They're great as expirings in my opinion.
It's perfect.
Bogans and Humphries will be expirings next (?) year. We'd get more young assets for the rebuilding.
The rebuild will be until the end of Wallace's contract in 2017 (?). If not, we can still trade him a couple years early as salary filler (by then it'd be more like 2 years as opposed to 4 years of massive cap hold, making him more tradable).
I still have yet to find a legitimate explanation - scratch that - any explanation at all as to why we'd be in any hurry to trade Wallace. He's not going to play well enough to be worth 30 million (or whatever crazy number it was).
Unless a crazy situation pops up where someone happens to need Wallace's leadership and skillset to take it over the top and is willing to take the huge contract, I just don't see it.
Enlighten me, please.
Because he wins us games that we don't need to win. He takes us from a bottom feeder to a fringe playoff team.
The more he plays, the closer to mediocrity this team becomes. We go from stinking terrible to mediocre/bad and lose 5-6 draft spots because of this.
He's the difference between having a legit shot at Wiggins, Parker or Randle and a 10th or 11th pick in 2014.
Are you sure about that? He'd be taking minutes away from Green. Wallace has been *bad. We don't have shooters and apparently he isn't one and has been bad because he's been cast in the role of a shooter.
Plus, say we can't simply not play Gerald Wallace for whatever reason...say we can't limit his minutes...for whatever reason...say him being on the roster is detrimental to the tanking agenda...it's a pretty bad reason to try and get rid of him. You'd need to throw in a first at least.
We'd be mortgaging our future...for...a slightly better chance at a 1st overall pick? Are people really banking on our ONE pick to churn out a 1st overall pick, not be a bust and save the franchise nowadays?
I think people are too caught up with the tank. Why would you mortgage your future for *getting rid* of this guy? For the possibility of getting marginally worse to get a slightly higher chance at a possibility of a franchise player? That sound right?
I don't like tanking but I don't hate it. There's more than one way to win it all. As someone pointed out, it was Wade who won it all before LeBron because of smart management decisions (message me for your TP, please!). Heck, Wade won it all 3 times. You don't have to bottom out completely.
How would we be mortgaging our future by not playing an overpaid role player instead of playing our young guys with potential? Or do you mean throwing in a first round pick?
We don't have to do any of that. We can sit him out. He can play 10 minutes a game. and yes I'd give up a first round pick that will land in the 20-25 pick region if it meant we were guaranteed the lottery chances of a top 5 team instead of a top 12 team. No question.
Wade was the 5th pick in one of the greatest drafts of all time. They then paired him with Shaq and Antoine Walker and they got a championship. They drafted him with the 5th pick and a stacked draft.
This, like the 2003 draft, is considered a stacked draft. It's not one star like the Duncan draft. It's not two stars like the Durant, Oden draft. It's at least 3 franchise level talents.
It's like having three shots at a number one pick in other years of the draft. The scouting reports, however exaggerated they may be- are done by experts who say that the top 6 players in this draft would likely go number one in most other NBA drafts.
They do all the other drafts. They all the NBA superstars from a young age. They know what to look for.
Gerald Wallace does stink, but he'll still win us games when the correct strategy is to not win games. If he does make the roster, there's no reason why we won't just make him sit and deal him in a Rondo deal or at the deadline to a contender like the Mavs for scraps or players that don't make us better.
Topic: Does Danny keep Wallace and Humphries? What are the best ways to move them? (Read 4839 times)