The Challenge Of Trading Big Baby
by Jeff Clark on Jul 29, 2009 9:15 PM EDT
in Rumors
78 comments
Yesterday the NY Post opined that the Celtics might be trying to mash up the Daniels and Big Baby rumors with a 3 team deal with Indy and New Jersey.
Maybe an inventive deal could be devised involving three teams. The Nets have a couple of trade exceptions from the Vince Carter deal that could come into play. The Celtics likely want a big man in return, the Pacers want a wing.
Trade exceptions, 3 way trades, this is all enough to make my brain cramp. However, the most complicated thing is how to work out the Big Baby sign and trade because he's a BYC player.
For review, lets look again at Roy Hobbs' Salary Cap FAQ:
14) If it looks like we're going to lose BBD as a free agent, could we sign and trade him to another team?
Nothing prevents us from signing and trading BBD using the Early Bird exception. However, Base Year Compensation rules (as explained in Question 13) make it pretty tough to pull off such a trade. For instance, if BBD signs for $4.0 million in his first year, there is *no* 1-for-1 trade that could be made for him under BYC rules. There may be some wiggle room by including a minimum salary player, but there's not much.
By example:
Let's say BBD signs for $4 million in the first year, and we want to trade him to Team X.
For BYC purposes, BBD's salary counts as a $2 million salary outgoing from Boston. To fit within trade rules, the most salary we can take back from another team (Team X) is 125% of that amount, plus $100k. That amounts to $2.6 million.
Does that mean we can acquire a player making $2.6 million, then? No. The trade has to work from Team X's end, too, and from their end, they have to count BBD's entire $4 million salary. The absolute least amount they could send out in a trade of a $4 million salary is $3.12 million. As you see, that's still more than the $2.6 million Boston can take back.
Now, one way around this would be to include a minimum salary player in the team (going from Team X to Boston), because minimum salary players don't have to be counted as incoming salary in a trade. For instance, let's say we want to trade BBD's $4 million salary for a player making $2.5 million and a minimum salary player, making around $800k. Can we do that? Yes.
As noted above, Boston can trade BBD's hypothetical $4 million salary for a player making up to $2.6 million. In this case, the $2.5 million player fits under this restriction. Because minimum salary players can be included in a trade at any time without counting against outgoing salary, from Team X's end, it is only sending out $2.5 million in salary (when, in actuality, the real number it is trading is $3.3 million). On the other hand, remember that Boston has to take back at least $3.12 million in salary. Does it meet this requirement? Yes, because Boston can elect to include the actual amount of salaries it is taking back, or in this case, $3.3 million.
The lesson to learn here is that a sign-and-trade with BBD is possible, but it's not probable, due to the small margin of error with which the Celts have to work in terms of matching salaries.
I tried for a while to figure out a way for a Daniels and Sean Williams for Davis (with trade exception to Indy) deal to work, but I don't think it adds up because Williams isn't a minimum salary player - unless a rookie contract qualifies, but I don't think so. So maybe Roy or someone smarter than me can figure this out.
Besides, I was sort of hoping that we could get Daniels for Tony Allen and then some good return pieces for Big Baby (or keep Baby). Time will tell though.
0 recs |
78 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I agree about the Sean Williams hopes
If only they could swing it
by BigRedDog42 on Jul 29, 2009 9:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I much rather have Baby than Williams for a reasonable price.
by Mike-Dub on Jul 29, 2009 9:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why?
Williams is a dynamic defender who would be perfect for our defense first team. Williams would be so damn good under Tom T. His shot blocking ability is ridiculous not to mention he is about 10 times the rebound Big Baby will ever be. Sure his offesne isn’t anything to write home about but this is our 4th big we are talking about.
For all things Boston College please visit my blog: Towers on the Heights
by beantownkid10 on Jul 29, 2009 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because...
Williams is a trouble maker who isn’t even close to as good as Baby in skill right now and people think Williams has more potential than Baby but I don’t because he doesn’t have the attitude to fulfuill his potential unlike Baby who has already proven he can be a valuable piece on a championship team and is only getting better and will continue to only get better.
by Mike-Dub on Jul 29, 2009 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No offense...
but, that was a really long sentence.
by stevenfuzz on Jul 29, 2009 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hes a freaking kid
OMG a kid made a few mistakes. Ain’t nothing KG can beat the crap out of him.
Not to mention Sean Williams will one keep getting better and better too.
