Trade for #1 Pick?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Master Shake @ Jun 9 2008, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yea, but this idea that he's worth something in a trade that brings in the number 1 pick is crazy.</div>
As some others noted, KVH's contract has a very high value. For next season it has a value of $4.7M, but it's not just an expiring contract. It has an early termination clause which the Nets got when they shipped out Kidd. There is a low amount of guaranteed money, several people assume it's around $500K.

Thus, KVH's contract is not only expiring, it's an immediate saver of more than $4M. A team trades for his contract, exercises the ETC and around $4.2M comes off their books IMMEDIATELY.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Jun 10 2008, 03:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Master Shake @ Jun 9 2008, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yea, but this idea that he's worth something in a trade that brings in the number 1 pick is crazy.</div>
As some others noted, KVH's contract has a very high value. For next season it has a value of $4.7M, but it's not just an expiring contract. It has an early termination clause which the Nets got when they shipped out Kidd. There is a low amount of guaranteed money, several people assume it's around $500K.

Thus, KVH's contract is not only expiring, it's an immediate saver of more than $4M. A team trades for his contract, exercises the ETC and around $4.2M comes off their books IMMEDIATELY.
</div>


but what I think they're getting at is, should just 10 mil in combined exp. contracts and #10 & #21 be the focal points for getting the #1 pick? I don't think so. Chicago has plenty of other young pieces to deal and get inside help to go along with whomever they choose at #1. Getting Rose to play point and trading Hinrich, Tyrus, Nocioni, Gordon in any combination to get an inside scorer would benifit them more than anyone they would pick up at #10 & #21. If thier willing to add an additional young player in any trade they may be able to unload Hughes contract and keep Gordon instead
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NattaNerNuttaMan @ Jun 10 2008, 04:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Jun 10 2008, 03:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Master Shake @ Jun 9 2008, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yea, but this idea that he's worth something in a trade that brings in the number 1 pick is crazy.</div>
As some others noted, KVH's contract has a very high value. For next season it has a value of $4.7M, but it's not just an expiring contract. It has an early termination clause which the Nets got when they shipped out Kidd. There is a low amount of guaranteed money, several people assume it's around $500K.

Thus, KVH's contract is not only expiring, it's an immediate saver of more than $4M. A team trades for his contract, exercises the ETC and around $4.2M comes off their books IMMEDIATELY.
</div>


but what I think they're getting at is, should just 10 mil in combined exp. contracts and #10 & #21 be the focal points for getting the #1 pick? I don't think so. Chicago has plenty of other young pieces to deal and get inside help to go along with whomever they choose at #1. Getting Rose to play point and trading Hinrich, Tyrus, Nocioni, Gordon in any combination to get an inside scorer would benifit them more than anyone they would pick up at #10 & #21. If thier willing to add an additional young player in any trade they may be able to unload Hughes contract and keep Gordon instead
</div>The problem, as I see it, is that no one will touch Hughes' contract with a stick unless there's either a (1) huge disparity in talent traded, as in, Bulls give much more talent than they get in return or (2) Bulls give up the pick to make the team stomach eating Hughes' contract.

Remember, the Bulls organization is relatively cheap. I'm not saying they'll jump on this trade or any trade at all, but a trade such as KVH/Swift/Diop (or Nachbar) with #10 and #21 for #1 and Hughes is a VERY good trade for them.
They get almost $13M in expiring contracts, with one of them being a pretty good player whom they can re-sign if they want (Diop/Nachbar), 2 picks that if combined, can probably get them their "original" draft position (8th or 9th), at the same time they completely wipe their hands of the Ben Wallace fiasco and have a solid, immediate future.

I realize that some people expect Rose to become a franchise point. But he can also flop like Jay Williams. From the Bulls point of view, they can just say "We were supposed to be drafting 9th. So we'll draft 9th, but we will use the this piece of luck to get rid of a huge chunk of salary and gain another good player."
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Jun 10 2008, 04:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NattaNerNuttaMan @ Jun 10 2008, 04:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Jun 10 2008, 03:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Master Shake @ Jun 9 2008, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yea, but this idea that he's worth something in a trade that brings in the number 1 pick is crazy.</div>
As some others noted, KVH's contract has a very high value. For next season it has a value of $4.7M, but it's not just an expiring contract. It has an early termination clause which the Nets got when they shipped out Kidd. There is a low amount of guaranteed money, several people assume it's around $500K.

