A pair of dueces ain't much of a poker hand

Wed Jan 24 09:39:21 CST 2007

It's true in my faux-GM mind.  What would YOU give up for Wally if you were
another teams' GM?  Let's say we're a playoff or borderline playoff team
needing a spot-up shooter with a HUGE contract. Would the Spurs take him?
Don't think so. How about Phoenix? Not with his limited mobility in their
offense. Maybe the Heat? What contract there that they'd be willing to give
up matches up? (Anyone says Walker and I'll kill myself right now - suicide
prevention class be damned). Would Cleveland do it? Sure, they might, but
they don't have anything to match up contract wise in return that they'd be
willing to give up. Detroit? Rip Hamilton makes Wally redundant. Indiana?
They just got rid of their problem children.  Oh, Memphis - they're looking
to trade right? No, they're looking to DUMP big contracts - not take them
on. The Jazz? He'd fit right in in Mormon country, but who would we get back
- and Sloan requires defense be a part of his player's game (Mehmet Okur
aside).  

Of the teams needing such qualifications how many are under the cap enough
to be able to absorb more then they give up?  

If that isn't the case, how many would be giving back a worse
contract/player then they took in (for arguments sake use the Brian Grant
example - would you be willing to simply take back a contract for a player
that wouldn't even play?). Any contract that would put us into lux tax range
simply WILL NOT be acceptable to these owners so I don't think the Grant
Corollary is applicable either.

Wally's contract size packaged with his frequent injuries and low defensive
ability make him very unattractive. It's not like this is the last year of
his contract either so the expiring contract incentive is also null and
void.  

So why wouldn't a Flip Murray, Joe House, or other pure shooter/crap
defender (insert name here - there's tons of them out there) with a much
LOWER contract that might be available be a more viable option?  Even an
Allan Ray-type might be a more viable alternative for such a team looking to
simply add in a reliable outside shooter which is really what Wally is now.

You can throw out "chemistry" and "ball movement" and "BB IQ", but that
stuff is only relevant after trades as extra, not in making the trade in the
first place. And if you bring up the recent Indiana/Golden State trade as an
example of "crap for crap, but they're actually good players" as a
counterargument the contract portion STILL shoots you down - do you think GS
would've given up either Murphy or Dunleavy for Wally straight up? Sure they
may have, if the contracts were equal, but they're not. And they definitely
wouldn't have given up both for him especially with the "bone on bone"
condition his knee is in. 

So once again the basic premise is - you simply want to jettison Wally -
period - it doesn't matter if you get anything back that can even play suit
up as a warm body (that is what you meant by dead weight right?). Ainge
won't do that. The owners won't buy Wally out (or any contract we get in
return for Wally) just to satisfy the fan's cry that Wally be gone either -
it makes no fiscal sense and these owners don't do anything that don't make
cents...errr...I mean sense. 

The only way either of us is rendered correct is to wait and see.  If Wally
is gone on trade deadline day - you're right. If not, I am, because I do
think we agree there certainly isn't a "no-trade" clause from Ainge on
Wally. 

-----------
Patrick, that's simply not true. Getting a lot for Wally is probably out 
of the question. But there are certainly teams that would give up some 
dead weight to have Wally's shooting prowess ... and if we attached 
Gerald Green or Rondo to him (which I would absolutely not do), there 
would be a LOT of teams that would bite.

Steve O