Can Rick Sund Dictate.....

[niremetal]

Dude, what I said is true. They are sitting at 66 million. You're saying add 10 more million to that to take Deng or Hinrich when they don't have to?

If you're pained, it's because the truth hurts sometimes.

THE $66 MILLION IS ONLY IF LEBRON EXERCISES HIS OPTION. DO THE FREAKING MATH.

[Diesel]

THE $66 MILLION IS ONLY IF LEBRON EXERCISES HIS OPTION. DO THE FREAKING MATH.

Still, you're saying Cleveland should pay ~57 million to be a bottom feeder. Hinrich is not Lebron.

[niremetal]

Still

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is as close as you'll ever get to Diesel admitting that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.

[mrhonline]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is as close as you'll ever get to Diesel admitting that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.

Ha ha.

That said, I've really appreciated Diesel's optimism over the past month. I hope Sund can swindle a deal for JJ this summer, whether it's a great S&T or a cheaper contract than predicted.

[Diesel]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is as close as you'll ever get to Diesel admitting that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.

No. That is me saying that even wrong, My point is STILL 100% valid.

You're suggesting that Cleveland roll over and take it from their divisional rival so that they can....... Please Lebron?

"Yeah, let me help you build a dynasty. Here's the piece you need... we'll take that terrible contract off your hands.... Oh, no, it puts us over the cap and We have 3 other players who does the exact same thing that Hinrich dioes... but we just want to make Lebron happy."

That Ladies and Gentlemen is what Niremental is arguing.

And you want to argue about 65 Million. vs. 57 million... Niremental.?? I guess you want to argue anything when your point is let's make Lebron and Joe happy at all cost??

Edited May 28, 2010 by Diesel

[Joker]

You're so wrong so often that it's just painful. Minus Shaq and James, the Cavs aren't even in the general vicinity of the luxury tax. Hell, they wouldn't even be over the cap. Jamison's contract hamstrings them as far as staying enough under the cap to make a major FA splash until 2012 - which just happens to be when Hinrich's contract expires - but they would be about $15M below the tax threshold after a James-for-Hinrich swap. And they would have little difficulty finding a suitor for either Mo Williams or Hinrich. Even if they took Deng, they'd be well under the tax threshold.

You also keep talking about Hinrich as if teams will be terrified at the prospect of taking on a 2-year $17M contract for a solid PG. Hinrich is expendable because Chicago has Rose, but his contract is not an albatross. Stop acting like it is.

I can see it now in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Lebron traded for Hinrich. Celebrations all over Cleveland after those headlines.

[MaceCase]

Actually when I first started talking about this, you started chatting in that thread saying there was no reason they would give us anything. They don't owe us anything. By the end of the thread you admitted we weren't wrong, just short sighted. Your story changed multiple times in that thread alone. There are tons of reasons we could get something of real value back. FYI real value is not a star quality player, it's an upgrade. You trade away JJ and you give me a better point guard, better backup small forward, the chance to bring back childress and a 2nd round draft pick, I would call that a whole lot better than just losing JJ for nothing.

I just find it interesting that you are now admitting a sign and trade is plausible but have changed to saying that nothing of value in return will be gained. If there was nothing of value to be gained, sign and trades wouldn't happen.

Camp, I don't enjoy calling people fools but you are pushing it. You were going on and on in that thread that we could, nay, we would acquire multiple players and picks in return for JJ because he absolutely had to be sign and traded to a team under the cap and because this had to happen, we could pick and choose whatever compensation we wanted and not what they were offering. I and others debunked your naivety by stating a SnT trade was very much possible but if you were expecting the moon to go along with the earth as your backyard for compensation then the other team's GM or anyone with the grasp of logic would tell you go f*** yourself and sign JJ anyway. Nowhere did I say a SnT was impossible just that the cockamamie compensation ideas you and Diesel have in your minds are foolish and you are more likely to receive nothing than whatever idea you came up with. You both were (and still are) misguided in believing that teams under the cap had to clear such hurdles when that "logic" only applies to teams over the cap. Even now still, Diesel is going on about how we would force their hands and not have to take crap back when the facts still remain:

1) They can just sign JJ outright and be done with it, leaving us with nothing.

2) If a SnT were to occur, no we do not have the leverage to demand back anyone or anything of note.

and finally,

3) if a SnT were to occur we would automatically receive a TPE, which means it is within our best interest to push for a sign and trade, not the opposing team's.

We all know it is within JJ's best interest to seek a 6th year but if he is leaving we, sorry, you are failing to realize that it's within the Hawk's best interest to offer it to him in a SnT so as to receive any compensation for him. MrH was also kind enough to point out that the whole idea of SnTrading JJ would be enticing to the suitors because it would give them a lower first year cap hit, more incentive to actually accept it not reasoning to sell off the farm to make it happen.

If I was so vehemently against a sign and trade being possible then why would I then as I have now continue to cite Rashard Lewis as number 1 example for all of this? Is it that you find it incapable to admit your ignorance over his free agency therefore wrongly painting me into some nonexistent corner? You're a fool.

[DrReality]

That is perposterous.

[Diesel]

I can see it now in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Lebron traded for Hinrich. Celebrations all over Cleveland after those headlines.

Can you say worse than Harper for Ferry?

[Diesel]

I can see it now in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Lebron traded for Hinrich. Celebrations all over Cleveland after those headlines.

Can you say worse than Ferry 10 year contract?

[niremetal]

No. That is me saying that even wrong, My point is STILL 100% valid.

You're suggesting that Cleveland roll over and take it from their divisional rival so that they can....... Please Lebron?

"Yeah, let me help you build a dynasty. Here's the piece you need... we'll take that terrible contract off your hands.... Oh, no, it puts us over the cap and We have 3 other players who does the exact same thing that Hinrich dioes... but we just want to make Lebron happy."

That Ladies and Gentlemen is what Niremental is arguing.

And you want to argue about 65 Million. vs. 57 million... Niremental.?? I guess you want to argue anything when your point is let's make Lebron and Joe happy at all cost??

You're acting as if I said that was the only option. You're fixating on something that I mentioned as one possible route that the Bulls could pursue in order to avoid trading away Noah and still land LeBron and a star. I admit that it's unlikely Cleveland would agree to a deal where they took back Hinrich or (to a lesser extent Deng) without a third team in need of a PG getting involved, but it's far from impossible. Basically, you fixated on a single example and tried to make to make the argument about THAT instead of addressing my overall point - that some team is likely to agree to taking on Hinrich or Deng in exchange for their elite free agent, and that the only way that we would have significant leverage with Chicago is if Chicago is 100% set on acquiring JJ along with LeBron and (in addition, not by itself) Cleveland and Chicago can't work out an S&T for LeBron, either as a straight S&T or as part of a 3-way deal. The odds of the latter scenario coming to fruition are quite slim.

What's hilarious is that you tripped yourself in your effort to make a potential S&T with Chicago the issue because you were lazy and neglected to do the math on the Cavs' cap figure.

Oh, and you still haven't responded to this. So I'm still waiting for you to provide an actual example when the team in the Hawks' position managed to extract a coveted player that the other team had under contract.

Edited May 28, 2010 by niremetal

[Joker]

Can you say worse than Harper for Ferry?

LMAO, oh Diesel, :lol6:

[Diesel]

Nire,

I'm working with what you gave me. You gave me Cleveland happilytaking Hinrich or Deng.

Our bargaining position is absurdly weak with Chicago. The only way it shakes out like you say is if 1) LeBron comes to them and says "I'll sign with you only if you get JJ too" AND 2) the Cavs refuse to agree to a S&T involving Hinrich or Deng. And that, to say the least, is not likely.

If you recall, the premise of this conversation wasif Chicago wanted both Joe and Lebron...

so that took care of your first conjunctive point (#1). #2. is therefore the argument. Knowing that #1 is the arguement, you say that it is not likely that the Cavs would refuse to agree to a S&T invovlving Hinrich or Deng.

This is what you gave me Nire.

What are you trying to do... Flip Flop? This thread speaks for itself. And it makes you sound........... :snowballfight:

[Joker]

You're acting as if I said that was the only option. You're fixating on something that I mentioned as one possible route that the Bulls could pursue in order to avoid trading away Noah and still land LeBron and a star. I admit that it's unlikely Cleveland would agree to a deal where they took back Hinrich or (to a lesser extent Deng) without a third team in need of a PG getting involved, but it's far from impossible. Basically, you fixated on a single example and tried to make to make the argument about THAT instead of addressing my overall point - that some team is likely to agree to taking on Hinrich or Deng in exchange for their elite free agent, and that the only way that we would have significant leverage with Chicago is if Chicago is 100% set on acquiring JJ along with LeBron and (in addition, not by itself) Cleveland and Chicago can't work out an S&T for LeBron, either as a straight S&T or as part of a 3-way deal. The odds of the latter scenario coming to fruition are quite slim.

What's hilarious is that you tripped yourself in your effort to make a potential S&T with Chicago the issue because you were lazy and neglected to do the math on the Cavs' cap figure.

Oh, and you still haven't responded to this. So I'm still waiting for you to provide an actual example when the team in the Hawks' position managed to extract a coveted player that the other team had under contract.

If Lebron was a Hawk and we traded him for Hinrich, how would you react? Hawk fans are still pissed we traded a declining Dominique for Danny Manning who had a lot of unfulfilled potential.

[Diesel]

1) Tracy McGrady was restricted. He was a first-rounder coming off his rookie scale contract. The Raptors held the right to match offers.

