Rasheed Wallace: Will he be traded or will he remain a Blazer or will he simply walk? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

akaarod03 · 02-08-2004, 12:43 AM

Portland Trail Blazers forward Rasheed Wallace has not decided on whether to accept a contract extension proposal from the team believed to be between $35 million and $40 million for four years, a source told ESPN's David Aldridge on Saturday.

Blazers senior management is expected to meet this week to make a decision on whether to continue attempts to sign Wallace or go forward with trade discussions with several teams, including Golden State and New York.

The Blazers could also opt to do nothing with Wallace and allow him to leave this summer via free agency; the motivation would be that by allowing the salaries of several players, including Wallace, to lapse from their team salary, owner Paul Allen would pay a much lower luxury tax than is currently projected.

An NBA source says that the Knicks would be willing to trade any of their players other than Stephon Marbury, Allan Houston or Keith Van Horn for Wallace. However, the Knicks believe they may be able to acquire Wallace this summer with the midlevel salary-cap exception and, thus, wouldn't have to trade any of their players to Portland -- most notably forward Kurt Thomas.

The trade deadline is Feb. 19.

** A couple of comments: What the hell does New York have that is better than what Dallas is offering? Is 4 yrs 35-40 million really that great of an offer? Didn't spare Rasho Nesterovic get 5yrs 48 million? And of course how can we forget about our beloved Lafrentz's 7yr 69 million?

aexchange · 02-08-2004, 12:44 AM

East Coast Media.

Sheed is all about the CTC. Whoever Cuts The Check.

He won't leave 19-20 million on the table just to play for the Knicks. Thomas is even dumber than I thought if he actually believes that.

MavsFanFinley · 02-08-2004, 12:45 AM

Did I read that right...NY wouldn't unload Houston's contract if they had the chance?

Poindexter Einstein · 02-08-2004, 12:50 AM

Houston is to the Knicks like Finley is to the Mavs.

If you look at them contract-wise, they are both overpaid by a bunch. But their team feels like they need them on the court, so they wont be traded. When you will be way over the cap no matter who you get rid of, you cant send away players that you feel will make you win more for mere money reasons.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-08-2004, 01:03 AM

This quote is interesting: "An NBA source says that the Knicks would be willing to trade any of their players other than Stephon Marbury, Allan Houston or Keith Van Horn for Wallace"

What that means is this. The Knicks are offering their JUNK players and bloated contracts (only) to Portland. (It takes about $15M of contracts to make a salary match for Wallace.) And NY has already traded away 2 #1s and their legit young talent to get Marbury, so that sort of stuff isnt an option either.

Hmmmm, $15M worth of junk players and bloated contracts????? Wonder what Portland will do?

ddh33 · 02-08-2004, 01:07 AM

There's no doubt that Rasheed is the big chip waiting to fall. It will be interesting to see what happens. It would sure be anti-climatic if nothing happens...

What is interesting to me is that Portland may be serious about keeping him. I thought he was their biggest problem, at least that's what they seemed to say at every turn. Now, they may want to keep him. I really think that if Portland was smart they would trade him and try to start more from fresh. He's just the picture of everything that went wrong with that franchise - even though most of it is unfair to him. He did cause some problems, but he didn't cause all of them like the media might have you believe.

Personally, I hope they keep him. But that's just my twisted sense of humor and irony.

ddh33 · 02-08-2004, 01:09 AM

Out of curiosity, anyone think the Mavs are still interested?

Ooops...I mean, of course the Mavs were never really interested in the first place were they?

Poindexter Einstein · 02-08-2004, 01:14 AM

Dont lose sight of the fact that he might be easier to trade, if they get him to sign an extension.

A team will hesitate to give up much talent, if they are getting a 2-month player that they might lose in the summer. With an extension at a reasonable figure, Portland might find much more interest. And if he signs a 35-40M 4yr deal, he will be a long-term addition PLUS a salary reducer (by about 7-9M) for the team that gets him, making him (for some teams) even more desirable.

My guess would be that Wallace will prefer to pick his own team though, and thus will turn down extensions offered, just to BLOCK being traded and stuck somewhere he doesnt choose.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-08-2004, 01:16 AM

And I truly dont think the Mavs were ever interested in a 2-month player, before or now. Having to give up a major player in exchange for someone who might be very short term is risking a terrible drain on talent. Huge risk, and questionable reward - he isnt a C.

ddh33 · 02-08-2004, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
And I truly dont think the Mavs were ever interested in a 2-month player, before or now. Having to give up a major player in exchange for someone who might be very short term is risking a terrible drain on talent. Huge risk, and questionable reward - he isnt a C.

I think the Mavs were very interested, although I completely agree with you about not wanting to give up a significant piece for what could be a rental player. My best guess is that was one of the factors in the rumored deal dying, but I think it was all very legit at one time. There was just too much working against it though, as you mentioned.

jayC · 02-08-2004, 10:23 PM

Ny trades nothing to get rasheed right. They will let him walk.

Max Power · 02-09-2004, 03:54 PM

edit

Poindexter Einstein · 02-09-2004, 07:52 PM

"Where did you get the idea that the Mavs weren't interested in Wallace?"

That is my opinion, based on things the Mavs said and did. (Thats why I worded it "I dont think" rather than stating it as a fact)

I know there were reports to the contrary, but almost all of them were assumptive and speculative. People assumed that the Mavs would want Wallace cause the Mavs need help in the middle. There was a ton of BS that was churned in the media that proved to be baseless.

As to whether the Mavs "had a real interest" - that part, only the Mavs can say for certain.

But my opinion is based on the following: who wants to give up a package of $17M worth of players - all of them talented and worth the money - for Wallace? The Mavs have said all along that they are only looking for a deal that is too good to turn down - and giving up $17M of talent isnt any such deal, as I see it. Obviously the Mavs would have taken Wallace if Portland was essentially trying to junk him, just to get him out of town. But Portland says they are looking for a true talent package - or else they will keep him and see what happens in the summer.

Remember, if someone trades for him, they dont know if they will have him next year. So that has to lower the offers. And then you have the Wacko Stuff - that lowers his value more. Yet Portland appears to want top dollar. For a Mavs team that is looking for a true bargain, that would seem to be the wrong place to be looking. And for that reason, I dont think they ever had any serious discussions with the Blazers.

My opinion is, that as the rumors swirled, the Mavs inquired (when they were in Portland) if the Blazers had decided to hold a junk sale. As Donnie put it, they were seeing "if they had missed anything." A few days prior to that, though, Donnie had said they hadnt talked to the Blazers in about a month, so up to that point it had to be all a myth. And of course, he talked to them, there was nothing to talk about, end of story.

When I put all that together, I conclude that the Mavs didnt ever have any real interest - not enough to make a serious offer of any kind, that is.

Again, those are my guesses, based on certain facts that I have noted.

Max Power · 02-09-2004, 09:03 PM

edit

Poindexter Einstein · 02-09-2004, 10:26 PM

I noted the facts in what I wrote, Max. If you have legit questions, ask them - but dont play "troll" and just try to cause endless needless discussion if thats what you are doing.

grbh · 02-09-2004, 10:44 PM

Poindexter it appears you are here to play semantics. We can all play that game if we wanted to, but it is very tiesome, and will likely make everyone crazy.

Max Power · 02-09-2004, 10:51 PM

edit

Max Power · 02-09-2004, 10:59 PM

edit

Poindexter Einstein · 02-09-2004, 11:15 PM

GRBH ... huh? The guy asked me a question. I was attempting to answer, as straightforwardly as I could. Not sure what exactly you are objecting to, but I have an opinion, and where it comes from in this Wallace trade scenario was a whole set of complex intertwined issues.

MAX ... "Why shouldn't I inquire about the logic (or lack therein) of your posts?" ...if you think I am not logical, thats fine. If you want to debate my logic, thats fine too. If you have certain (specific) points you want me to explain further to see whether you agree or not, thats fine too. If you disagree with me, thats fine too.

I know lots of people think otherwise than me on this Wallace situation. My opinion is just that - its an opinion. But unlike most people, I never thought Wallace would get traded before the deadline by the Blazers (and still dont). I thought their price was going to be way high, and that the Mavs were (and are) only looking for cheap cheap bargains right now.

Yes Max, I meant to imply that the Mavs didnt have enough interest in Wallace to have been chasing such a deal with Portland. If one plopped into their lap, if Portland chased them, where they could get him dirt cheap, yes I think they would have said yes. But I dont think they had enough interest to make a realistic offer. I think the Mavs were looking for a deal at pennies on the dollar, and the Blazers were never offering such a deal.