Just a point about the "J. Quick trade rumor"

[MARIS61]

What WOULD you do if Sergio was traded?

We'll never know.

 

[B-Roy]

Fixed.

He's currently a starter and the team is running smoother with him than they ever have.

Blake's gotta be sweating bullets.

No, he's a bench player stuck in a starters role. Plus, Quick never specified whether it was a bench player now, or a bench player when everyone's health.

 

[Natebishop3]

Fixed.

He's currently a starter and the team is running smoother with him than they ever have.

Blake's gotta be sweating bullets.

Why did I hit the "show post" button...

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Why did I hit the "show post" button...

 

[Nikolokolus]

Fixed.

He's currently a starter and the team is running smoother with him than they ever have.

Blake's gotta be sweating bullets.

I sure hope your fever breaks soon ...

 

[free_lafrentz]

I'd take Childress over Caron Butler on this team.

?What!?!



Your deranged thinking only advances my thoughts on your stance towards Hinrich and J. Chill.

Don't get me wrong they are both good players, but not any MAJOR upgrade over what we have already. Portland has a phenomenal bench that's young and talented and has thus far displayed great chemistry.

Regardless of how much of an "upgrade" Chill and Hinrich might be, I have to wonder if the risk is worth the payout.

Consider higher salaries, older players, and unknown chemistry for an "upgrade" at SF and/or PG that is questionable to a rather large number of Blazer fans.

I don't know if it's worth it, especially if we have to deal Outlaw or (even worse) Bayless to get Hinrich and/or J Chill.

 

[Minstrel]

Don't get me wrong they are both good players, but not any MAJOR upgrade over what we have already.

I think Childress is a major upgrade on our small forwards currently (though Batum has the potential to be better in a few years). I can't agree with Nikolokolus that I'd rather have Childress over Butler, but I do love me some J-Chill.

Excellent defender, good passer, very efficient non-volume scorer, good rebounder. He does everything well, but nothing at an elite level. That's basically the platonic complementary player. On a team that could be loaded with stars and scorers, a guy who doesn't need the ball to be effective and contributes in every phase of the game (including perimeter defense, a major current weakness) would be quite a huge benefit. And he's a smart player. No real way to quantify that, but it's nice to have players you trust not to make a bad decision in pressure situations.

 

[Furball]

What was it in Childress' three years that impressed you more than Outlaw/Bayless/Webster? You are nuts. Childress is a soft player who is intelligent, but gives you no outstanding abilities. Not a starter on a good team.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Fixed.

He's currently a starter and the team is running smoother with him than they ever have.

Blake's gotta be sweating bullets.

What are you, high? Gimme some.

 

[Natebishop3]

?What!?!



Your deranged thinking only advances my thoughts on your stance towards Hinrich and J. Chill.

Don't get me wrong they are both good players, but not any MAJOR upgrade over what we have already. Portland has a phenomenal bench that's young and talented and has thus far displayed great chemistry.

Regardless of how much of an "upgrade" Chill and Hinrich might be, I have to wonder if the risk is worth the payout.

Consider higher salaries, older players, and unknown chemistry for an "upgrade" at SF and/or PG that is questionable to a rather large number of Blazer fans.

I don't know if it's worth it, especially if we have to deal Outlaw or (even worse) Bayless to get Hinrich and/or J Chill.

You're right, there's no doubt that Butler is a superior player than Childress, but could Butler be effective if he was the 3rd or 4th option on offense? Would he be as productive? Childress could be as productive, but not necessarily in the scoring column. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Nik on this one, but I can see what he's saying. Childress might be a better FIT than Butler.

 

[Minstrel]

What was it in Childress' three years that impressed you more than Outlaw/Bayless/Webster?

