DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan



, all the time

Happy Deadline Day

Chad Ford has a 'blog' that he's updating periodically

Says Cavs really want a four

Rockets wnat to keep artest but any deal for mcgrady is dead

Thunder may have been overly conservative about chandler - don't be surprised if someone else takes a risk

Luxury tax level will be lowered to 69.4 milllion possibly this summer - putting the wiz on alert to try and shed some money


Washington's main problem is that the best talent they have is also the most affordable in Caron Butler. I'm surprised they wouldn't take an expiring for Jamison.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 11:39

Pride goeth before a fall - trading a guy like Jamison less than a year after you commit large money to him and talk about your team contending is basically admitting your mistake - and GMs shouldn't admit mistakes if they want to keep jobs - reports are they the GM keeps talking about how 'health' is their problem and once haywood and arenas are all healthy again the wizards will be contenders (they'll be no better than the 4 seed in my mind - with no real shot at a title - but hey that's me)

ANd seriously - at this point - who thinks Areanas will ever be healthy again?

Who didn't think that contract was a colossal mistake the second he signed it?

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 11:44

Both the jamison and arenas contracts were mistakes - and many people thought so - but the GM can't think that less than a year later and with Arenas hurt - i mean yes even if he THINKS they were mistakes - if he admits it now he's admitting his incompetence and making it that much easier to get his ass fired.

Which is stupid - guys trying to save their jobs are going to screw their teams over more as opposed to admitting mistakes - admit your mistake - yes put your job in jeopardy - but then try and fix it - with owner approval - and try and save your job

BTW - I really hope I get a text alert from SR 950 at some point before 3 pm eastern regarding SOMETHING the sixers did - it's aggravating to not even hear a whisper of Miller in the trade talks - i mean the economy - the cap - 2010 - millers gotta have some value - injured or not

There really hasn't been a solid Sixers rumor all season long.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 11:52

I don't know for sure if that's a good or bad thing - i mean there wer no solid rumors or talk about brand to philadelphia - or any of the deals during the stefanski era (have there?) - the sixers seem pretty good on the 'keeping things quiet' front except for when they were moving iverson - webber came out of nowhere as well if i recall correctly - hell they 'secretly' worked out Iguodala before the draft.

In general - the less talked about - the more likely I think deals are to happen - public reaction can affect whether or not a deal does happen - and the more opinion out there - written or vocal - the more a GM may doubt his own thoughts if too many people disagree - a lot of GMs seem to lack the courage of their convictions some times.

I prefer my GMs like Theo Epstein (sorry man) - the red sox do what they think is best for their team and franchise - regardless of what the fans may oor may not think...

I beg to differ on Epstein. He does exactly what his racist fanbase wants, that's why they only acquire white players and they're systematically ridding their roster of all minorities.

Either Stefanski does a really good job keeping a lid on things, or the beat writers in Philly don't work too hard to get sources in the organization, or both. I mean, it's amazing, Jasner and Fagan never, ever get scoops. They almost never even refer to sources. I like Fagan, she works hard, but come on. You're a beat writer, you have to get some inside info from someone.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 11:59

Hmm...if you weren't a yankees fan maybe I'd take your accusation about racism towards the red sox (left over from being the last team to integrate and the yawkee owenrship) seriously - but since the red sox tend to out do the yankees every season - regardless of cash spent and 'racism' - i'm going to go with your natural hateration of the red sox causing you to spit bile out.

They've "outdone" the Yankees three times in the past 13 seasons.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 12:07

Not going to get in to it here cause you have your yankees blog - but when referring to the epstein red sox era - going back 13 years is ludicrous.

If you just want to take the epstein years, it's 3-3. 2003, 2005, 2006 yanks, 2004, 2007, 2008 sox.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 12:14

You can look at it that way

but the red sox and the yankees count in only one way really

and since epstein arrived it's 2-0

Hey - it's how georgey ran the team - it's a ring or it's a failure

I don't want to get into a debate on this, but I think calling Boston a racist fan base is a bit extreme. I realize the city has a long history of racism, but it has made huge strides--so much so that a player like Kevin Garnet was willing to reconsider the city after he first dismissed it. You can call things like the bringing in Bay racist or you can call it removing a jackass like Manny. I am not a Red Sox or Theo fan but I tend to shy away from sweeping generalizations like that.