Thus, KVH's contract is not only expiring, it's an immediate saver of more than $4M. A team trades for his contract, exercises the ETC and around $4.2M comes off their books IMMEDIATELY.
</div>


but what I think they're getting at is, should just 10 mil in combined exp. contracts and #10 & #21 be the focal points for getting the #1 pick? I don't think so. Chicago has plenty of other young pieces to deal and get inside help to go along with whomever they choose at #1. Getting Rose to play point and trading Hinrich, Tyrus, Nocioni, Gordon in any combination to get an inside scorer would benifit them more than anyone they would pick up at #10 & #21. If thier willing to add an additional young player in any trade they may be able to unload Hughes contract and keep Gordon instead
</div>The problem, as I see it, is that no one will touch Hughes' contract with a stick unless there's either a (1) huge disparity in talent traded, as in, Bulls give much more talent than they get in return or (2) Bulls give up the pick to make the team stomach eating Hughes' contract.

Remember, the Bulls organization is relatively cheap. I'm not saying they'll jump on this trade or any trade at all, but a trade such as KVH/Swift/Diop (or Nachbar) with #10 and #21 for #1 and Hughes is a VERY good trade for them.
They get almost $13M in expiring contracts, with one of them being a pretty good player whom they can re-sign if they want (Diop/Nachbar), 2 picks that if combined, can probably get them their "original" draft position (8th or 9th), at the same time they completely wipe their hands of the Ben Wallace fiasco and have a solid, immediate future.

I realize that some people expect Rose to become a franchise point. But he can also flop like Jay Williams. From the Bulls point of view, they can just say "We were supposed to be drafting 9th. So we'll draft 9th, but we will use the this piece of luck to get rid of a huge chunk of salary and gain another good player."
</div>
Jay Williams didn't flop, he was injured in an accident.
 
You guys are also forgetting the original trade. Clips got the expiring contracts from us and Brand goes to the Bulls. But Brand is also an expiring contract. So basically the Bulls give up the #1 and Larry Hughes' albatross contract for a 20-10 low post scorer who has an expiring contract in case he doesn't play up to expectations. I personally find this lineup pretty scary in the top heavy east:

PG: Hinrich/Duhon (maybe, Duhon is an FA i have no idea what chicago wants to do with him)
SG: Gordon/???
SF: Deng/Nocioni
PF: Brand/Thomas/Noah
C: Noah/Brand

They have some weak spots to shore up but I have assumed nothing about other signings, etc. That is a scary team though even without many additions.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jun 9 2008, 11:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheMo @ Jun 9 2008, 11:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (logik15 @ Jun 9 2008, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>this sitll doesn't solve our big man problem... we're just giving up assets for another PG. we need a big man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we had jkidd on our team and it didn't work out... what makes u think rose can make us any better without a big man</div>
Listen Kidd is a lock for the HOF but at this point in his career he really wasn't able to put ridiculous pressure on the defense every play. Rose has the athleticism to put way more pressure on the defense at least from a scoring perspective than Kidd could dream of at this point in his career. I think Rose would give us a chance to thrive with e new Big Three though I would gladly trade RJ or VC to balance the roster and get a stud PF or C. With this trade we still have young pieces to offer a team if there is a elite big man available that we want to add.
</div>

Unfortunately the picks needed to package with VC or RJ to get The Big Man were traded away to get Rose.

So enjoy a threesome of Rose, VC and RJ...because that's it. No SG to back up Vince, and no replacement for Krstic/Diop should one leave this summer.
</div>
Hughes is an SG... albeit not a great one but enough to back up VC. Plays solid D and will put up some points nothing special. Boone/SWAT are still here and I assume we will keep one of our FA big guys. Then maybe sign Pietrus or some second tier player and that's a solid front court rotation. Just my two cents.
 
