Nets possibly interested in #2 pick?!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#1_Yinka_Dare_Fan @ May 22 2008, 03:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What do you do with Harris then?</div>

His trade value has never been higher.

I'd rather have Beasley, but if a trade gets RJ off the books and clears space for 2010 Rose is fine, too.

This is all pointless, because the proposed trade is not happening. The Nets are not getting either of those guys for RJ.
</div>
Teams would already know Harris wasn't needed on the Nets. They'd probably get low balled, unless the Mavs come knocking on our door
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#1_Yinka_Dare_Fan @ May 22 2008, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#1_Yinka_Dare_Fan @ May 22 2008, 03:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What do you do with Harris then?</div>

His trade value has never been higher.

I'd rather have Beasley, but if a trade gets RJ off the books and clears space for 2010 Rose is fine, too.

This is all pointless, because the proposed trade is not happening. The Nets are not getting either of those guys for RJ.
</div>
Teams would already know Harris wasn't needed on the Nets. They'd probably get low balled, unless the Mavs come knocking on our door

</div>

If teams think Harris is a good asset, it won't matter why he's available.

They'll just be glad he is.
 
The way I see it, the #10, #21, and either Marcus or Sean together are worth roughly the #5 pick. Maybe you could get the #4, maybe if the guy you want is there, you deal the package for the #6, but that's the general range.

The're no way that the #5 plus RJ plus Harris is worth the #2. No way. You'd be completely overpaying, especially given the crap you'd have to take back to make the salaiers work.
 
I'd give #5+#40+RJ+whatever Williams is left for #2.
If we get Rose, move Devin to SG, and act as a designated slasher and defender. Vince to SF (though he may not be athletic enough for that, anymore).
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ May 22 2008, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The way I see it, the #10, #21, and either Marcus or Sean together are worth roughly the #5 pick. Maybe you could get the #4, maybe if the guy you want is there, you deal the package for the #6, but that's the general range.

The're no way that the #5 plus RJ plus Harris is worth the #2. No way. You'd be completely overpaying, especially given the crap you'd have to take back to make the salaiers work.</div>

Yeah, that's waaay off. Harris shouldn't be involved in any of these deals. There are no indications that is even a possibility.
 
basically, we're given the indication as of late that devin isn't going anywhere, we want to ship RJ and Marcus and whoever else. I can't see Devin being involved in this trade or any trade in the foreseable future.

having rose and devin on the same team could be interesting, perhaps.
 
Why are we considering Harris in any trade? This doesnt make sense.

First, Harris for Rose(#2 pick) isnt going to happen, people!!!!

The reason why Riley is thinking of trading the pick is because the BULLS picked ROSE.

Second, Harris is our PG. Thorn and Kiki have publically said that Harris is going to be our PG.

Back to this possible 2 pick trade.

Clearly Riley wants to win now. Remember Wade might leave in 2010 too. So like the Cavs they need to win to try to keep Wade. If Marion doesnt opt out, they have to win. Riley needs pieces to do that. Since Marion>RJ, maybe Riley would want to take VC.

Wade, VC, Marion, Haslem, ? can compete with Boston, Detroit and Cavs.

We get Beasley.

Harris, ? , RJ, Beasley, ? will be competitive enough for 2 years with the missing pieces, Wade and S&T for Lebron for RJ.

2010

Harris, Wade, Lebron, Beasley, ?

WoW!!!! I should write movies.
 
Time to pay attention to the news.

Kiki said on NBA TV that the Nets intend to build their team around Harris. He aint going anywhere.

No one smart trades their first round picks on draft night. You make the the pick and trade the rights. No restrictions on trading the rights, just the picks.

The easiest deal is for RJ. It works under the CBA. Marion may opt out. If that happens, they could use a scoring SF to play along with Wade and Haslem. Losing Banks and Blount gives them flexibility.

There is a precedent for all this: On June 27, 1997, Nets send the rights to Tim Thomas (#7) and Anthony Parker (#21) along with Jimmy Jackson to the Sixers for the rights to Keith Van Horn (#2), Lucious Harris, Michael Cage and Don McLean. Two picks and a good player for a #2 and players with bad contracts.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ May 22 2008, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Time to pay attention to the news.

Kiki said on NBA TV that the Nets intend to build their team around Harris. He aint going anywhere.

No one smart trades their first round picks on draft night. You make the the pick and trade the rights. No restrictions on trading the rights, just the picks.

