PDA

View Full Version : Finley for Wallace for Ilgauskas for Finley


V
12-16-2003, 11:48 PM
Dallas trades: SG Michael Finley (16.0 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 3.0 apg in 38.2 minutes)
C Shawn Bradley (3.1 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 0.1 apg in 11.1 minutes)
Dal 2005 Unprotected First round pick
Dallas receives: SF Rasheed Wallace (16.4 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 3.1 apg in 40.0 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -2.7 ppg, +0.1 rpg, and 0.0 apg.

Cleveland trades: C Zydrunas Illgauskas (16.1 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 32.8 minutes)
PF Ira Newble (3.7 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 1.0 apg in 16.7 minutes)
Cle 2004 Protected First round pick
Cleveland receives: SG Michael Finley (16.0 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 3.0 apg in 19 games)
C Shawn Bradley (3.1 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 0.1 apg in 17 games)
Dal 2005 Unprotected First round pick

Change in team outlook: -0.7 ppg, -3.0 rpg, and +0.5 apg.

Portland trades: SF Rasheed Wallace (16.4 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 3.1 apg in 40.0 minutes)
Portland receives: C Zydrunas Illgauskas (16.1 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 19 games)
PF Ira Newble (3.7 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 1.0 apg in 12 games)
Cle 2004 Protected First round pick
Change in team outlook: +3.4 ppg, +2.9 rpg, and -0.5 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

V
12-17-2003, 12:42 AM
Quick commentary:

Portland - They've said they want expiring contracts / first rounders / or someone's best player for Wallace... Ilgauskas - the best scoring pivot not named Shaq - should work. Davis - who has not produced to expectations - becomes trade bait for a SF or a reliable backup.

Cleveland - Davis exit leaves Cavs thin at guard. Finley is a playoff seasoned veteran who is capable of mentoring James

Dallas - Wallace adds superstar talent & huge defensive upgrade in the middle.

Jamisonite
12-17-2003, 12:55 AM
lets keep rasheed wallace the hell outta dallas please....

MavsFanFinley
12-17-2003, 01:16 AM
The Cavs would like Bradley instead of Big Z because he doesn't look to score. He'll rebound and alter/block shots. That's why Silas benched Big Z cause he's thinking of offense first. I think they'd like the idea of using Finley for leadership and to help with Wagner at the 2 spot. However, I'm not sure why they'd want his contract.

This is actually a pretty good trade all around if it weren't for Fin's contract. Portland gets a center and Newble would replace Person after this season.

Dallas uses Wallace at center and puts Dirk back at pf. The only downside with this is if Wallace bolts for another team.

Simon2
12-17-2003, 07:41 AM
I really doubt the Mavs include Finley in a trade for Sheed. I would be very surprised if they do. The odd of this happening is zero.

SeriousSummer
12-17-2003, 09:06 AM
A brief point--this isn't a legal trade.

Dallas already traded its 2004 first round pick, so it can't trade it's 2005 first round pick. You can't send two years in a row away. (I think this rule was implemeted after Dallas fleeced Cleveland for a bunch of picks in return for players Dallas picked up in the expansion draft).

If you want to, you could send 2006 instead.

V
12-17-2003, 09:51 AM
Good point SS... I didn't know that rule. Of course, the picks may not even be necessary.

Portland has been desperately looking for a big to shore up the middle. Davis is in the last year of his deal.... and Boom Boom is not the anwer!

Finley's contract is a deterrent for most teams... but I have not heard any talk out of CLE about saving cap room. James' arrival has the stands full, merchandise is up, marketing is up, national TV is certain... in other words I think CLE may be in a financial situation that would allow them to take on a large contract... especially if the contract is paying for a leader who can help Lebron get to the next level.

Dallas' 4-man rotation at the 3-4-5 spot: Wallace, Nowitzki, Walker, Jamison (with bench of Fortson/Najera) provides unsurpassed flexibility. Size, rebounding, passing, leadership, talent, defense, 3 pt shooting, low post scoring, toughness. The problem with bringing Ilgauskas to dallas is that he plays like a traditional center... and Nelly likes to create matchup problems. Add Wallace to the Mavs' mix of bigs & wait for the championship.