This trade makes no sense for the Nets. I'd rather they just trade for Brand - and even that is pointless if they include Harris.
That package for Beasley is just absurd. And why not deal with Miami, since the Bulls are taking Rose anyway?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 10 2008, 06:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Jun 10 2008, 04:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NattaNerNuttaMan @ Jun 10 2008, 04:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Jun 10 2008, 03:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Master Shake @ Jun 9 2008, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yea, but this idea that he's worth something in a trade that brings in the number 1 pick is crazy.</div>
As some others noted, KVH's contract has a very high value. For next season it has a value of $4.7M, but it's not just an expiring contract. It has an early termination clause which the Nets got when they shipped out Kidd. There is a low amount of guaranteed money, several people assume it's around $500K.

Thus, KVH's contract is not only expiring, it's an immediate saver of more than $4M. A team trades for his contract, exercises the ETC and around $4.2M comes off their books IMMEDIATELY.
</div>


but what I think they're getting at is, should just 10 mil in combined exp. contracts and #10 & #21 be the focal points for getting the #1 pick? I don't think so. Chicago has plenty of other young pieces to deal and get inside help to go along with whomever they choose at #1. Getting Rose to play point and trading Hinrich, Tyrus, Nocioni, Gordon in any combination to get an inside scorer would benifit them more than anyone they would pick up at #10 & #21. If thier willing to add an additional young player in any trade they may be able to unload Hughes contract and keep Gordon instead
</div>The problem, as I see it, is that no one will touch Hughes' contract with a stick unless there's either a (1) huge disparity in talent traded, as in, Bulls give much more talent than they get in return or (2) Bulls give up the pick to make the team stomach eating Hughes' contract.

Remember, the Bulls organization is relatively cheap. I'm not saying they'll jump on this trade or any trade at all, but a trade such as KVH/Swift/Diop (or Nachbar) with #10 and #21 for #1 and Hughes is a VERY good trade for them.
They get almost $13M in expiring contracts, with one of them being a pretty good player whom they can re-sign if they want (Diop/Nachbar), 2 picks that if combined, can probably get them their "original" draft position (8th or 9th), at the same time they completely wipe their hands of the Ben Wallace fiasco and have a solid, immediate future.

I realize that some people expect Rose to become a franchise point. But he can also flop like Jay Williams. From the Bulls point of view, they can just say "We were supposed to be drafting 9th. So we'll draft 9th, but we will use the this piece of luck to get rid of a huge chunk of salary and gain another good player."
</div>
Jay Williams didn't flop, he was injured in an accident.
</div>

I agree, you shouldn't use Jay Williams in the context of flop. he was injured before playing thus never getting a chance to prove his worth. True, that it's a tough break for Chicago, but it's not fair to compare Rose to someone who didn't even play. As long as Rose stays off the bikes that is...
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheMo @ Jun 10 2008, 08:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jun 9 2008, 11:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheMo @ Jun 9 2008, 11:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (logik15 @ Jun 9 2008, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>this sitll doesn't solve our big man problem... we're just giving up assets for another PG. we need a big man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we had jkidd on our team and it didn't work out... what makes u think rose can make us any better without a big man</div>
Listen Kidd is a lock for the HOF but at this point in his career he really wasn't able to put ridiculous pressure on the defense every play. Rose has the athleticism to put way more pressure on the defense at least from a scoring perspective than Kidd could dream of at this point in his career. I think Rose would give us a chance to thrive with e new Big Three though I would gladly trade RJ or VC to balance the roster and get a stud PF or C. With this trade we still have young pieces to offer a team if there is a elite big man available that we want to add.
</div>

Unfortunately the picks needed to package with VC or RJ to get The Big Man were traded away to get Rose.

