RE: mercer gone

[John Lyell <Jlyell@concentric.net>]

This is exactly what you do. You don't wait until it is too late like 
Gugliotta & Wright and you get nothing. I doubt Ron Mercer will ever get 
max from anyone.



On Friday, August 06, 1999 6:30 PM, Alex Wang [SMTP:awang@mit.edu] wrote:
> > Why is it so hard for some writers to see why we traded Mercer because 
=
> > he wanted more money?  Minnesota had to do the same thing because =
> > Marbury wanted MAX money.  I don't think Kevin McHale is an 
unreasonable =
> > GM.  And as far as trading a potential great scorer for rebounding, =
> > Sacramento did the same thing and were a BETTER team with Webber than =
> > they were with Richmond.
>
> Actually, after the new CBA, Minnesota (and every other team in the 
league)
> would have been quite happy to give Marbury the max. Marbury left 
Minnesota
> because he didn't like it there, because it wasn't close to New York, and
> because he couldn't stand playing on the same team as Garnett, his peer,
> who would be making close to twice his salary. But Marbury is a talent on
> a whole other level than Mercer.
>
> The Sacramento trade was trading a great scorer for a equally good scorer 
> with great rebounding ability but head problems. I don't think that our
> trade is quite as lopsided (since Webber was also in his prime vs 
Richmond
> on his way down). I'd say our trade is (hopefully) closer to Stackhouse
> for Ratliff in terms of the talents involved, though Ratliff has 
performed
> beyond most expected at the time of the trade.
>
> Alex
>
>