Downside: Despite Mavs' depth, trading Finley leaves Mavs potentially thin at guard. Delk would become a critical backup & Best would probably need to take the backup point duties.

Looking past Best & Delk to the end of the bench you find an undrafted rookie, an Icelander, and a guy who lives in France.

sike
12-17-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by: Simon2
I really doubt the Mavs include Finley in a trade for Sheed. I would be very surprised if they do. The odd of this happening is zero.

I thought it was interesting to watch the progression of this post: S2 begins by simply doubting.......then he woule be very surprised.........then denies the very chance of this trade ever happening giving zero odds......
you took us on a trip in just 27 words!

Dooby
12-17-2003, 01:00 PM
Will someone please explain to me why we want Wallace, again?

rakesh.s
12-17-2003, 01:03 PM
hmm..i didn't read the post properly..

as far as wallace goes, i'd love to see him here but not if he's going to start making remarks like he did last week

anyone wonder what kind of contract this guy is going to sign next year? maybe 6 or 7 mill at best?

also, isn't cle overloaded at the 2 and 3?

LRB
12-17-2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by: Dooby
Will someone please explain to me why we want Wallace, again?


Great talent if you can ignore the regular Hiroshima sized brain farts.

LRB
12-17-2003, 01:14 PM
What I'm worried about with this trade is that it takes us from one center that Nellie won't use that much to no center at all. Sheed is a marvelous talent, but he's really a PF. He's also a major gamble whether he'll be there every night with his headcase antics. It's definitely a gamble taking him on. I'd really like to at least pickup a CBA center with NBA height as for emergency use if we did this trade.

V
12-17-2003, 01:32 PM
Let's put Rasheed's comments into perspective... Wallace is a PR nightmare... but he's not a "bad guy." Sure, he gets on a rant now & again... but I chalk it up to him just being one of those emotional people who can't say exactly what they mean.

You all know someone like Sheed... someone who gets so wrapped up in the moment that sthey say something they shouldn't or a comment comes out wrong & their original point is lost. Hell, it happens to me sometimes!

Now don't flame me. I'm not a Sheed appologist. BUT - I watch the Mavs to see basketball players play basketball... and Sheed plays basketball about as well as anyone on the planet.

From Hoopsworld

Rasheed Speaks


Letís not give this much more time than it deserves. As the faithful 12 know, I have been a long defender of Rasheed and think he gets a bad rap with the media. There is no question that almost anyone who covers the Blazers is not fond of Rasheed as he does prevent them from doing their job. He does not like being interviewed, does not trust the press, and really has a contentious relationship with the two organizations most covering the Blazers: the Oregonian and the 910 radio station.



However, Rasheed is not fairly lumped in with the ďbad boysĒ of this team. He is a wonderful family man, in fact he is about as model as you can get in regards to his family. If you have never read the story in his quest for custody of one of his children, you really do not know Rasheed. He is also not one to be getting in legal trouble. His legal clashes of being in a car with Mary Jane was insignificant and the auto infraction for a drivers license is the State of Oregon on an absolute ridiculous quest to justify stopping someone.



Rasheed is an emotional player who cares about the game. He is not out assaulting individuals at a bar, heís yelling at a referee after a game. He is constantly chirping on the floor and thatís never popular with all the fans. His technical fouls for a 3 year term were record setting. But thatís on the court and whether Rasheed can separate basketball games from the game being over is a fair critique, but to consider him some kind of lawless individual is not true.



Simply put, Rasheed has no concept of public relations and he does not seem to care, but people who know him well tell me that they do not believe he is consciously trying to create controversy, it just finds him. His recent interview with the Oregonian was such a case. First, he gets criticism for certain word choice. This is unfair. Certain word usage amongst young black men, while I do not always agree with, has become rather colloquial in todayís speech. Printing those words puts them in a different context. Second, his overall point of the exploitation of certain young players is absolutely correct in his opinion. And I cannot argue his opinion. It is easy to see that these young players come into the league, they do not understand certain issues and the league is able to exploit them at the expense of certain veteran players. Rasheedís problem is he does not spin it well. Ranting about the exploitation of young players and squeezing out veterans are fine, his problem is that he gets rolling and his anger with the league commissioner comes out, he rants on the ownership of league, he is angry at the media so he makes certain comments, and all of this colors the interview in a disturbing manner leading to more negative press for Rasheed in the national eye. I have always supported Rasheed and have no trouble with him, I just wish for Portlandís sake that he would understand the bigger picture. And I know itís not difficult because he gets the smaller picture. He said that his marijuana citation was troubling because of how his family was affected. Thatís correct, now if only Rasheed can understand why it effects me as a native Portlander, he would understand the whole issue.