I assume you mean Batum, and I answered that question:

Excellent defender, good passer, very efficient non-volume scorer, good rebounder. He does everything well, but nothing at an elite level. That's basically the platonic complementary player. On a team that could be loaded with stars and scorers, a guy who doesn't need the ball to be effective and contributes in every phase of the game (including perimeter defense, a major current weakness) would be quite a huge benefit. And he's a smart player. No real way to quantify that, but it's nice to have players you trust not to make a bad decision in pressure situations.

Childress is a soft player who is intelligent, but gives you no outstanding abilities. Not a starter on a good team.

Random rhetoric without a shred of evidence.

Childress has actually played four years in the league and improved every year, starting from a very solid basis:

2004-05: 15.2 PER
2005-06: 15.8 PER
2006-07: 16.2 PER
2007-08: 17.8 PER

PER is normalized such that 15.0 is what the average starter scores. In addition, PER doesn't account for defense in any meaningful way and pretty much all observers agree that Childress is a very good defensive player. So he's even further above average as a starter.

Your analysis of him sounds like you value nothing but points per game.

 

[NattaNerNuttaMan]

I assume you mean Batum, and I answered that question:

Excellent defender, good passer, very efficient non-volume scorer, good rebounder. He does everything well, but nothing at an elite level. That's basically the platonic complementary player. On a team that could be loaded with stars and scorers, a guy who doesn't need the ball to be effective and contributes in every phase of the game (including perimeter defense, a major current weakness) would be quite a huge benefit. And he's a smart player. No real way to quantify that, but it's nice to have players you trust not to make a bad decision in pressure situations.



Random rhetoric without a shred of evidence.

Childress has actually played four years in the league and improved every year, starting from a very solid basis:

2004-05: 15.2 PER
2005-06: 15.8 PER
2006-07: 16.2 PER
2007-08: 17.8 PER

PER is normalized such that 15.0 is what the average starter scores. In addition, PER doesn't account for defense in any meaningful way and pretty much all observers agree that Childress is a very good defensive player. So he's even further above average as a starter.

Your analysis of him sounds like you value nothing but points per game.

Agreed....on a team like Portland which already has players ready to step up and be established stars...they would benifit greatly from the "intangible" type player. Who does the work and doesn't mess up the flow of the game...and doesn't need recognition. Glue guys are essential to any team. Battier isn't great in all parts of the game but very solid to good in many...and does it quietly. I can't think of any team that wouldn't want guys like them on thier team...

All hail the blue collar player!!!

 

[Crimson the Cat]

I would love Childress as well. In fact he is the perfect fit.

 

[Sug]

If I were the Wiz, I would focus on Kevin Durant. That guy is not going to stay in OKC. He was born in DC, and let's face it when it comes down to OKC they have Westbrook and Green to sign again. Can they afford all three?

 

[B-Roy]

If I were the Wiz, I would focus on Kevin Durant. That guy is not going to stay in OKC. He was born in DC, and let's face it when it comes down to OKC they have Westbrook and Green to sign again. Can they afford all three?

Yes they can, and even if they couldn't, Durant would obviously be the first one signed out of the three.

But this is like saying Indiana should focus on Greg Oden because he grew up there.

 

[Nikolokolus]

?What!?!



Your deranged thinking only advances my thoughts on your stance towards Hinrich and J. Chill.


Don't get me wrong they are both good players, but not any MAJOR upgrade over what we have already. Portland has a phenomenal bench that's young and talented and has thus far displayed great chemistry.

You call me deranged, but you don't want me take you wrong? OK.

As for them being a MAJOR upgrade, I don't know if I'd put it an CAPS!!, but yeah I would call both a 'major' (lowercase) upgrade over who we currently employ at the small forward and point guard positions. And as Natebishop correctly surmised, I don't want Childress over Butler because I think he's a better individual talent (I don't -- Caron Butler is helluva player) I just think Butler creates some potential problems with too many mouths to feed and not enough shots to go around for him, Brandon, LMA and GO. Childress on the other hand doesn't need plays drawn up for him to be effective, he generates a lot of garbage points off of offensive rebounds, foulshots, and has already made his career off of being a "blend" guy, he also brings good perimeter D, to a team that is woefully deficient in that department. Hinrich I'd want for most of the same reasons I would want Childress; he's a tough nosed defender, a "decent" shooter, a good half-court facilitator and would probably be fine as a number 4 or 5 option on offense.