For all things Boston College please visit my blog: Towers on the Heights
by beantownkid10 on Jul 29, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop with this KG can mold him buisness…no, its up to that player, not KG, and KG has molded noone his entire career, that is myth
btw, didnt we say this about patrick o bryant? yeah KG really got through to him
by latin on Jul 29, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had to take a deep breath...
after reading that sentence…
by rickyfan3.0... on Jul 30, 2009 7:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still believe in Williams' potential
As much as I appreciate Baby, I also understand his somewhat severe limitations. He is an undersized PF who is an abysmal rebounder, poor rotator, and has limited low post moves. I’m starting to wonder if he’s even worth the 3 mill.
Sean is more of a legitimate PF who could be an intimidating inside presence and also throw down some monster dunks. Sounds good to me.
by BigRedDog42 on Jul 29, 2009 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All Williams can do is...
throw down monsterous dunks when he is set up by his teammates… He will never realize his potential because he does not have the right attitude at all… Williams would be just the next POB but more athletic and more potential but like Patrick he won’t reach it and we don’t have time to allow Williams to grow into a good player we need a good one like Baby who we know for a fact will improve and will has the right attitude unlike Sean to get better.
by Mike-Dub on Jul 29, 2009 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do we know for a fact that Baby will improve?
He appears to not be working on anything but his jumpshot. I think last years playoffs are as good as he’s going to get. Undersized, non athletic PF only have so much upside.
And Patrick O’Bryant was known for nothing besides being tall. He was always considered soft and everyone just hoped he could be coerced into playing defense. Sean, on the other hand, was nationally known as a defender and instinctual shot blocker. He doesn’t need to change, he just needs to get to work.
by BigRedDog42 on Jul 29, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes we do because he has great work ethic...
Williams does need to change and we can’t be willing to wait on him to do that.
by Mike-Dub on Jul 29, 2009 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a great work ethic too
Does that mean I’m worth 3+ million to the Celtics, too?
by BigRedDog42 on Jul 30, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree, but...
Will KG, Sheed, and PP have the time and desire to “baby-sit” Williams?
When Sean gets bored, out comes the weed!
by Title 18 on Jul 29, 2009 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man
that sounds like a headache waiting to happen… Good luck figuring that out
by Celtic_24 on Jul 29, 2009 9:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
How much
Does Battie make this year?
by Scalablob990 on Jul 29, 2009 10:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe to much for us.
6.8 million and 7.3 million his second year of his contract. He’s 31 that’s not bad. We would have to work magic for that deal.
by green20 on Jul 29, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you mean tony?
I thought I saw Battier,but Tony Battie is a waste.
by green20 on Jul 29, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
why do we want to trade baby for a scrub ? dumb…young player who can help us win now, knows the system and has upside
by latin on Jul 29, 2009 10:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It isn't about Daniels making "a few extra bucks"
It is about getting a contract in place where Daniels is willing to sign a multi year contract and getting rid of Baby for a reasonable return is easily worth that. If we can somehow end up with Daniels, Dooling, and Williams for Baby, Tony, and Walker … we should consider ourselves lucky.
by timepiece33 on Jul 29, 2009 11:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No crap.
Thats a hell of an upgrade for us.
Big Baby is sooooooo damn overrated on this blog.
For all things Boston College please visit my blog: Towers on the Heights
by beantownkid10 on Jul 29, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, but at least he’s proven he can player. Williams has only proven that he is a headcase.
by kozlodoev on Jul 30, 2009 6:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, thats actually Powe whos overrated around here, Big Baby has actually done something in the NBA, hes earned his respect….You are Boston College fan advacating Williams, and in doing so have to bring down a guy THAT actually HELPED US WIN
by latin on Jul 30, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No he is not...
He worth 3 million… He proved he can play in the playoffs and start on a decent team (We were decent cuz no KG)… also he showed he could hit shots in the clutch.
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He hit one big shot
It’s not like he’s Larry Bird. I hope he’s not going to ride that shot for his career. It could be like Bucholz’s no hitter…
by BigRedDog42 on Jul 30, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He hit many more big shots than one...
they just weren’t all game winners… You probably don’t realize this… but he hit the shot to put them down one before his game winner against the Magic and hit many clutch shots against the Bulls to keep us down by two or tied.
Just because they weren’t all game winners doesn’t mean they weren’t clutch shots.
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He did take a lot of shots
But that was because he was left open. Big Baby taking shots in the fourth was Orlando’s dream. Admirably, he hit a good amount. But we also lost the series because of that defensive strategy. He was exploited as a weakness.
by BigRedDog42 on Jul 30, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NO... WE LOST THE SERIES BECAUSE WE GOT TIRED AND BECAUSE OUR GUARD PLAY SUCKED... THAT IS WHY WE LOST THE SERIES NOT BECAUSE OF BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Rondo didn’t take plays off and played his hardest the whole series and Ray actually made a shot before game 7 we easily would have won the series.