V
12-17-2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by: Dooby
Will someone please explain to me why we want Wallace, again?

Sure Doobie...

In the eight seasons Wallace has been in Portland, the Blazers have been so busy trying to find their franchise player that they never noticed he was already right there, the guy with the headband and bald spot, rocking in vintage Air Force Ones.

Despite the inconsistencies in salaries, character and coaching techniques, there is, was and will be only one player in Portland who is, has, will be still shooting 50 percent from two-point range in every season as a Blazer on a variety of devastating snap dunks and deadly turnaround jumpers from the baseline; one guy who increased his 3-point shooting from 16 percent in 2000 while hitting only eight triples to 35.8 percent in 2003 while hitting 110; one guy who remains the team's best interior defender while losing very little on the perimeter.

There is only one guy recognized by every franchise but the one he's on for what he is... a marvelous basketball talent.

Max Power
12-17-2003, 03:26 PM
v - you make some good points.

However I would never want Wallace on my team. When he made the infamous CTC (Cut The Check) comment, he exposed himself as a player who is more interested in the money than the winning of championships. I don't want that kind of player on the Mavs - the possibility of that attitude infecting ANY of our core players is too great of a risk.

mmmfast
12-17-2003, 03:38 PM
'Sheed is a nightmare.

Anyone thet seriously wants this crackpot must be passing the pipe w/ him.

Does anyone want him influencing our team?

V
12-17-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by: Max Power
v - you make some good points.

However I would never want Wallace on my team. When he made the infamous CTC (Cut The Check) comment, he exposed himself as a player who is more interested in the money than the winning of championships. I don't want that kind of player on the Mavs - the possibility of that attitude infecting ANY of our core players is too great of a risk.

Max, ok lets revisit CTC again as well. Here are Sheeds comments... in response to the Portland media - who he dislikes - hounding Wallace about trade rumors he reponds:

"I don't [care] about no trade rumors. As long as somebody CTC at the end of the day, I'm with them. For all you that don't know what CTC means, that's Cut The Check"

What's wrong with this? Where does he say he doesn't care about a championship? Where does he say he's only interested in the money?

Wallace says he doesn't care (doesn't want to talk about) b/s trade rumors. Good for him.

All he cares about is who cuts the checks i.e Portland. He's with them. he doesnt want to talk about Cleveland, Dallas, Minny, San Antonio. Sheed is with HIS TEAM... the BLAZERS... the ones who PAY HIM TO PLAY BASKETBALL.

GOOD FOR HIM.

If more players had that kind of loyalty to their teams then the sports world would probably be a better place.

Rusty Greer told the Dallas Morning News in a story that first appeared late last night: "From my standpoint, there's no doubt you have to question whether that's somebody you want in a foxhole with you on the day-to-day battle. Alex is always going to play hard. But when you think about being there 100 percent of the time, there is a wedge. It's hard not to see what has been said and what's going on and have some questions." Greer's as good a soldier as this sports town has ever had.

Imagine if Rusty were on the trading block... he might say "I dont want to talk about trades, the Rangers pay my salary, not the Red Sox. I'm going to war with the Rangers." Would your opinion of Sheeds CTC statement change?

Wouldn't you like to see Arod show a little fight or do you prefer athletes who ask for trades... who won't fight with their team regardless of trade rumors?

Max Power
12-17-2003, 04:05 PM
Wallace didn't express any loyalty to the Blazers. He blatantly said that he didn't care WHAT team he played for. All he cared about was his check.

You yourself quoted an article that indicated Wallace wasn't interested in causing any controversy. This was a blunt opinion. He said "I don't care what happens as long as I get my check".

V
12-17-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by: Max Power
Wallace didn't express any loyalty to the Blazers. He blatantly said that he didn't care WHAT team he played for. All he cared about was his check.

You yourself quoted an article that indicated Wallace wasn't interested in causing any controversy. This was a blunt opinion. He said "I don't care what happens as long as I get my check".

I guess it's difficult to know what Wallace really meant unless you were there to hear it directly. Tone of voice, context, media history... all this should really be taken into acount before anyone passes judgement on his CTC comment.

All I know is 'Sheed is a gifted old-school basketball player who once said "Real ballers don't golf," when asked if he'd ever swung a club. I highly doubt Wallace is only in it for the money. He loves basketball too much... but he is frustrated with the current situation & I don't blame him.

Look at someone who doesn't like basketball if you want to find someone who's only in it for the money e.g. Olowokandi.

V
12-18-2003, 01:09 PM
From David Aldridge:

And Dallas seems to be in wait-and-see mode about Rasheed Wallace. Apparently, the Mavs are in no hurry to make an offer, feeling Wallace will either be available next summer for the mid-level exception or in a few weeks in the unlikely event Portland puts him on the waiver wire. ...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=aldridge_david&id=1689197

V
12-18-2003, 01:14 PM
Can someone please explain what would happen from a cap perspective if Wallace were waived by the Blazers & claimed by the Mavs?

I'm guessing Wallace would be on Portland's books for $17M. And he could sign with Dallas for the MLE...

I can't imagine that would happen... probably ZERO chance... but now I'm curious

Max Power
12-18-2003, 04:25 PM
There are two scenarios. Portland could waive him or get Wallace to agree to a buyout.

If Wallace was waived then Portland would be on the hook for his entire salary except for the portion that another team pays him. He won't make more money than he has on the books now which means the new team will probably just pay him the mininum.

If Wallace agrees to a buyout then the team that wants him will probably have to give him a MLE contract and he CAN make more than his current contract although it is unlikely.

DNNF
12-18-2003, 05:09 PM
How about Randolph instead of Wallace. That would make it better package.

V
12-18-2003, 05:42 PM
Randoph is going to be a great player in this league for a long time but he's not what the Mavs need

1. Randolph is not a good defender in the low post,
2. Randolph can't play the 5, and most importantly
3. Randolph is not available.

John Nash would be lynched if he kept Wallace & traded Randolph. The Blazers think he's their future.

V
12-21-2003, 01:54 PM
Would CLE be interested in moving Wallace to Dallas?

From Mark Stein:

A trade possibility that makes some sense for Cleveland and satisfies Portland's newfound determination to be fiscally responsible would feature Ilgauskas to the Blazers for Rasheed Wallace. Ilgauskas, remember, has only one season left on his contract, which wouldn't interfere with the Blazers' plans to be well under the salary cap in 2005.


But this one will probably never happen, because conservative Cavs owner Gordon Gund is not about to have 'Sheed on his team.

MightyToine
12-21-2003, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by: V
Would CLE be interested in moving Wallace to Dallas?

From Mark Stein:

A trade possibility that makes some sense for Cleveland and satisfies Portland's newfound determination to be fiscally responsible would feature Ilgauskas to the Blazers for Rasheed Wallace. Ilgauskas, remember, has only one season left on his contract, which wouldn't interfere with the Blazers' plans to be well under the salary cap in 2005.


But this one will probably never happen, because conservative Cavs owner Gordon Gund is not about to have 'Sheed on his team.



What does DALLAS have anything to do with this? Check your first sentence, V. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

V
12-21-2003, 04:08 PM
Sorry.... what I meant was:

Stein suggests CLE/POR trade of Ilgauskas for Wallace... but Cavs owner does not want Wallace on his team... which necessitates another trade e.g. Finley, jamison, or Walker to CLE with Wallace coming to Dallas in return.

I posted this here because the thread is about that very scenario... I just find it interesting that CLE/POR are mentioned together... and we all know the Mavs would be in the middle of any discussion for Ilgauskas or Wallace. Whether the Mavs enter the fray directly, or facilitate as an interested third party, is anybody guess...

Edit: more clarity i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif