Clippers.  Just smarter all-around.  Landing the top pick was a best-case scenario, but even without Anthony Davis, it was a better deal... anything to prevent submarining the franchise with albatross contracts and perpetual mediocrity.  They gave themselves a chance at a superstar and that's all you really can do.


On your second point... Eric Gordon is a restricted free agent.  They were never going to "lose him".  They just match any offer.  No team is stupid enough to trade for a fringe 23 year old allstar and then let him walk for nothing, because it "costs too much".  The worst-case scenario with Gordon was, is and will always be that he refuses to sign long-term and just takes a 1 year qualifying offer for 2012-13... in which case the HOrnets retain him as an asset and have an entire season to figure out what to do with him.   

On your third point... that alternate universe doesn't exist.  They would have had their own pick (more than likely top 5), Eric Gordon and the Timberwolves pick.


Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #27 on: June 14, 2012, 07:33:49 PM »

Offline Lucky17

  • DKC Commish
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16021
  • Tommy Points: 2352
NO got incredibly lucky getting the #1 pick. They very well could (should?) have ended up with the #4 pick.

Additionally, they still could potentially lose Eric Gordon to free agency. Had they not gotten the #1, I bet the odds of Gordon leaving would have increased.

So, in an alternate universe, the Hornets could have ended up with a top-10 pick for Chris Paul, instead of whatever the package from Houston could have gotten them. Let's not pretend that the Hornets couldn't have flipped those assets at a later time.

On your first point:  A team of Odom, Scola and Martin would have obviously been a "better" team than the one they fielded for a season, but not long term.  Let's just assume that team would have won as many games as the Rockets... who almost made the playoffs, but got stuck with the 14th pick.  Perpetual mediocrity.   Trading Chris Paul for young talent and draft picks was essentially a way to go into "tank mode" (which I fully support under these circumstances) and the team more than likely was going to end up with a top 5 pick to go with the #10 timberwolves pick they got from the Clippers.  Just smarter all-around.  Landing the top pick was a best-case scenario, but even without Anthony Davis, it was a better deal... anything to prevent submarining the franchise with albatross contracts and perpetual mediocrity.  They gave themselves a chance at a superstar and that's all you really can do.

On your second point... Eric Gordon is a restricted free agent.  They were never going to "lose him".  They just match any offer.  No team is stupid enough to trade for a fringe 23 year old allstar and then let him walk for nothing, because it "costs too much".  The worst-case scenario with Gordon was, is and will always be that he refuses to sign long-term and just takes a 1 year qualifying offer for 2012-13... in which case the HOrnets retain him as an asset and have an entire season to figure out what to do with him.  

On your third point... that alternate universe doesn't exist.  They would have had their own pick (more than likely top 5), Eric Gordon and the Timberwolves pick.

I can't recall exactly now, but I believe the original deal was Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and what turned out to be the #16 (Knicks pick sent to Houston). If you're saying the team couldn't have carved up some of those assets and go into tank mode as planned, well, I don't know what to tell you.

The Hornets didn't get two draft picks from the Clippers for Paul. You're including the pick they got from tanking, which turned out being the #1. (BTW, did the Hornets plan on trading for Gordon knowing he'd have to shut down within a couple weeks of the trade? That's some astonishing foresight by them.)

It's entirely possible in that alternate universe that they take the other deal for Chris Paul, ship Martin and Scola off to other teams for assets and financial relief, Odom still has his meltdown, and the Hornets still end in the tank and get the #1.

Gordon and the #10, vs. Dragic, the #16, and whatever else you could have gotten from Scola, Odom, and Martin. That's what I'm comparing.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 07:41:35 PM by Lucky17 »
DKC League is now on reddit!: http://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague

Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #28 on: June 14, 2012, 07:46:28 PM »

Offline j804

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9348
  • Tommy Points: 3072
  • BLOOD SWEAT & TEARS
I really hope he goes elsewhere, the Nets if they dont resign Wallace, made a terrible terrible trade.

I wish we could sign Wallace on the cheap... I've loved his game for a long long time. We could run a nasty smallball lineup with Rondo, bRADLEY, pierce, wallace, and garnett.
Yup wish we could get Wallace on the low for a chance at contending
"7ft PG. Rondo leaves and GUESS WHAT? We got a BIGGER point guard!"-Tommy on Olynyk


Re: Gerald Wallace opts out
« Reply #29 on: June 14, 2012, 07:47:51 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Good points Lucky17.  TP.  I still say the amount of financial responsibility they would be undertaking with Scola and Martin would have been problematic to the eventual goal of selling the team.  But good points.