Rockets get Thomas Robinson from Kings for Patterson, Aldrich, Douglas - is this bait to get Josh?

[Admin]

Dolfan,

Suns just released Luke Zeller to make room for that trade so it could become official. Zeller was one of the non-guaranteeds.

Doesn't matter if he was guaranteed or not, they could have bought out anyone they wanted. They just chose to go that route instead of buying out O'Neal.

[thecampster]

Doesn't matter if he was guaranteed or not, they could have bought out anyone they wanted. They just chose to go that route instead of buying out O'Neal.

Word is there are suitors for O'Neal.

[Admin]

Word is there are suitors for O'Neal.

Yeah I heard a lot of teams were interested in him if he got bought out. I highly doubt anyone will give up an asset for him though you never know with how desperate the Knicks appear to be to get a big man. O'Neal would be relatively young compared to their ancient centers.

[MaceCase]

If you are missing the point here, Camp, it's that you were rather adamant that the talking heads didn't know what they were talking about by suggesting trades that would push a team over the roster limit. That it was indeed this complicated scenario that would require waiving a player first, renouncing his caphold and then hoping that the trade went through but that teams would risk having waived a guy and their future capspace on the chance that their trade went through......well now we have a concrete example as to why those claims were just a tad bit unfounded.

[thecampster]

If you are missing the point here, Camp, it's that you were rather adamant that the talking heads didn't know what they were talking about by suggesting trades that would push a team over the roster limit. That it was indeed this complicated scenario that would require waiving a player first, renouncing his caphold and then hoping that the trade went through but that teams would risk having waived a guy and their future capspace on the chance that their trade went through......well now we have a concrete example as to why those claims were just a tad bit unfounded.

Not at all. My point stands. When discussing a trade...They didn't trade a 2nd round pick for Morris. In essence they traded a 2nd round pick and Zeller. There is a difference.

In my case with the Hawks. The players we were "releasing" are already empty contracts next year (except Stephenson). Meaning Ferry spent all that time getting expirings just to waive them to take on inferior salary/player than Josh.

Consider the Hawks take on 3 players earning what Smith earn's...13 mil and the Hawks waive a player (say Scott) to clear the roster spot. There is no way 3 players splitting 13 mil are worth Smith...at least one of them is Mike Scott quality. If they are expiring then they are the same as Smith. If they are not expiring then they suck up valuable cap room for next season and we lose a project. Or in the case of Petro, you are trading for trading sake because he just comes off the books in 30 games anyway. Why trade 2 expirings for 3 expirings? I know you guys aren't understanding the point. When experts say 3-1 with Atlanta they are inferring we are dropping an expiring to take on salary just to move Smith and his expiring. If we don't like the players or they are redundant, what is the point. That is how you know its a bogus rumor. That is all I was saying and am still saying.

Dolf was like, we can just release Petro. Sure we can and pay the buyout now and the incoming players' salaries next year. But why did we get all that space just to fill it with scrubs with a trade....makes no sense.

[Admin]

Not at all. My point stands. When discussing a trade...They didn't trade a 2nd round pick for Morris. In essence they traded a 2nd round pick and Zeller. There is a difference.

In my case with the Hawks. The players we were "releasing" are already empty contracts next year (except Stephenson). Meaning Ferry spent all that time getting expirings just to waive them to take on inferior salary/player than Josh.

Consider the Hawks take on 3 players earning what Smith earn's...13 mil and the Hawks waive a player (say Scott) to clear the roster spot. There is no way 3 players splitting 13 mil are worth Smith...at least one of them is Mike Scott quality. If they are expiring then they are the same as Smith. If they are not expiring then they suck up valuable cap room for next season and we lose a project. Or in the case of Petro, you are trading for trading sake because he just comes off the books in 30 games anyway. Why trade 2 expirings for 3 expirings? I know you guys aren't understanding the point. When experts say 3-1 with Atlanta they are inferring we are dropping an expiring to take on salary just to move Smith and his expiring. If we don't like the players or they are redundant, what is the point. That is how you know its a bogus rumor. That is all I was saying and am still saying.

Dolf was like, we can just release Petro. Sure we can and pay the buyout now and the incoming players' salaries next year. But why did we get all that space just to fill it with scrubs with a trade....makes no sense.

Don't go putting words into my mouth please. I said absolutely ZERO about paying a player next year. I said we could buy out a player who's going to be a FA next year and that would be it, we'd owe them nothing next year and they would NOT count against our cap.

[thecampster]

Don't go putting words into my mouth please. I said absolutely ZERO about paying a player next year. I said we could buy out a player who's going to be a FA next year and that would be it, we'd owe them nothing next year and they would NOT count against our cap.

Again, why would we trade for someone we'd have to buyout or why would we trade for inferior players and buyout our own just to offload Smith?

[Admin]

Again, why would we trade for someone we'd have to buyout or why would we trade for inferior players and buyout our own just to offload Smith?

We would buy out a player already on our roster, such as Petro or Tolliver if we needed to make room for BETTER players acquired in a Smith trade. Is that really that difficult to understand?

[MaceCase]

Oh brother, the goalpost has been moved again. Camp, you stated it as a near impossibility due to rules, it was never about value so stop trying to save face.

[thecampster]

We would buy out a player already on our roster, such as Petro or Tolliver if we needed to make room for BETTER players acquired in a Smith trade. Is that really that difficult to understand?

Are the players better than Smith? Are the players better than Smith and Petro combined?

I'm really trying to move you to my logic here which you are obviously missing. You can't trade for 3 players at an average salary of 4 million each and = a Smith. There isn't a team in the NBA with 3 players at that salary doing what Smoove does and further =ing waiving a player as well. You can only play 5 on the floor at a time.

[Admin]

Are the players better than Smith? Are the players better than Smith and Petro combined?

I'm really trying to move you to my logic here which you are obviously missing. You can't trade for 3 players at an average salary of 4 million each and = a Smith. There isn't a team in the NBA with 3 players at that salary doing what Smoove does and further =ing waiving a player as well. You can only play 5 on the floor at a time.

Man you are intentionally trying to be dense at this point. And as Mace pointed, you are clearly trying to move the goalposts here. Not one person has said that we'd trade for 3 four million dollar players that would equal Smith, not a single person.

The extra players acquired are BETTER than the players we'd release, i.e. Petro and Tolliver. Doesn't matter if the primary player is better than Smith or not as long as it's a player with some value, such as being young with potential or maybe he comes with a 1st round draft pick.

I'm finished with this as it's really starting to get on my nerves today.

[thecampster]

Oh brother, the goalpost has been moved again. Camp, you stated it as a near impossibility due to rules, it was never about value so stop trying to save face.

It is due to rules. You can't trade for more players than you have roster spots....therefore the values aren't just Smith for xyz. But Smith for other players.

These are very separate thoughts.

Thought one . A team with 14 players can not trade 1 for 3. That gives them 16. This is a fact.

Thought 2. A team with 14 players wanting to trade 1 for 3 needs to drop at least 1 player first which exposes them should something fail. This is a contingency fact

Thought 3. If both things above do happen then for the team the real trade is a 2 for 3 as far as the team's roster is concerned and needs to be looked at in that light.

New completely separate thought 1. Why would a team doing the above trade a far superior player to the 3 they are getting when

A. those players are under salary and player A is not considering the current concept is clearing space for 2013 summer? Since that doesn't make sense and we could turn his cap space into anyone we want in the offseason...why the rush to trade for those 3?

I still stand by all statements and I stand by them in the context they were intended, not the box you are trying to put them in. When a sports writer says, Smith for 6 scrubs I know its false because we have our own scrubs we'd have to waive and we can only take back 2 players. I used this same logic this time last year arguing the only trade for Joe was to move him for multiple pieces to fill in our extra slots last year. Check old posts...I explained in detail what would happen with Joe 6 months before it happened.

[MaceCase]

Okay, okay. So in Camp's world the trade has not happened because the rules said so. The Suns have to go back in time and waive Luke Zeller first and only then propose the trade for Morris but this could now allow the Rockets to realize that they are trading the more valuable 14th pick of the 2011 draft for a 2nd rounder so now the Suns are sitting all redfaced that they dropped Zeller for nothing. Ooh I love the tune for this dance where we can revise our original snafus that were called out on on the spot and speak about "context" when being faced with even more evidence.

[Bahamut]

[AHF]

This isn't a sword worth falling on, thecampster. I would just agree that a team with 14 players can discuss and execute any 1 for 3 trade they want by simply clearing roster spots simultaneously with the trade going through.

[thecampster]

AHEM.....I've never seen someone take so much crap for being proven right.

Yes Phoenix had to waive their player first.

No the Hawks didn't make any of the asinine trades proposed and somehow I'm wrong?

It worked out (again I might add) exactly like I said it would. For weeks I've been saying Josh won't be moved because it wouldn't make sense. That any contracts added won't equal a Smith and ultimately he'd be a Hawk and now I'm wrong? I've said repeatedly that it wouldn't work out based on the contracts coming back because we'd have to take back multiples.

[AHF]

AHEM.....I've never seen someone take so much crap for being proven right.

Then stop dumping on MaceCase and Dolfan.