Regardless of how much of an "upgrade" Chill and Hinrich might be, I have to wonder if the risk is worth the payout.

Consider higher salaries, older players, and unknown chemistry for an "upgrade" at SF and/or PG that is questionable to a rather large number of Blazer fans.

I don't know if it's worth it, especially if we have to deal Outlaw or (even worse) Bayless to get Hinrich and/or J Chill.

I don't see the risk. Both of their salaries (or potential salary in Childress' case, which will probably be roughly the MLE) are mostly commensurate with their abilities and age. Furthermore, I actually like the fact that Hinrich is 27 and a veteran, Childress is 25 or so -- you don't typically win with a team full of rookie scale guys (The Blazers being a notable aberration). As for concerns about chemistry, the only time I worry about a player disrupting a team is when you are adding guys that are either known as difficult or have typically been focal points of their previous team's offense, or otherwise need a lot of touches to be effective. Lastly, as for this "large number of Blazer fans" seeing either as questionable that sounds pretty speculative on your part.

I do agree that I wouldn't give up Bayless, since I think he's probably an ideal candidate to play backup point guard for the next couple of years and if he proves himself capable of being a starter it wouldn't be any big deal to trade Kirk or possibly move him to backup (though that would make him a pretty expensive backup like Joel) and while I like Travis as a person, if he were the price to acquire Childress, that's a no brainer; you make that deal and don't look back.

 

[Nikolokolus]

What was it in Childress' three years that impressed you more than Outlaw/Bayless/Webster? You are nuts. Childress is a soft player who is intelligent, but gives you no outstanding abilities. Not a starter on a good team.

What is it I like about Childress? Oh, I don't know maybe it was his ridiculously high field goal percentage, ability to rebound, and play good perimeter defense. I'm not sure how you can say a guy who makes his living off of hustle plays and playing around the basket is "soft." Travis and Martell on the other hand, with their tendency to take perimeter shots and fairly anemic rebound rates put them in far more danger of being labeled soft.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/players/hollinger?playerId=2373

Look, I don't want to fall into the trap of pumping up Childress beyond what he really is -- and I can feel myself tending to over-defend him a little -- but he's a very good player who I think would fit in beautifully with this team because of his smarts, his age, and his style of play, that's all.

 

[Natebishop3]

You call me deranged, but you don't want me take you wrong? OK.

As for them being a MAJOR upgrade, I don't know if I'd put it an CAPS!!, but yeah I would call both a 'major' (lowercase) upgrade over who we currently employ at the small forward and point guard positions. And as Natebishop correctly surmised, I don't want Childress over Butler because I think he's a better individual talent (I don't -- Caron Butler is helluva player) I just think Butler creates some potential problems with too many mouths to feed and not enough shots to go around for him, Brandon, LMA and GO. Childress on the other hand doesn't need plays drawn up for him to be effective, he generates a lot of garbage points off of offensive rebounds, foulshots, and has already made his career off of being a "blend" guy, he also brings good perimeter D, to a team that is woefully deficient in that department. Hinrich I'd want for most of the same reasons I would want Childress; he's a tough nosed defender, a "decent" shooter, a good half-court facilitator and would probably be fine as a number 4 or 5 option on offense.



I don't see the risk. Both of their salaries (or potential salary in Childress' case, which will probably be roughly the MLE) are mostly commensurate with their abilities and age. Furthermore, I actually like the fact that Hinrich is 27 and a veteran, Childress is 25 or so -- you don't typically win with a team full of rookie scale guys (The Blazers being a notable aberration). As for concerns about chemistry, the only time I worry about a player disrupting a team is when you are adding guys that are either known as difficult or have typically been focal points of their previous team's offense, or otherwise need a lot of touches to be effective. Lastly, as for this "large number of Blazer fans" seeing either as questionable that sounds pretty speculative on your part.