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously...
Despite BBD already saying he’s not KG, being short of him seems to result in BBD getting no love…I don’t get it.
Orlando didn’t have to face as many big men with both KG and Powe out. It’s really that simple. I don’t think we, say, lose at least Game 1 if at least ONE of them his healthy, and that could be the difference between home and ECF, even if that is to get blown out by Cleveland.
by Tai on Jul 30, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree 100 percent with u...
but the guards didn’t play so great in the Orlando series either.
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't say we lost because of Baby
I said we lost because of Orlando. They created a perfect strategy of sagging off baby and rondo, covering Ray and Pierce tightly. They had to choose between contested shots or guys taking shots outside of his comfort zone. It was a great strategy. Why is it so hard to believe that they won the series rather than us losing it?
by BigRedDog42 on Jul 30, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said
that they didn’t WIN the series because yes CLEARY THEY DID and CLEARY YES we did lose the series because in sports there are winners and losers… Ray is the best shooter in the league and should make the shots when covered but he was hurt and Paul wasn’t 100 hundred percent healthy either… Baby did make his shots but Rondo didn’t…
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We lost because we ran out of gas...
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because we had no valuable subs...
because during the off-season we went for youth and potential with guys like POB… We can’t do that now… We need players that can play now and Baby has proven he can… And of course we lost because of KG’s injury.
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is it?
Does Baby represent youth and the potential of a starting PF in the post Big 3 era or is he an established veteran who already knows the system?
Because I can get behind signing him as a guy who already knows the system but I can’t get behind signing him as a future star of the team.
by BigRedDog42 on Jul 30, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For now it is signing him as a guy who knows the system and can play good solid minutes when needed and be called upon when someone is hurt or whenever…
Down the road we will see if his improvement will lead him to be able to be a starter and a boaderline star of this team…
But for now we sign him as someone who knows the system and has proven himself in the leauge and that he can be a championship player on a champion team.
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose this explains our different opinions on his price
I believe a guy who’s signed for knowledge of the system and to be a 4th big should be paid far less than 3 million. I would be fine with paying a future starter 3 million.
The problem is that we have to sign him now, not knowing for sure which category he fits into. I believe it is much more likely, and safer long term, to consider him to be in the former category.
by BigRedDog42 on Jul 30, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah... I understand what you are saying but...
I feel that he is worth 3 million and if i was the C’s i would match at 4 million…
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
newbie's first comment
I started following this site a few weeks ago, figured it was about time to contribute something. I’m a C’s fan in Lakerland … uggh. Anyway, about Baby: Since he’ll be no higher on the pecking order this season than the 2nd big off the bench, I can’t see paying him more than around $3 million a year. He’s a decent player, but not much of a rebounder or shot-blocker — which is what we really need him to be. If, via sign-and-trade, the C’s can parlay Baby into two decent bench guys — namely a big and a backup PG — I say go for it.
by rocknrollforyoursoul on Jul 30, 2009 12:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It sucks living in Laker land?
I know me to. I would say you are right about baby is worth 3million a year. I think we need him to be the same player,but he can’t block he’s to small,and rebound I think that’s more possible. He would be the second big off the bench,but he still would play a lot of minutes.Do to us wanting to rest Garnett a lot. We do need a big off the bench who can rebound,and block. How we find that right now? Not sure,but Baby is good for us in the sense if we play Chicago He seemed to match up okay with them,or a smaller front court. A lot of the games Doc would go to Leon for size depending the team,or Baby depending the team.We don’t have the luxury of Powe right now,and who knows if we ever will. I think will get something good enough for Baby if the deal is done. He still might be here. I find it hard a team really wants to pay him over 5million a year.
by green20 on Jul 30, 2009 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey!
I live in Atwater Village (LA)!
I’m a Bostonian transplant. Lakers are crazy annoying, but LA definitely does not suck. It is so gorgeous here. It makes Boston seam truly inhospitable (no offense to Boston).
by stevenfuzz on Jul 30, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
3 team trade
August 1. Waiver day. August 7 Last day to clear waivers. Hopefully, by then we will know. What if Bruce Bowen is Danny’s hope for the LLE and he really intends to resign Davis. Daniels then would have to come in a sign and trade ‘cause there would be no LLE left if he didn’t. I mean what if Daniels would be the reserve point guard and part time small forward along with Bowen, who could play 5 as well against certain guys with speed. I mean Daniels played superbly at point for Nelson years back as a rookie in the playoffs.
by gustusias on Jul 30, 2009 1:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He did play well for Nelson
That’s when he was in the spot light in the playoffs with the Mavs.
by green20 on Jul 30, 2009 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I need a trade machine that works sign-and-trades for BYC players – is that too much to ask? (yeah, probably)
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" Henry V
by Jeff Clark on Jul 30, 2009 7:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Take a chance on Williams...
