POLL: NO desperately wants first round pick this year: Crash +#17 for EGordon

[bmac934]

Are you guys serious saying I'd rather take? U guys act like the 17th pick in the draft is gold, especially along with Gerald Wallace toxic contract...the two people saying I'd rather take jrue or tyreke need a dose of reality

[LooseCannon]

We took on essentially two years of Anthony at 4 million for 2nd round pick(s) and the Utah deal gets brought up over and over again as an example because it was such an overpay - not the going rate (also GS was desperate to shed salary so they could sign Iggy).

I think the idea of a first-round pick being the going rate for dumping $8-10 million in salary tracks pretty well with the inclusion of Wallace in the Nets trade and trades such as the Lakers sending Lamar Odom to Dallas.

If the Utah trade was not an overpay, you should be able to come up with salary dump trades that give an example of what you think is a non-overpay.

[mmmmm]

Given that I don't see Gordon as all that much (if any) of an upgrade over Bradley, yet will cost some 6-8M more per on our budget next year than he would (if we resign him), I don't see why we want to give up a #17 pick just to shed 2-4M of Wallace money.

Pass.

[byennie]

No no and no. Gordon and Wallace are two of the worst contracts in the league... and #17 is as good as a a late lottery pick in most drafts.

Maybe if they threw in a time machine to a 22 year-old healthy Gordon.

[jambr380]

We took on essentially two years of Anthony at 4 million for 2nd round pick(s) and the Utah deal gets brought up over and over again as an example because it was such an overpay - not the going rate (also GS was desperate to shed salary so they could sign Iggy).

I think the idea of a first-round pick being the going rate for dumping $8-10 million in salary tracks pretty well with the inclusion of Wallace in the Nets trade and trades such as the Lakers sending Lamar Odom to Dallas.

If the Utah trade was not an overpay, you should be able to come up with salary dump trades that give an example of what you think is a non-overpay.

I guess my original point was that in the Nets deal, it is widely accepted that we got a first for each of KG and Pierce and one for taking on Wallace. I realize that they took back Terry - and that was huge for us, but he was signed for one less year and for about half the money (per year). Also, Wallace's contract was considerably worse last year than it is this year, as the end is now on the horizon.

In trading him, I assume we would take on an expiring contract (and only taking on one extra year) - having another team absorb him or getting non-guaranteeds back isn't as common and probably too ideal. Also, when a team is desperate to trade away a player due to money, the receiving team with the cap space is definitely in control - thus the Utah/GS deal.

With all of this being said, I am in no rush to 'dump' Wallace just for the sake of dumping him. His inclusion in a deal is getting more and more bearable to other teams, but for us, he is just a veteran presence. I see no scenario where the Cs go far enough below the salary cap to matter, so using a first to get rid of him doesn't make sense to me.