Re: Vitaly's Summer Vacation -Reply -Reply -Reply

[Josh Ozersky <josh_ozersky@yahoo.com>]

No, I never said that the trade was one sided in our
favor.  But it was and is a no-brainer.  It's good I
guess that Cleveland did well too, but we got
infinitely more value than what we gave up.  And as
for the draft, this is the weakest I can remember. 
Can you think of a single guy that would have been
taken in the top eight in 96?  Even if we had a top
three pick, I'm not sure anyone in this draft could
even make our squad.  Elton Brand as a senior might
have Barkley potential, but he is a guaranteed
frustration story for the next few years, a la
Olowakandi.  None of the top guys impress me, and I'm
easily impressed.
--- Ryan Falcone <FalconeR@nvg.com> wrote:
> >>> Alex Wang <awang@mit.edu> 04/29/99 01:07pm >>>
> 
> The point is that the trade is good for both teams.
> You seem to be saying
> that the Cleveland gained more than Boston given the
> circumstances.
> Even if this is true, we are still better off than
> not making the trade. It was
> really a trade between two desperate parties and
> both benefited.  <<<
> 
> 
> Alex:
> 
> Exactly!!!--although I'm inclined to think that you
> may have missed the
> beginning of this thread.  My original posting was
> in response to Josh
> Ozersky's comment that he summarily judges those who
> say that
> Cleveland got the better end of the deal as being
> mentally deficient
> (sorry, Josh, but I couldn't remember your verbatim
> quote).  My point was
> that Cleveland clearly benefitted from the
> trade...as did the Celtics.  But to
> imply that this was a one-sided trade in our favor
> as Josh did is to only
> consider the swap of DeClerq for Potapenko straight
> up without
> factoring in the potential of the draft pick.
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com