I do agree that I wouldn't give up Bayless, since I think he's probably an ideal candidate to play backup point guard for the next couple of years and if he proves himself capable of being a starter it wouldn't be any big deal to trade Kirk or possibly move him to backup (though that would make him a pretty expensive backup like Joel) and while I like Travis as a person, if he were the price to acquire Childress, that's a no brainer; you make that deal and don't look back.

I agree Nik. I think Blazer fans are getting too caught up in "youth youth youth" and it's not good. You are not "old" if you're 27. This team has plenty of youth. What they need now is some older players to help put us over the top. By "older", I mean guys who have been in the league for 5-7 years and have seen some things. Guys like Joel Przybilla. Would you guys consider Joel "old"?

 

[gatorpops]

You call me deranged, but you don't want me take you wrong? OK.

As for them being a MAJOR upgrade, I don't know if I'd put it an CAPS!!, but yeah I would call both a 'major' (lowercase) upgrade over who we currently employ at the small forward and point guard positions. And as Natebishop correctly surmised, I don't want Childress over Butler because I think he's a better individual talent (I don't -- Caron Butler is helluva player) I just think Butler creates some potential problems with too many mouths to feed and not enough shots to go around for him, Brandon, LMA and GO. Childress on the other hand doesn't need plays drawn up for him to be effective, he generates a lot of garbage points off of offensive rebounds, foulshots, and has already made his career off of being a "blend" guy, he also brings good perimeter D, to a team that is woefully deficient in that department. Hinrich I'd want for most of the same reasons I would want Childress; he's a tough nosed defender, a "decent" shooter, a good half-court facilitator and would probably be fine as a number 4 or 5 option on offense.



I don't see the risk. Both of their salaries (or potential salary in Childress' case, which will probably be roughly the MLE) are mostly commensurate with their abilities and age. Furthermore, I actually like the fact that Hinrich is 27 and a veteran, Childress is 25 or so -- you don't typically win with a team full of rookie scale guys (The Blazers being a notable aberration). As for concerns about chemistry, the only time I worry about a player disrupting a team is when you are adding guys that are either known as difficult or have typically been focal points of their previous team's offense, or otherwise need a lot of touches to be effective. Lastly, as for this "large number of Blazer fans" seeing either as questionable that sounds pretty speculative on your part.

I do agree that I wouldn't give up Bayless, since I think he's probably an ideal candidate to play backup point guard for the next couple of years and if he proves himself capable of being a starter it wouldn't be any big deal to trade Kirk or possibly move him to backup (though that would make him a pretty expensive backup like Joel) and while I like Travis as a person, if he were the price to acquire Childress, that's a no brainer; you make that deal and don't look back.

I do not want to debate the pros and cons of individual players such as Childress, but I do want to address the seeming gist of your argument that what we need is players to complement the players of the core we already have.

A few years ago the Lakers (sorry had to name them) had a player that played for many years on their very good teams (and they had him at the generosity of we Oregonians). His name was AC Green. He never over shadowed the other stars on those teams but just complemented them so very well. Bobby Gross for the championship Blazers was such a player. These kind of players are just the "grease" that makes the machine go.

I do think that a Childress could be that kind of player as well. I do not watch enough other teams play so my opinion is suspect as to which player is a good "grease" type player but we do need one or two. Do the kids on the bench fit that kind of player(s)?

g

 

[Natebishop3]

I do not want to debate the pros and cons of individual players such as Childress, but I do want to address the seeming gist of your argument that what we need is players to complement the players of the core we already have.

