I think that patience is needed regarding Gerald Wallace. Wallace's contract becomes more tradable as remaining years get fewer and if he is able to show he adds value as a player. Fortunately, his salary doesn't grow over the next 3 years (10M per). Working with Stevens, Wallace may find a nice role on this team to showcase that he can be a contributor. As his contract moves from 3 remaining years to 2, it becomes easier to move. No need to move for 10 cents on the dollar now.
10 cents on the dollar? you keep thinking he has positive value... he has NEGATIVE VALUE.. we would amnesty him if we could... what we are trying to do is trade him for 10 cents because he's worth -25 cents. If we could sell him for -5 cents, we would jump at the chance....
IF WE COULD PACKAGE HIM AND A 2ND ROUNDER FOR NOTHING... WE WOULD DO THAT!!
If Ainge could package Wallace and a first round pick for nothing, he probably wouldn't. If he had a choice between giving up Humphries and no picks or Wallace and a pick as trade ballast in a deal, he'd probably prefer to move Humphries.
It's not like Wallace is going to go down in value and require even more assets to move his contract if the Celtics wait to move him.
This would be different if the Celtics were over the luxury tax threshold or if moving Wallace would give the team cap space to maneuver. Neither is the case, so there is no rush to move him, especially since there's no other backup small forward (especially if Kris Joseph's unguaranteed contract is waived).
A first rounder is probably too much in the first instance, but only because we are actively trying to get assets right now, not give them up. We'd DEFINITELY do it for a 2nd rounder.
Humphries is FAR more valuable at this point. He could actually play meaningful minutes on a contender, and he's an expiring deal. There's a ton of value in that and I expect we'll see him moved at the deadline with decent value coming back. That's a great trade piece... an expiring on a guy who can at least contribute. He was awful last year, but very sold the 2 prior years. It would be nice to get him some minutes and back to posting double doubles heading into Jan/Feb.
The Wallace deal is BY FAR the worst thing on our roster. Easily one of the worst contracts in the league.
Wait, in fact, a simple Google search says it all...
3. Gerald Wallace: four years, $40 million
To refresh your memory …
The Nets traded a top-three protected first-rounder for Wallace last February, never giving that pick top-10 protection because, as GM Billy King would explain later, the Nets didn't believe there were any impact rookies beyond the top three, and "we felt the player that we may draft beyond the protection would be somebody that would probably take a couple years (to develop)."
Thanks to that confusing logic, the Blazers stumbled into the sixth pick (courtesy of the Nets) and took Damian Lillard … who's averaging 18.6 points a game en route to the Rookie of the Year award. So that was awkward. The next three picks: Harrison Barnes, Terrence Ross and Andre Drummond, all of whom make three times less than Wallace (signed to that $40 million extension in July) and have eight times more trade value. Maybe it's a bad idea to decide in March that you like only three players in June's NBA draft, and that workouts and interviews couldn't possibly change that opinion? Just throwing it out there.
The good news? If the Nets didn't trade for Wallace, they wouldn't have been able to pay Deron Williams $98 million for the five years after his prime, and they wouldn't have been able to lock down Wallace at $40 million right after his career careered off a cliff.
2012: 13.8 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 45.4% FG, 80% FT, 16.0 PER
2013: 8.5 PPG, 5.2 RPG, 41.5% FG, 65% FT, 12.5 PER
That's not a slump, that's NBA menopause. We've seen it happen with too many athletic NBA forwards over the years — once they lose it, it never comes back. Repeat: NBA menopause. It's a real thing. Anyone know how to swear in Russian?
Topic: Blakely: C's look to deal Wallace & Humphries (Read 20924 times)