He's definitely not a good perimeter shooter. He's a very good slasher, though, and a pretty darn good defender. He also can play both the 3 and the 4, so he might eventually settle into a very very good bench player if Webster or Batum evolve into quality starters. Needless to say, I think an Outlaw + Frye for Wallace deal would be a great move for Portland and I'd love to see Gerald as a Blazer. I think that Blazers fans would love his game and his hustle, too... Ed O.
why the heck would KP give up on those guys for THIS trade? Maybe down the line but Raef should really be the only focus right now for POR IMO. Once he is moved for whatever then go from there
Look at the first four posts right after your first one in this thread. All of them are, to some extent, confused or in disagreement with your mention of Roy/LA/Oden. Your subsequent position that only Raef's contract would be useful to Charlotte is equally baffling to me. Ed O.
Several reasons: 1. We immediately upgrade our starting small forward position. 2. We consolidate a pair of assets to upgrade a position of need. 3. We retain Raef to use in another deal. 4. Our depth remains intact since we have Webster coming back soon and Ike to replace Frye (which it appears he might have already done). Wallace is young enough to fit in with our core, a defensive player that Nate would love, and a (IMO) dramatic upgrade for this team. Ed O.
As a practical matter, Frye and Diogu might as well be expiring contracts. Any team trading for Frye/Ike gets the rest of the season to decide whether to re-sign him, or let him walk as a RFA. Besides, Frye was that rare player who actually got to play for Brown as a rookie. Maybe LB would actually *want* him.
I'd like to see any unbiased party (non-Laker fan or Chris Wallace) claim or justify it was a good trade for Memphis.
I know everyone is ignoring me, but I just improved my already excellent trade. Both Charlotte and Sacramento get rid of some ugly contracts. Charlotte gets Outlaw to cheaply replace Wallace, Miller and Frye to add some depth to their frontcourt. Sacramento gets rid of two players that aren't part of their future for cap relief, Freeland and Kopo, and Portland's 1st rounder. Blazers give up a lot, but consolidation is what's needed. http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...~22~23~30~23~30~23~23~22~22~22&te=&cash=23:22 [/trademachine-bation]
I think that's a bad deal for Portland. May and Thomas are worthless. Carroll is a negative. The only positive asset we'd be getting is Wallace, and we give up and take on too much to make it worth it, in my opinion. Ed O.
I think we'd be able to get better quality for Travis, Channing, a first, Peterri, Freeland and Raef's contract for essentially Wallace. I bet Charlotte would do that though in a heartbeat.
Or Dale Davis for Baron Davis? So many people really don't take into consideration the history of trading star level players for non-star level players. Contracts and expiring deals along with chemistry are huge factors when teams make trades, not just talent.
Yo. We got your shit covered right here in this thread from 2 months ago: http://www.sportstwo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127011 Needless to say, we were all over the possibilities of plucking from the Bobcats best assets from their impending fire sale. Lots of Gerald Wallace discussion in there, much of it good. Check it out.
Given that I'm a Blazer fan, it's better to try and tilt a trade in favor of everyone else. Freeland/Kopo are the sweeteners for Sacramento, obviously if it's not needed they can be removed. Also, look at what the Blazers give up - Outlaw, 6 minutes of backup PF, and the euros, who will likely only contribute, if they ever do at all, in a few years. IMO that's reasonable for a big upgrade right now. Also, with the Blazers' scouting, Paul Allen's cash, and the numerous 2nd rounders, I don't see any reason why KP can't find the next Freeland or Koponen.
Not to go off topic.. but wow, how did Matt Carroll score a contract with five years remaining at more than $5 mil per? This is the same guy that played for us?? He got a better contract than Travis, and Travis is 10x better.
http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=10585 Sorry but here is a Wallace speech (paraphrased) to season ticket holders...I cant help it if it was the vogue thing to do was to bash the trade by just looking at it from the surface. Read his reasons instead of screaming "unfair"!!! edit: sorry, that was another article saying it wasnt all bad. here is the Wallace speech: http://3shadesofblue.blogspot.com/2008/02/wallace-explains-pau-trade-to-ticket.html
I understand that you'd rather err on the side of having a deal lean against the Blazers' interest, but as the deal is constructed I don't think Portland should do it. We take on a bad contract. We give up a lot of assets. I don't think that it's something that Portland should do. I'm ALL FOR consolidation, but I'm not in favor of bad deals in order to consolidate. I think he will find diamonds in the rough in the future, no doubt. I don't think that giving away these guys in this kind of deal makes sense. It's just too much. Frye only gets a little run for Portland, but that's at least the result of the way our team is built as much as an indicator of his capabilities. Presumably Charlotte, if they were to trade for him, would consider him as more than a bit player off the bench. Ed O.
I think in Gasol's case, he was being booed at home by the fans and basically the team was forced to trade him for whatever they could get. They weren't exactly bargaining from a position of strength...
But I don't think we give up (m)any assets that can't be easily replaced, I don't really see what exact assets you think the Blazers are giving away. Outlaw is replaced by Wallace. Backup PF minutes are replaced (admittedly slightly weakened) by May/Thomas/Batum? And, given recent history, the value of stashed euros is about = $3 million and maybe some 2nd rounders. That's not a whole lot to give up in return for a nice upgrade in talent right now. The way I see it, the only major asset lost is Paul Allen's money. Carrol and Thomas both get a lot of money to sit on the bench, not to mention Wallace's contract. But why exactly is it too much, if KP has the means to find similar players in the future? Why can't it be just like trading a closer in baseball? Valuable player, sure, but easily replaceable. If I understand you correctly, if Charlotte values Frye as a lottery pick PF, that means Portland should value him likewise? That still doesn't change the fact that he's a bit player in Portland's system, and likely will be until the end of his contract. So regardless of how highly other teams might value him, his actual value to Portland is very low. Therefore, his only value to the Blazers is as a trade asset, in which case the only problem with trading him in this deal is that he might bring back more later, which personally I highly doubt.
Bottom line: I believe we can get more for these pieces than Wallace and salary cap deadweight. That's something that neither you nor I can know until and unless we trade them. Ed O.