A few years ago the Lakers (sorry had to name them) had a player that played for many years on their very good teams (and they had him at the generosity of we Oregonians). His name was AC Green. He never over shadowed the other stars on those teams but just complemented them so very well. Bobby Gross for the championship Blazers was such a player. These kind of players are just the "grease" that makes the machine go.

I do think that a Childress could be that kind of player as well. I do not watch enough other teams play so my opinion is suspect as to which player is a good "grease" type player but we do need one or two. Do the kids on the bench fit that kind of player(s)?

g

I think Batum could be one. One guy who I would love to get is Turiaf. I watched him last night against the Hornets and I was impressed. The guy is tough. He would be an ideal backup power forward for this team. He rebounds, he blocks shots, and he plays solid defense. He shut David West down.

I think this team needs a little more grit. I want some guys who won't back down. I watched the Warriors man handle the Hornets last night, and I was left thinking "I wish we did that more." I wonder if we could work something out with Golden State.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...~2754~2015~3025&teams=22~22~9~9~9~9&te=&cash=

This gives them a point guard who would flourish in Golden State's up-tempo offense, with all their shooters spotting up. They get Outlaw, who would also do well with Nelly, and maybe Channing could get something going there as well. At worst, they get three expiring deals so they could get under the cap.

Bayless/Blake
Roy/Rudy
Jackson/Batum/Webster
Aldridge/Turiaf
Oden/Przybilla

Another trade I'm interested in...

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...~2015~3025&teams=22~20~4~22~20~4~20&te=&cash=

I'm building on the rumors that the Sixers are having buyers remorse on Brand. We make a deal that moves Brand out of Philly and puts him back in Chicago. We get Andre Miller and the Sixers get Hughes, RLEC, and Sergio. Hughes expires in another season, which would clear some decent cap space for them.

We get Gooden and Miller.

Miller/Bayless/Blake
Roy/Rudy
Batum/Webster
Aldridge/Gooden
Oden/Przybilla

 

[B-Roy]

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...~2754~2015~3025&teams=22~22~9~9~9~9&te=&cash=

This gives them a point guard who would flourish in Golden State's up-tempo offense, with all their shooters spotting up. They get Outlaw, who would also do well with Nelly, and maybe Channing could get something going there as well. At worst, they get three expiring deals so they could get under the cap.

Bayless/Blake
Roy/Rudy
Jackson/Batum/Webster
Aldridge/Turiaf
Oden/Przybilla

Another trade I'm interested in...

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...~2015~3025&teams=22~20~4~22~20~4~20&te=&cash=

I'm building on the rumors that the Sixers are having buyers remorse on Brand. We make a deal that moves Brand out of Philly and puts him back in Chicago. We get Andre Miller and the Sixers get Hughes, RLEC, and Sergio. Hughes expires in another season, which would clear some decent cap space for them.

We get Gooden and Miller.

Miller/Bayless/Blake
Roy/Rudy
Batum/Webster
Aldridge/Gooden
Oden/Przybilla

I doubt Golden State goes for that one. Turiaf is one of the only players on that team who gives a consistent effort every night, and should be one of the last players they move.

Philly gets absolutely fleeced on the second one. Larry Hughes is a negative with all of his pouting, and his contract which he clearly does not deserve. Elton Brand has only been signed for half a season, there's no way they trade him away for what amounts to capspace and junk. (Yes, Sergio is junk) By the way, where are the rumors?

 

[Natebishop3]

I doubt Golden State goes for that one. Turiaf is one of the only players on that team who gives a consistent effort every night, and should be one of the last players they move.

Philly gets absolutely fleeced on the second one. Larry Hughes is a negative with all of his pouting, and his contract which he clearly does not deserve. Elton Brand has only been signed for half a season, there's no way they trade him away for what amounts to capspace and junk. (Yes, Sergio is junk) By the way, where are the rumors?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=TradeWatchBigs-090129

The Sixers are experiencing quite a bit of buyer's remorse after giving Brand an $80 million contract this past summer. Brand has been awful in the early going. To make matters worse, he struggles to play the style the rest of the team wants to play. More and more, it's looking like a bad fit for both parties. I've heard rumblings over the past few weeks that the Sixers would let Brand go for expiring contracts and a future pick -- a pretty small price for the most coveted free agent of last summer.

