RE: interesting NBA notes

[Alexander Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>]

All the Robinson sign-and-trade stuff doesn't make any sense. The Spurs 
would have to renounce Robinson to create the cap room to sign Webber, and 
wouldn't be able to sign-and-trade him. Now, they could sign-and-trade him 
to a team under the cap first (Detroit?), and take back less salary and 
still have some cap room. But they couldn't sign and trade him to a capped 
out team, because they'd have to take back salary that would eliminate the 
cap room, which is the whole reason they're having problems negotiating 
with Robinson.

OK, but here's a far-fetched scenario. If Robinson really wanted to play 
for Boston, then his agent could arrange a three way trade with Chicago, 
who presumably wouldn't want a 36 year old center. They'd send him along to 
us for a bunch of players. The problem here is that the facilitating team 
(Chicago) would be giving up their cap room at least until the contracts we 
send back expired (Anderson would have to be included, I'd think, to get up 
to Robinson's salary demand levels; or Walker!). They'd definitely want 
draft picks or good young talent if they were taking on Anderson's 
contract. And San Antonio would also want something like draft picks. So 
this would be a very expensive proposition talent-wise.

Alex

At 02:34 PM 7/11/01, Thomas Murphy wrote:
>Thanks Mark for the insider notes . . . the one on Robinson/Webber is very
>interesting. I don't think the Cs can interest Webber, but I wonder what
>would happen IF the Spurs did land Webber?
>
>I'd imagine Robinson would continue to look for his payday and SA would want
>to get something back for him. That being said I wonder if the Cs could get
>in on this action? Not that Robinson is a long term solution to our pivot
>problems (i.e. don't trade a part of the core for him) but I'm sure we could
>part with some spare parts in a sign and trade to land him (after all SA
>would lose him for nothing if he signs elsewhere). Too bad Kenny doesn't
>have a higher trade value - his salary would certainly help in any sign and
>trade. The fact that his contract expires in only two years may actually
>enhance his value at this point. Throw in one of our pivot projects (maybe
>SA would like Vitaly to bang Shaq around) and possibly a young prospect like
>Forte (or even better a sign and traded Stith) and you might have a deal?
>Robinson would definitely help the Cs into the playoffs, but would that be
>enough to justify such a trade? Perhaps if you view it as a Charles
>Oakley-type trade in order to get us over the hump. Plus who knows how much
>longer Robinson (who will be 36 this August!) could play in the watered down
>eastern conference? Would he last as long as Wallace's projected 4 years
>needed to compete for the championship?
>
>Interesting speculation - we'll see soon!
>
>Cheers - Tom Murphy