# OT: Clippers Get Kittles (CHEAP)



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

THEY GOT HIM FOR A SECOND ROUND PICK


RIGHT HERE 

WOW we were about to give them sar for him but yet they take a second round pick. hmm...


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

How stupid does Aaron Goodwin look now? LOL! :laugh:


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

That is downright shocking.


----------



## KIDBLAZE (Jul 8, 2003)

good job nash:yes:


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

*Kittles for a 2nd rounder?*

Apparently NJ didn't think very highly of Kittles either.

Clippers have acquired veteran shooting guard Kerry Kittles from the New Jersey Nets in exchange for a future second round draft pick. Kittles, who led New Jersey to consecutive NBA Finals appearances in 2002 and 2003, holds career averages of 14.3 points and 2.6 assists per game during his eight year career.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

HAHAHAH

this is funny.

Maybe Nash does know what he's talking about!


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Funny, the link says that Kittles led the Nets to the Finals twice. He sort of followed, really.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Backboard Cam</b>!
> Funny, the link says that Kittles led the Nets to the Finals twice. He sort of followed, really.


lol :laugh:


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

I'll say it again like I've said it before: Nash is a waay better GM that Bob. Nash is patient, and this proves it. Way to go! Now Whittsit on the other hand, he would have made the SAR trade in a heartbeat. Why? Because he's impulsive. Thank you Nash.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

The Nets' new ownership isn't kidding about slashing payroll.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

hmmmmmmm......

so according to SAR's agent, we were supposed to trade SAR for essentially a second round pick, Aaron Williams, and Harris? :sour: :laugh:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Anybody see a trend here? NJ is dumping salaries. First Martin, now Kittles. Jason Kidd must be furious, since the Nets seem to be dismantling his title-contending team. 

Is Kidd next to go out the door? Should Portland try to get him?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

funny how this morning on Hoopshype they wanted Wilcox and a 1st rounder for Kittles

wow :jawdrop: a 2nd rounder indeed


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

im so GLAD nash did not pull the trigger!


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Shows you why I think Nash is a great GM. Half of 75% of ppl on this board think he is a dumbass. He isn't I'm glad he is our GM.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

They Clips didn't even have to give up Wilcox?? I can't believe NJ would just give Kittles away like that--for a 2nd Round pick. 2nd round picks are dog ____ in the NBA. I guess there is a fire sale in NJ!!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

wow. I wonder if they want to offload Kidd now too, since it's pretty clear the Nets no longer care about winning. I bet Jason wishes he'd chosen the Spurs last year.

there's going to be a ton of speculation about trades for Kidd now. our best offer is probably SAR + Outlaw + Woods + first round pick for Kidd. Maybe use Damon to get them out from the Mourning contract too. 

I'm sure there's bound to be a team out there who can do better.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> wow. I wonder if they want to offload Kidd now too, since it's pretty clear the Nets no longer care about winning. I bet Jason wishes he'd chosen the Spurs last year.
> 
> there's going to be a ton of speculation about trades for Kidd now. our best offer is probably SAR + Outlaw + Woods + first round pick for Kidd. Maybe use Damon to get them out from the Mourning contract too.
> ...


Teams may have better but do they want to offer it??


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I'm not so eager to praise Nash. He looks kind of dumb for even considering the trade in my opinion.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> I'm not so eager to praise Nash. He looks kind of dumb for even considering the trade in my opinion.


i kind of thought of that too, i mean if some of the reports were true, Nash was really interested and this deal could have gone through if NJ would have just gave us there good pick. But oh well the NJ talks should go away unless its for Kidd


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> I'm not so eager to praise Nash. He looks kind of dumb for even considering the trade in my opinion.


Who says he was considering it?

The only people who were saying that he was seriously considering it were in the media, mostly the NY/NJ media at that.

If he could have gotten a top lotto pick though (like he was holding out for) it would have been a decent deal.


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> I'm not so eager to praise Nash. He looks kind of dumb for even considering the trade in my opinion.


Who's to say he actually did even consider the deal? It may have been offered, but we don't really know if he put any thought into the offer or not.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerfan024</b>!
> Teams may have better but do they want to offer it??


good point. Kidd has lost a little of his luster with his injury, and with missing the finals. 