In any event, I would prefer to talk about the Sixers. It is eerily quiet on the trade front and my gut says the team won't make any moves of significance. They are in a tough spot, they have a valuable asset in Miller but there is little available in terms of an equal trade partner. I think they need to aggressively shop him and see what might be out there, but I doubt they will find any deals to their liking.

Let's save the sox argument for another time and place. As for Miller, I'm surprised we aren't hearing anything. Not even speculation for the past two weeks.

Agreed on the Sox argument!

As for Miller, I agree. The lack of mere speculation is puzzling. Like you said above, either the Sixers front office is real good at bottling these things up or nothing is happening. It seems to me that the Sixers need to take a hard look at the roster as it stands and contemplate their fate next year. With a healthy Brand and this group, are they in the class of the Celtics or Cavs? Not even close. Moving Miller won't solve all of their ills but it might be a step in the right direction. But I am not a proponent of moving him just for the sake of moving him and therein lies the rub. There just doesn't seem to be equal value out there.

It's such a volatile situation. The Brand injury really threw a monkey wrench into the works. If he didn't get hurt at least we'd have 50+ games of history to judge whether Miller + Brand makes this team a contender. I think it's premature to say they don't have a chance at competing with them, because we just never got the chance to see it.

Then, while we don't know what this team looks like w/ Miller and Brand, we still don't even know if we'll see it next season if we don't trade him today. He could walk. His comments today make it seem a little less likely that he will, but you never know.

And the final piece to the puzzle. If they don't get a point in return, and a decent one, they're probably missing the playoffs this season, which means this year will be a step backwards, which is not something anyone wants to take.

I don't envy Stefanski's options on this one.

I wonder if the OKC 'injury' thing on Tyson Chandler came before or after teams learned about a lower luxury tax :)

Turf Toe sounds like an excuse to me

Did I read that it was the doctor who performed the surgery that told OKC to void the trade after the physical?

Yeah - i did see about the doctor - but still - it's freaking turf toe :)

New fun rumors to play with

Shaq to the Cavs in discussion

According to Henry Abbot the blazers will make no moves - which to me is just more illustration of a problem Pritchard has - i think he's scared to make ANY deals - afraid they'll back fire on him - so they talk alot - but he has trigger issues - and thus will run into problems makig the moves need to solidify his team - not moving lafrentz deal is unforgivable for a team with obvious needs and obvious holes

They need to move LaFrentz for something. They aren't going to have the cap space to do anything.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 12:17

Unless Pritchard is just too scared of his own shadow

Would you prefer Travis Outlaw or Gerald Wallace on your team?

On the Sixers? Outlaw. On a team with plenty of outside shooting, Wallace.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 12:23

If you're the blazers - do you prefer travis outlaw or gerald wallace - i mean isn't that the hold up - the bobcats want wallace and the blazers don't want to give him up?

If I'm Portland, I make the deal. Not sure what the holdup is.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 12:32

If i recall last year - there was lots of talk about the blazers too - and then nothing happened - i think this is a flaw in the pritchard make up - as a GM - and if so - it's going to be a catastrophic flaw unless paul allen is willing to pay EVERYONE what they're worth :)

You know - the sticking point on the cavs/shaq thing is that hte suns want wally and the cavs want them to take ben wallace.

Now - doesn't this sound like the perfect situation for a 3rd team with a similar expiring contract to come in and maybe help out both teams getting a deal done while at the same time improving their coffers.

hey Look - Lafrentz doesn't make much less (or more) than wally szcerbiak.

if i'm pritchard and i read this chad ford rumor - i decide what i want and i get on the phone.

It's worth a call I would think - not sure andre miller fits the bill in terms of pure contract value - but if i'm stef i get on the phone too and see what i could get to help this deal get done

What would you want back if you were Stefanski? Richardson?

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 12:27

I have no idea - i'd have to look at both rosters to see what's there - I've heard good things about JJ Hickson - Richardson hasn't exactly wowed the world in Phoenix and I'm afriad he's a 'volume' guy - and the sixers really need to avoid volume shooters in my opinion...I just think it's a call worth making - if only either team had a solid point guard prospect :)

PS - on the epstein thing - my apologies - i couldn't resist poking the bear a little - it's a bad habit of mine - there are other GMs i could have used :)

:) no problem. we're back on topic now.

Shelden Williams traded to the T-Wolves in a small deal. Who did the Hawks pass on to take him?

