More trade ideas...

[David]

So?

It will take away any chances at cap space in 2010 and he probably won't be worth the money, I don't think we need more players like that.

Downside? With the way he's producing?

He's 31 years old and he'd be joining a team with a terrible offensive system as the second option.

how?

Because he'd be another huge contract with too many years on it that doesn't live up to their paycheck.

Yeah, okay... Explain that one to me...

Wally is an expiring contract, his money off the books would give us a chance to go after a big name. That's 12 million off the books, why do you think he's an important trading piece?

A). How does Wally help us go after someone who can benefit us for years?

Wally doesn't, his contract does.

B). How does VC, diminish that?

His contract lasts longer.

Right...

Not all, I'd love for Vince Carter to come here and turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread on this team, but it's harder to imagine for me then it is for you.

Also, Vince will always be better than Wally, it's just that he may not be worth the contract we're losing when we could go after a younger All-Star.

2 to 1 you lose

Vince next year or Wally next year :uhh: :eekrun:

 

[-Akronite-]

2 to 1 you lose

Vince next year or Wally next year :uhh: :eekrun:

I'm not saying Vince couldn't be a good thing, or that I'd rather Wally in the lineup, but you're looking at the guy like he's a saint and there is no downside to adding him.

Why do think the Nets would want Wally? His contract, that's right. That means if we kept him we have a lot of money off the books to go towards getting someone younger with more potential in FA. Also, you have to think that the chance to VC might already be gone since they already turned us down for that Jefferson trade.

 

[David]

I'm not saying Vince couldn't be a good thing, or that I'd rather Wally in the lineup, but you're looking at the guy like he's a saint and there is no downside to adding him.

It can't be any worse than Wally's downside