But will anyone want to take on his contract at this point? The Heat's Pat Riley has always been a fan. The Pistons are looking for a dominant big, too. A Chicago homecoming isn't out of the question either. And the Cavs might be willing to roll the dice, although that's a lot of money to gamble with. Will any GM or owner in the league have the guts to pull the trigger?

You're right, in terms of talent the Sixers wouldn't be getting much in return, but they would clear Brand's contract off their books, and Miller is a free agent this summer anyway. They get Sergio, which isn't much, but he could fill the gap, and they would get some decent cap space from LaFrentz this summer and then Hughes the next summer.

 

[B-Roy]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=TradeWatchBigs-090129



You're right, in terms of talent the Sixers wouldn't be getting much in return, but they would clear Brand's contract off their books, and Miller is a free agent this summer anyway. They get Sergio, which isn't much, but he could fill the gap, and they would get some decent cap space from LaFrentz this summer and then Hughes the next summer.

20% isn't that great.

It's still a terrible deal. No matter how you want to look at it, you just don't trade a 20/10 guy like Brand (Yes, he's still a 20/10 guy) for capspace. Plus, even if they did, some other team would be willing to offer more and Philly also wouldn't have to give up Andre Miller. A team like Miami could offer Shawn Marion in a one on one swap. Miami gets their big man and Philly gets TWO big expiring contracts. (Miller and Marion) The deal you proposed is just so lopsided in Chicago and Portland's favor that I cannot fathom why Philly would consider, even if they were absolutely adamant on ridding themselves of Elton Brand.

They are still in the play-off hunt, why would they blow up their team?

 

[Natebishop3]

20% isn't that great.

It's still a terrible deal. No matter how you want to look at it, you just don't trade a 20/10 guy like Brand (Yes, he's still a 20/10 guy) for capspace. Plus, even if they did, some other team would be willing to offer more and Philly also wouldn't have to give up Andre Miller. A team like Miami could offer Shawn Marion in a one on one swap. Miami gets their big man and Philly gets TWO big expiring contracts. (Miller and Marion) The deal you proposed is just so lopsided in Chicago and Portland's favor that I cannot fathom why Philly would consider, even if they were absolutely adamant on ridding themselves of Elton Brand.

They are still in the play-off hunt, why would they blow up their team?

They're in the playoff hunt without Brand. He is just coming back from an injury. Miller is a free agent. They will probably let him go anyway this summer. If you trade Brand, they have 24 million coming off the books THIS summer, and then another 12 million coming off next summer with Hughes expiring. If they sat on that space until 2010, they could sign two top free agents to play with Iggy and Thad. How about Bosh and LeBron? Or Bosh and Wade?

You're right. It's a lot of talent going out, but they're getting a lot of expiring deals in return, and Philly is a large market for someone like LeBron to play in.

I'm just having some fun with a rumor that was reported on ESPN.

 

[B-Roy]

They're in the playoff hunt without Brand. He is just coming back from an injury. Miller is a free agent. They will probably let him go anyway this summer. If you trade Brand, they have 24 million coming off the books THIS summer, and then another 12 million coming off next summer with Hughes expiring. If they sat on that space until 2010, they could sign two top free agents to play with Iggy and Thad. How about Bosh and LeBron? Or Bosh and Wade?

You're right. It's a lot of talent going out, but they're getting a lot of expiring deals in return, and Philly is a large market for someone like LeBron to play in.

I'm just having some fun with a rumor that was reported on ESPN.

First off, I think the free agency 2010 has been blown out of proportion.