So enjoy a threesome of Rose, VC and RJ...because that's it. No SG to back up Vince, and no replacement for Krstic/Diop should one leave this summer.
</div>
Hughes is an SG... albeit not a great one but enough to back up VC. Plays solid D and will put up some points nothing special. Boone/SWAT are still here and I assume we will keep one of our FA big guys. Then maybe sign Pietrus or some second tier player and that's a solid front court rotation. Just my two cents.
</div>

So your saying your willing to pick up a player who is just good enough to be a backup and is "nothing special" at 13 mil a year for the next 3 years?!?!?....no thank you!
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jun 10 2008, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This trade makes no sense for the Nets. I'd rather they just trade for Brand - and even that is pointless if they include Harris.
That package for Beasley is just absurd. And why not deal with Miami, since the Bulls are taking Rose anyway?</div>
It's a trade for Rose ghoti... though I don't know if you like him more than Beasley. I think he is a franchise player.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NattaNerNuttaMan @ Jun 10 2008, 10:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheMo @ Jun 10 2008, 08:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jun 9 2008, 11:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheMo @ Jun 9 2008, 11:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (logik15 @ Jun 9 2008, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>this sitll doesn't solve our big man problem... we're just giving up assets for another PG. we need a big man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we had jkidd on our team and it didn't work out... what makes u think rose can make us any better without a big man</div>
Listen Kidd is a lock for the HOF but at this point in his career he really wasn't able to put ridiculous pressure on the defense every play. Rose has the athleticism to put way more pressure on the defense at least from a scoring perspective than Kidd could dream of at this point in his career. I think Rose would give us a chance to thrive with e new Big Three though I would gladly trade RJ or VC to balance the roster and get a stud PF or C. With this trade we still have young pieces to offer a team if there is a elite big man available that we want to add.
</div>

Unfortunately the picks needed to package with VC or RJ to get The Big Man were traded away to get Rose.

So enjoy a threesome of Rose, VC and RJ...because that's it. No SG to back up Vince, and no replacement for Krstic/Diop should one leave this summer.
</div>
Hughes is an SG... albeit not a great one but enough to back up VC. Plays solid D and will put up some points nothing special. Boone/SWAT are still here and I assume we will keep one of our FA big guys. Then maybe sign Pietrus or some second tier player and that's a solid front court rotation. Just my two cents.
</div>

So your saying your willing to pick up a player who is just good enough to be a backup and is "nothing special" at 13 mil a year for the next 3 years?!?!?....no thank you!
</div>

Well the main goal was to get Rose and to get that #1 pick NJ would have to take back some crap. If Thorn can do it w/o taking that awful contract then he should go for it. I just figured that taking Hughes would make it hard for the Bulls to turn down the offer.
 
This trade is not good for the Nets. Our priority right now is not a PG. We have DH and we need to give him at least 2 more years to make something happen. Our main goal is to get a big man that can can demand double teams, play tough D and rebound.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheMo @ Jun 10 2008, 09:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NattaNerNuttaMan @ Jun 10 2008, 10:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheMo @ Jun 10 2008, 08:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jun 9 2008, 11:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheMo @ Jun 9 2008, 11:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (logik15 @ Jun 9 2008, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>this sitll doesn't solve our big man problem... we're just giving up assets for another PG. we need a big man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we had jkidd on our team and it didn't work out... what makes u think rose can make us any better without a big man</div>
Listen Kidd is a lock for the HOF but at this point in his career he really wasn't able to put ridiculous pressure on the defense every play. Rose has the athleticism to put way more pressure on the defense at least from a scoring perspective than Kidd could dream of at this point in his career. I think Rose would give us a chance to thrive with e new Big Three though I would gladly trade RJ or VC to balance the roster and get a stud PF or C. With this trade we still have young pieces to offer a team if there is a elite big man available that we want to add.
</div>

Unfortunately the picks needed to package with VC or RJ to get The Big Man were traded away to get Rose.

So enjoy a threesome of Rose, VC and RJ...because that's it. No SG to back up Vince, and no replacement for Krstic/Diop should one leave this summer.
</div>
Hughes is an SG... albeit not a great one but enough to back up VC. Plays solid D and will put up some points nothing special. Boone/SWAT are still here and I assume we will keep one of our FA big guys. Then maybe sign Pietrus or some second tier player and that's a solid front court rotation. Just my two cents.
</div>

So your saying your willing to pick up a player who is just good enough to be a backup and is "nothing special" at 13 mil a year for the next 3 years?!?!?....no thank you!
</div>

