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

[Steve Ouellette]

I'm not saying that I would dump Wally for somebody else's bad contracts or attitudes. I'm just saying that it could be done without adding Al Jefferson to convince the other team to bite, which is what you seemed to be saying.

Steve O


---- "Ryan wrote: 
> 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
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The Boston Celtics Mailing List
> celtics at igtc.com
> http://www.igtc.com/mailman/listinfo/celtics