Re: trades

[Alex Wang <awang@mit.edu>]

My point was not that the situations are exactly the same, but that
in both cases, Seattle and Minnesota had players that they could
probably not satisfy salary-wise. Everyone knew that Seattle was going
to move Kemp, just as many people expect Minnesota to move Gugliotta.
That doesn't mean that Minnesota is inclined to practically give 
Gugliotta away. 

I think if you asked any NBA executive what they though of Gugliotta 
for McCarty and Knight, they would tell you that it is an obscenely
unfair trade that would never happen. I don't want to get into an
extended debate about this, but I would bet that if you asked any 
member of this list, "Would you rather have Gugliotta or McCarty and
Knight?" no one would think twice about taking Gugliotta. 

> Seattle didn't have a player making $11-15M a year (can't remember Garnetts a
 *nnual deal) with another one( Marbury) soon to come.
> 
> 
> On Sunday, January 25, 1998 8:45 AM, Alex Wang [SMTP:awang@MIT.EDU] wrote:
> > I don't really think that Knight and McCarty are junk but they
> > are role players, at least for now. You have to look at their
> > side of the deal - giving up Gugliotta would be like us giving
> > up Walker. Why would they do it for two role players? It's still
> > in dispute whether Knight is worth his contract (I feel he will
> > be in time) and McCarty would ride the bench for Minnesota. 
> > It's similar to the situation with Kemp - even though Seattle
> > knew they had to deal him, they got great value in return. I expect
> > Minnesota to do the same.