The easiest deal is for RJ. It works under the CBA. Marion may opt out. If that happens, they could use a scoring SF to play along with Wade and Haslem. Losing Banks and Blount gives them flexibility.

There is a precedent for all this: On June 27, 1997, Nets send the rights to Tim Thomas (#7) and Anthony Parker (#21) along with Jimmy Jackson to the Sixers for the rights to Keith Van Horn (#2), Lucious Harris, Michael Cage and Don McLean. Two picks and a good player for a #2 and players with bad contracts.</div>

Nice!!!!

Very close to this year. Besides the players, 7th instead of 10th is the only difference.
 
Would Chicago be a possibility as a trading partner?


The Nets could send them Carter, Krstic, 10th pick, 21st pick

for something like

1st overall pick, Hughes, and whatever other contract filler that is necessary.


Nets would have Harris, Beasley and maybe Jefferson as the core to build with.

Bulls would get more trading chips to try and use for a marquee bigman.

Hinrich/Duhon/10th pick
Carter/Gordon/Sefolosha
Deng/Nocioni/21st pick
Gooden/Thomas/Simmons
Krstic/Noah/Gray


Damn the Bulls are loaded. They could try using Gooden, Nocioni, Thomas, or a resigned Ben Gordon to get a bigman like Brand or Jermaine O'Neil.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Isn't RJ about the same cost both per season and overall as Beasley, Blount and Banks?

Then why downgrade from Beasley to RJ?</div>
If Miami wants to add a quality starting player, like Jefferson, they need to use all of their cap space. Here they are adding Jefferson for Blount and Banks (who combine for $12.5mm) and still get to use their cap space on another quality starter. The flexibility has a value. If I'm Riley and I need to fill multiple positions around Wade I can turn #2 into Jefferson, another quality starter via free agency, the #10 pick and #21 pick. Not too bad.

(This all assumes Marion is opting out)
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ May 22 2008, 05:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Isn't RJ about the same cost both per season and overall as Beasley, Blount and Banks?

Then why downgrade from Beasley to RJ?</div>
If Miami wants to add a quality starting player, like Jefferson, they need to use all of their cap space. Here they are adding Jefferson for Blount and Banks (who combine for $12.5mm) and still get to use their cap space on another quality starter. The flexibility has a value. If I'm Riley and I need to fill multiple positions around Wade I can turn #2 into Jefferson, another quality starter via free agency, the #10 pick and #21 pick. Not too bad.

(This all assumes Marion is opting out)
</div>

But why not just start Beasley? He is better than Jefferson.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But why not just start Beasley? He is better than Jefferson.</div>

The deal Netted proposed is not JUST Jefferson. They will get a quality player/potential starter at 10 and a good prospect at 21. They turn two bad contracts into a 27 year-old forward with finals experience coming off the best offensive season of his career. And, if Marion opts out, they can get something back in a S & T knowing that they are solid at SF. If he doesn't opt out, they can play him at the 4 and shop Haslem, who would bring some nice offers. Bottom line is they will be adding to their depth while ridding themselves of dead weight.

I don't think Miami would necessarily do it, but it's a deal any prudent GM would consider. No matter what you think of Beasley, he has yet to play a single NBA game. I've not seen him play, but I don't get the feeling from what I've read that he's as "can't miss" as many other guys taken at/near that spot in other years.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 22 2008, 07:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But why not just start Beasley? He is better than Jefferson.</div>

The deal Netted proposed is not JUST Jefferson. They will get a quality player/potential starter at 10 and a good prospect at 21. They turn two bad contracts into a 27 year-old forward with finals experience coming off the best offensive season of his career. And, if Marion opts out, they can get something back in a S & T knowing that they are solid at SF. If he doesn't opt out, they can play him at the 4 and shop Haslem, who would bring some nice offers. Bottom line is they will be adding to their depth while ridding themselves of dead weight.

I don't think Miami would necessarily do it, but it's a deal any prudent GM would consider. No matter what you think of Beasley, he has yet to play a single NBA game. I've not seen him play, but I don't get the feeling from what I've read that he's as "can't miss" as many other guys taken at/near that spot in other years.
</div>
Jefferson is declining.. I wouldn't pass up on an opportunity to grab a franchise player. Also, other teams can beat our package.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (networks @ May 22 2008, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Second, Harris is our PG. Thorn and Kiki have publically said that Harris is going to be our PG.</div>

Rex is our quarterback.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ May 22 2008, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, something like Banks, Blount, the #2 pick for Jefferson, the #10 and #21 picks.

It works under the CBA, by the way. You could even add Marcus. RJ becomes a second option after Wade. Nets get a defensive oriented backup PG, a center who sucks, and Michael Beasley.

Problem is what happens if Bulls take Beasley. You wind up with Rose, Harris, Banks.</div>
What if we have commitment only and see if Bulls take Beasley - no deal. If not - we're in. Is this possible?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Belarus @ May 22 2008, 07:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ May 22 2008, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, something like Banks, Blount, the #2 pick for Jefferson, the #10 and #21 picks.

It works under the CBA, by the way. You could even add Marcus. RJ becomes a second option after Wade. Nets get a defensive oriented backup PG, a center who sucks, and Michael Beasley.

Problem is what happens if Bulls take Beasley. You wind up with Rose, Harris, Banks.</div>
What if we have commitment only and see if Bulls take Beasley - no deal. If not - we're in. Is this possible?
</div>

That's crazy talk.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#1_Yinka_Dare_Fan @ May 22 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (networks @ May 22 2008, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Second, Harris is our PG. Thorn and Kiki have publically said that Harris is going to be our PG.</div>

Rex is our quarterback.
</div>

Completely different. Rex was struggling and had to be defended, while Devin is excelling beyond our initial expectations and is being supported.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ May 22 2008, 08:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#1_Yinka_Dare_Fan @ May 22 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (networks @ May 22 2008, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Second, Harris is our PG. Thorn and Kiki have publically said that Harris is going to be our PG.</div>

Rex is our quarterback.
</div>

Completely different. Rex was struggling and had to be defended, while Devin is excelling beyond our initial expectations and is being supported.
</div>
I'm not comparing the situations, just what management said. Minds change.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 22 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But why not just start Beasley? He is better than Jefferson.</div>

The deal Netted proposed is not JUST Jefferson. They will get a quality player/potential starter at 10 and a good prospect at 21. They turn two bad contracts into a 27 year-old forward with finals experience coming off the best offensive season of his career. And, if Marion opts out, they can get something back in a S & T knowing that they are solid at SF. If he doesn't opt out, they can play him at the 4 and shop Haslem, who would bring some nice offers. Bottom line is they will be adding to their depth while ridding themselves of dead weight.

I don't think Miami would necessarily do it, but it's a deal any prudent GM would consider. No matter what you think of Beasley, he has yet to play a single NBA game. I've not seen him play, but I don't get the feeling from what I've read that he's as "can't miss" as many other guys taken at/near that spot in other years.
</div>

You've never seen Michael Beasley? He's not exactly obscure.

Did you consider Kevin Durant "can't miss" last year when you didn't see him play?

No undrafted rookies have played in a "single NBA game". That has nothing to do with their value at all.
 
What position is Beasley most likely going to settle into in the NBA? SF or PF?
 
If the Nets trade their 10th pick to the Raptors for their 17th and Kris, I'll do 5 Nets game threads next season.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ May 22 2008, 09:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What position is Beasley most likely going to settle into in the NBA? SF or PF?</div>
Depends on need. I'd prefer to play him at SF (overall, not on the Nets).
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 07:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You've never seen Michael Beasley? He's not exactly obscure.

Did you consider Kevin Durant "can't miss" last year when you didn't see him play?</div>

I don't watch college ball. I did catch the final 4 this year and about 30 minutes of other games during the season (mainly Florida). So I don't consider any prospect anything except based on what I read from people who DO watch, as I stated. Based on those assessments of his skills, attitude, and (especially) questions about his character, he doesn't appear to me to be as safe a choice as, for example, a Greg Oden or Kevin Durant (or several others taken in the top 4 or so the last 10 years).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No undrafted rookies have played in a "single NBA game". That has nothing to do with their value at all.</div>

Totally disagree. The value of any prospect, when intelligently weighed, accounts for the fact that you won't know for certain how they will perform -- mentally, physically, skill-wise, etc. -- against NBA competition until they FACE NBA competition regularly. If this thing were a science, you wouldn't have players like Sam Bowie, or even Hakeem Olajouan, being picked ahead of Michael Jordan, nor would you have a bright GM like Joe Dumars picking Milicic ahead of Carmelo Anthony, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh. There's a gamble in EVERY pick, it's just that some are much more risky than others, and you never will know if a guy that's really talented is going to be a true franchise changer/anchor until he hits the floor and has a chance to expand or contract under the higher pressures of professional sports.