Roy, Foye, Gay, hell Rondo went in the 20s


What a crappy draft class.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 12:34

But better options than williams - and the hawks took a lot of grief at the time for passing on Roy (and Foye)

If I recall there was an Iverson deal in discussion (rumored) that would have had the sixers moving up that high and getting Roy or Foye (I preferred Roy, most locals liked the villanova kid) - obviously it fell through

Two mentions of the sixers so far in the ford chat.

Vic, Philadelphia PA : Chad, any chance the Sixers move Dalembert today?

Chad Ford: (12:38 PM ET ) They've tried ... and tried ... and tried. Nothing is happening.

Mo Camden, NJ [via mobile]: Are the sixers looking to move Andre' Miller's expiring contract, if not are they going to make any noise?

Chad Ford: (12:26 PM ET ) I don't think so. They feel like they can make some noise in the playoffs with Miller at the helm.

you're too quick for me :) I added the blurbs to the post above.

Ford answered two Sixers questions so far in his chat, check the post above.

Dear Mr Stefanski:

Unless you feel THIS roster can beat the magic/celtics/cavs (all 3) in a 7 game series - the 'noise' you make is like the sound and fury that signifies nothing - you better be 100% sure you can get Miller back on good terms - or I'm going to be quite pissed.

Why won't OKC take Sam for the same deal they took chandler - it's identical questions - and as for the 3 'bigs' who all signed in the same off season - there's an argument to be made (when facoting in health) that sam has performed the 'best' of all 3.

Again - I think that's a perceptoin thing - or are the SIXERS unwilling to trade sam for the same deal?

I think it's a perception thing, and it's really silly. (Is Curry the third?)

Chandler and Dalembert are almost identical for their careers, their contracts are almost identical. Neither one has an offensive game, Dalembert blocks more shots.

I think Chandler is being over-valued because Chris Paul has made him look good.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 13:00

Yes Chandler Curry and Dalembert were all free agents in the same off season and all pretty much get the same contract length and value - and as much as it pains me to say it - i think sam had played the best of the three.

Bryon reply to john on Feb 19 at 20:21

So which one is it with you, John?? This was how you felt in January:

"...Sam can't catch dribble shoot or post up...he's useless - tyson chandler is better defensively (and offensively) and eddy curry at least scares teams offensively"

"...Yeah, cause that's the point i was making...if you pay attention you'll know why chandler and curry should be the ones dalembert is measured against"

"...But it makes more sense to compare sam against his contemporaries who got the same contract at the same time sam did.
Of course - then sam doesn't look very good."

All of the above were your exact quotes just 6 short weeks ago, but now you finally jump on Sam's jock??

Flip flopping or just looking for a napkin to wipe that crow off??

I wonder when we're going to get word on Miller's injury.

ESPN said it was minor last night and he would probably play on Sat. Local papers have him getting an MRI today. I doubt he misses any time.

Ford on Pritchard:

Ryan (Portland): After a week of dealing with the Blazers, if a deal doesn't get done does, Pritchard run the risk of hurting their ability to talk to teams in the future. Do they look like they are just collecting information?

SportsNation Chad Ford: (1:01 PM ET ) I think that's a nice way of saving face. They were trying to do a deal. Didn't get what they want. Talked up the value of Raef LaFrentz relentlessly. Then don't do a deal. I love Kevin Pritchard. But all of the deals he's made so far have been low risk/high reward for the Blazers. This was the first time he had to stick his neck out there. Adding Vince Carter or Richard Jefferson was a higher risk scenario. I sounds like he didn't want to roll the dice.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 13:06

But you can look at it this way in that it's still low risk - what are you giving up really? You're giving up Raef Lafrentz who doesn't play - with your miles issue and all your own restricted free agents - you ain't really going to ever have a chance to be a major free agency player so the ONLY way to make the big splash is through the trade market.

If they could have gotten vince OR jeff for Lafrentz and spare parts I feel it's asinine to not have done it.

If the pacers can get away with sitting tinsley forever until they find a trade partner - so can the blazers - when trading useless spare parts for an on the court upgrade i don't see why it isn't a no brainer.

