earthmansurfer wrote:Wow, Cavs gave up a first (according to ESPN) top ten protected and Verajejo for Frye???
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/147999...
this is one of the odder deals. regardless of the overpay, are they going to have love and frye both on the court at the same time?
Chandler wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:Wow, Cavs gave up a first (according to ESPN) top ten protected and Verajejo for Frye???
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/147999...
this is one of the odder deals. regardless of the overpay, are they going to have love and frye both on the court at the same time?
it makes me wonder if they thought they had a Love deal coming together?
Or maybe they just felt they need a shooting big to space the floor, whether Love was in the game or not?
crzymdups wrote:CrushAlot wrote:crzymdups wrote:crzymdups wrote:
On the bright side maybe Lance drives Conley crazy and gets him to consider leaving Memphis?
Nice grab for the clippers. Memphis looking for cap space?
I have no clue.
I'd imagine if they are intent on keeping Conley, they'll try to lure some help for he and Gasol this summer.
Guys in the locker room HATED Green, wanted to beat him silly, that's how toxic his play is. Very inconsistent and didn't give a crap about team. So much so the team was willing to take on Lance, albeit with a pick involved.
Wow Id say Clippers did great. Id put them up there now.
BRIGGS wrote:Wow Id say Clippers did great. Id put them up there now.
Jeff Green puts them up there?
crzymdups wrote:Chandler wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:Wow, Cavs gave up a first (according to ESPN) top ten protected and Verajejo for Frye???
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/147999...
this is one of the odder deals. regardless of the overpay, are they going to have love and frye both on the court at the same time?
it makes me wonder if they thought they had a Love deal coming together?
Or maybe they just felt they need a shooting big to space the floor, whether Love was in the game or not?
my guess is the Cavs are screwed up. Love and shump are both probably asking what's up with the trade rumors; you just got us and now you want to dump us. No pun, but where's the Love
they fire Blatt, why? You already had Lue on the bench. You couldn't promote his views on how to better the team without firing Blatt?
franchise has tons of talented players but other serious problems
BRIGGS wrote:Wow Id say Clippers did great. Id put them up there now.
Up there where?? They're still not better than GSW or the Spurs and i'd still pick OKC to win if they met in the playoffs so i think they're still the 4th best team in the west. I like getting J.Green but still the 4th best.
Knicks turned down a Beverly trade - sounds like cost was way too high.
crzymdups wrote:Knicks turned down a Beverly trade - sounds like cost was way too high.
My guess is they asked for Galloway, Lance Thomas and a first round pick. Which is a LOT.
crzymdups wrote:crzymdups wrote:Knicks turned down a Beverly trade - sounds like cost was way too high.
My guess is they asked for Galloway, Lance Thomas and a first round pick. Which is a LOT.
Awesome!! Now we know Big Chief Triangle values draft picks.
crzymdups wrote:crzymdups wrote:Knicks turned down a Beverly trade - sounds like cost was way too high.
My guess is they asked for Galloway, Lance Thomas and a first round pick. Which is a LOT.
this is good. I have thought (can check many past posts) that Beverly is what we needed, but I am super glad we didn't over pay for him. I chalk up today as a victory by avoiding something stupid
WaltLongmire wrote:crzymdups wrote:Knicks turned down a Beverly trade - sounds like cost was way too high.
Galloway/Thomas??? Were they the "rotation" players?
probably would have been Galloway/O'Quinn. Numbers for Lance don't work and he has to approve the trade.
Rookie wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:crzymdups wrote:Knicks turned down a Beverly trade - sounds like cost was way too high.
Galloway/Thomas??? Were they the "rotation" players?
probably would have been Galloway/O'Quinn.
Galloway / DWill works moneywise, too. DWill is one of the Knicks most efficient players and Morey is an efficiency freak...
crzymdups wrote:crzymdups wrote:Knicks turned down a Beverly trade - sounds like cost was way too high.
My guess is they asked for Galloway, Lance Thomas and a first round pick. Which is a LOT.
My guess, too...just posted the same thing while you were doing yours, so I took it down.
That would be a lot for Beverly, and there wasn't even talk of the #1 being protected!
Beverley was a second rounder. Our team's goal should be to develop the scouts etc. so we can score guys like him in the second round and avoid the Sweetneys, Weises, Jordan Hill's, Balkman's of our past (this could be a real long list BTW)
crzymdups wrote:Rookie wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:crzymdups wrote:Knicks turned down a Beverly trade - sounds like cost was way too high.
Galloway/Thomas??? Were they the "rotation" players?
probably would have been Galloway/O'Quinn.
Galloway / DWill works moneywise, too. DWill is one of the Knicks most efficient players and Morey is an efficiency freak...
I would think that they are looking for D, though.
Beverly was their best defender. Can't see Williams' so so D being a selling point, despite the offensive metrics.
WaltLongmire wrote:crzymdups wrote:crzymdups wrote:Knicks turned down a Beverly trade - sounds like cost was way too high.
My guess is they asked for Galloway, Lance Thomas and a first round pick. Which is a LOT.
My guess, too...just posted the same thing while you were doing yours, so I took it down.
That would be a lot for Beverly, and there wasn't even talk of the #1 being protected!
would have been a tough decision, in my book, even if there were no draft pick included
WaltLongmire wrote:crzymdups wrote:crzymdups wrote:Knicks turned down a Beverly trade - sounds like cost was way too high.
My guess is they asked for Galloway, Lance Thomas and a first round pick. Which is a LOT.
My guess, too...just posted the same thing while you were doing yours, so I took it down.
That would be a lot for Beverly, and there wasn't even talk of the #1 being protected!
Just a hunch, but I bet Morey looked at Galloway and saw he has a better WS/48 than Beverley this year. Galloway is essentially Beverley at a fraction of the cost. Beverley's first season was great, but he's been downhill ever since.
If he could get another rotation player and a pick and essentially a replacement for Beverley? it'd be a steal for him.
Chandler wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:crzymdups wrote:crzymdups wrote:Knicks turned down a Beverly trade - sounds like cost was way too high.
My guess is they asked for Galloway, Lance Thomas and a first round pick. Which is a LOT.
My guess, too...just posted the same thing while you were doing yours, so I took it down.
That would be a lot for Beverly, and there wasn't even talk of the #1 being protected!
would have been a tough decision, in my book, even if there were no draft pick included
2 rotation players and a 1st rd pick is highway robbery for Beverly.
Rookie wrote:Chandler wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:crzymdups wrote:crzymdups wrote:Knicks turned down a Beverly trade - sounds like cost was way too high.
My guess is they asked for Galloway, Lance Thomas and a first round pick. Which is a LOT.
My guess, too...just posted the same thing while you were doing yours, so I took it down.
That would be a lot for Beverly, and there wasn't even talk of the #1 being protected!
would have been a tough decision, in my book, even if there were no draft pick included
2 rotation players and a 1st rd pick is highway robbery for Beverly.
agree. as i said i would hesitate even if they didn't ask for the 1st round pick. they must have thought they were dealing with Isiah (or Briggs)
