Has nothing to do with Green. This is strictly an Austin Rivers trade with the Celtics.Originally Posted by SaintPelican225
 |
| . |
|
Has nothing to do with Green. This is strictly an Austin Rivers trade with the Celtics.
we dropped 2 non productive players...and got a SF and a 2nd rd pick....Every team in all sports miss on draft picks...What's the point of keeping guys just to say they're our picks....
Exactly. Smart people in all kinds of businesses understand the concept of sunk cost.
@mcnamara247
Maybe they didn't want Salmons? You can't make a team take a player.
The report was that they wanted Salmons and Pelicans insisted they take Rivers instead.
best thing about Austin, is that he improved his free throw percentage to 74% this season
Austin certainly wasn't very familiar with the concept of a sunk jump shot.
This is what I choose to remember about him, regardless of what happened on the court.
And I wish him the best.
Certainly well spoken.
It seems like the Clippers wanted Austin when they couldn't get Tony Wroten
I do have to start wondering what is going on here.
First it was reported we had included Salmons in the deal then it got switched to Rivers.
So it is starting to make me wonder if Dell failed to do his due diligence here. From my perspective it seems Boston would of been completely fine taking salmons, who expires at the end of the season, but switched to Rivers and they realized they could flip him.
So I have to wonder why we didn't get a second and q-pon from Memphis and then get a second from LA for Rivers and grab Bullock if we think he has long term potential for us.
I can't help but think we clearly left assets on the table here.
You have it all wrong. The Pelicans threw in Rivers and Boston doesn't really want him. End of story.
That side steps my point. Boston wants salary off the books. Was seemingly ok with Salmons in the initial deal, logic says they would be fine with him as a means to shed salary for the future. One has to wonder why we didn't use Boston to shed Salmons, still get our second rounder from Memphis and Q-pon and then turn rivers into a second rounder from the clips and if we wanted, grab bullock.
well we don't know what the celtics are getting for rivers or if that trade is even happening, it is still in the works, the 3 team trade is the one we know and that has been approved
never assume
Wrong. Story was that Boston was taking Salmons until the Pelicans insisted that they take Rivers instead of Salmons. Seems odd that Demps really would think Rivers has less trade value than Salmons.
is that odd? or is it odd that so many people on this board think salmons has so much less trade value than rivers?
IDK why they changed their minds man. Austin has a team option next year for 3 mill. Salmons comes completely off the books. They have their reasons. Salmons is still a good asset that we can later use for a (small) trade though.
Really? His only value is as an expiring. Hopefully we find a player we can dump him for later (to a team looking for an expiring).
No, Rivers' option was declined. He comes off the books next year as well.
As of now we have a total of 5 players that are under contract for next season.
Gordon - $15,514,031.00
Reke - $11,227,000.00
Jrue - $10,595,507.00
Ryno - $8,500,000.00
AD - $7,070,730.00
That counts for $52,907,268.00
We'll need to give Asik a contract as well as fill the rest of the roster.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/NOP.html
Correct... that wasn't updated on the site I was looking at.
yes really, rivers had very very limited value to us. He hurts us on the court, but we have to play him for lack of other options. Jimmer had been eating into his minutes recently, that says something. Rivers has played 165 games for us averaging around 20 minutes per game, it isn't like he is a rookie looking for minutes anymore. 2/3 years he was here he was arguably worst in the nba to getting that much playing time.
look at the most recent trade. They wanted salmons, we insisted rivers. Why did we insist rivers over salmons? the reports said grizzlies and celtics "relented" and agreed to trade with rivers. No one wanted rivers, why? The celtics started looking to dump him before the first trade was even approved, why? If you look at these things, it makes sense that rivers is not good, and the only person they can find to take him is his dad, and that could just be a bunch of hoopla for all we know.
People seem to not like this trade because a) it wont really help us because it is a trade for nothing and b) because people think we could have gotten more value for rivers.
What evidence is there that we could have gotten more for rivers and what is wrong with swapping garbage for garbage if it a) is giving up garbage you are forced to play and hurts you, b) opens up a roster spot to make another move to improve from the loss of rivers, and c) the incoming garbage is at least capable of doing something you need (guard 3's). Have you seen how much of an impact Cunningham has made coming in off the street and playing the 3 for us?
Edit - I forgot Pondexter.
Contributor
I was about to say lol
Both Rivers and Salmons are garbage to us. However, common sense and history will tell you that teams will take a chance on a young guy (hoping a change of scenery will do him good) rather than the old guy who has played for several teams and has no value on the court. Heck, even the fact that the Clippers are showing interest in Rivers shows he may have some minor value. Otherwise, Boston would just hold on to him and let him expire. Maybe, as some have suggested, Demps has Salmons earmarked for another deal as an expiring and it will all be irrelevant. We have until the deadline to see. MM may be right in that he may be included in a deal for a PG.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote