|
|
Post by Mario on May 3, 2006 17:22:37 GMT -5
Warriors Trade:
Theo Ratliff
Olden Polynice
Tyrone Hill
Shaun Owens
Jazz Trade:
Christian Laettner
Vin Baker
I got Theo who averaged 8 ppg, 12 rpg and almost 4 bpg...he got Baker and Laettner for the playoffs this year. I also got a few role players. Ratliff is only 25 and still could get better.
|
|
|
|
Post by JScott on May 3, 2006 17:29:36 GMT -5
Stupid Warriors...
Oh well, I guess I'll see them in the Finals now.
Shaq v Wallace.... hmmm, I like my chances.
|
|
|
|
Post by zhanghe852 on May 3, 2006 17:43:38 GMT -5
I like my chances with Jamison v. Artest, Laettner v. whoever you have on the bench and Nash v. Cassel
|
|
|
|
Post by dthomp34 on May 3, 2006 18:02:27 GMT -5
What a surprise, the Jazz make another horseshit trade, who saw that one coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duncanfan819 on May 3, 2006 18:45:37 GMT -5
Right now, it's awful. In the future, I don't think it's bad though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mario on May 3, 2006 18:47:00 GMT -5
I just don't think I'll resign Baker.
|
|
|
|
Post by zhanghe852 on May 3, 2006 18:50:09 GMT -5
and how is this a terrible trade, apperently tied for lead leader in BPG and a top rebounder at the age of 25 is terrible now? Where was I for this meeting?
|
|
|
|
Post by Duncanfan819 on May 3, 2006 19:28:20 GMT -5
He's not terrible now, but Baker and Laettner are definitely better than him.
|
|
|
|
Post by JScott on May 3, 2006 19:43:40 GMT -5
This year. But next year when neither team has Vin and it's a comparison between Xian and Theo who wins?
It's obvious that the Jazz would hafta give up more talent to get youth back. There is a 5 year difference between Theo (who can still get better) and the average age of the two players Pete got (who could just as well get worse next year)
I would have demanded two good players for one 25 y/o player myself. He does have A def.
It's a deadline deal, at this point people will sell the team for a better shot in the future. The Jazz were holding out to try and win, but obviously they aren't so they look to the future.
It's not like Minnesota when they made deals before knowing anything about the league or their team.
I mean, whatever, we can look over this trade, and currently are, but I haven't really felt its too one sided.
Again, yes, the Warriors get more talent this year, but deals are hardly made for just this year. And in an age for talent swap you typically see one side get more talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by zhanghe852 on May 3, 2006 19:49:55 GMT -5
yeah, it doesn't really matter to me either way what happens to this trade, I like the idea of Theo staying on my team for years to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by JScott on May 3, 2006 20:05:25 GMT -5
This is what I told Aaron while we were discussing the deal, both seeing the pros and cons for each team:
"yeah, its a tough call, it's up to the committee now, i don't really care, i know ive just been up in arms about other trades more, i guess at the deadline to me things change because teams are setting up for the offseason and next year where as earlier in the year anyone can still make moves to win"
I personally can understand both sides of the case and as Aaron pointed out, it never hurts to debate trades and figure out what the guidelines should be for vetoing.
The Trade Committee will be looking closer at more trades it seems. And we will have criteria for our reviews.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjoe on May 3, 2006 20:48:08 GMT -5
I don't think this trade should be vetoed at all. Does the Jazz give up more talent in this deal? Without a doubt. However he is obvoiusly looking to the future and Theo Ratliff will be a nice young big player whereas Laettner and Baker don't really fit in with this team. It looks like this deal will go through which I think is very good. If we do veto this, I think we are setting a dangerous precident that would make it very tough for gms to have the flexibility to make moves that may help them down the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by zhanghe852 on May 4, 2006 8:22:10 GMT -5
hey, if you guys want to veto it it's not a big deal to me, I'm sorta missing Theo already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duncanfan819 on May 4, 2006 8:55:41 GMT -5
This trade shouldn't be voidable. It's not that bad for Utah/
|
|
|
|
Post by JScott on May 4, 2006 10:12:41 GMT -5
Yeah I am actually surprised how bad some people think this is. I know it makes the GSW a lottougher this year, but again, its not like this happened in the first 1/2 of the season when Utah had a chance, or else he'd still have Shaq. This also isn't like a GM coming in, with a chance to add 1 piece or make 1 move to win and instead deals his team all in the first day.
Its obvious Utah is moving for the future, and how many times have any of us overpaid in age/talent to bring in youth. I've done it a shit load of shits, and been on the receiving end too. Thats how your balance the direction of your team... youth and win later or talent and win now, if you are lucky you get a team that is both [see Magic, Houston, Memphis, Warriors, Hawks, etc].
The talent for youth swap rate has always been high, it's late in the season and we all know how likely it is for a part year rental will opt for FA if traded late in the season and expiring.
Plus, Pete can't afford Vin next year, atleast not anywhere near what he is making this year.
|
|
