# Henderson to Jazz



## Noob (Jan 21, 2006)

> The Utah Jazz made only one minor deal before Thursday's NBA trade deadline, acquiring veteran big man Alan Henderson from Philadelphia in exchange for a swap of second-round draft picks, and cash consideration going from Philadelphia to Utah.
> The move, however, is not expected to impact the Jazz's current 14-man roster. That is because Utah is expected to waive Henderson, who has played 34 games and averaged 3.5 points in a mostly reserve role for the Sixers this season.
> The trade will lead to the Jazz having a better second-round pick, though details on the second-round picks involved were not immediately available.


http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660197903,00.html


So, how does this benefit us? Opinions?


----------



## AK-47 (Jul 7, 2005)

We get a better 2nd round pick... henderson won't play.... why did philly do this? Is henderson a cancer?


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

this is one of the cheapest moves I've ever seen. They gave utah some money and a better 2nd round pick to take off Henderson's contract. This is ridiculous.


----------



## SirCharles34 (Nov 16, 2004)

Sliccat said:


> this is one of the cheapest moves I've ever seen. They gave utah some money and a better 2nd round pick to take off Henderson's contract. This is ridiculous.


This better not be true. There's gotta be more to it.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Lamest deal of all-time. Do the Sixers employees get a coupon the Jazz gift shop or something? Free concessions?


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

SirCharles34 said:


> This better not be true. There's gotta be more to it.


Sorry man.


----------



## AK-47 (Jul 7, 2005)

I think it prevents you guys from paying a big tax or something. So we are basically taking him off your hands so your owner doesn't have to pay that tax.


----------



## fchud84 (Oct 9, 2006)

WTF!!!!!!!WTF IS GOING ON HERE!!!!! We could have kept him then waived him, kept the money and got a better second round pick! NO, what that f***ing King does is PAY Utah to take a player off us AND give them a better second round pick! WTF?!?!?!?!?! Whatever the tax we pay on Henderson that has been reduced by him going to Utah could have been paid by the cash we paid Utah to take him, so basically had he have stayed we would still be financially in the same position, the only difference is that we would have had a better second round pick, which we dont anymore. King needs to go NOW, TODAY, THIS VERY SECOND!!!!!!!


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

fchud84 said:


> WTF!!!!!!!WTF IS GOING ON HERE!!!!! We could have kept him then waived him, kept the money and got a better second round pick! NO, what that f***ing King does is PAY Utah to take a player off us AND give them a better second round pick! WTF?!?!?!?!?! Whatever the tax we pay on Henderson that has been reduced by him going to Utah could have been paid by the cash we paid Utah to take him, so basically had he have stayed we would still be financially in the same position, the only difference is that we would have had a better second round pick, which we dont anymore. King needs to go NOW, TODAY, THIS VERY SECOND!!!!!!!


He paid Utah a portion of Henderson's contract, they did save money.



> I think it prevents you guys from paying a big tax or something. So we are basically taking him off your hands so your owner doesn't have to pay that tax.


Even if they were paying the luxury tax, which they aren't, Henderson's minimum contract wouldn't have made a difference.


----------



## SirCharles34 (Nov 16, 2004)

AK-47 said:


> I think it prevents you guys from paying a big tax or something. So we are basically taking him off your hands so your owner doesn't have to pay that tax.


If it's true, then it makes sense. Denver did something similar in a trade last month to avoid a lux tax.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

SirCharles34 said:


> If it's true, then it makes sense. Denver did something similar in a trade last month to avoid a lux tax.


It's not. After Webber's waiving, the luxury tax didn't apply.


----------



## Noob (Jan 21, 2006)

Personally I cannot understand how this trade benefitted us in the slightest, we gain a worse 2nd round pick than we already had, although I presume we would've traded/waived ours anyway with the 3 first rounders we have, and we actually paid the Jazz to take him off our hands... why could we have not just waived him ourselves?

There has to be something more to this that we are not being informed about, because otherwise it feels like one of the dumbest trades the Sixers have made in a long time.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

Don't the Sixers owe the Wolves a second round pick this year? Does that matter at all?


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

Noob said:


> Personally I cannot understand how this trade benefitted us in the slightest, we gain a worse 2nd round pick than we already had, although I presume we would've traded/waived ours anyway with the 3 first rounders we have, and we actually paid the Jazz to take him off our hands... why could we have not just waived him ourselves?
> 
> There has to be something more to this that we are not being informed about, because otherwise it feels like one of the dumbest trades the Sixers have made in a long time.


Read the rest of the thread.


----------



## Noob (Jan 21, 2006)

Sliccat said:


> Read the rest of the thread.


I posted the thread.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

Noob said:


> I posted the thread.


This makes it even sillier that you are asking questions that were already answered in a 15 post thread you started.


----------



## Noob (Jan 21, 2006)

Sliccat said:


> This makes it even sillier that you are asking questions that were already answered in a 15 post thread you started.


It was more of a rhetorical question than anything else. Anyway, this is a pointless disagreement. Let's leave it at that.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

The Sixers didn't give up their second rounder. What this trade does is give them the right to swap picks with the Jazz if it benefits them.

I think they made this move to do Alan Henderson a favor since he wasn't going to get minutes on what is one of the worst teams in basketball, it's probably better to not get minutes on a playoff team. If you read his scouting report you'd notice that after all those games he missed in Atlanta due to injury, Alan Henderson has become an astute towel waver.


----------



## Tha Freak (Dec 5, 2006)

Coatesvillain said:


> The Sixers didn't give up their second rounder. What this trade does is give them the right to swap picks with the Jazz if it benefits them.


Exactly. The Sixers get the right to swap picks if the Jazz's second rounder will be higher than ours, which I highly doubt. Anyways, it's just a little of freeing up some money and helping Henderson go elsewhere to a better situation. 

Anyone remember last season when we traded Lee Nailon and our second rounder to the Cavs for their second rounder (Cavs had a lower second rounder)? This management is cheap....


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Here's Billy King on the situation..


> “I don’t understand the Alan Henderson trade. Why would you want the right to swap second round picks with Utah when their pick will be behind the 76ers? With the current roster, and three first round picks, it seems unlikely that a second round pick next year would make the 15-man roster anyway.”
> -Allen Gorski
> 
> Billy King
> “Well, Allen, mainly that was a managing the cap situation. There was a miscalculation on the tax number when we bought Chris Webber out, so we had to get under the tax. In doing so, Utah took Alan in and we got somebody to pay his salary, which got us under the tax. Swapping the picks is our right to swap, because anytime you make a trade, Utah had to give us something back. To do that, Utah gave us the right to swap picks, even though we’re not going to swap with them. Also, we owed them a pick in 2008, so we reduced the protection on that pick in the second round. So it was more getting under the tax and clearing up some miscalculation, cleaning it up a little bit. I do agree that next year the second round pick may not be somebody that we need to add to the roster with the three first round picks, but that could be a situation where we draft a guy over seas and leave him over seas, or it could be a situation where we could use it to make a trade. But I think any time you have those picks, you want them for an asset value in order to be able to maneuver.”


LINK


----------