Ford seems to like Pritchard and is making excuses for him -

Wow, now he's saying the Blazers are hesitant to part with Nicolas Batum in a deal. That's going a little too far.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 13:16

See - i saw that eralier too and while batum has been surprising he's not key - or that important really - assuming you have faith in aldridge and oden (now if you don't - that's a different story) - but to get a guy like jeff or vince - batum and raef is a small price to pay for the upside

Unless you're a gm who over values his own guys too much and isn't ratoinal about it.

The Bulls seems to suffer from the same kind of draft pick inertia...

Marc Stein: Word is coming in that the Knicks are closing in on some new players.

It is not immediately clear if this would be two separate trades or a three-way exchange, but I'm hearing that Oklahoma City's Chris Wilcox -- who went back to the Thunder on Wednesday night when the Tyson Chandler trade was rescinded -- and Chicago's Larry Hughes are New York-bound.

To complete the transaction(s), Oklahoma City would get Malik Rose and Chicago would receive Tim Thomas, Jerome James and Anthony Roberson.

Trying to nail it all down for you.


Stein reporting that the knicks are about to get something done with Oklahoma City (Chris WIlcox) and Chicago (Larry Huges)

OKC gets Malik Rose - and Chicago gets TIm Thomas, Jerome James, and Anthony Roberson?

I don't know all the contract lenghts but what the HELL does CHicago get from this deal?

Wilcox and Hughes to NY, huh?

Wilcox could help them in the short term. When does Tim Thomas's contract expire?

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 13:26

I know wilcox expires this year and hughes expires in 2010 - so it's good for the knicks in terms of their 'get lebron and bosh' plan :)

According to story tellers, thomas, james, and roberson all expire in 2010 as well - don't know where it all falls in the 25% window - and rose expires this year according to story tellers

So what the hell is the point of this? It's deck chairs?

Yup. Pointless trade. Chicago gets rid of a headache. Wilcox is probably the best player involved and the Knicks are putrid down low, so maybe he has an impact.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 13:32

Yeah - but they obtained him for his contract not for his play right? I mean they have the incomprable incredible no way should he be traded david lee?

The Knicks need to move Curry or Jeffries to really cut any salary going forward. This was pointless.

I can't wait to see who overpays for Lee. That should be the comedic highlight of the summer. I hope it's Detroit.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 13:38

Here's what I don't get

If the knicks aren't going to over pay him to maintain flexibility for 2010 - why the hell aren't they trading him (and btw - speaking of racial issues - david lee everyone :) )

I think it's hysterical how much the knicks over value LEE AND Robinson - i mean dear god - nate robinson? How is he any more than Spud Webb was back in the day? And spud was nice and everything - but dude was easy to replace and trade away.

If the knicks are REALLY playing for 2010 - it's doubtful they keep lee or robinson cause oseone will offer em big money in the off season - even though Adande is reporting a lower cap next year of 57.3

Lower cap works in sixers favor with regards to Miller.

Wild thought here - i wonder if the sixers looked at the baseball free agency this year (ignoring the phillies stupidity of course) and noticed how guys weren't getting what they thought they would - and applied logic and capology to it and came to the conclusion that they'll be able to keep miller on their terms?

I'm sure that had something to do with it.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 13:49

Well, no way to be sure, but if the sixers get a 'team friendly' deal done with miller this off season i'll give them the benefit of the doubt :)

Let's just hope that they aren't phillies stupid and grossly over pay

Here we go:

NY: Wilcox (expiring $6.75MM), Hughes ($13.65MM coming off next season).

OKC: Rose (expiring $7.6M)

Chicago: James ($6.6M, coming off next season), Tim Thomas ($6.5M coming off next season), Roberson (minimum, not fully guaranteed)

This move really does nothing for any team involved as far as the cap is concerned. OKC clears an extra million this Summer, that's it.

I'm going to grab lunch, if you see something, post something in my absence.

Ford says the Knicks may make another deal. Jeffries and Nate for Kenny Thomas. They should make that deal in a second. Sacto is really stupid.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 14:49

Update is that the knicks turned down the kings - which is stupid

Now all the 'not happening' stuff is being confirmed

No on shaq
no on jeff or vince going anywhere
supposedly kings/celtics were talking nocioni - but went nowhere

I wish people would stop talking about james fracking posey - the celtics lost him and THEYRE STILL THE BEST TEAM IN THE EAST - stop over rating a guy who was hot for a couple weeks

They're going to miss him in the playoffs. He's going to be the reason they don't repeat. Heard it here first.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 14:58

Sorry - untenable hypothesis - can't isolate it to one reason if they lose - can only disprove it by winning the east -and the title

and you know it :)

The witching hour is here. Barring any late-breaking news, all the GM's in the league are afraid of their own shadow. Disappointing day.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 15:06

Meh - it's always disappointing - ESPN needs eyeballs so they hype every possible thing up - discuss it until it's dead and ignore denials from GMs no matter how often they are given. I'm surprised the knicks did so much actually - though pointless

I take that back.

Three-team deal sending Rafer Alston to Orlando, Kyle Lowry to Houston, with some filler moving around as well.

Alston to run the Orlando offense? Still think they aren't a legit threat in the playoffs.

Orlando got Alston. Helps them but They should've gotten lowry instead.

Marc Stein: Looks like we have a fairly significant three-way deal that has been submitted to the league just before the trade deadline.

NBA front-office sources tell ESPN.com that Orlando is acquiring Rafer Alston from Houston to fill the void created at point guard by Jameer Nelson's shoulder injury.

The Rockets will receive Memphis guard Kyle Lowry, Orlando forward Brian Cook and perhaps two other minimum-salaried players to make the finances work.

The Grizzlies will receive a first-round pick from Orlando.

john reply to steve on Feb 19 at 15:14

Lowry hasn't shown anything yet to show he's ready to compete at a high NBA level - Alston is a fill in for Jameer - Lowry isn't ready to step into the starting role - as far as 'trying to compete this year' lowry wouldn't have helped - alston might (probably won't) though

I don't even know - was alston out of the starting line up in houston?

He started against the Sixers. Their backup was Brooks, right?

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 15:21

Don't know - missed the game - hold on - yup - has been starting as of late


So if the rockets gave up why weren't they willing to trade artest?

Joe reply to john on Feb 19 at 15:27

What makes you think they are giving up? Lowry is better than Alston...

you beat me this time brian haha.

john reply to steve on Feb 19 at 15:24

Well the source isn't all that reliable and the numbers might have a problem working - but depending on the pieces back i don't immediately dismiss the deal out of hand - reggie evans has a bad contract

The celtics have sewn up the title

Patrick O'Bryant for Will Solomon

I know the raptors need a big man - but jesus

I might do it for bayless but not for sergio or blake. Plus i like reggie its not like we're going to be enough under the cap to make a big splash. Pritchard is annoying though, he's terrified to trade any of his young players.

I'd rather have Rudy than Bayless, but that might just be me. I wouldn't do this deal if it was Blake or Sergio coming back, I don't care about Reggie's contract if that's the haul you're getting in return it isn't worth it.

Joe reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 15:36

I think everyone would prefer Rudy... signs have been that isn't plausible though.

I don't see what is wrong with Pitchard. He doesn't see the point in getting overpaid soon-to-be wash ups in Jeffersona nd Carter. I would feel the same way if I were him.

I don't believe in spending just to spend, which is what these deals wound like to me.

john reply to Joe on Feb 19 at 15:40

"soon to be" wash ups in your mind - but when - and if the price is raef lafrentz and nicolas batum WHO GIVES A CRAP - seriously - everyone pays attention to marc cuban - but one of the richest most willing to spend owners in the league is paul allen - if those guys help the team for just the next year or two it's worth it since lafrentz isn't doing squat and batum is a spare part.

The cost to get either vince or jeff was minnimal compared to the possible reward.

Joe reply to john on Feb 19 at 16:39

What is so wrong with holding onto Raef... if they traded him they lose $10,000,000 immediately since insurance covers 10 million of his 12.7. That matters. This isn't fantasyland.

In addition, they still have reasonable flexibility and helped that with an underrated move made in the last 48 hours where Pritchard got a 3 million dollar trade exception good for 365 days.

What possible moves are you critical of. Be specific please, because i don't see a possible valid argument for Jefferson at all. I don't think Vince Carter would be worth the risk since he has had several cortizone shots in his knees, is 32, and on the decline. Gerald Wallace has had all those concussions, but I would be critical of Pritchard for a core Pryzbilla/Wallace swap.

And I'm sorry but Batum is a young kid who just got to the US. He is performing solidly for a rookie and looks like a nice player. He isn't a "throw in" IMO. Bayless fills that moreso since he looks like potential without any semblance of production thusfar.

