Re: Will Perdue, anyone?

[Alex Wang <awang@mit.edu>]

The Spurs in fact have a medical exemption due to Sean Elliot's condition
that is bigger than the $2M exception. 

And Williams does indeed have negative trade value. I think of anyone who
would be waived if he didn't have a guaranteed contract as having negative
trade value, and Williams fits the bill. His contract is just way out of
proportion to what people view as his ability right now. Why do you think
Denver is willing to pay $3M of his salary? Because Pitino said, "If you
want us to take on Eric Williams' overpriced contract, you're going to 
have to share the cost with us. Otherwise no deal." 

Now if Pitino can get his career back on track and he can prove that he's
completely over his injury, he may regain some trade value, which is 
what has happened with Barros and Minor before his injury. But let's not
delude ourselves into thinking that Williams can get us Perdue right now.
If we throw in a first rounder, I could see it happening because the Spurs
do need to look to the future and they would still have their medical
exemption to get a proven performer. 

The closest comparison I can think of is Chris Dudley who was a bit younger
than Perdue at the time of the trade, and a very similar player. It cost 
New York John Wallace and a first rounder, if I remember correctly. 
Wallace had better prospects and a more favorable contract than Williams 
did, but our first rounder may be better. Personally, I don't think it's
worth it for someone who will only help short-term.

And I don't think that the Spurs would want Washington either. As you say,
Kerr is one-dimensional, but it's a dimension that the Spurs can use and
that Kerr is one of the best ever at. His career 3 point percentage is
10% better than Eric Washington's. And the reason I say that the Spurs 
need a perimeter player is that they need to space their floor for their
two big men to work. Williams, who has no three point range, does not fit
the bill. Elliott had both three point shooting ability and a great first
step which made him ideal. Williams doesn't have the outside shooting 
ability that they need.

Greg, I think, mentioned Cheaney as a possibility, which I could see the
Spurs being more likely to go for. I still wouldn't do this trade though.
A guy chooses Boston over several other options and you trade him right 
away to a team he turned down? Nah. Anyways this is a pointless debate 
because it's just not going to happen. If it does, you're free to say
"I told you so."

Alex

> Alex,
> 
> There is such a thing as "leverage".  The Spurs don't have cap room so they
> are very limited in what they could sign in the free agent market and they
> are finding that out. Since they used their $ 2 million exception on Terry
> Porter, all they have left is their $1.1 million slot. Obviously, they
> aren't finding any "quality" guys to take that slot. Couple that with the
> fact Will Perdue is not exactly at the peak of his career, either. He's 34
> years old and  may have 2 - 3 years left in the tank  Williams, on the other
> hand, is 27.  While he doesn't have huge trade value, I disagree that he has
> "negative" trade value. He would compliment what Jaren Jackson brings to the
> party in that JJ is strictly a perimeter guy and Williams is a slasher that
> gets to the line (and can convert his FTs) as good as anybody in the league.
> By the way, how much more would you say  Elie has left in his tank?
> 
> To your point of wanting an outside shooter to compliment Duncan and
> Robinson's inside game: I say fine  - add Eric Washington into the trade
> discussion/equation.  He's 6 ' 4" and can also defend. Contrast that with a
> one-dimensional guy like Steve Kerr who can shoot and do little else.
> 
> If I'm the Spurs, I don't think I  would just unequivocally  say "NO" to a
> Williams/Washington proposal for Perdue.