This guy is NOT POB. He is an aggressive, angry athlete with a great skill set. He can block shots, and his offensive game at one point was really coming along. He was developing into a Camby-type.
This guy needs a fresh start with some dudes (KG, Perk, Sheed, Clifford Ray) that really mean business, will challenge him and won’t let him float.
Take a chance on this guy. It’s worth a shot.
by rickyfan3.0... on Jul 30, 2009 8:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Glen Davis was better in college and hes better now
Williams isnt POB, no, hes worse
by latin on Jul 30, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shawn Williams is a head case who will likely be in Europe before long. I have no problem trading BBD if the team gets equivalent value in return, but Williams is not equivalent value, and neither is Yi.
As a second year player BBD steps in as a starter in the playoffs and does well, He hits clutch shots, defends the post, and hustles. Why is everyone ripping him?
Is he the perfect player? No. Wes Unseld wasn’t the perfect player either, but he and alot of other “imperfect” players— guys who were too short, too slow, too whatever— have been pretty effective over the years, and some are even in the HOF.
by Brickowski on Jul 30, 2009 9:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Baby performed very admirably
But I just firmly believe he’s reached his ceiling. I agree shorter guys can be successful but it seems like all the talk of him being too short has reached Big Baby because he appears to have abandoned being a post player. He believes he’s too short so instead of working on his rebounding or post moves, he decides to only work on his shooting.
by BigRedDog42 on Jul 30, 2009 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to agree with Brickowski
We wanna rip people the Giddens, Walkers, and TA’s of the world who we think can be something but flatter to deceive. In two years, BBD has earned himself a solid spot on a rotation managed by a coach that historically hates playing young players, does well as a starter in the playoffs in only his 2nd year in the NBA, and now that somehow says something bad about him? That he overperformed in the playoffs? What a great time to do that considering what we think would happen to younger players!
And I also remember a lotta people saying things like “There’s a reason teams aren’t giving offers to BBD”. I know what they mean, but I think the real reason is because teams know the Celtics will match a deal that’s not the MLE or more. I do believe Detroit backed off because of that…and the Nets have interest, one way or another.
If BBD comes back and doesn’t show improvement, I’ll be the first one to admit it.
by Tai on Jul 30, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ceiling?
At the end of last year, people said he had reached his ceiling, but he hadn’t.
“Ceiling” is a talent-based concept. As I’ve said in other posts, I don’t care about talent. What I care about is production: making plays. BBD makes plays.
by Brickowski on Jul 30, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And heart...
Big Baby has plenty of that and that is much more important than talent…
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Basketball Intelligence
Being in the right place.
Making the right pass.
Taking the right shot instead of forcing shots.
Playing within oneself. As John Wooden used to say, “Play fast, but don’t hurry.”
Etc. etc.
They say he doesn’t rebound, but he sure boxes out (so that other guys can get the rebound) and sets a very mean pick.
by Brickowski on Jul 30, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow.. absolutely disagree Brick
BBD was so damn slow to get to the right spot. He forced shots under the hoop.
Some people see a player dive for a ball and not save it from going out of bounds and think “wow, that BBD really hustles.” Know what I saw often times? BBD slow to respond, finally make the right move, show up late, and force a dive when smarter and more athletic players would have been there just to grab the ball.
by TomHamilton30 on Jul 30, 2009 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baby is probably a 3rd big on a championship team. I don’t think he’d be happy as a 4th big, which is what he would be here.
If Baby is determined to keep up his minutes, then trading him and getting something in return is better than nothing. I don’t want to sign a sulking Baby to a deal only to watch him get upset about his PT.
Explore trades if there’s doubt Baby will be happy in his new role..
by BWC on Jul 30, 2009 11:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Question.
Here’s my idea of our depth assuming BBD, Daniels, and TA are all here. Chances are this is unlikely come regular season.
Rondo\Daniels?
Ray Allen\House\TA?
Pierce\Daniels(as in more likely 3 than 1)
KG\BBD
Perkins\Wallace
So question: does this sound implausible to you? Cause if we want our Big 3 fresh, and KG not playing 40 MPG after knee surgery, BBD may get 20 min or so. Oh, and I don’t think his new role will be so new if he’s a bench player again.