And let's be realistic. If Riley assessed Beasley as being a "can't miss" player that would produce like an Amare or Garnett, there's no way he would be willing to trade the pick (and for all we know, he may not be, as this stuff is subject to so much press manipulation). If he IS willing to talk trade, he is obviously (to me) not convinced that Beasley is "can't miss" as that caliber of player.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ May 22 2008, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Would Chicago be a possibility as a trading partner?


The Nets could send them Carter, Krstic, 10th pick, 21st pick

for something like

1st overall pick, Hughes, and whatever other contract filler that is necessary.


Nets would have Harris, Beasley and maybe Jefferson as the core to build with.

Bulls would get more trading chips to try and use for a marquee bigman.

Hinrich/Duhon/10th pick
Carter/Gordon/Sefolosha
Deng/Nocioni/21st pick
Gooden/Thomas/Simmons
Krstic/Noah/Gray


Damn the Bulls are loaded. They could try using Gooden, Nocioni, Thomas, or a resigned Ben Gordon to get a bigman like Brand or Jermaine O'Neil.</div>


hmm.... i really doubt they would. just dont seem them passing up the first pick
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 22 2008, 09:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 07:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You've never seen Michael Beasley? He's not exactly obscure.

Did you consider Kevin Durant "can't miss" last year when you didn't see him play?</div>

I don't watch college ball. I did catch the final 4 this year and about 30 minutes of other games during the season (mainly Florida). So I don't consider any prospect anything except based on what I read from people who DO watch, as I stated. Based on those assessments of his skills, attitude, and (especially) questions about his character, he doesn't appear to me to be as safe a choice as, for example, a Greg Oden or Kevin Durant (or several others taken in the top 4 or so the last 10 years).</div>

What specifically concerns you about Beasley's character? Because I have to tell you, based on his play, these concerns would have to be pretty severe for those things to affect his value. Remember, NBA teams have actually seen him play.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No undrafted rookies have played in a "single NBA game". That has nothing to do with their value at all.</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Totally disagree. The value of any prospect, when intelligently weighed, accounts for the fact that you won't know for certain how they will perform -- mentally, physically, skill-wise, etc. -- against NBA competition until they FACE NBA competition regularly. If this thing were a science, you wouldn't have players like Sam Bowie, or even Hakeem Olajouan, being picked ahead of Michael Jordan, nor would you have a bright GM like Joe Dumars picking Milicic ahead of Carmelo Anthony, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh. There's a gamble in EVERY pick, it's just that some are much more risky than others, and you never will know if a guy that's really talented is going to be a true franchise changer/anchor until he hits the floor and has a chance to expand or contract under the higher pressures of professional sports.</div>

The fact that a player has not played in the NBA certainly does not affect the value of a draft pick. It is a given. That in itself doesn't make the pick any more or less valuable. This is so obvious I feel bad explaining it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And let's be realistic. If Riley assessed Beasley as being a "can't miss" player that would produce like an Amare or Garnett, there's no way he would be willing to trade the pick (and for all we know, he may not be, as this stuff is subject to so much press manipulation). If he IS willing to talk trade, he is obviously (to me) not convinced that Beasley is "can't miss" as that caliber of player.</div>

Finally! You got there! Miami isn't trading this pick for freaking RJ. That's exactly what I said.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ May 22 2008, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Would Chicago be a possibility as a trading partner?


The Nets could send them Carter, Krstic, 10th pick, 21st pick

for something like

1st overall pick, Hughes, and whatever other contract filler that is necessary.


Nets would have Harris, Beasley and maybe Jefferson as the core to build with.

Bulls would get more trading chips to try and use for a marquee bigman.

Hinrich/Duhon/10th pick
Carter/Gordon/Sefolosha
Deng/Nocioni/21st pick
Gooden/Thomas/Simmons
Krstic/Noah/Gray


Damn the Bulls are loaded. They could try using Gooden, Nocioni, Thomas, or a resigned Ben Gordon to get a bigman like Brand or Jermaine O'Neil.</div>

This is a good looking deal for both parties. Nets would have the pieces to build around, and the Bulls would be able to win now, as they could unload Gordon and fillers for Brand. Hinrich + VC + Deng + Brand + Noah looks very nice on paper. Also, since none of them are ball hogs it might work out really nice. For the Nets, they would have Harris and Beasley in place to make a run at Lebron or DWade by using RJ in a S&T.