Secondly, if they ABSOLUTELY wanted to get rid of Brand, why not just trade him for a huge expiring THIS off-season? The rumor says that they are willing to trade him for an expiring and a first (which I highly doubt), so let's assume they trade him and a small filler like Kareem Rush for Marion and a 1st. They would have 30+ million dollars in expirings for this offseason. Then they can just stay pat until 2010 and sign a good free agent.

If they did your deal, they would also have to pay an extra 12 million dollars to Larry Hughes. Yuck. There's zero, and I mean, zero, incentive to do your deal.

BTW, in your deal, they would have around 17 million in expiring, not 24 million, you added in Andre Miller's expiring contract even though they traded him for Larry Hughes.

 

[Natebishop3]

First off, I think the free agency 2010 has been blown out of proportion.

Secondly, if they ABSOLUTELY wanted to get rid of Brand, why not just trade him for a huge expiring THIS off-season? The rumor says that they are willing to trade him for an expiring and a first (which I highly doubt), so let's assume they trade him and a small filler like Kareem Rush for Marion and a 1st. They would have 30+ million dollars in expirings for this offseason. Then they can just stay pat until 2010 and sign a good free agent.

If they did your deal, they would also have to pay an extra 12 million dollars to Larry Hughes. Yuck. There's zero, and I mean, zero, incentive to do your deal.

BTW, in your deal, they would have around 17 million in expiring, not 24 million, you added in Andre Miller's expiring contract even though they traded him for Larry Hughes.

You mean like... oh.... say...... Raef LaFrentz?

You're right, I forgot that Miller was in on the deal, but that's still a huge chunk of cap space off with LaFrentz and Hughes in 2010. There aren't that many decent free agents this summer. 2010 is the year, and they already have some solid pieces that they could pair with Bosh, LeBron, or Wade.

Miller is a free agent this summer. They trade him essentially for Hughes, who isn't a good player anymore, but his 12 million comes off for the 2010 free agent extravaganza.

You know what dude, I didn't make up the rumor. I'm just going off what I read. Brand for an expiring and a draft pick. Would the Sixers give up Miller? Maybe not, but he's a free agent anyway, so they might lose him for nothing.

 

[B-Roy]

You mean like... oh.... say...... Raef LaFrentz?

You're right, I forgot that Miller was in on the deal, but that's still a huge chunk of cap space off with LaFrentz and Hughes in 2010. There aren't that many decent free agents this summer. 2010 is the year, and they already have some solid pieces that they could pair with Bosh, LeBron, or Wade.

Miller is a free agent this summer. They trade him essentially for Hughes, who isn't a good player anymore, but his 12 million comes off for the 2010 free agent extravaganza.

You know what dude, I didn't make up the rumor. I'm just going off what I read. Brand for an expiring and a draft pick. Would the Sixers give up Miller? Maybe not, but he's a free agent anyway, so they might lose him for nothing.

I really don't know what's wrong with letting Miller expire THIS offseason, not sign anyone, and stand pat until 2010 to sign a free agent. This is because they won't need to sign anyone this off season, and can just stay under the cap until 2010. With your deal, they have to pay Hughes an extra 12 million, end of story. That's just not necessary.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Jason Quick said a SF was added as a sweetener. Butler, Deng, Jefferson, ect. are more than sweeteners.

Marvin Williams fits that bill of a sweetener, IMO.

 

[Natebishop3]

Jason Quick said a SF was added as a sweetener. Butler, Deng, Jefferson, ect. are more than sweeteners.

Marvin Williams fits that bill of a sweetener, IMO.

I don't think he said it was a small forward was added as a sweetener... I think he said the trade centered around someone that was on our radar before, and that another player was added as a sweetener.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Kirk Hinrich is somebody we tried to trade for 2 years ago but was rebuffed as he was labeled untouchable. Obviously his value has took a nose dive since then. He's looked solid since coming back from his injury but I don't think he's an upgrade over Blake at all. He's not the Kirk Hinrich of 2-3 years ago.

Who else have we had interest in?