I'll be interested to see what other fans think Kidd is worth. he may be 31 and on the downhill side of his career, but he's still the best PG in the game. 

if we got Kidd, we'd still be in desperate need of an outside shooter. (he shot 20% from three in the playoffs last year.) until we get one, we still don't get home court advantage in the playoffs.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> good point. Kidd has lost a little of his luster with his injury, and with missing the finals.
> ...


how about...(altho I dont think it's likely)..

Portland trades SAR to the Nets, and unprotected 1st round pick to the Nets.

New Jersey trades Jason Kidd to the Raptors, + a 1st rounder (of Nets picking).

Raptors trade Carter and Moiso to the Blazers

it's probably not realistic, but if Jersey is wanting to save money, this is one way...I doubt that Toronto would trade Carter for Kidd, but in reality, that might be the best they can do. Superstart for Superstar.

realgm id # 1797326


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm not surprised at all that this is all the Nets got for Kittles. I've been saying for weeks that Kerry's (a) not that good, (b) not worth that much, and (c) the Nets have been trying to unload him all offseason.

Not a bad deal for the Clippers, and probably good for the Blazers because this would seem to reduce the chances that the Clippers match for QRich, which means the Suns are less likely to make an offer to Miles. Also, it eats into the Clippers' cap space to reduce the chances they'd make a substantial offer to Darius.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

actually, that's not really that bad of an idea. Toronto really needs somebody who can:

a) put fans in the seats

b) make them attractive to free agents

Kidd can sell tickets in practically any arena but New Jersey. (I doubt Michael Jordan himself could've consistently sold out that arena.)

Other NBA players definitely will be drawn to the best passer in the game. 

probably a little too much to ask for, but man would that be a great deal for Portland.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Hap -*

I was thinking the same thing - "any way to send Kidd to Toronto and Carter to Portland?" I don't see it happening, though.....Although I must admit that I didn't see Kittles being traded for a 2nd round pick, either....


It's not a good time to be a Nets fan. They sell their first round pick to Portland for $3 million. They trade K-Mart away for 3 draft picks. Now they trade Kittles away for a 2nd round pick. Can you say, "$$$ means everything to the new owner"?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> It's not a good time to be a Nets fan.


well, there aren't many of them to feel the pain. which, i suppose, is the whole problem.


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Freak</b>!
> Shows you why I think Nash is a great GM. Half of 75% of ppl on this board think he is a dumbass. He isn't I'm glad he is our GM.


So, what you're saying is that 37.5% of the people on this board feel this way?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I modified the original Portland deal-New Jersey deal to include SAR and Damon. 

New Jersey trades: C Alonzo Mourning (8.0 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 0.7 apg in 17.9 minutes)
SG Lucious Harris	(6.9 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 2.0 apg in 21.8 minutes)
PF Aaron Williams	(6.3 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 1.1 apg in 18.6 minutes)
PG Jason Kidd	(15.5 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 9.2 apg in 36.5 minutes)
New Jersey receives: PF Shareef Abdur-Rahim	(16.3 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 31.6 minutes)
SF Travis Outlaw	(1.0 ppg, 0.5 rpg, 0.1 apg in 2.4 minutes)
SF Qyntel Woods	(3.6 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 0.7 apg in 10.8 minutes)
PG Damon Stoudamire	(13.4 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 6.1 apg in 38.0 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -2.4 ppg, -0.8 rpg, and -4.1 apg.

Portland trades: PF Shareef Abdur-Rahim	(16.3 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 31.6 minutes)
SF Travis Outlaw	(1.0 ppg, 0.5 rpg, 0.1 apg in 2.4 minutes)
SF Qyntel Woods	(3.6 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 0.7 apg in 10.8 minutes)
PG Damon Stoudamire	(13.4 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 6.1 apg in 38.0 minutes)
Portland receives: C Alonzo Mourning	(8.0 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 0.7 apg in 12 games)
SG Lucious Harris	(6.9 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 2.0 apg in 69 games)
PF Aaron Williams	(6.3 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 1.1 apg in 72 games)
PG Jason Kidd	(15.5 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 9.2 apg in 67 games)
Change in team outlook: +2.4 ppg, +0.8 rpg, and +4.1 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Due to New Jersey and Portland being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. New Jersey and Portland had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Portland:

C - Theo Ratliff/Vladimir Stepania
PF - Zach Randolph/Aaron Williams
SF - Darius Miles/Ruben Patterson/Victor Khryapa
SG - Trenton Hassell/Derek Anderson/Lucious Harris
PG - Jason Kidd/NVE

IR: Alonzo Mourning, Sebastian Telfair

The trade of SAR gives Portland the greenlight to re-sign Miles and finally pair him with a PG that could take advantage of his gifts. Harris and Williams both have less than two years on their deals (with Harris waivable) and Williams providing solid insurance in the paint. 

I would look into this if I was the Blazers front office. 

The Nets would be brutal, but at least they could start over faster.

New Jersey:

C - Jason Collins/Nenad Kristic
PF - Shareef Abdur Rahim/Brian Scalabrine
SF - Richard Jefferson/Travis Outlaw
SG - Qyntel Woods/Rodney Buford
PG - Damon Stoudamire/Zoran Planninic/Jacque Vaughn.

You also help get rid of two malcontents in SAR and Damon. I think it's a win win for both sides.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

As far as whether Nash ever seriously considered the deal with the Nets: since nash and stefanski are friends, is it possible they both concocted this rumor to boost the value of their respective assets and hoped to stir up some offers? If so, their plotting wasn't very successful.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I like Hap's idea! 

Damn Clippers! I was hoping they'd match Q's offer!


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Freak</b>!
> Shows you why I think Nash is a great GM. Half of 75% of ppl on this board think he is a dumbass. He isn't I'm glad he is our GM.


Don't count me as one of the 75%. I think Nash has done - and is doing - a great job managing some very difficult situations.

And Goodwin thought sending SAR to NJ for Kittles and change was a "good deal"??? Maybe for SAR and Goodwin, but DEFINATELY not for the Blazers.

Good job, Nash. Stay tough.

PBF


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> Portland trades SAR to the Nets, and unprotected 1st round pick to the Nets.
> 
> New Jersey trades Jason Kidd to the Raptors, + a 1st rounder (of Nets picking).
> ...




Very nice indeed.... Rahim for Carter and Moiso :woot:


Do you put Carter as your starting SG or SF?

If SF, then what do we do with Miles and Patterson? You may need to trade 1 if not both

PG Stoudamire, NVE, Telfair
SG DA, (Carter), Hassell?
SF Carter, Miles, Patterson, *Khryapa
PF Randolph, Moiso, *Outlaw
C Ratliff, (Moiso), Stepania, *Sinonovic

*Rewserves
Overseas Monia, Ha
Cut Frahm


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

With all of the players we got this summer, we have a lot of dead weights. That bein' Derek Anderson and Ruben Patterson. With Ruben's baggage and ugly contract, no team will touch that. Is there any way we could just buy him out?


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lakota_Blazer</b>!
> With all of the players we got this summer, we have a lot of dead weights. That bein' Derek Anderson and Ruben Patterson. With Ruben's baggage and ugly contract, no team will touch that. Is there any way we could just buy him out?


I dont know if we could, maybe if he doesnt get PT or something. I thought he might get bought out last season when RP was complaining about how he absolutly did not want to come back but then he seemed to fit fine with the team so I'd think a buyout would be tough.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Wowy wow wow wow (as Christopher walken would say it as the Continental on SNL) what a steal! New Jersey is totally gutting their team and liking it. I applaud Nash for sticking to his guns and not making that move. I'm in shock right now... that's basically like trading Ha for Kittles straight up. Clipps got a steal for sure... A starter for free basically... Unbelievable... wow... (SheedSoNasty still reeling from the shock)


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I don't see this as such a steal for the Clippers - after all, the Bobcats could've got Kittles for nothing.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I just have to add...

NOTHING's IMPOSSIBLE ANYMORE... NOT ALL BLAZER FANS ARE HOMERS!!!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> I don't see this as such a steal for the Clippers - after all, the Bobcats could've got Kittles for nothing.


Looks like they should have, huh? They could have traded him to LA for a 2nd rounder...

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> Looks like they should have, huh? They could have traded him to LA for a 2nd rounder...
> 
> Ed O.


In hindsight.

That'd be a pretty big risk, selecting Kittles and banking on somebody taking that 10 million dollar contract off their hands, for the piss-ant reward of a 2nd round pick. 

I think they would have been idiots to select Kittles.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> In hindsight.
> ...


yea but they could have set up a wink wink deal, but oh well


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerfan024</b>!
> 
> 
> yea but they could have set up a wink wink deal, but oh well


True, but I don't really believe the Clips know what they're going to do more than 2 minutes before they do it.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BEER&BASKETBALL</b>!
> I like Hap's idea!
> 
> Damn Clippers! I was hoping they'd match Q's offer!


I'm glad they didn't.

First, it keeps the Clips below the Blazers in the West, IMO.

Secondly, I think that adding Q to Phoenix doesn't help them all that much. I could be wrong, but I think they'll be a lot like last year's Mavericks - lots of shooters led by Nash with a big donut hole in the middle. If the Clips had matched Q, I think Phoenix might have been able to get Dampier, which would have "scared" me a lot more.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I almost think that if the Blazers do this trade, Miles will either 1: come to his senses and resign with the Blazers or 2: be traded for a bucket of rice.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I'm not so eager to praise Nash. He looks kind of dumb for even considering the trade in my opinion.


There you go tlong, you just got the award for the biggest ANTI-Supposedly a Blazer fan on this board. Don't think I have seen a positive comment on the Blazers from you yet. Way to go! You should feel proud.  

As for Nash "considering" it, Just b\c the media reported it and NJ (allegedly) offered it, doesn't mean he considered it. But you already knew that.....


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

The nets are doing some serious cleaning


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> 
> There you go tlong, you just got the award for the biggest ANTI-Supposedly a Blazer fan on this board. Don't think I have seen a positive comment on the Blazers from you yet. Way to go! You should feel proud.
> ...


I won an award? Awesome!

I just call it like I see it.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

*Kidd trade?*

Seriously, what is the feeling about trading for Kidd? It would remove us from the FA derby next offseason - but would he improve the Blazers enough to bypass that?

Is he worth losing that flexibility?

SAR, Outlaw, Woods - other than SAR not much loss.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

No Kidd. He's overrated.


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

Hello:



> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm glad they didn't.
> ...


Well, I don't think the Clips would have surpassed the Blazers with Quentin. The Suns getting Quentin hurts us more. Your analogy of the Suns to the Mavs is good, except for one thing. The Mavericks made the playoffs last year. We don't want the Suns to make the playoffs. That's just strengthening the competition for the last 2 playoff spots.


Regards:

Freshtown


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Freshtown</b>!
> Your analogy of the Suns to the Mavs is good, except for one thing. The Mavericks made the playoffs last year. We don't want the Suns to make the playoffs. That's just strengthening the competition for the last 2 playoff spots.


My bad. I didn't explain my position well. 

I think that the Suns improved their team by obtaining Nash. However, I don't think that obtaining Richardson improves them much (if at all) more than by JUST getting Nash.

In other words, getting Nash might have made them a 48 win team. However, I'm not convinced that getting Richardson gives them any more wins than that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> In hindsight.
> 
> ...


Well, a Clippers' second rounder is usually FAR from "piss-ant". 

And who else are they going to spend their money on? Kittles would have been a pretty good starting 2 guard, and the Hornets DO have a minimum salary they need to spend (almost $22m).

It seems possible the Nets would have paid them (in cash and/or in picks) to take KK off their hands. A $10m expiring contract might have proven even MORE valuable as the deadline neared, and at worst the Bobcats would have had Kerry off the books after starting for them for a season.

Charlotte played it safe by not taking Kittles, but they should have grabbed him as an asset when they had the chance. Instead they took Frahm and Ferguson and other players that were worthless to them.

Ed O.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

> No Kidd. He's overrated.



