I really think Monty and Dell could help cousins.
 |
| . |
|
I really think Monty and Dell could help cousins.
He's not worth giving up alot. He will have issues with Monty as well and other coaches in the future. Its not a maturity issue like Z-Bo (who had some drug problems as well), but more psychological issues. Seems like he just doesnt have control and its an impulse problem. Rather pass on him. He isn't that great anyway.Originally Posted by CP3nDX30
Emeka Okafor - Joe Smith - Carmelo Anthony - Manu Ginobili - Jason Williams
Al Jefferson - James Posey - Aaron McKie - Shaun Livingston
We have to get Bledsoe he is an absolute beast. He will be the best defensive PG in the NBA on this team. Mini LeBron is an understatement. But really he can do everything LeBron does at the PG position. I think with starters minutes he lead PGs in Steals, Rebounds, Blocks, and has potential to be right up with the scorers and assists leaders once developed better. I love Gordon but would rather a backcourt of Bledsoe/Rivers/George or Bledsoe/Rivers/Deng then a Rivers/Gordon/George-Deng or Bledsoe/Rivers-Gordon/?. I really believe if we can get Bledsoe and maybe move Gordon for a good SF asset in return once value rises will set us for the future. We are in the Western Finals by year 3 if we make some moves.
He really is. Dude is big as hell, could dribble and move like a forward. Most importantly if someone was to get in his head and force him into the paint than he would be one of the best bigs in the post. He ceiling is as high as Heaven, but his attitude sucks.
Contributor
Close to home. Around two fellow Kentucky alums. Who knows. I'm not balking at the prospect even though there seems to be some high risk.
Man I should have lool at this topic before making the Cousins one, sorry
I guess I'm the only one who would rather keep the draft pick. Before somebody responds that Gordon could take us out of that range, he has to actually stay healthy long enough to make a big impact. If we get towards the end of the season and are in "tank" mode then no reason to have Gordon in there
Give me Bledsoe but not for this years first. Make it 2014 top 3 protected and the players.
I don't understand why people think Houston would give up Parsons... He's under an amazing contract and is their starter for a foreseeable future. The Rockets got rid of Budinger in order to give Parson bigger minutes. Put down the crack pipe people.
There is a difference betwen "giving someone up" and trading someone for a better player. Bynum is the 2nd best center in the league. If you identify a guy like that as a difference maker a franchise cornerstone, you give up slightly above average wing players (even if they are on a great contract) to get them.
Knicks didn't "give up on" Galinari, Chandler, Mozgov, etc. - they just identified a star and in this league you usually have to give in order to get.
@mcnamara247
With latest Cousins news, here is my best trade attempt staying true to the article, using our 2013 pick involving Sacto:
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=btkzdv9
He's about to be an RFA. His contract is going to go substantially up.
"I'm not going to allow my putative owner to answer that question, this is an NBA related press conference. Paul Tagliabue and Roger Goodell have collectively sung their praises of Tom and if uh ESPN has a problem with that tell Mr. Skipper to call me at my office."
Unprotected or Top 3?
They gave that up for a HEALTHY Anthony... A guy many people considered a top 5 player OVERALL. Bynum is out indefinitely with no timetable on his return. Unless he miraculously comes back and show that he is healthy before the deadline, why in the world would any team including the Rockets give up that many assets for a injured guy who could walk in the Summer if he chooses to do so? Absolutely makes zero sense.
Houston has an option on him or two more years. A very friendly option.
I don't see a difference in this draft to be honest.
Of course I go into the negotiation saying that I want Top 3 protection, but if they demand it is unprotected or they move on to another deal, I cave.
In a world where two teams were willing to give $58 million to an injured SG who only played 9 games last year, I believe it is very plausible that a team gives up average assets for a top 2 Center who has been given the green light this week to start rehabilitation and who said he is extremely confident that he will play this year.
But to each their own
Yea.. A world where they actually saw him play and play without any limitations. What happened after the contract was given is another story. It's not believable that any team would give up that much for damaged good without knowing if he can come back from the injury without limitations. Teams would only do that deal if and only if an extension was agreed upon and that would require the guy to be healthy enough to play.
Sixers have said that they have had numerous calls for Bynum and have even said they are listening to everything, but if I were a GM I would tend to agree with your logic. However, there are GM's out there that are huge risk takers and not all of them think alike. OKC's GM passed on Chandler, while Charlotte's and Dallas's said "Yes, please"
If Philly really is entertaining the idea of moving Bynum, I would bet my life that at least a half a dozen GM's are willing to make a trade. Heck, teams were offering packages for Oden every year that he was hurt. There are franchises (like Houston) that will never land a Wadeor Bosh or Lebron in free agency and they will never be bad enough to draft an Anthony Davis, so they have to take big risks to get their stars.
I understand that you (or I) wouldn't do it in a million years if we were a GM, but that is not good rationale for saying that no GM would do it. Some simply would.
Keep pick draft shabazz
SIGN A SF
screw it. trade the pick for bledsoe. sick of GV
The thunder gm wanted chandler but her failed the physical.
"I don't know if people know — I dislocated my pinkie finger. And [Tyreke] told me, 'You wanna go home or you wanna be here?' I want to be here. And he said, 'All right, then go tape it up and let's play. Let's go. We not stoppin' at no stores. Straight gas. That's what we do, just keep going.'"
http://thebasketbawlblog.com/
He didn't fail the physical. The doctor said that he would be prone to future injuries because of a degenerative condition. Charlotte and Dallas had the same info and took the risk. That is the point of my example, some GM's are high risk, some are low risk.
http://m.espn.go.com/nba/story?storyId=3917505New Orleans Hornets' last 12 games before the All-Star break with a sprained left ankle. But that had nothing to do with why he failed his physical with the Oklahoma City Thunder and was thus sent back to the Hornets on Wednesday
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_Chandler"However, he failed the physical because of a toe injury, and one day later, the Thunder announced that they rescinded the trade"
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/02/18/c....ap/index.html"Chandler failed a physical Wednesday, and the Thunder backed out of the deal that sent Chris Wilcox, Joe Smith and second-round pick DeVon Hardin to New Orleans"
You might not classify it as a failed physical but the rest of the world does.
Last edited by BallSoHard; 12-22-2012 at 11:51 PM.
That is the Thunder's side of it. They needed to word it that way to back out of the trade. Check out what Chandler said after. It was his doctor who performed the physical and he was confused as to why his own doctor would now say it was degenerative.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. This isn't about Chandler. It is about whether or not you believe some GM's are bigger risk takers than others.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
