Does Danny keep Wallace and Humphries? What are the best ways to move them?

[clover]

The original point was:

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).

Which you bolded and italicized and were trying to argue against(?).

I think we may have been in agreement/come to an agreement at some point somewhere somehow.

Perhaps you misread my initial post/I made it too unclear/because I made my post too unclear you misread it.

I'm not sure. I was explaining that I think keeping Wallace makes us better than we want to be at this point.You're saying he's not good enough to warrant 30 million from another team.
Same page but I think we have a differing opinion on Wallace's effect on our future?
I just don't want anyone who isn't going be on our team as a future contributor playing valuable minutes- especially if he's going to 'hurt' our chances in the lottery.
You're saying he's too crap to worry about and no one will want him anyway?

No harm meant either way, hope it didn't come across that way

For sure there's no harm. After all the whole point of forums is to discuss, even if it's wholly because of a point of confusion.

Not to be pressing but it's just I've seen several posters on both here and realgm talking about trying to trade Wallace. I don't get it.

There is just no point in actively looking and expending energy and resources to trade Wallace. Simply sit him in your case. The 4 years (or so) of cap hold is meaningless for a rebuilding team.

Which was why I asked the question in the first place. Is there value in trading him? I say no.

Unless there's an opportunity that needs cap space. Even then we have a trade exception, and expirings in Humphries and Bogans.

So, yes, I think we're in agreement mostly.

P.S. It's probably my fault that all this confusion happened. I tend to type too much. Even in this post.

I agree with you generally, except for the issue of Wallace's cap hold.  I believe the C's plan is to dip way down this year, but start reloading next, when Wallace's contract would be a drag.

And if Wallace's contract would be a drag as soon as next year, they'd be interested in showcasing him to some degree this year--which would end up taking valuable playing time.

[aingeforthree]

I think both play for the team this year. They'll let Humphries expire at the end , & use the Wallace deal a couple years down the road as a trade asset (when it's an expiring deal).

[bfrombleacher]

The original point was:

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).

Which you bolded and italicized and were trying to argue against(?).

I think we may have been in agreement/come to an agreement at some point somewhere somehow.

Perhaps you misread my initial post/I made it too unclear/because I made my post too unclear you misread it.

I'm not sure. I was explaining that I think keeping Wallace makes us better than we want to be at this point.You're saying he's not good enough to warrant 30 million from another team.
Same page but I think we have a differing opinion on Wallace's effect on our future?
I just don't want anyone who isn't going be on our team as a future contributor playing valuable minutes- especially if he's going to 'hurt' our chances in the lottery.
You're saying he's too crap to worry about and no one will want him anyway?

No harm meant either way, hope it didn't come across that way

For sure there's no harm. After all the whole point of forums is to discuss, even if it's wholly because of a point of confusion.

Not to be pressing but it's just I've seen several posters on both here and realgm talking about trying to trade Wallace. I don't get it.

There is just no point in actively looking and expending energy and resources to trade Wallace. Simply sit him in your case. The 4 years (or so) of cap hold is meaningless for a rebuilding team.

Which was why I asked the question in the first place. Is there value in trading him? I say no.

Unless there's an opportunity that needs cap space. Even then we have a trade exception, and expirings in Humphries and Bogans.

So, yes, I think we're in agreement mostly.

P.S. It's probably my fault that all this confusion happened. I tend to type too much. Even in this post.

I agree with you generally, except for the issue of Wallace's cap hold.  I believe the C's plan is to dip way down this year, but start reloading next, when Wallace's contract would be a drag.

And if Wallace's contract would be a drag as soon as next year, they'd be interested in showcasing him to some degree this year--which would end up taking valuable playing time.

For the tanking camp, best case scenario we end up with Wiggins, Randle or Parker?

All 3 would be 19?

We wouldn't be contending in that case. We could take another couple years of Wallace as our savior develops. By then, Wallace would be in his final year(?) of his contract, very trade-able.



I suppose the only scenario that makes sense would be if we're looking to make one huge move next year.

[clover]

The original point was:

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).

Which you bolded and italicized and were trying to argue against(?).

I think we may have been in agreement/come to an agreement at some point somewhere somehow.

Perhaps you misread my initial post/I made it too unclear/because I made my post too unclear you misread it.

I'm not sure. I was explaining that I think keeping Wallace makes us better than we want to be at this point.You're saying he's not good enough to warrant 30 million from another team.
Same page but I think we have a differing opinion on Wallace's effect on our future?
I just don't want anyone who isn't going be on our team as a future contributor playing valuable minutes- especially if he's going to 'hurt' our chances in the lottery.
You're saying he's too crap to worry about and no one will want him anyway?

No harm meant either way, hope it didn't come across that way

For sure there's no harm. After all the whole point of forums is to discuss, even if it's wholly because of a point of confusion.

Not to be pressing but it's just I've seen several posters on both here and realgm talking about trying to trade Wallace. I don't get it.

There is just no point in actively looking and expending energy and resources to trade Wallace. Simply sit him in your case. The 4 years (or so) of cap hold is meaningless for a rebuilding team.

Which was why I asked the question in the first place. Is there value in trading him? I say no.

Unless there's an opportunity that needs cap space. Even then we have a trade exception, and expirings in Humphries and Bogans.

So, yes, I think we're in agreement mostly.

P.S. It's probably my fault that all this confusion happened. I tend to type too much. Even in this post.

I agree with you generally, except for the issue of Wallace's cap hold.  I believe the C's plan is to dip way down this year, but start reloading next, when Wallace's contract would be a drag.

And if Wallace's contract would be a drag as soon as next year, they'd be interested in showcasing him to some degree this year--which would end up taking valuable playing time.

For the tanking camp, best case scenario we end up with Wiggins, Randle or Parker?

All 3 would be 19?

We wouldn't be contending in that case. We could take another couple years of Wallace as our savior develops. By then, Wallace would be in his final year(?) of his contract, very trade-able.



I suppose the only scenario that makes sense would be if we're looking to make one huge move next year.

First, I think if the C's end up with a top 3 pick, it'll only be because they've already managed to ship off most of their bad-contract vets.  If Wallace is still there, Rondo is gone he's the only expensive guy they have left.

Second, with that top-3 pick I think the C's would look at the level of superstar trade they could put together from there, just as they did in '07.

Third, if they determine they're better off keeping the pick, I think they'll want to use the rest of their roster flexibility for FAs and/or trades to get them already to the playoffs-experience level of rebuild, even though they may have an incoming teenager future star.  In that plan they'd be looking to go deep in the playoffs the next year and hope for a championship the year after that.