No way. J-Kidd is the best point guard by far in the NBA. He can totally control a game, even on nights his shot doesn't fall. He may not be the greatest shooter, but look at how many easy buckets he gets his teamates. He makes everybody better--especially the open court guys. K-Mart can look terrible in h/c sometimes, but he can fill a lane--and that's all you have to do with Kidd (he'll find you) The next time you see Kidd in a game, take a few minutes and just watch him. He's everywhere. He rebounds, gets to loose balls, and he's faster with the ball then everybody else is w/o it. Everyone else reacts to him. If he would have signed with SA, he would be collecting trophy's with TD.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I'm not surprised at all that this is all the Nets got for Kittles. I've been saying for weeks that Kerry's (a) not that good, (b) not worth that much, and (c) the Nets have been trying to unload him all offseason.
> 
> Not a bad deal for the Clippers, and probably good for the Blazers because this would seem to reduce the chances that the Clippers match for QRich, which means the Suns are less likely to make an offer to Miles. Also, it eats into the Clippers' cap space to reduce the chances they'd make a substantial offer to Darius.
> ...


Come on Ed, everyone knows that Arron Williams was the main piece in the deal! Kittles was a throw in! :laugh:


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SheedSoNasty</b>!
> I just have to add...
> 
> NOTHING's IMPOSSIBLE ANYMORE... NOT ALL BLAZER FANS ARE HOMERS!!!












DOH!


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Does that mean DA is only worth a 2nd round pick as well?


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

HOWIE, your hilarious man!:laugh:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> Does that mean DA is only worth a 2nd round pick as well?


To be honest, I'd be surprised if any team would give us a second rounder for him.

He's obviously a better basketball player than any second rounder is likely to be, but with his contract (size and length) not many teams would be willing to invest their cap space in him.

Ed O.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Anybody see a trend here? NJ is dumping salaries. First Martin, now Kittles. Jason Kidd must be furious, since the Nets seem to be dismantling his title-contending team.
> 
> <b>Is Kidd next to go out the door? Should Portland try to get him? </b>


When I heard the Kittles news, I said to myself that Kidd is going somewhere next. I wonder which team needs Kidd to make it to the top?


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> 
> 
> When I heard the Kittles news, I said to myself that Kidd is going somewhere next. I wonder which team needs Kidd to make it to the top?


True, I would almost bet Ed's house that Kidd is gone soon too. I think that plan with the Nets is......................total rebuild. They are clearing house bigtime! :grinning:


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Wow, so SAR to the Nets for Kidd. And Shareef plays on a team of:

PG: Zoran Planacic
SG: Lucious Harris
C:Jason Collins/Mutumbo
PF: Rahim
SF: Jefferson 

Think that team will make the playoffs?:laugh: 

Rahim demands a trade and gets sent back to a crappy team! I like it!


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> Rahim demands a trade and gets sent back to a crappy team! I like it!


It's what I've been praying for all along...:gopray:


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I would get Kidd only if we could get him cheaply, his contract scares me though, as do his knees.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I'm not surprised at all that this is all the Nets got for Kittles. I've been saying for weeks that Kerry's (a) not that good, (b) not worth that much, and (c) the Nets have been trying to unload him all offseason.


Sorry but you're underrating Kittles if you think this is the best the Nets could do for him. People are missing a key point here. Why a second-rounder, why not a first-rounder? We all know those second-round picks are hardly any good unless you get lucky. The reason the Nets took a second-rounder is that they don't have to worry about taking guaranteed salary. Simple as that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aurelino</b>!
> 
> Sorry but you're underrating Kittles if you think this is the best the Nets could do for him. People are missing a key point here. Why a second-rounder, why not a first-rounder? We all know those second-round picks are hardly any good unless you get lucky. The reason the Nets took a second-rounder is that they don't have to worry about taking guaranteed salary. Simple as that.


That's just silly. For several reasons I can think of right off the bat:

-- The Nets could EASILY move a first rounder for at least one future second rounder. Or they could trade their first rounder for a future first rounder.

-- Teams like Portland are willing to pay millions of dollars for first rounders.

-- The Nets are cutting salary at the moment, but there's no reason to think that they wouldn't want a first rounder next year, or the year after, when the team's well under the luxury threshold.

-- First rounders do NOT automatically get guaranteed money. The Chicago Bulls drafted Travis Knight and declined to sign him. If the Nets wanted to keep their pick, they have to sign him to guaranteed money. If not, they don't.

-- The Nets could use their first rounder on an Int and delay paying money to him... they did it with Krstic and the Blazers are looking to do it with Monia. In the mean time, they could move that player for additional value if he plays well overseas (Krstic is worth more today then he was on draft day in spite of the Nets not paying a cent to him in regular season salary).

Arguing that the Nets took less than full value for Kerry Kittles merely to avoid guaranteed money down the road seems way off base.

Ed O.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Arguing that the Nets took less than full value for Kerry Kittles merely to avoid guaranteed money down the road seems way off base.


Not really. We sold the first round pick (whereas we could have tried to trade for a future pick) but kept Christian Drejer who is a second-rounder (plus he's in Europe for a year). 

We could have gotten atleast one player for Martin too but no we took 3 first-rounders ( which won't amount to anything significant until 2007).

They had decided that they absolutely wanted to get rid of Kitttles $10 million contract whatever way they can without adding salary this year or in the future. You see a trend here? 

Look at the players we signed and their contracts:

Rodney Buford- $750,000 for one year
Kyle Davis- $385000 for a year
Nenad Krstic (who is a first round pick) $5 million for 4 years.
Jacque Vaughn- undisclosed

They will buyout Harris most probably. They are also interested in Ron Mercer, Eric Williams and Eddie Griffin :sigh: The things we have heard about the Nets plans have been far from encouraging. The idea is that money won't be spent until they get to Brooklyn.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aurelino</b>!
> 
> They had decided that they absolutely wanted to get rid of Kitttles $10 million contract whatever way they can without adding salary this year or in the future. You see a trend here?


By your logic, shouldn't the Nets have preferred 3 second rounders from Denver?

The Nets would have taken a 1st rounder instead of a 2nd rounder. Almost guaranteed. 

They had to take a second rounder because they REALLY wanted to move Kittles's contract without taking any back, and anything they got in addition (cash and draft picks) was just secondary.

Ed O.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> By your logic, shouldn't the Nets have preferred 3 second rounders from Denver?
> ...


Three first-rounders yes but they won't be any good before 2007 and by then the team will be making a transition to Brooklyn ( that's what the owners think) and then they will pay for those picks. Bottomline is, they won't pay in the next 2-3 of years. Don't be surprised if they trade Kidd for Antoine Walker and pick. This won't mean that's what Kidd is worth.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aurelino</b>!
> 
> 
> Three first-rounders yes but they won't be any good before 2007 and by then the team will be making a transition to Brooklyn ( that's what the owners think) and then they will pay for those picks. Bottomline is, they won't pay in the next 2-3 of years. Don't be surprised if they trade Kidd for Antoine Walker and pick. This won't mean that's what Kidd is worth.


So how long until Kidd is asking to be traded or has that already happen? The Nets really are not giving him that much to play with.............so I guess it's *"NO SLEEP TIL BROOKLYN!".*


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> First rounders do NOT automatically get guaranteed money. The Chicago Bulls drafted Travis Knight and declined to sign him. If the Nets wanted to keep their pick, they have to sign him to guaranteed money. If not, they don't.


what is this? I thought all first rounders get a guaranteed 3 year contract?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> 
> what is this? I thought all first rounders get a guaranteed 3 year contract?


Nope. In order to sign the player, they need to follow the first round contract structure (which provides some +/- from a preset amount, but has guaranteed money for a set number of years). But teams don't have to sign the player.

All teams have an opportunity to renounce their draft pick, rather than give him guaranteed money. Travis Knight is the only player that I can think of that this has happened with, but it's definitely possible.

The Bulls renounced their rights to Knight in 1996 and he became a free agent (presumably unrestricted, although normally players with fewer than 4 NBA seasons of experience are restricted) and signed with the Lakers.

Ed O.


----------