Well the main goal was to get Rose and to get that #1 pick NJ would have to take back some crap. If Thorn can do it w/o taking that awful contract then he should go for it. I just figured that taking Hughes would make it hard for the Bulls to turn down the offer.
</div>

but in the process of getting Rose that way you hinder the chance of getting LeBron later who they need the cap space for, not to mention he didn't mesh with Hughes before.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Claud @ Jun 10 2008, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This trade is not good for the Nets. Our priority right now is not a PG. We have DH and we need to give him at least 2 more years to make something happen. Our main goal is to get a big man that can can demand double teams, play tough D and rebound.</div>
I agree, if anything trading with Miami would be a better option and getting Beasley, trading RJ in the process. But that may be difficult since altough Miami isn't high on Beasley the man they want is Mayo who probably won't make it past Minnesota at #3
 
So the difference between Harris and Rose is 10M in expiring deals, Larry Hughes' albatross contract, and two first round picks??
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jun 10 2008, 10:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So the difference between Harris and Rose is 10M in expiring deals, Larry Hughes' albatross contract, and two first round picks??</div>
BUT LARRY HUGHES GETS A LOT OF STEALS!

He was the man in Philly. FLIGHT BROTHERS!
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Jun 10 2008, 09:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jun 10 2008, 10:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So the difference between Harris and Rose is 10M in expiring deals, Larry Hughes' albatross contract, and two first round picks??</div>
BUT LARRY HUGHES GETS A LOT OF STEALS!

He was the man in Philly. FLIGHT BROTHERS!
</div>

lol...yeah, that eases things. 13 mil a year worth of steals for the next three years...well worth the dough....lol
 
We'll agree to disagree guys as I see PG as still a big need. I think with the direction the NBA is going you can have an elite point guard (20pt-13ast) and just one well-rounded player to get deep in the playoffs. Surround those two with defenders and role players, that's all you need. I am not trying to fight with you guys i guess we are just coming from different viewpoints. Trust me there is nothing I would like more than for my idea to be wrong and have you guys be right about DH/Nets.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheMo @ Jun 10 2008, 10:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We'll agree to disagree guys as I see PG as still a big need. I think with the direction the NBA is going you can have an elite point guard (20pt-13ast) and just one well-rounded player to get deep in the playoffs. Surround those two with defenders and role players, that's all you need. I am not trying to fight with you guys i guess we are just coming from different viewpoints. Trust me there is nothing I would like more than for my idea to be wrong and have you guys be right about DH/Nets.</div>

I see your argument, I just feel that if any trade NJ does it should be for an elite BigMan, Devin Harris will do just fine as the starting PG, he should blend in quite well with LeBron when he comes over. As for the "Elite" PG needed to get deep into the playoffs? hmmm...who are the elite PG's on the two teams in the Finals? It still seems that the way to a championship is through the help of a BigMan
 
Why do you feel that Derrick Rose will average 13 APG?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jun 10 2008, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why do you feel that Derrick Rose will average 13 APG?</div>


I know right? That's kinda jumping the moon, dontcha think? As a rookie I'm leaning more towards 15.5ppg/7apg/4.5rpg
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jun 10 2008, 11:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why do you feel that Derrick Rose will average 13 APG?</div>

That had to be a typo. OR something Rose would supposedly be capable of amassing in a given playoff game. I'll give TheMo the benefit of the doubt, because I just can't see Rose AVERAGING 20 and 13.
 
Couldn't Devin Harris get 20 and 13 in a given playoff game?
 
From the Bulls' perspective:

<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%">HELL NO!
</span></span>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 10 2008, 01:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>From the Bulls' perspective:

<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%">HELL NO!
</span></span></div>

Thanks. I don't think this trade would make much sense for the Nets OR the Bulls.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 10 2008, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jun 10 2008, 11:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why do you feel that Derrick Rose will average 13 APG?</div>

That had to be a typo. OR something Rose would supposedly be capable of amassing in a given playoff game. I'll give TheMo the benefit of the doubt, because I just can't see Rose AVERAGING 20 and 13.
</div>
Thank you for the benefit of the doubt lol. I should have clarified, I meant he could avg that over a series/give you that any game. I see him the same light as Paul in terms of playmaking. However, I respect yours and ghoti's opinion a lot too so when it comes to this I'll take your word on it cause I like this player too much to the point where I am projecting too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top