I guess you think we can only sign him at the QO and he won’t be able to advance himself to a better contract playing that many minutes, so he’ll get upset. This is why DA let him go out to the market. I think BBD will understand that he’ll have to work even harder for his money and maybe do so.
by Tai on Jul 30, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with Brickowski as well
BBD has proven himself. He will continue to improve, just like Rondo has. Hopefully Rondo continues to improve also. The guy averaged 15 and 6 in the NBA playoffs, not summer league, or even regular season. He filled in admirably for KG, and his numbers were comparable to KG’s in 2009. Now, he was not KG-llike, in that he gave us no presence on the defensive end of the floor, and he isn’t a great rebounder. He is what he is, an evolving 4 man, with a nice jumper, and a big body that can guard guys like Duncan, Shaq, and Bynum.
I think he does hold value as the 4th big, because Doc likes to play 2 units. Baby will still get 10-15 minutes per night, some nights more, some less.
If DA decides to trade him, we need to get equal or better value in return. either a proven big like Foster or a proven player at another position, coupled with a promising young big or bigs.
by SCBirdman33 on Jul 30, 2009 12:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Patience........
Let’s not think this over too much. It simply makes sense to sign BBD for one more year. He will play his *&% off since it will be for an unrestricted free agent after the season is over. He knows the system, the organization and he played well in the post season. No need to look any further and the C’s are playing all this out until BBD and his agent realize he is out of options. Makes no sense to sign and trade for him. We sign Daniels, Marbury (does anyone think he is the only crazy in the league? He just happens to wear it for everyone to see) and Bowen. Get another big to come off the bench and we are done. Giddens and Walker can play folks. They just need more playing time. Here is how I see the final roster.
Pierce
KG
Perk
Ray
Rondo
Bowen
Daniels
Sheed
Marbury
House
T. Allen
Scal
another big
Walker
Giddens
This assumes Daniels signs for the $1.9 million. If not, then we likely trade either Giddens or Walker, plus Scal, for him. That then opens up a spot for Hudson or Powe around February assuming he is still available. Either way it goes down, this is a hell of a team and I love the mix of veterans with youth. We will be hard to beat.
by JPV on Jul 30, 2009 1:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That is exactly how I envision our bench for this year...
Insert baby as the another big… We would definitely have the best bench in the league and a better one than ’08 IMO.
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is if we can't get Warrick instead of Bowen...
I doubt we can get Warrick so I would be 100% fine with getting Bowen instead.
by Mike-Dub on Jul 30, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baby good or bad...nature or nurture?
Another great thread debate on C-Blog.
Most of the points on both sides of the Glen Davis debate seem to have been well presented.
In fact, I’m surprised to see so many coming out for Davis. I thought we who support Glen were substantially in the minority in Celtic Nation.
There is no doubt he’s not the classic power forward at this point in his career. Maybe he never will be. I think that is initially where the arguments begin.
Fun read, guys.
T
by tenaciousT on Jul 30, 2009 3:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
??? 90% of people are obsessd with BBD and overvalue him
I think Bigreddog and myself are the only ones here who see a player who was vastly outmatched and overvalued.
I really wish every GM in this league saw BBD with c-blog eyes and never looked at his statistics or actualy performance. They’d overpay for him and the celtics could get good value back. Instead, most every GM has BBD on the bottom of their totem pole.
by TomHamilton30 on Jul 30, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's likely to happen...
BBD will resign with the Celtics. The talk about aquiring someone from the
Nets has been tested and teased, but no fruit has been plucked nor will any.
I would prefer Chris Douglas-Roberts + Sean Williams for BBD + Walker, but
I think that’s a dream that won’t come true.
So at the end of August, we will have dropped Tony Allen at the bus stop along
with Gabe Pruitt to keep him company. The team will still have Scalabrine and BBD.
Marquis Daniels will be the last aquisition and Danny will probably play him
as back-up at the 1 position behind Rondo to see how that experiment works.
I do think we’ll pick up a veteran PG before October for the LLE
by OCsWestCeltic on Jul 30, 2009 5:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
IS THIS DEAL EVER GOING TO GET DONE???
tired of waiting on daniels and I am tired of waiting in baby gate
by celticinorlando on Jul 30, 2009 5:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
same lol
please danny, save us the headache! lol
by TomHamilton30 on Jul 30, 2009 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
latest from hollinger
Adam (St. Louis)
John — Any word on the Indy/Boston deal involving Marquis Daniels?
John Hollinger (3:06 PM)
Basically, Boston wants to do a sign-trade for Daniels and keep its biannual exception open. But the only player Boston could trade that would meet cap rules is Tony Allen, whom Indiana doesn’t want. So they’re trying to come up with a third team and having little success. I think it’s highly unlikely they end up with a sign-and-trade.
by celticinorlando on Jul 30, 2009 7:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