2) Wallace and Atkins were both free agents too. The Pistons were planning to sign both players anyway, but the players could get more money and the teams would have fewer trade restrictions under the old CBA if the deal was structured as a double sign-and-trade instead of each team signing the players outright. If you can find free agents on another team that we want and could "acquire" in that fashion, great. But that's a very difficult thing to negotiate. The Hill trade is, to my knowledge, the only example of such a double sign-and-trade.

3) Jefferson was not a free agent at all.

4) The Pacers lacked the cap space to sign Harrington outright. He was acquired using a trade exception that came from the Stojokovic deal. Different ballgame.

Just to shut you down one more time....

You can pay for this Chris Sheridan article if you wish... but the first sentence says it all...

"Rather than sign each other's players with no compensation, Orlando, Detroit and Toronto made nice Thursday.

The Magic worked out sign-and-trade deals with the Pistons and Raptors, resulting in a nice extra chunk of cash for Grant Hill and Tracy McGrady.

Both players signed seven-year, maximum-salary deals worth $93 million with their old teams, then were traded to the Magic. "

[niremetal]

Just to shut you down one more time....

You can pay for this Chris Sheridan article if you wish... but the first sentence says it all...

"Rather than sign each other's players with no compensation, Orlando, Detroit and Toronto made nice Thursday.

The Magic worked out sign-and-trade deals with the Pistons and Raptors, resulting in a nice extra chunk of cash for Grant Hill and Tracy McGrady.

Both players signed seven-year, maximum-salary deals worth $93 million with their old teams, then were traded to the Magic. "

I don't see how that proves anything. McGrady was still a restricted free agent. The Raptors therefore had more bargaining power. JJ's situation is different. How does Chris Sheridan saying "made nice" change that?

Sorry, but you still haven't cited any instances where a team in the Hawks' position - ie with an unrestrictred free agent in hand - got a coveted player (or even a decent draft pick) in a S&T from a team with cap space.

Edited May 28, 2010 by niremetal

[Diesel]

I don't see how that proves anything. McGrady was still a restricted free agent. The Raptors therefore had more bargaining power. JJ's situation is different. How does Chris Sheridan saying "made nice" change that?

Sorry, but you can't cite any instances where a team in the Hawks' position - ie with an unrestrictred free agent in hand - got a coveted player in a S&T from a team with cap space.

McGrady was not restricted. Under your scenerio... How much could Toronto offer him if he were restricted?

Could they have offered him 7 year 93 Million damn dollars as a RFA?

[spotatl]

Diesel- I don't think that you understand what Restricted Free Agency means. All it means is that a players old team has the right of first refusal. Restricted free agency (once a player has full bird rights) doesn't limit how much you can offer a player. Maybe you are confusing this with the Arenas rule for when a player hits FA but only has 2 years in the league? Of course the scenario you guys are talking about was several CBA's ago...

Edited May 28, 2010 by spotatl

[Sothron]

I think the old CBA had different rules about restricted free agents back when TMac left Toronto to go to Orlando. Wasn't Tmac restricted and Hill unrestricted back then? It has been so long ago I honestly can't remember.

To get this back more in the Hawks viewpoint though are the Cavs willing to take back a mediocre to bad deal like Hinrich or Deng to get anything back from Lebron or would they just let the guy walk for nothing rather than take on those salaries. Personally if I was in their shoes I'd let him walk unless a third team entered the deal to take either Hinrich or Deng and give Cleveland either an expiring or a first rounder.

I don't think Sund is going to to take back Deng but I do think he'd at least seriously considering taking back Hinrich.

[Buzzard]

I think the old CBA had different rules about restricted free agents back when TMac left Toronto to go to Orlando. Wasn't Tmac restricted and Hill unrestricted back then? It has been so long ago I honestly can't remember.

To get this back more in the Hawks viewpoint though are the Cavs willing to take back a mediocre to bad deal like Hinrich or Deng to get anything back from Lebron or would they just let the guy walk for nothing rather than take on those salaries. Personally if I was in their shoes I'd let him walk unless a third team entered the deal to take either Hinrich or Deng and give Cleveland either an expiring or a first rounder.

I don't think Sund is going to to take back Deng but I do think he'd at least seriously considering taking back Hinrich.

I don't know man. Deng is useful as a replacement for JJ's scoring as is Hinrich. And I say useful not the answers. Neither will replace 25 ppg; but with either the options to move Craw, Marvin, and/or Smoove to stay competitive still exist. I would do it, if either were my forced options rather than losing JJ for nothing.

JJ for nothing is going to crush our rebuilding efforts for the last five years; and put attendance back to the 13 to 20 win season days. If JJ just walks our best bet is to trade away players, get back into the lottery, and try to build around Horf and maybe Teague IMO. In other words back track to four/five years ago; but now we at least have a younger all-star in Horf ( and his bird rights) than we did when we signed JJ....

Edited May 28, 2010 by Buzzard