This deal seems to make more sense than the Heat one. Make it happen!!!!
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 08:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The fact that a player has not played in the NBA certainly does not affect the value of a draft pick. It is a given. That in itself doesn't make the pick any more or less valuable. This is so obvious I feel bad explaining it.

. . .

Finally! You got there! Miami isn't trading this pick for freaking RJ. That's exactly what I said.</div>

ghoti, you've been posting around cpawfan far too long as you've increasingly picked up his nasty and invariable habit of couching his disagreement or replies in terms that seek to denigrate another's intellect or understanding. There's nothing you or anyone else on this forum needs to explain to me pedantically or with condescension, as I would think my capacity for understanding speaks for itself.

If you will reread my last post more carefully, you will see that I was talking about the value of a specific draft prospect, that is, a specific player who has yet to play an NBA game. I was not talking about a specfic draft position, the value of which in any given year is determined by the number of the pick in relation to the perceived strength/depth of the field (which is itself a variable not only because, again, any particular player is not completely known but because of the certain variability of opinion from one GM to the next on which players are better than others.) In this thread, we were specifically talking about a trade for the draft RIGHTS to Beasley, since, as NI and others explained, Miami can't trade their pick this year, only the rights to the player they draft after the draft has taken place. They will almost certainly take the survivor of Rose/Beasley, whether or not they trade the rights to that player later. The thread is predicated on the assumption that Chicago takes Rose and Miami follows with Beasley.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 22 2008, 11:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 08:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The fact that a player has not played in the NBA certainly does not affect the value of a draft pick. It is a given. That in itself doesn't make the pick any more or less valuable. This is so obvious I feel bad explaining it.

. . .

Finally! You got there! Miami isn't trading this pick for freaking RJ. That's exactly what I said.</div>

ghoti, you've been posting around cpawfan far too long as you've increasingly picked up his nasty and invariable habit of couching his disagreement or replies in terms that seek to denigrate another's intellect or understanding. There's nothing you or anyone else on this forum needs to explain to me pedantically or with condescension, as I would think my capacity for understanding speaks for itself.

If you will reread my last post more carefully, you will see that I was talking about the value of a specific draft prospect, that is, a specific player who has yet to play an NBA game. I was not talking about a specfic draft position, the value of which in any given year is determined by the number of the pick in relation to the perceived strength/depth of the field (which is itself a variable not only because, again, any particular player is not completely known but because of the certain variability of opinion from one GM to the next on which players are better than others.) In this thread, we were specifically talking about a trade for the draft RIGHTS to Beasley, since, as NI and others explained, Miami can't trade their pick this year, only the rights to the player they draft after the draft has taken place. They will almost certainly take the survivor of Rose/Beasley, whether or not they trade the rights to that player later. The thread is predicated on the assumption that Chicago takes Rose and Miami follows with Beasley.
</div>

Once again, all players in the draft are prospects. The fact that they haven't played in the NBA yet doesn't affect their trade value. You stated that it does. Why do you keep posting long winded explanations that have nothing to do with this simple reply?

I don't understand the other nonsense you posted, but it is frustrating when someone who has such a vast "capacity for understanding" can't grasp a simple point like this.

The real talking point is about whether it's realistic to expect Miami to trade Beasley for a package featuring RJ. I posted plenty of reasons why it isn't, and am willing to elaborate further if anyone wishes to actually discuss it.
 
3 things to consider...

Miami doesn't want or need RJ (if and when Marion re-signs).
Miami will want to deal Blount & Banks with any trade of the #2 pick
#1 pick - Chicago WILL pick Rose. I think thats a done deal

Therefore any trade for the #2 pick (Beasley) would need to be a bit creative...

Why not a 3 team deal:

Nets get:
#2 pick, Blount & Banks

Heat get:
Ford, Bargnani & # 10 & #40 picks

Raptors get:
RJ

Would that work? Just shooting stuff around. I would love to get the #2 pick and be wrong about my Chicago prediction. I literally drool over a backcourt of Harris/Rose. Move VC to the 3. Man, now THAT is a pipedream!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top