Personally, I thought they needed a point more than a wing, but that may just be me. I think it's disappointing that Portland had the most valuable asset heading into the deadline, clear needs that could've been addressed with players on the market, and they stood pat. If the reasons we've heard are true, it seems to me like they overplayed their hand, especially considering they won't have the cap space to make any moves this summer or next.

That being said, neither Carter nor Jefferson was going to put them over the top, and honestly, I'd be hesitant to bring Carter into a locker room with that many kids. The deal I probably would've made was for Gerald Wallace, or Miller, if that was ever a viable option for them.

I am starting to loose confidence in Ed S. How can you expect the team to compete w/out someone that can shoot the 3 point consistently in this league? Especially when this time likes to drive the ball w/ most of the players? I just don't get it? AM I missing something.

john reply to DeanH on Feb 19 at 15:56

I must be missing something - what deal did Ed pass on that doesn't deplete the team in one area that gets them a 3 point shooter?

Joe reply to DeanH on Feb 19 at 16:51


I think that you need the 3 point shooter to also be able to play... Rush can shoot the 3 and so can Marshall... the coaching staff just doens't think they can play and I agree on Rush, since he hasn't shown in his career that he can play IMO.

I do not know what went on behind the scenes, John. Just a general comment. Do you know what goes on behind the scenes in the front office, btw.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for one reason only. No three-point shooter changed teams, not one. And there are plenty of teams out there who could use shooting. This tells me that no shooting was really on the market, or teams were asking way too much.

This really bugs me:

Joe, RI: Does Joe Smith get bought out and go to Boston now?

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:05 PM ET ) It would appear that way. OKC can save itself a few ducats with a buyout, and the Celtics and Smith would be ecstatic to join up for the league minimum.

Why do teams do this? I don't understand it. What does OKC get out of helping Boston? I thought the whole point of sports was to make things harder for the other teams. If Smith can play, why buy him out? Pisses me off.

For what it is worth, I heard from one of the reporters that the other teams wanted either Spieghts, Thad, Izzy or Lou. While right now Lou does not look great, I would hate to trade him and see him become a great 3 point shooter in 2 years! I guess I can't blame him...

I'd love to know what teams wanted to offer for Lou.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 16:35

Me too - i think worrying that he might become a good 3 point shooter 2 years down the line isn't a reason not to trade him as I see no evidence to believe it will be so...Thad, Iggy, Speights, these are core players to me you'll need to win a title - lou could be traded and might still have some value somewhere - ah well

shocked that no one wanted willie

To Dean Nope - but you seemed to be implying that Stefanski didn't get it - that somehow he didn't understand the need for a 3point shooter - i'm guessing he understands the need - but so does everyone else so it's rather hard to get something without giving something up. - you didn't make a general comment - you criticized stefanski like he didn't know it was important

To Brian - they save money - the buyout is for less salary than what smith would get staying on their roster - it's purely to save cash - they aren't 'helping' boston - they're helping their bottom line - if smith is motivated to get out - they could help their bottom line by a couple million.

The whole buyout re-signing thing is only slightly ess gross than the trade, buyout, wait 30 days and then come back - the NBA should make a rule that if you trade or buy out a player you can't sign him until NEXT SEASON

I believe there are rules about buyouts, based on percentages. I mean, the guy is a rotational player for them, right? Just cutting him to save cash seems dubious to me.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 16:40

I have no idea on the rules for buyouts - i assumed it was whatever you could come to agreement on.

Joe reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 16:46

What do you mean... "rules on buyouts"? In the NHL they have a 75% buyout clause in all contracts I believe, where teams can exercise it and waive him, but they still have to pay him 75%. There is nothing like that in basketball, or else Starbury would have been bought out.

john reply to Joe on Feb 19 at 16:51

I wouldn't use the NHL as en example for anything except how to fail.

I felt what Brian meant was that a buyout might be limited to how much it could be - i.e. no more than 75% of the contract value - but not a fixed number like in the NHL hence the negotiation in the marbury case

Joe reply to john on Feb 19 at 16:55

To my knowledge, a buy out is signing a new contract that voids the old one, creates a new one, and releases the player pretty much. I won't want to read the cba or go through the FAQs right now to find out more.

I looked the relevant link is in the comment below this one. Don't have enough time to really pour through it, but seems like the buyout amount is up to the team and player in negotiations.

