Re: three way for Baker?

[Way Of The Ray <wayray@ix.netcom.com>]

First thing, minor quibble, Ellison is making $2.8 million this season. 
Second thing, I would think the Celtics would be able to get more in
return 
for Walker, Mercer, and Barros than Baker, Artest and a $2.8 million
slot.
Even with  Mercer's contract ramifications and base year compensation
problems
of Walker - Even with the acrid smell of desperation in the air.
Pitino has to do better than this deal. And besides been no mention of
packaging both Walker and Mercer - Don't you think Jersey Red would have
blurted something out about it by now.  I refuse to believe that this
deal as
proposed will take place....
Ray 



> Subject: Re: three way for Baker?
> Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:23:11 -0400
> From: "Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>
> To: <DJessen33@aol.com>
> CC: <celtics@igtc.com>
> 
> DJessen,
> 
> Thanks for the comments. They are right on target. I think you are correct
> in your assessment that the Bulls are getting off pretty easy in the
> supposed (alleged?) three-way but I think that reflects the fact that
> Chicago is in the cat-bird seat.
> 
> Krause is under absolutely no pressure to deal; Pitino is under a great
> deal of pressure to improve substantially NOW and even Wally Walker has
> been feeling the heat from both the fans and particularly Payton to put
> together a potential contender. Chicago can be patient, Boston and Seattle
> are running out of patience and their principles (Wally W and Pitino) are
> in dangerous waters if they don't deliver soon. Consequently, I anticipate
> that *IF* such a deal goes down Chicago will appear to get the most for
> least, Seattle will seem to come in second and Boston will end up being
> judged to have given up the most - at least in terms of potential. However,
> as a friend of mine likes to say, you can't eat potential (i.e., potential
> doesn't help you in the here and now).
> 
> Let me clarify the deal as I understand it - we can call it "3-way":
> Chicago receives A. Walker and P. Ellison;
> Seattle receives T. Kukoc, R. Mercer, and D. Barros;
> Boston receives V. Baker and R. Artest (and a $2.5 mil salary slot - more
> below).
> 
> The participation of the Bulls in any deal is strictly as a facilitator for
> the other two parties and hence I wouldn't expect them to go out of their
> way (i.e., deal Brand) to insure that the deal goes down. I would hazard to
> guess that the Bulls will put their cap space at the disposal of the
> parties only as long as they get a "transaction fee" - in other words, a
> damn good deal. Kukoc is not exactly chump change. Although Toni may be of
> limited use to us, he is a skilled veteran who would be a valuable addition
> to a team trying to get over the hump; 'Toine on the other hand seems to be
> at least a few years away from fully understanding how best to blend his
> skills in order to provide the immediate shot in the arm that a team hoping
> to contend needs. The mere fact that Seattle would consider a deal
> involving Kukoc but not one including Walker should give us some insight
> into how some other teams rate their respective merits (and contracts).
> 
> In addition, Chicago is apparently willing to accept Ellison's contract,
> which should not hurt them since this is the last year of the contract.
> Such a move *would* help give the Cs a leg-up in their search for a free
> agent *this year*. Unless I'm mistaken the Cs could then use Ellison's
> contract slot (which is roughly $2.5 mil) as the basis for signing a free
> agent - a small advantage but still an extra 500,000 reasons to sign with
> Boston rather than some other team for the $2 mil exception. Hence FA
> negotiations may be a key to the whole deal going down. I can just hear
> Pitino/Wallace spinning now: "We *really* got Baker, Artest AND
> [fill-in-the-blank-free-agent] out of this deal". So Boston could actually
> end up acquiring TWO starters by 'renting' Chicago's cap space.
> 
> With regards to Seattle, I agree that they've got to get more than Kukoc
> and Barros; that's why I've speculated that they may also end up with
> Mercer - although come to think of it Battie might be the one they prefer
> (let's call that option "3-way-a"). That would certainly explain May's
> comments regarding Battie's trade value. If Battie gets packaged to Seattle
> that would still leave the principles (and the perceived needs) available
> for the rumored Mercer to Denver for Fortson swap.
> 
> Now if the deal is really Mercer and Ellison to Chicago (lets call this
> option "3-way-b") then presumably Seattle would receive Kukoc, Battie, and
> Barros but Boston would NOT get to use Ellison's slot since it would no
> longer be above and beyond the salaries we receive back in the deal BUT we
> would keep 'Toine (and presumably shift Pierce to SG).
> 
> FWIW I'd rather retain Battie and sign a FA [3-way] than either deal 'Toine
> and acquire Fortson [3-way-a] - from our perspective essentially a swap of
> Battie for Fortson - or keep 'Toine [3-way-b].
> 
> So things may be even more complicated than we currently imagine - no
> wonder Rick's like a little kid in a candy store with big eyes...
> 
> ciao for now - Tom Murphy
> ----------
> > From: DJessen33@aol.com
> > To: tfmiii@worldnet.att.net
> > Cc: celtics@igtc.com
> > Subject: Re: three way for Baker?
> > Date: Saturday, July 24, 1999 11:45 AM
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > Good overall analysis except in your senario, the Bulls give up just a 16
> 
> > pick, Artest and Kukoc and get Walker. That seems like not enough to me.
> In a
> > straight up trade if you were the Sonics or the Celts, would you trade
> Walker
> > for just Artest and Kukoc or Baker for just Artest and Kukoc. Not enough
> > coming back, IMO. However, they are one the few teams that has cap room.
> > Also, I don't think I would be happy with just Kukoc and Barros for Baker
> 
> > from a Seattle point of view...
> >
> > DJessen