You're right looks like there is no penalty or minimum if the player is in the last year of his contract.

john reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 16:59

So - even though they were ok TAKING on money two days OK, OKC now wants to save money - so they'll buy out joe smith to save a couple mil - why shoould they give a damn who he plays for afterwards?

Still bugs me. There's no waiver system in basketball, is there? That would solve crap like this.

Joe reply to Brian on Feb 19 at 17:33

There are waivers for 48 hours... not sure how they work honestly. I think the Blazers claimed Miles off waivers after his first 10 day contract was up in Memphis. The league didn't allow it though because they said they were circumventing league rules or something.

As for a couple million as john said, I don't think that is how it works.

Typically players lose the exact amount they then regain when they resign with their new team. I would guess that since Joe has been around awhile.. the league minimum for him is probably about 1.4 million or so, adjust that for the amount of games left and I am guesisng the Thunder will save less than a million by buying him out. Just what I think from some stuff I have read on buy outs off and on over the last few years. I'm too tired to read the nonsense in the FAQs or go through the CBA forum on realgm honestly.

john reply to Joe on Feb 19 at 18:03

That doesn't make any sense in that the buyout is negotiated BEFORE a guy re-signs with another team so you can't know what hte other team is going to offer - not all guys who get bought out get signed somewhere else.

Also - if it were based on the minimum salary for said player - why hasn't marbury been bought out all ready - there's no negotiating room.

And if i recall correctly didn't webber give back a couple of million dollars - more than the minimum salary for a player with his experience time.

Joe reply to john on Feb 19 at 18:34

It is known Joe Smith wants to sign with the Celtics. He, and his agent, will know how much he is going to be making for the Celtics,. It isn't hard to find that out. Hell, give me 5 bucks and I'll go read the FAQ and give you an answer.

It isn't written in stone how these things work... Sam Cassell refused to give any money back if I remember correctly.

The Starbury situation is too crazy to really discuss. I think the biggest thing there is the money the team fined him for not playing. Bad blood all around.

Webber had another year left changing the situation a decent amount. He wasn't "some dude expiring in 35 games anyway." There were extenuating circumstances like his worth as an expiring contract.(See Toine v. McHale) I'd like to know exactly how much he gave back personally. I can't rememebr the details.

Joe Smith is merely a vet wanting to leave his contract and sign with a contender. The trade deadline has now passed. The Thunder don't have too much use for him with Green, Collison, Wilcox and other younger players they need to have a look at at PF. There is no bad blood as far as I know. So he basically just leaves and goes to Boston... it just makes sense. The Thunder save a little money, though not much. Joe Smith's money is unaffected. The team isn't any noticeable amount worse from it either. And that is it.

John reply to Joe on Feb 19 at 20:01

Search Larry Coon and FAQ - what you're explaining is a unique situation and telling me it applies to all buyout discussions - because of Smith and the Celtics I don't see how that makes the buyout discussions the same.

I haven't seen anything that says there's a limit to how much the player can give back.

Joe reply to John on Feb 19 at 20:22

I'm not here to pull my pants down and see if I can piss further than you. OK? I said what I said. You are making straw man arguments. In addition, you appear to be making up an argument out of thin air w/respect to this "minimum" stuff.


This is a blog to express opinions and frustrations. I see alot of criticism of Lou, Willie, Sammy and I was expressing a thought. I did not say i lost confidence, I said I was starting to loose confidence. Fyi, I have invested thousands of dollars this year in the sixers w/ season tickets, I believe while I still think Ed has done a good job, I am confused recently.

Sorry if I seemed mean, but I was "crying" for understanding. As Brian explained, and I explained later, I found my answer and am in agreement.

john reply to DeanH on Feb 19 at 17:03

Whatever - they are two entirely different situations - one has evidence - one doesn't - but it's pointless to keep going - i'll just got more loost from the original point

John Hollinger on not trading miller

"For what? There wasn't much available in terms of point guards and shooting specialists, so you're better off just re-signing him at a lower number in a depressed market this summer"

As long as it ain't for more than 3 years - i'm down

Sefolosha to OKC for a first round pick

Sacramento waiving Mikkie Moore

For some reason the solomon/o'bryant deal was a 3 way -

Sacto - Will Solomon
Toronto - Patrick O'Bryant
Boston 'heavily' protected conditional second rounder (otherwise known as bubkis)

Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment