# Shareef and the NJ Nets talk (merged)



## B_&_B

FYI



> Bucks: Shareef turned down Milwaukee
> 
> by Fanball Staff - Fanball.com
> Monday, July 11, 2005
> 
> News
> The New York Daily News is reporting that Nets free agent target Shareef Abdur-Rahim turned down a $47 million deal from the Bucks shortly before swingman Bobby Simmons accepted a contract of the same magnitude.
> 
> Views
> The Nets are in hot pursuit of Rahim and are looking to execute a sign-and-trade with Portland involving Shareef and New Jersey's midlevel exception. Shareef is currently visiting Sacramento and is also considering San Antonio and Miami. The Nets would alternatively turn to Donyell Marshall or Stromile Swift.


----------



## Dan

*Re: Shareef said NO to the Bucks*

I know it's been discussed before, but I'm stuck in san diego and I feel like crap, so I might've missed it..but if we trade shareef to the nets, how does the trade exception or the mle help us in our quest to re-sign joel (assuming they still want to)?


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: Shareef said NO to the Bucks*

IMHO it hurts that quest.

If we get a trade excpetion of $4.9 mil the only good it does is allow us to purchase a player from another team. Thus adding salary. Adding slary reduces the chanes for room to resign Joel.

If they keep the S&T deal from happening until say, August.. then it helps a little so we can still do something creative to resign Joel, then use the excpetion to sign someone


----------



## ABM

*Re: Shareef said NO to the Bucks*

It's the draft pick I want. Nobody says we have to use any one of the excepetions.


----------



## mediocre man

*Re: Shareef said NO to the Bucks*



Trader Bob said:


> IMHO it hurts that quest.
> 
> If we get a trade excpetion of $4.9 mil the only good it does is allow us to purchase a player from another team. Thus adding salary. Adding slary reduces the chanes for room to resign Joel.
> 
> If they keep the S&T deal from happening until say, August.. then it helps a little so we can still do something creative to resign Joel, then use the excpetion to sign someone


But we could also trade the exeption to another team that's under the cap for an additional 1st round pick. If Portland gets lucky they can parly SAR into a 1st round pick from NJ along with the trade exception, then trade the exception to a team for another 1st round pick. That would give Portland 4 picks next year, and at least 1 of them...ours....a very high pick.


Welcome to rebuilding people.


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: Shareef said NO to the Bucks*

sorry but I just do not see another low 1st round draft pick helping too much next year in the draft. We already have ours, Detroits, and then maybe NJ


and I do not think you can trade an exception for a draft pick. Player(s) have to be involved. Although nothing is wroing with purchasing a $2 mil instead of a $4.9 mil one


----------



## B_&_B

*Re: Shareef said NO to the Bucks*



mediocre man said:


> But we could also trade the exeption to another team that's under the cap for an additional 1st round pick. If Portland gets lucky they can parly SAR into a 1st round pick from NJ along with the trade exception, then trade the exception to a team for another 1st round pick. That would give Portland 4 picks next year, and at least 1 of them...ours....a very high pick.
> 
> 
> Welcome to rebuilding people.


That would be amazing! Probably not likely, but would be very cool. We could then trade all those picks for the #1 pick, maybe.


----------



## B_&_B

*SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*

According to ESPN RADIO, we get the trade exception, they get Shareef. That's all they said.

Mod, maybe merge this with my other thread about SAR and the Bucks?


----------



## Fork

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> According to ESPN RADIO, we get the trade exception, they get Shareef. That's all they said.
> 
> Mod, maybe merge this with my other thread about SAR and the Bucks?


They better toss in a pick too or something.


----------



## Foulzilla

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*

I'm sure we got a pick out of it, I jut wonder which. I suspect we got their first rounder next year, but I'm hoping we get the Clippers pick from them (its unprotected). Unlikely, but I can dream.


----------



## Schilly

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*

It all depends....How important is that Championship WIndow to the nets?

Goodwin has said that supposedly Shareef has had several MLE offers already, but the deal that has been agreed on with NJ is for the full value of the TE plus max raises and and extra year, landing Shareef about 8mill more than the MLE would.....One of those MLE's could be from SA, or Miami, something that if money is similar, why go to the Nets when he could have a legit shot at a ring.


----------



## Reep

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*

I would hope a pick is added. Does the trade exemption have any extra value over and above what we had with SAR? Or is it more like what we have with NVE, but more restricted?


----------



## Schilly

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



Reep said:


> I would hope a pick is added. Does the trade exemption have any extra value over and above what we had with SAR? Or is it more like what we have with NVE, but more restricted?


I believe the TE value is $4.9mil


----------



## Reep

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



Schilly said:


> It all depends....How important is that Championship WIndow to the nets?
> 
> Goodwin has said that supposedly Shareef has had several MLE offers already, but the deal that has been agreed on with NJ is for the full value of the TE plus max raises and and extra year, landing Shareef about 8mill more than the MLE would.....One of those MLE's could be from SA, or Miami, something that if money is similar, why go to the Nets when he could have a legit shot at a ring.


With Kidd, Carter and Reef, the Nets should have a legit shot at the title. However, if I were Reef and wanted to win a title, I would go to S.A. NJ has a shot with Reef, but S.A. would be a clear favorite with Reef on board.


----------



## Reep

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



Schilly said:


> I believe the TE value is $4.9mil


I've seen the amount, but my question was more to its usefulness. If we let Reef walk we have a zero balance. If we take the trade exemption and let it expire, we also have a zero balance. If we take the trade exemption and want to use it, then it ends up essentially like a MLE, except that we can use it in trade or for FAs in a sign and trade. But, we have to find someone of MLE value, because we can't add to it to get a larger salary, right?


----------



## B_&_B

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



Reep said:


> I've seen the amount, but my question was more to its usefulness. If we let Reef walk we have a zero balance. If we take the trade exemption and let it expire, we also have a zero balance. If we take the trade exemption and want to use it, then it ends up essentially like a MLE, except that we can use it in trade or for FAs in a sign and trade. But, we have to find someone of MLE value, because we can't add to it to get a larger salary, right?


Good question. I dont understand the details of the trade exception, can one of you smart guys help explain it?

I cant find anything regarding this deal on the web, I just heard it reported on ESPN RADIO, so it may still be just a rumor right now.


----------



## purplehaze89

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Good question. I dont understand the details of the trade exception, can one of you smart guys help explain it?
> 
> I cant find anything regarding this deal on the web, I just heard it reported on ESPN RADIO, so it may still be just a rumor right now.


Did you actually hear that Reef was traded or are they just reporting the proposed trade of Reef for a trade exception that has appeared on newspapers everywhere?


----------



## Schilly

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



purplehaze89 said:


> Did you actually hear that Reef was traded or are they just reporting the proposed trade of Reef for a trade exception that has appeared on newspapers everywhere?


Trades can't be official til the 22nd, but they can be announced thatterms have been agreed on.


----------



## Ed O

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*

It'd be nice to get something other than the trade exception. I don't think that NJ is going ot send too much more than that, though, considering Portland's options are rather limited.

Ed O.


----------



## ThatNetGuy

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*

You get the ability to trade 4.9 mio to another counterparty and take back salary up to that amount without fitting under the cap. It is a semi valuable chip. But since you guys are rebuilding it is basically a way not to take salary back.


----------



## B_&_B

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



purplehaze89 said:


> Did you actually hear that Reef was traded or are they just reporting the proposed trade of Reef for a trade exception that has appeared on newspapers everywhere?


They made it sound like it was a done deal.


----------



## purplehaze89

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



Schilly said:


> Trades can't be official til the 22nd, but they can be announced thatterms have been agreed on.


I know. I meant whether or not ESPN radio simply reported a rumour they heard or are they actually reporting a scoop that a trade will indeed be consummated. I'm at work and can't tune in.


----------



## ThatNetGuy

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*

BTW we generally think it will be either cash(up to 3 mil) and pick likely 2nd rounder or 1st lottery protected. Either way you get something for signing him.


----------



## Blazer Freak

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



> Sacramento, San Antonio and Miami can - like the Nets - offer Abdur-Rahim their mid-level exception worth roughly $5 million. But unlike those teams, the Nets can offer Portland their trade exception, worth nearly $5 million, in a sign-and-trade for Abdur-Rahim.
> 
> The exception is attractive for capped out teams and can be packaged with cash and or draft picks. The Nets likely will have to execute a sign-and-trade to land Abdur-Rahim since it would allow him to sign a six-year contract worth up to $38 million. That is a year and $10 million more than teams can offer the 6-9 power forward through the mid-level exception.
> 
> "It comes down to Portland," Goodwin said.


Off of Hoopshype and the NY Daily News..


----------



## Schilly

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*

Confusing info, but here is the link to ***** explanation

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#68

Looks like it puts a cap hold onto the Salary of the team, but can be rennounceda t any time.

NJ's expires at the end of the month, so we would either need to use it by then or rennounce it I think.


----------



## dkap

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



> if I were Reef and wanted to win a title, I would go to S.A. NJ has a shot with Reef, but S.A. would be a clear favorite with Reef on board.


But if you're S.A., how enthusiastic are you in pursuing SAR? I'm not really sure he helps their team any. Duncan is more effective as a PF than a C, and I think the Mohammed/Duncan combo is better than a Duncan/Shareef one. Better defense, better hustle, and quite possibly better [balanced] offense.

Dan


----------



## NetIncome

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



Reep said:


> I've seen the amount, but my question was more to its usefulness. If we let Reef walk we have a zero balance. If we take the trade exemption and let it expire, we also have a zero balance. If we take the trade exemption and want to use it, then it ends up essentially like a MLE, except that we can use it in trade or for FAs in a sign and trade. But, we have to find someone of MLE value, because we can't add to it to get a larger salary, right?


You can use it in a couple of ways: combined with draft choices, draft rights, etc. to make a deal; pick up a player off waivers;


----------



## Schilly

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



NetIncome said:


> You can use it in a couple of ways: combined with draft choices, draft rights, etc. to make a deal; pick up a player off waivers;


But IIRC it expires at the end of the month.


----------



## Foulzilla

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



Schilly said:


> But IIRC it expires at the end of the month.


I was under the impression that Trade Exceptions last a year from when they were last traded, so in theory it could last indefinately if repeatedly traded. If this is true, we'll have a year to do something with it.


----------



## Blazer Freak

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



Schilly said:


> But IIRC it expires at the end of the month.


Nope. IIRC once another team trades for it, they have exactly 1 year from the date they get it, before it expires. I am almost 100% sure we had a thread about it before.


----------



## Blazer Freak

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



Foulzilla said:


> I was under the impression that Trade Exceptions last a year from when they were last traded, so in theory it could last indefinately if repeatedly traded. If this is true, we'll have a year to do something with it.


Damn! You beat me to it!


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



Schilly said:


> But IIRC it expires at the end of the month.


NJ's does expire on July 29th

but if this deal goes down. We get a new trade exception, and it woudl expire 1 year later

The same exception does nto get passed around. New ones begin each time their is a new transaction. Think of it as a credit for purchasing players.


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*

I merged the 2 Rahim threads together.. same topic of conversation


----------



## Masbee

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade...*



Schilly said:


> But IIRC it expires at the end of the month.


I think when a trade exception is traded, the new team starts over with a new one-year expiration date. If we get New Jersey's trade exception, we would have until summer 2006 to use it.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

So, (thinking out loud here) if we get this trade exception (TE) we can trade it with a player contract who is overpaid and only have to take back a player contract 4.9M less than what we traded??

Example:
DA = ~13M traded to X Team
Player ABC traded to Portland ~13M-4.9=8.1M

Is this correct? We have a $4.9 credit toward a $13M purchase/transaction. True cost is $8.1M.

What are benefits to Blazers for doing this rather than letting him just go away with his salary?

One will be that we could trade PLAYER X for less than equal value. We could send player with higher salary and get back moderate priced salary.

It could really entice teams over the cap. NY anyone?


----------



## Foulzilla

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



RedHot&Rolling said:


> So, (thinking out loud here) if we get this trade exception (TE) we can trade it with a player contract who is overpaid and only have to take back a player contract 4.9M less than what we traded??


No. It cannot be combined with other players as part of a trade. The trade exception only allows you to trade for a player (and picks) that are worth up to the value of the trade exception. That is all I am aware of it being useful for.


----------



## Talkhard

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

This thread title is highly misleading. I doubt Rahim has been traded to the Nets, since he is scheduled to visit with the Heat and the Spurs this week. Mods, can we change the title until we have solid confirmation?


----------



## Nightfly

*Re: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



Talkhard said:


> This thread title is highly misleading. I doubt Rahim has been traded to the Nets, since he is scheduled to visit with the Heat and the Spurs this week. Mods, can we change the title until we have solid confirmation?


I added an attribution to the thread title.


----------



## B_&_B

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

ESPN RADIO is now saying that Shareef "may" be moving east... so its obviously not a done deal... sorry guys.


----------



## purplehaze89

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> ESPN RADIO is now saying that Shareef "may" be moving east... so its obviously not a done deal... sorry guys.


Yup. Thats the first thing I asked you. Often people jump the gun here when they misinterpret things on the radio.


----------



## B_&_B

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



purplehaze89 said:


> Yup. Thats the first thing I asked you. Often people jump the gun here when they misinterpret things on the radio.


I didnt misinterpret anything. ESPN RADIO's first report said Shareef is going to the Nets, the update guy has since changed their report.


----------



## HOWIE

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> I didnt misinterpret anything. ESPN RADIO's first report said Shareef is going to the Nets, the update guy has since changed their report.


I was going to change my hair color, but my wife has since changed my mind!


----------



## cimalee

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

I think if Reef goes to the Nets they will be a top 3 team in the East .

Kidd, Carter , Jefferson , Rahim , Kristic thats a nice lineup and it will allow Shareef to become a roleplayer


----------



## Storyteller

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

If all that the Blazers get is a trade exception, forget it. That doesn't help the team at all.

The Blazers - at minimum - need to get the Clippers pick in 2006 (which is unprotected) and some cash.

Then maybe try to parlay the pick and a long term contract or two (DA and/or Ruben) for an expiring contract.


----------



## Dan

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



Storyteller said:


> If all that the Blazers get is a trade exception, forget it. That doesn't help the team at all.
> 
> The Blazers - at minimum - need to get the Clippers pick in 2006 (which is unprotected) and some cash.
> 
> Then maybe try to parlay the pick and a long term contract or two (DA and/or Ruben) for an expiring contract.


I agree with this. If the best they can do is JUST the exception, big deal.

Get a pick (at min) out of the deal. we aren't talking about some crappy 2nd rate 15 year vet who's on his last legs.


----------



## Foulzilla

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



Storyteller said:


> If all that the Blazers get is a trade exception, forget it. That doesn't help the team at all.
> 
> The Blazers - at minimum - need to get the Clippers pick in 2006 (which is unprotected) and some cash.
> 
> Then maybe try to parlay the pick and a long term contract or two (DA and/or Ruben) for an expiring contract.


I agree actually. The way I see it they need SAR worse then we need a trade exception. I'd play hardball because the risk for us is low. The trade exception is almost irrelevant to us and NJ's first round pick (if they get SAR) will be one of the late ones in the first round, so not really valuable in what is likely to be a weaker then average draft due to the age limit. 

Someone on the nets board suggested an interesting compromise. I believe it was something along the lines of a conditional first round pick. If the Clippers pick is better then ours, we swap picks with them, if not we get NJ's pick and they keep the Clippers pick. It's an interesting compromise to consider if it's legal by the CBA. It ensures we get value, but NJ is not giving up all the value of the Clippers pick.


----------



## Ed O

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

Why not take the trade exception if you can get it? The Nets and SAR aren't that far apart as far as money goes if he signs there for the MLE... and I seriously doubt that they have the money to do a sign-and-trade for SAR and then go sign a player with their MLE, too.

I hope that the Blazers get more than the trade exception but it's certainly better than nothing.

Ed O.


----------



## Storyteller

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



Ed O said:


> Why not take the trade exception if you can get it?


Because I don't see the Blazers using it. They'd simply renounce it at some point or another, meaning that it literally is not "better than nothing".

If it were possible to combine a trade exception with a player, I could see ways that Portland could use it. But since you can't, I don't see a scenario where the Blazers would use it.


----------



## thekid

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

Trade details?


----------



## ProudBFan

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

Pardon me if this has already been asked / answered (I dont have time right now to search through all the posts in this thread):

Cant the Blazers combine the Nets MLE with their own to create a single exception large enough to sign Joel with? Or do the two exceptions have to remain independent (and used on two different players, if used at all)?

I only ask because we hear all the time of teams using _part_ of their exceptions on a player, but this is a different (although possibly related) scenario.

PBF


----------



## Storyteller

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



ProudBFan said:


> Cant the Blazers combine the Nets MLE with their own to create a single exception large enough to sign Joel with?


In a word, no.

Portland would get a trade exception (very different from the MLE) in this proposed trade with NJ. They could use all or some of that trade exception to get a player in a trade, but couldn't use any of it to sign a FA, including Joel.

And in any rate, you cannot combine exceptions to create a larger exception.


----------



## Ed O

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



Storyteller said:


> Because I don't see the Blazers using it. They'd simply renounce it at some point or another, meaning that it literally is not "better than nothing".
> 
> If it were possible to combine a trade exception with a player, I could see ways that Portland could use it. But since you can't, I don't see a scenario where the Blazers would use it.


It's not not better than nothing simply because you or I can't see a way they'd use it. Heck, it's not not better than nothing because the BLAZERS can't see a way they'd use it. In 6 months, or 11 months, a team might want to get rid of a player that makes $4.9m or less, and if the Blazers have the trade exception it will put them in a better bargaining position... alternatively, the Blazers might want to use the trade exception to acquire a free agent in a s&t this time next year.

Attach any percentage chance greater than 0 to the Blazers using the exception, and it has greater value than simply letting SAR walk.

I understand that the upside is not that high, and if the Blazers see something of value that they might be able to extract from the Nets by playing hardball... great. I don't think that the trade exception is something to be sneezed at, though.

Ed O.
(sorry for all the dancing negatives in the first paragraph. I think I have them lined up correctly, if confusingly)


----------



## HKF

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

The Clippers pick is going to be top 3 more than likely. I think the Nets would trade their pick before they trade the Clipper one.


----------



## Masbee

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



Ed O said:


> It's not not better than nothing simply because you or I can't see a way they'd use it. Heck, it's not not better than nothing because the BLAZERS can't see a way they'd use it. In 6 months, or 11 months, a team might want to get rid of a player that makes $4.9m or less, and if the Blazers have the trade exception it will put them in a better bargaining position... alternatively, the Blazers might want to use the trade exception to acquire a free agent in a s&t this time next year.
> 
> Attach any percentage chance greater than 0 to the Blazers using the exception, and it has greater value than simply letting SAR walk.
> 
> I understand that the upside is not that high, and if the Blazers see something of value that they might be able to extract from the Nets by playing hardball... great. I don't think that the trade exception is something to be sneezed at, though.
> 
> Ed O.
> (sorry for all the dancing negatives in the first paragraph. I think I have them lined up correctly, if confusingly)


I see the trade exception as worth very little to the Blazers and their current situation.

To some other team it may be worth more, but not to the draft picking, money-saving, no vet of any consequence will really want to come here for a while longer, Blazers.

Because the trade exception is worth so little (to me and I hope the Blazer Brass) playing hardball in an attempt to extract something worthwhile is worth the risk of losing the low value of the exception.

The Nets should count their lucky stars they can sign a solid player at such a bargain basement price. A draft pick lost will hardly dent that value, when SAR is making HALF the going rate.


----------



## e_blazer1

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



Ed O said:


> It's not not better than nothing simply because you or I can't see a way they'd use it. Heck, it's not not better than nothing because the BLAZERS can't see a way they'd use it. In 6 months, or 11 months, a team might want to get rid of a player that makes $4.9m or less, and if the Blazers have the trade exception it will put them in a better bargaining position... alternatively, the Blazers might want to use the trade exception to acquire a free agent in a s&t this time next year.
> 
> Attach any percentage chance greater than 0 to the Blazers using the exception, and it has greater value than simply letting SAR walk.
> 
> I understand that the upside is not that high, and if the Blazers see something of value that they might be able to extract from the Nets by playing hardball... great. I don't think that the trade exception is something to be sneezed at, though.
> 
> Ed O.
> (sorry for all the dancing negatives in the first paragraph. I think I have them lined up correctly, if confusingly)


I do not not agree with Ed. :biggrin:


----------



## ProudBFan

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



Storyteller said:


> In a word, no.
> 
> Portland would get a trade exception (very different from the MLE) in this proposed trade with NJ. They could use all or some of that trade exception to get a player in a trade, but couldn't use any of it to sign a FA, including Joel.
> 
> And in any rate, you cannot combine exceptions to create a larger exception.


Thanks, StoryTeller. Thats what I was expecting, but I guess I didnt realize that a trade exception is different than the other kind that all teams over the cap get. I gots some readin to do, and I see a whole list of handy links over in the left-hand margin of this page.

PBF


----------



## Kmurph

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

I don't either...the tradde exception holds little value....the compensation for the S&T is in the draft pick....If NJ refuses to part with one, then screw them, POR doesn't owe NJ or SAR any favors, let him sign the MLE then and loose out on all that money...

POR potentially losing out on the TE is no big deal as far as I am concerned....

I'm sick of SAR, his agent and NJ at this point...screw them all.


----------



## Aurelino

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



HKF said:


> The Clippers pick is going to be top 3 more than likely. I think the Nets would trade their pick before they trade the Clipper one.


Exactly. I don't see Thorn parting with the Clips pick. The Nets would rather forget about SAR and sign Marshall for the MLE. Marshall+ clips #1 > SAR. Thorn knows that he won't strike gold such as the clips pick too many times in his GM career, so he's going to hang on to it.


----------



## CanJohno

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



Storyteller said:


> If all that the Blazers get is a trade exception, forget it. That doesn't help the team at all.
> 
> The Blazers - at minimum - need to get the Clippers pick in 2006 (which is unprotected) and some cash.
> 
> Then maybe try to parlay the pick and a long term contract or two (DA and/or Ruben) for an expiring contract.


 :cheers: 

I'm right there with you, man! :clap:


----------



## ebott

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



Kmurph said:


> I'm sick of SAR, his agent and NJ at this point...screw them all.


The point you're missing is that we're trying to look for anything we can possibly do to improve our team. It doesn't matter if that move is with S.A-R., New Jersey, Aaron Goodwin, the Lakers or the Devil Himself. Ok, I probably wouldn't do a deal with the Lakers. 

Letting S.A-R. walk for nothing doesn't help us. And in the long run it might not end up hurting any of the parties you're angry at. So we don't get anything and we also don't get any revenge.

But the trade exception might. It might give us an advantage if we try to pick up a guy like Stromile Swift, Kwame Brown or some other free agent we haven't considered and the other team only has their MLE

I'd much rather we did get a draft pick. I'm hoping Nash will be able to play enough hard ball to get us a draft pick but not scare away New Jersey. But as useless as a trade exception may be we will continue to say that it's not nothing until a move is made.


----------



## CelticPagan

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

If they pull this off, they will have gone from crap to contenders faster than any team I can remember. Last year, everyone was saying how incredibly awful their roster was. Kidd, Jefferson, Carter, Rahim....

If only we could have pulled off that Carter deal. :curse:


----------



## GOD

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

I say no to the trade exception for a couple of reasons. First, as has been well articulated, the TE is not a big help. Nash must search for more, and if he can not ectract a pick to go with the TE then he needs to risk losing SAR outright to have a chance to trade sar to a different team who will deal, perhaps an expiring contract and a scrub to take SAR and Ruben or SAR and DA. Also, it is good form for the future to not be taken advantage of. There are a few GM's around the league who have become known as pushovers. Once that happenes, a team will not trade with that GM unless the trade is heavily leaning in their direction. To protect the ability to pull off future trades and not be looked at as pushovers, we most hold out for more then the TE or just let the man walk.


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

I agree with Ed O.. its worth taking getting a $4.9 mil trade excpetion just to have it. Its better than nothing, and it does have possibilities.

But I have to agree with Storyteller too, its probably not going to yield us anything. If we were 2-3 years down the road we might then be a contender and adding a player and going over the cap more would make more sense if the return on the players talent was good. Adding a player with talent would mean more then. I think we now need to walk a tight rope to see if there is any chance of having room left to offer Joel a more lucrative contract than the MLE.

I still say Portland has hardly any options. But if NJ does not pony up a pick.. I say .. tough.. Portland will not help you out by signing Rahim to a six year deal and use your TE... go ahead NJ and use your MLE and use up an opportunity to land yet another player with the MLE...

PORTLAND DOES NOT HAVE TO HELP OUT NJ OR RAHIM

If we do not benefit, then why do it. Its helping the competition. Make them use the MLE on Rahim.. go ahead NJ do it. FORCE them to give us something of value more than a TE. Its worth a draft pick to not have to use their MLE on Rahim.

IF NJ pulls this off.. it makes them a contender in the East.. THEIR time is NOW

A team of Kidd, Carter, Jefferson, Rahim and Krstic can be a very good team in the East... add in another player with the MLE and its even better. So why are we so happy to help them out???

It will cost them something....




ProudBFan
The $4.9 mil TE can be used on any player(s) under the $4.9 mil amount. We can sign a $2 mil player for example, and still have the ability to sign a $2.9 mil player for 1 year of the initial trade. Any combinations adding up to $4.9 mil. And of course we do not have to use it at all up or we can only use a portion of it if we want.


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH THE TE

Say Haslim does sign with CLEVELAND, leaving Gooden on the block

IF

We S&T Rahim to NJ for a $4.9 mil TE

GOODEN can be purchased from Cleveland for $4.03 mil of the $4.9 mil TE

Gooden would be ours for Rahim essentially.... if Cleveland wants to move him. It also allows them to get a $4.03 mil TE to purchase a player on their own as well

Gooden becomes our backup PF


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

why would cle have haslem over gooden?


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

Not to get too far off topic.....

I am not knowing.. just read they have been interested in signing him.


----------



## ABM

*Nash Playing "Hardball" With NJ?*

Read On


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: Nash Playing "Hardball" With NJ?*

This is exactly what we have been talking about in the Rahim to NJ thread

so I am going to merge it


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

"The trade exception doesn't interest us -- we'd have no use for it," said Nash, whose team is in a cost-cutting mode. "We would be only amenable to discussing draft picks."


----------



## Bookworm

*Re: Nash Playing "Hardball" With NJ?*

Good for Nash..If NJ doesn't want to part with one of their
2 1st rd picks, let them burn up their MLE.

They could top 6 protect them for 1yr if they want..
I mean basicly they would be trading a 7th pick or worse
for SAR which seems reasonable, and we get a decent
pick plus a TE of 5mil for next seasons FA market.(4.9 +.1)

They need to win now.(NJ) They can't wait for next yrs
picks to develope into solid players. (if ever) With Kidd/VC and
SAR they have a solid lineup with 3 All-Stars, that should get
them into the playoffs next yr.


----------



## dkap

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



> If they pull this off, they will have gone from crap to contenders faster than any team I can remember. Last year, everyone was saying how incredibly awful their roster was. Kidd, Jefferson, Carter, Rahim....


And it's all contingent on guys recovering from career threatening injuries... I can just see it now, Shareef looks to not only go to his first winning team, but a Finals contendor, and they end up missing the playoffs because Kidd, Carter, and maybe Jefferson are unable to play at a high level all season. Poetic.

Dan


----------



## Ed O

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

Nash is taking a good negotiating stance. No reason to roll over for NJ this early.

The Nets have other options than SAR, though, and we'll see in the next three weeks whether NJ or Portland blinks.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

Would any of you be opposed to, say, the Blazers offering their 2006 1st Round pick in exchange for the Clippers 1st Rounder?


----------



## Foulzilla

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



ABM said:


> Would any of you be opposed to, say, the Blazers offering their 2006 1st Round pick in exchange for the Clippers 1st Rounder?


Yes. We could be worse then the Clippers (we were this year at least). I think this would be a terrible idea unless it was conditional.


----------



## BIG Q

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

Yes, I would be oppossed to swapping the picks. While I am certain that the Clippers will be a lottery team, I do not feel that they will have a worse record than Portland next season. Brand and Magette are good vets. Kamen is a capable player and they also have their own youth. It would be very risky because our talent is vey young and still has to learn how to play NBA ball, let alone learn how to win. Advantage Clippers (for now).


----------



## Todd

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



ABM said:


> Would any of you be opposed to, say, the Blazers offering their 2006 1st Round pick in exchange for the Clippers 1st Rounder?


Yeah, if we tank like last season, I think ours might be better then theirs :cheers:


----------



## Kmurph

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

The bottom line is that getting SAR means more to NJ, than getting the TE means to POR.

Why help NJ out? Why give them SAR for a TE, thus allowing them use their MLE for Dooling, MArshall, whomever....

I see NO reason to make things easier for NJ....Either NJ gives POR their pick and Ilic, or the CLips pick, otherwise let them burn up their MLE (and kiss Dolling, and any opther attractive FA goodbye) to sign SAR (if he is even amiable to that...losing out on millions) or let them go and Donyell MArshall or Udonis Haslem, niether of whpom is remotely as good as SAR is, oh yeah and use their MLE to do so....

IF NJ wants to maximize how many\which FA they can acquire, then they should stop being so fricking stingy....a draft pick for SAR? please...... It is a steal for NJ.......they doth protest too much....


----------



## Schilly

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

One thing to consider...How important is it to NJ to keep Shareef out of Miami?


----------



## Minstrel

*Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*



> The Portland Trail Blazers have decided to play hardball, and the Nets' pursuit of Shareef Abdur- Rahim may be submarined by their former general manager.
> 
> John Nash, the Blazers' GM who filled that job for the Nets from 1996-2001, said yesterday that he has no interest in the Nets' trade exception, which was their only tool by which to execute a sign-and-trade deal for the free agent and offer him a larger contract than the other teams bidding for him.
> 
> "The trade exception doesn't interest us -- we'd have no use for it," said Nash, whose team is in a cost-cutting mode. "We would be only amenable to discussing draft picks."
> 
> This means that if Abdur- Rahim is interested in playing for New Jersey -- and he is "very" inclined, people close to him are now saying -- the Nets are being told by Nash that they will have to surrender a first-round draft pick if they want to give the 28-year-old forward a contract a player of his stature deserves.
> 
> And the clock is ticking.
> 
> "I never thought this would be painless," Nets president Rod Thorn said yesterday. "(The Blazers) will play their cards, and we'll see when the dust settles. They have given us no indication that it will get done with the things we've been talking about. So now we have to keep our options open."


Link To Story


----------



## Minstrel

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*

Personally, I like this move. If the Nets value Abdur-Rahim, Nash holds the leverage. The Nets will have a tougher time acquiring him if they don't work out a sign-and-trade. If they have to rely on the MLE, they're in competition with virtually everyone.

The trade exception is no big deal, since it can't be combined with other exceptions. Draft picks are valuable, and I'm glad Nash is holding out for some.


----------



## HOWIE

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*



Minstrel said:


> Link To Story


Interesting, Nash must have been watching a lot of celebrity poker on Bravo. You gotta love what he has done for Portland so far this Summer. :biggrin:


----------



## The Professional Fan

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*



Minstrel said:


> Personally, I like this move. If the Nets value Abdur-Rahim, Nash holds the leverage. The Nets will have a tougher time acquiring him if they don't work out a sign-and-trade. If they have to rely on the MLE, they're in competition with virtually everyone.
> 
> The trade exception is no big deal, since it can't be combined with other exceptions. Draft picks are valuable, and I'm glad Nash is holding out for some.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## ProudBFan

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*

Good for Nash. But I do think he is bluffing. If the Blazers were to waive Derek Anderson, the trade exception New Jersey is offering them could potentially be very valuable because it wouldnt send them into Luxury Tax land.

But even if Nash IS bluffing, the Nets will have a hard time calling the bluff. If they say, "Fine, we wont pursue the sign-and-trade.", Nash says, "Fine.", and then the Nets have much less to offer Shareef - which might make Shareef consider other options.

PBF


----------



## RedHot&Rolling

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

No - trading Shareef for TE is not equal or beneficial to Trail Blazers. Hold out for the pick. 

Also, No trading our 2006 1st for Clipper 1st. Ours probably will be the better pick. I only predict 25-30 wins next year - AT BEST (with current lineup).

NJ should be jumping for joy at getting Shareef for a 1st round pick. If it were the other way - we would be.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*



ProudBFan said:


> Good for Nash. But I do think he is bluffing. If the Blazers were to waive Derek Anderson, the trade exception New Jersey is offering them could potentially be very valuable because it wouldnt send them into Luxury Tax land.


I think the cap is and should be far more important to management than the tax, and waiving DA will cement his status in our cap for the next two years. Adding a player with the TE will only further eliminate any hope of cap space for next year, which is a very achievable goal and a great way to retain Joel and pick up another free agent to help reload and get the team in a winning way.


----------



## drazen03

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



Kmurph said:


> The bottom line is that getting SAR means more to NJ, than getting the TE means to POR.
> 
> Why help NJ out? Why give them SAR for a TE, thus allowing them use their MLE for Dooling, MArshall, whomever....
> 
> *I see NO reason to make things easier for NJ....Either NJ gives POR their pick and Ilic, or the CLips pick*, otherwise let them burn up their MLE (and kiss Dolling, and any opther attractive FA goodbye) to sign SAR (if he is even amiable to that...losing out on millions) or let them go and Donyell MArshall or Udonis Haslem, niether of whpom is remotely as good as SAR is, oh yeah and use their MLE to do so....
> 
> IF NJ wants to maximize how many\which FA they can acquire, then they should stop being so fricking stingy....a draft pick for SAR? please...... It is a steal for NJ.......they doth protest too much....



You cannot combine a player with a TE in a sing and trade deal. Only picks.


----------



## Reep

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> I think the cap is and should be far more important to management than the tax, and waiving DA will cement his status in our cap for the next two years. Adding a player with the TE will only further eliminate any hope of cap space for next year, which is a very achievable goal and a great way to retain Joel and pick up another free agent to help reload and get the team in a winning way.


Agreed. DA will be an expiring contract soon, and Blazers will likely not pay any luxury tax anyway. If you keep him on, you might be able to trade his contract for something down the road, or at least get some PT out of him. If they decided to get rid of any of the current young guys, you could also attach DA's contract on and maybe get it removed early. If you wave DA, you have none of those options.


----------



## Kmurph

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*

Not even the RIGHTS to such a player?


----------



## Kmurph

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*

Good..

If NJ wants POR to HELP them sign SAR and keep their MLE for another player, then they ought to PAY for that privelage.


----------



## Talkhard

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*

I think the Nets will cave in on this one. They really wined and dined Rahim when he was out here (I live in NJ), and even took him up to Ridgewood to look at all the beautiful homes. They WANT him and I believe they will surrender the draft pick. And why shouldn't they? He is more than worth it.


----------



## Ed O

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*

Nash's "it will take us into luxury tax territory" seems like a load of bunk to me.

In the past, when a team went over the threshold, it not only had to pay dollar-for-dollar for each it went over, but it ALSO missed out on the luxury tax distribution and escrow payments.

All reports I've seen indicate that this is no longer the case... a team $1 over the threshold will now have to pay an extra buck, but won't miss out on the other distributed revenues.

Nash is either blowing smoke, he doesn't understand the change in the CBA, or the reports of the changes are incorrect. Or, I guess, I could be misunderstanding those reports but it seems pretty straightforward.

Ed O.


----------



## Stepping Razor

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*



Ed O said:


> Nash's "it will take us into luxury tax territory" seems like a load of bunk to me.
> 
> In the past, when a team went over the threshold, it not only had to pay dollar-for-dollar for each it went over, but it ALSO missed out on the luxury tax distribution and escrow payments.
> 
> All reports I've seen indicate that this is no longer the case... a team $1 over the threshold will now have to pay an extra buck, but won't miss out on the other distributed revenues.
> 
> Nash is either blowing smoke, he doesn't understand the change in the CBA, or the reports of the changes are incorrect. Or, I guess, I could be misunderstanding those reports but it seems pretty straightforward.
> 
> Ed O.


I think he's just blowing smoke, posturing to force NJ to throw in a first-rounder. Which is exactly what he should do. And I think there's a decent chance it might work.

Does anyone know if it's kosher under the CBA rules to conditionally swap picks? In other words, Portland can choose to trade one of its picks for the Clips' if the Clips' is better? With both Portland and NJ having two first-round picks next year, it seems like there ought to be some kind of compromise swap that allows Portland to move up in the draft without NJ losing picks outright. Which would be fair market value for SAR IMO.

Stepping Razor


----------



## Talkhard

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*



> it seems like there ought to be some kind of compromise swap that allows Portland to move up in the draft without NJ losing picks outright. Which would be fair market value for SAR IMO.


Why shouldn't NJ have to give up its own pick to get SAR? For God's sake, the guy is a terrific player who could give them 15 points and 8 rebounds a night. A draft pick is a shot in the dark. Not to mention the fact that if NJ has the kind of season they think they will by adding Rahim, their draft pick is going to be very late in the first round. 

And considering that Portland and the Clippers may have very similar records next year, I don't see how getting their pick instead of ours is any big deal.


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



drazen03 said:


> You cannot combine a player with a TE in a sing and trade deal. Only picks.


very true, but that does not mean we can not turn around and send part of our TE back to NJ to purchase a player... such as KMurph talks about acquiring

2 seperate deals to get ur dun', but the same result

I think you can deal the rights to the player as they are not signed to a contract and have no $ value yet


----------



## Schilly

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



drazen03 said:


> You cannot combine a player with a TE in a sing and trade deal. Only picks.


I don't want to hear anymore singing by blazers players, coaches or staff members.


----------



## BigDtoPDX

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*

Quote:
The Portland Trail Blazers have decided to play hardball, and the Nets' pursuit of Shareef Abdur- Rahim may be submarined by their former general manager.

How does this mean Nash is playing hardball? He's just playing, "Im not stupid."

I hope they dont run this minor story that Nash is being an ***hole or something. Its pretty simple, he doesnt want the Nets to become greatly increased without something in return, how is that playing hardball? If you ask me, its the Nets who could possible be playing hardball, by expecting to get a very good player, one that will put them close to a championship, for merely laundry lint!


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*

Denver traded NJ 3 draft picks for helping them S&T Kenyon Martin and they had cap room if I recall correctly...

NJ doesn't have cap room and expects to get help in acquiring a better player on a more affordable contract without giving up a single pick?!


----------



## Trader Ed

Alright in an effort to keep our forum uncuttered with similar thread titles

I merged this again and retitled the thread. If you want me to name it something else let me know.

B&B and Minstrel.. sorry but we have had some great discussions that are similar so I merged them together


----------



## SheedSoNasty

I´d like to see us get involved with a third team and bring in a solid big man, perhaps while adding another small contract player. Do three teams ever get involved when sign and trades occur?


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*



Ed O said:


> Nash's "it will take us into luxury tax territory" seems like a load of bunk to me.
> 
> In the past, when a team went over the threshold, it not only had to pay dollar-for-dollar for each it went over, but it ALSO missed out on the luxury tax distribution and escrow payments.
> 
> All reports I've seen indicate that this is no longer the case... a team $1 over the threshold will now have to pay an extra buck, but won't miss out on the other distributed revenues.
> 
> Nash is either blowing smoke, he doesn't understand the change in the CBA, or the reports of the changes are incorrect. Or, I guess, I could be misunderstanding those reports but it seems pretty straightforward.
> 
> Ed O.



What is not to understand here? We are sitting at nearly $67 mil with possibly adding Charles Smith and Jack yet? maybe even the Lithuanian guard?

So we are maybe at $70 mil and if we add a player with the Rahim deal.. maybe $75 mil.... even if we waive NVE at $13.7 mil we are still over the luxury tax limit of maybe $60 mil or so.. (TBD) later on by the NBA beancounters

so yes.. we are over the tax limit... if all this happens...


----------



## RoseCity

Bottom line here is simply Reef for the Trade Exception is crap. I would also rather see the guy walk because he is bound to get desperate and so will other teams as time goes on. Nesterovic for Reef is better than a trade exception. From Nash's comment, it is clear NJ is NOT offering draft pick(s) at this point. I would not take anything less than the TE and a first round pick. I'm totally confident Nash will get a deal done, Shareef is too good to accept the MLE. Possible, sure, however it is very unlikely when Nash is willing to make a deal for less than what Shareef is worth. 

However, if NJ decides to throw in a Jacque Vaughn, 1st rounder and/or Nenad Kristic --- Nash better get it done. I am confident he knows what he is doing here. Why you guys are even excited about a crappy Trade Exception is beyond me!


----------



## Schilly

RoseCity said:


> Bottom line here is simply Reef for the Trade Exception is crap. I would also rather see the guy walk because he is bound to get desperate and so will other teams as time goes on. Nesterovic for Reef is better than a trade exception. From Nash's comment, it is clear NJ is NOT offering draft pick(s) at this point. I would not take anything less than the TE and a first round pick. I'm totally confident Nash will get a deal done, Shareef is too good to accept the MLE. Possible, sure, however it is very unlikely when Nash is willing to make a deal for less than what Shareef is worth.
> 
> However, if NJ decides to throw in a Jacque Vaughn, 1st rounder and/or Nenad Kristic --- Nash better get it done. I am confident he knows what he is doing here. Why you guys are even excited about a crappy Trade Exception is beyond me!


Who's excited dabout just the TE?


----------



## Fork

SheedSoNasty said:


> I´d like to see us get involved with a third team and bring in a solid big man, perhaps while adding another small contract player. Do three teams ever get involved when sign and trades occur?


Yeah, the Brad Miller deal was a three team trade with San Antonio, Sacramento and Indiana. 

It seems like there have been a handful of other three team sign and trade deals.


----------



## crandc

> I don't want to hear anymore singing by blazers players, coaches or staff members.



Well, I don't know, do they sing that badly?


----------



## Schilly

crandc said:


> Well, I don't know, do they sing that badly?


Portland Signed Mo to an extension just to keep him away from American idol.


----------



## Masbee

*Re: ESPN Radio reports: SHAREEF going to the NETS via a sign and trade... (merged)*



Trader Bob said:


> "The trade exception doesn't interest us -- we'd have no use for it," said Nash, whose team is in a cost-cutting mode. "We would be only amenable to discussing draft picks."


I see Nash has been reading my posts.

I knew he didn't want to get on my bad side.


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*



Kmurph said:


> If NJ wants POR to HELP them sign SAR and keep their MLE for another player, then they ought to PAY for that privelage.


Exactly! Well said


----------



## Ed O

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*



Trader Bob said:


> So we are maybe at $70 mil and if we add a player with the Rahim deal.. maybe $75 mil.... even if we waive NVE at $13.7 mil we are still over the luxury tax limit of maybe $60 mil or so.. (TBD) later on by the NBA beancounters
> 
> so yes.. we are over the tax limit... if all this happens...


So what? Why does going over the tax limit matter?

It doesn't.

If the Blazers don't want to spend another $4.9m on a player in the next year (which will include a big chunk of NEXT offseason, remember), they don't have to... but going over the luxury tax isn't relevant in a real sense like it was under the old CBA.

Ed O.


----------



## BIG Q

Has any one pointed out to New Jersey that they were more than willing to help Denver with a S&T of their free agent Kenyon Martin? The price for their services; Three first round draft picks!! How is asking for one "Too Much?"


----------



## Ed O

BIG Q said:


> Has any one pointed out to New Jersey that they were more than willing to help Denver with a S&T of their free agent Kenyon Martin? The price for their services; Three first round draft picks!! How is asking for one "Too Much?"


Kenyon Martin was a restricted free agent. He wasn't going to be able to sign anywhere else last summer unless the Nets let him. 

The Blazers have no leverage over anyone like the Nets had over Martin and the Nuggets.

Ed O.


----------



## dkap

> The Blazers have no leverage over anyone like the Nets had over Martin and the Nuggets.


As several people have pointed out throughout this thread, that's simply not true. If the Nets value Shareef as much as has been reported, and if they don't want him signing with one of their top competitors like Miami, then they have to swing a S&T deal with us in order to better the other offers out there. That gives us quite a bit of leverage.

Dan


----------



## Storyteller

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*



Ed O said:


> So what? Why does going over the tax limit matter?
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> If the Blazers don't want to spend another $4.9m on a player in the next year (which will include a big chunk of NEXT offseason, remember), they don't have to... but going over the luxury tax isn't relevant in a real sense like it was under the old CBA.
> 
> Ed O.


I'm answering under the assumption that the team wouldn't use the trade exception at all, thus making it useless. And judging from Nash' comments, I don't think I'm far off on this. Here's why I come to this conclusion:

1) Yes, the luxury tax won't have the same impact under the new CBA. But it will have an impact. No reason to pay tax if it's not necessary.

2) The Blazers already look to have 14 players under contract before making any FA signings. Getting a trade exception might make sense if there was roster space to trade for another player, but there isn't.

3) Portland could easily have to give up a draft pick in order to make a trade using their trade exception. To not get one from NJ - if for no other reason than to have one that could be used in such a trade - just doesn't make sense to me.


So, why should Portland make the effort to give SAR more money than he could get with the MLE? There's no reason why unless they get something of value in return (unless of course they just want to be "nice guys").

I stick to my earlier post. Portland should get a first round pick if NJ wants them to engage in a sign and trade for Abdur-Rahim.


----------



## Tince

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*

I think playing hardball is the way to go in this situation. 

If you take a look at it, if we cave in we get the TE which has very little value. If we play hardball, we get a 1st round pick, which could end up having a lot of value (if packaged with one of our other picks). If we get nothing for SAR, it really isn't going to make that much of a difference, than getting the TE.

I think risking coming up with nothing is worth taking a shot at a 1st round pick.


----------



## Trader Ed

just remember.. the TE is the mechanism so they can still use their MLE to upgrade their roster.. the compensation should be a player(s) rights or a pick... preferably a 1st rounder

the TE and a 1st round pick is IMHO what they need to shoot for


otherwise, use the MLE to get Rahim and have a shallower roster, or... go for Brown or Swift or Marshall 

we can probably still get more for Rahim from another team.. but he runs the risk of going to a non contender for bigger $ or the same MLE with a contender


----------



## Ed O

dkap said:


> As several people have pointed out throughout this thread, that's simply not true. If the Nets value Shareef as much as has been reported, and if they don't want him signing with one of their top competitors like Miami, then they have to swing a S&T deal with us in order to better the other offers out there. That gives us quite a bit of leverage.


I totally disagree. SAR wants to go to New Jersey, and New Jersey wants him.

Miami just re-signed Haslem and there's no guarantee (a) they'd offer their full MLE to SAR, and (b) that SAR would have a starting job in Miami.

We'll see how this shakes out, but New Jersey and SAR simply don't need Portland to get it done.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O

*Re: Blazers Could Foil Nets' Quest For Abdur-Rahim*



Storyteller said:


> I'm answering under the assumption that the team wouldn't use the trade exception at all, thus making it useless. And judging from Nash' comments, I don't think I'm far off on this.


The thing is that Nash's comments, like everyone's, don't always come to fruition. He has made several mistakes based on what he thinks is going to happen or not happen (see: signing Theo to an extension, signing Joel to a two year deal, and acquiring SAR and then not getting any value for him).

He might not plan on using the trade exception at this moment, but he'd have 12 months to have it in his hip pocket and use it if the right deal came along.



> 1) Yes, the luxury tax won't have the same impact under the new CBA. But it will have an impact. No reason to pay tax if it's not necessary.


Presumably it would be "necessary" only if the trade exception brings a player the team wants to acquire. I'm not advocating getting it and then using it no matter what... I'm saying that we should get it and use it if the right deal comes along. If it doesn't, we're not worse off than we will be if SAR simply walks.



> 2) The Blazers already look to have 14 players under contract before making any FA signings. Getting a trade exception might make sense if there was roster space to trade for another player, but there isn't.


We don't know what the roster is going to look like this time next year. Hopefully something will shake down in the roster so we don't have the same 14 players, and it's entirely possible that we would have a roster spot to acquire a player using a trade exception.



> 3) Portland could easily have to give up a draft pick in order to make a trade using their trade exception. To not get one from NJ - if for no other reason than to have one that could be used in such a trade - just doesn't make sense to me.


The Nets are offering a second rounder, but I'll argue (since it's what we're discussing) that the trade exception alone still has value. Even if Portland needs to give up a draft pick to accompany the TE, the cap flexibility it would give us to acquire a player is something I'm shocked that everyone is considering worthless.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O

Trader Bob said:


> we can probably still get more for Rahim from another team.. but he runs the risk of going to a non contender for bigger $ or the same MLE with a contender


How can we get more from another team? Any team that's not under the cap would have to send a player back to us in a sign and trade, and any team under the cap probably wouldn't be interested in giving us anything (although of course SAR's camp would prefer a sign and trade for the increased raises and extra year).

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

I'd take the 2nd rounder, I suppose, but that's going to be a very low pick in a probably thin draft.

But it's better than the TE alone.


----------



## e_blazer1

Ed O said:


> How can we get more from another team? Any team that's not under the cap would have to send a player back to us in a sign and trade, and any team under the cap probably wouldn't be interested in giving us anything (although of course SAR's camp would prefer a sign and trade for the increased raises and extra year).
> 
> Ed O.


Even an ending contract would be worth more than the traded player exception. Cassell from the T'Wolves would give us one year of a veteran PG while Telfair & Jack develop their games. DA & SAR to the Knicks or Bulls for Antonio Davis or Penny Hardaway might be an option.


----------



## Ed O

e_blazer1 said:


> Even an ending contract would be worth more than the traded player exception. Cassell from the T'Wolves would give us one year of a veteran PG while Telfair & Jack develop their games. DA & SAR to the Knicks or Bulls for Antonio Davis or Penny Hardaway might be an option.


Penny Hardaway and Antonio Davis would be a waste of over $10m. They wouldn't help us win games, and I doubt that the team would be more successful in moving either of them than they were with Damon or SAR last year.

I shudder to think what Cassell would do if he were acquired by Portland. Sitting behind Telfair, or playing out of position at the shooting guard, on the last year of a deal where he's felt underpaid seemingly forever... I don't know if he'd make it as many games as NVE did before he'd shut it down.

I don't see those guys being worth anything to Portland, and in fact they would probably be a negative. I'd be interested to hear why you think they'd have value for the Blazers.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

I agree with Ed.

For Shareef, I would much rather have the TE than any of those players.

If we're talking about getting out of some of our own contracts, I would think about Penny. But Davis and Cassell would make a big stink on this roster and wouldn't be worth it.

Can you imagine having Cassell, DA and Ruben on the team? Can we set up worse role models for Telfar, Webster, and Outlaw? Is it possible?


----------



## B_&_B

C.Ford, today:



> Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Portland Trail Blazers:
> Abdur-Rahim wants to play in New Jersey but the Nets have struggled to work out a sign-and-trade with the Blazers that makes sense. The Blazers are asking for a first-round pick in return for Abdur-Rahim. The Nets have balked at the asking price. Other teams, including the Kings and Spurs, also have talked with the Blazers about a sign-and-trade. The Kings are willing to part with Corliss Williamson, Kenny Thomas or Brian Skinner. The Spurs are willing to throw Rasho Nesterovic into any deal. If the Blazers won't agree to a trade, Abdur-Rahim might be forced to settle for the mid-level exception somewhere.


----------



## SheedSoNasty

As B&B has posted, I think that one of the Kings´ big men might be an interesting option for a backup PF. I wouldn´t be all that disappointed with either Williamson, Skinner or Thomas. However, we also need to be contientuous about our salary cap with the intention of retaining Joel Przybilla. Perhaps the New Jersey situation is our best option.

The San Antonio option with Nesterovic is probably the least intriguing of the bunch.


----------



## e_blazer1

Ed O said:


> Penny Hardaway and Antonio Davis would be a waste of over $10m. They wouldn't help us win games, and I doubt that the team would be more successful in moving either of them than they were with Damon or SAR last year.
> 
> I shudder to think what Cassell would do if he were acquired by Portland. Sitting behind Telfair, or playing out of position at the shooting guard, on the last year of a deal where he's felt underpaid seemingly forever... I don't know if he'd make it as many games as NVE did before he'd shut it down.
> 
> I don't see those guys being worth anything to Portland, and in fact they would probably be a negative. I'd be interested to hear why you think they'd have value for the Blazers.
> 
> Ed O.


Because they're ending contracts. I think there's an advantage to freeing up cap space one year earlier...either for the purpose of re-signing Joel or to get a free agent.


----------



## Ed O

e_blazer1 said:


> Because they're ending contracts. I think there's an advantage to freeing up cap space one year earlier...either for the purpose of re-signing Joel or to get a free agent.


We've got an expiring contract now in SAR that we can simply let go. We wouldn't be saving extra money or clearing any space by taking on an expiring contract for SAR.

Maybe we're talking about different things here.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1

Ed O said:


> We've got an expiring contract now in SAR that we can simply let go. We wouldn't be saving extra money or clearing any space by taking on an expiring contract for SAR.
> 
> Maybe we're talking about different things here.
> 
> Ed O.


What I was talking about was packaging SAR in a S&T with DA or Ruben and taking back a larger ending contract. We'd be taking on additional salary this year, but getting more cap space next summer. For example, DA ($9.1M) + SAR (say $7M) for Penny Hardaway ($15.8M) would result in a reduction of team salary by $9.1M next summer...giving the Blazers room to re-sign Joel or shop for a FA.


----------



## Scout226

e_blazer1 said:


> What I was talking about was packaging SAR in a S&T with DA or Ruben and taking back a larger ending contract. We'd be taking on additional salary this year, but getting more cap space next summer. For example, DA ($9.1M) + SAR (say $7M) for Penny Hardaway ($15.8M) would result in a reduction of team salary by $9.1M next summer...giving the Blazers room to re-sign Joel or shop for a FA.



If we could get rid of DA along with SAR, I'd be all over that.


----------



## e_blazer1

I find this quote from SAR's agent to be pretty telling as to why Nash feels he's in a no-lose position in his dealings with Thorne:



> "Portland knows what (it takes) to get a deal done. New Jersey knows," Abdur-Rahim's agent Aaron Goodwin said. "The mid-level is what we will take as a last resort."


In other words, "Earth to Thorne: If you don't give Portland what they want to make this trade happen, we're going to look for another sign-and-trade deal before we even think about your lousy MLE offer."

The Net's trade exception expires July 29.


Link


----------



## purplehaze89

e_blazer1 said:


> I find this quote from SAR's agent to be pretty telling as to why Nash feels he's in a no-lose position in his dealings with Thorne:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, "Earth to Thorne: If you don't give Portland what they want to make this trade happen, we're going to look for another sign-and-trade deal before we even think about your lousy MLE offer."
> 
> The Net's trade exception expires July 29.
> 
> 
> Link


I don't see how you can make that conclusion from that quote at all. And his name is Thorn.


----------



## e_blazer1

purplehaze89 said:


> I don't see how you can make that conclusion from that quote at all.


When Goodwin says that the MLE offer is a last resort and the article notes:



> Abdur-Rahim - who has drawn interest from the Kings, Spurs, Heat, Wizards, Clippers and Magic


I think it's pretty clear that he's saying that they're going to look at their options before they take a "last resort" MLE deal from the Nets that pays SAR around $10 mil less than the trade exception would give him. 

Any way you look at it, there's not much risk to the Blazers to stand pat and see what develops.


----------



## purplehaze89

e_blazer1 said:


> When Goodwin says that the MLE offer is a last resort and the article notes:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's pretty clear that he's saying that they're going to look at their options before they take a "last resort" MLE deal from the Nets that pays SAR around $10 mil less than the trade exception would give him.
> 
> Any way you look at it, there's not much risk to the Blazers to stand pat and see what develops.


Except that if the Blazers do stand pat and no trade can be consummated then they will get nothing and the so-called last resort of Abdur-Rahim will involve him leaving and Portland getting nothing in return.


----------



## e_blazer1

purplehaze89 said:


> Except that if the Blazers do stand pat and no trade can be consummated then they will get nothing and the so-called last resort of Abdur-Rahim will involve him leaving and Portland getting nothing in return.


Sorry, but I just don't see enough difference between the Nets' current offer of a $4.9 mil TE and a late 2nd round pick and "getting nothing in return" to be worth worrying about that possibility. I think it's a lot more probable that another team will make a better S&T offer within the next two weeks than it is that SAR will take a MLE deal.


----------



## e_blazer1

This quote would seem to indicate that my earlier comments are in line with Goodwin's plans:



> But Aaron Goodwin, Abur-Rahim's agent, said the Nets are the ones on a deadline.
> 
> "New Jersey should want something done before he signs with another team," Goodwin said. "In my case, I'm going to keep moving and get him the best deal."


Link


----------



## Trader Ed

and the Nets TE expires on the 29th as well. Tick tock :wait:


----------



## Ed O

SAR is almost certainly going to end up with the MLE or playing for a lottery team. I understand his agent's wishes to get him the best possible deal, but he doesn't have a lot of cards to play.

I still like New Jersey's position best of the three... they've got a need at a position where several players are available (SAR, Marshall, Swift) and they've got their trade exception and/or full MLE to get at least one of them.

At some point, NJ is going to give SAR's camp a deadline and it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Ed O.


----------



## Spud147

Pardon my ignorance but can someone explain to me what the TE does?


----------



## Ed O

Spud147 said:


> Pardon my ignorance but can someone explain to me what the TE does?


The trade exception allows the Nets to acquire a player without having to send back a salary to match. If Portland were to trade SAR to New Jersey for the TE, the Blazers would get a TE for the amount they signed SAR.

The thing is that trade exceptions expire after one year, so the Nets have to make a move with it before it expires later this month.

Ed O.


----------



## Spud147

Ed O said:


> The trade exception allows the Nets to acquire a player without having to send back a salary to match. If Portland were to trade SAR to New Jersey for the TE, the Blazers would get a TE for the amount they signed SAR.
> 
> The thing is that trade exceptions expire after one year, so the Nets have to make a move with it before it expires later this month.
> 
> Ed O.


Thanks Ed!

Another question: Why would this be better for the Blazers than just letting SAR walk if the goal is to avoid the luxury tax?


----------



## Trader Ed

I actually think Cleveland may get a shot at him as well. They supposedly expressed some interest earlier on.

As teams fill their needs, they still seem to have a lot of salary room left.


----------



## Foulzilla

Spud147 said:


> Thanks Ed!
> 
> Another question: Why would this be better for the Blazers than just letting SAR walk if the goal is to avoid the luxury tax?


Because it gives a choice. At some point in the future we can use this to trade for a player we need or sign a free agent. It is an asset, just not a particularly valuable one to us. I definately would not trade SAR for _only_ the TE. But it does have some value to us just as it gives options.


----------



## Schilly

I'm reaiding on the Clippers board that they are feeling pretty good about Shareef as well at this point.


----------



## Ed O

Schilly said:


> I'm reaiding on the Clippers board that they are feeling pretty good about Shareef as well at this point.


Man, can you imagine if SAR follows the money to the Clippers? Sitting on the bench behind Kaman and Brand for a probable lottery team.

I don't blame a guy for wanting to make as much money as he can, but that would put the kibosh on any "committment to winning" that SAR's backers claim he has.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork

ESPN reports that a deal is close to being finalized. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2110920


----------



## Ed O

Fork said:


> ESPN reports that a deal is close to being finalized.


Chad Ford wrote the article in a very wishy-washy way. Hard to tell whether the deal is close because SAR has agreed to go to NJ whether there's a sign-and-trade or not or because NJ has decided to send Portland additional value.

Check out this bit of the final paragraph and it appears it's a mish-mash of previous stories repackaged with the news of something imminent:


> If the Nets land Abdur-Rahim for the mid-level exception, look for new owner Bruce Ratner to keep spending money. The Nets still own their full mid-level exception. Their next signing could be free agent guard Keyon Dooling with part of their mid-level exception.


Let's keep our fingers crossed! 

And hope, beyond just a future first rounder, that it's for 2007.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly

*Shareef to the Nets Close...Per Chad Ford*

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2110920


----------



## Reep

The article mentions a future first included, but then goes on to say if it doesn't work out that Reef will sign for the MLE. I assume he appended the update to the top?

It must be real. Playmaker is over on the nets forum proclaiming his love for the nets.


----------



## e_blazer1

A future first seems to be the compromise. Since the Blazers have two picks next year anyway, it's probably better to put it off a year or two anyway.


----------



## Schilly

Ed O said:


> Chad Ford wrote the article in a very wishy-washy way. Hard to tell whether the deal is close because SAR has agreed to go to NJ whether there's a sign-and-trade or not or because NJ has decided to send Portland additional value.
> 
> Let's keep our fingers crossed!
> 
> And hope, beyond just a future first rounder, that it's for 2007.
> 
> Ed O.


Yes this article is very odd, loaded with mistakes Kenyons Martins stats are inaccurate his carreer numbers are those he lkists as this past season.

Also this is weird


> If the Nets land Abdur-Rahim for the mid-level exception, look for new owner Bruce Ratner to keep spending money. The Nets still own their full mid-level exception. Their next signing could be free agent guard Keyon Dooling with part of their mid-level exception.


So if they use the MLE how do they use it again to add Keyon?


----------



## Ed O

ANY first rounder we get will be in the future. I don't know that the word "future" really adds that much to the story.

2007 will be a better draft, anyways, and the odds of NJ being bad is better, so I'd prefer that to 2006 if I had my choice.

Ed O.


----------



## Aurelino

Schilly said:


> Yes this article is very odd, loaded with mistakes Kenyons Martins stats are inaccurate his carreer numbers are those he lkists as this past season.
> 
> Also this is weird
> 
> So if they use the MLE how do they use it again to add Keyon?


I guess they were in a hurry to be the first to break the news, as a lot of local NJ papers have also been following the developments closely.


----------



## Storyteller

Schilly said:


> So if they use the MLE how do they use it again to add Keyon?


:laugh: Great catch! That's got to be a typo. I'm sure Chad meant "if they use the trade exception to get Abdur-Rahim".

If this is correct - and with Chad Ford I'm not going to believe it until I see it officially reported - then it looks as though Nash was able to call Thorn's bluff.

Getting another 1st round pick - whether it's 2006, 2007 or whenever - gives Portland more options and (dare I say it) more ammunition for future trades. If the Blazers do have 3 1st round picks in 2006, I just can't see them keeping all 3 - but a 1st round pick might just be the incentive necessary to get someone like, oh, I don't know, NY to agree to take Ruben and Anderson for an expiring contract. (Yes, I'm beating that drum again.....)


----------



## tlong

I knew the Nets would cave regarding their stance against trading a 1st rounder. They're still getting a good deal.


----------



## cpawfan

tlong said:


> I knew the Nets would cave regarding their stance against trading a 1st rounder. They're still getting a good deal.


No, the Nets aren't getting a good deal. They are paying too much.


----------



## Reep

I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. On the nets forum they are talking about how SAR will sign for the MLE based on the same article.


----------



## Petey

Reep said:


> I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. On the nets forum they are talking about how SAR will sign for the MLE based on the same article.


Yeah... the article said he will sign with the Nets for the MLE if it can't work out, which could be more profitable for him. A 2 year deal with an opt out after 2, so we then own his Early Bird Rights...

Regardless, why give up the first if we don't have to? I think Thorn hopes a sign and trade doesn't work out right now.

-Petey


----------



## Storyteller

cpawfan said:


> No, the Nets aren't getting a good deal. They are paying too much.


I disagree. 

The Nets get a proven PF who can easily put up 15/9 for that team (if not better) next season. Assuming they are giving up their own pick (not the Clipper's pick) with who knows how much protection on it - that's a good price. Especially given that the window of opportunity with Kidd is going to continue to close - they need a solid veteran now, not another prospect who will contribute in who knows how many years.

Plus, even if the pick is for 2006, they still keep another 1st rounder for next summer to get another young player.

I think the deal works for both sides. Portland, at this juncture, doesn't want to take back salary. NJ didn't want to give up any of their core players. Both get their wish.


----------



## Storyteller

Petey said:


> Yeah... the article said he will sign with the Nets for the MLE if it can't work out, which could be more profitable for him. A 2 year deal with an opt out after 2, so we then own his Early Bird Rights...
> 
> Regardless, why give up the first if we don't have to? I think Thorn hopes a sign and trade doesn't work out right now.
> 
> -Petey


That makes no sense. Early Bird rights would probably represent a 2007-08 salary LESS than if he sticks with this proposed sign-and-trade deal.

A 3 year deal would represent getting him Bird rights and could provide a raise in 2008-09.


----------



## cpawfan

Storyteller said:


> I disagree.
> 
> The Nets get a proven PF who can easily put up 15/9 for that team (if not better) next season. Assuming they are giving up their own pick (not the Clipper's pick) with who knows how much protection on it - that's a good price. Especially given that the window of opportunity with Kidd is going to continue to close - they need a solid veteran now, not another prospect who will contribute in who knows how many years.
> 
> Plus, even if the pick is for 2006, they still keep another 1st rounder for next summer to get another young player.
> 
> I think the deal works for both sides. Portland, at this juncture, doesn't want to take back salary. NJ didn't want to give up any of their core players. Both get their wish.


Wrong way to look at it. It is about opportunity cost. SAR isn't worth giving away a first rounder compared to the other PF's out there and the Nets needs. The Nets don't need 15/9 from the PF spot. They need defense and dirty work.


----------



## Petey

Storyteller said:


> That makes no sense. Early Bird rights would probably represent a 2007-08 salary LESS than if he sticks with this proposed sign-and-trade deal.
> 
> A 3 year deal would represent getting him Bird rights and could provide a raise in 2008-09.


How so?

Link 



> EARLY BIRD EXCEPTION -- This is a weaker form of the Larry Bird exception. Players who qualify for this exception are called "Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agents" in the CBA. A player qualifies for this exception after just two seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent. Using this exception, *a team may re-sign its own free agent for 175% of his salary the previous season* or the average player salary, whichever is greater (see question number 22 for the definition of "average salary"). Early Bird contracts must be for at least two seasons (which limits this exception's usefulness -- it's often better to take a lower salary for one more season and then have the full Bird exception available the next season) and no longer than six seasons. A player can receive 12.5% raises using this exception.


1st year: 5 Million
2nd year: 5.4 (8% raise) Million
3rd year: 5.8 (8% raise) Million (opt-out)

Now 175% of 5.4 Million is...

1st year: 9.45 Million
2nd year: 10.206 (756,00 raise)
3rd year: 10.962 (756,00 raise)
4th year: 11.718 (756,00 raise)
5th year: 12.474 (756,00 raise)

Now how is that less?

-Petey


----------



## Storyteller

cpawfan said:


> Wrong way to look at it. It is about opportunity cost. SAR isn't worth giving away a first rounder compared to the other PF's out there and the Nets needs. The Nets don't need 15/9 from the PF spot. They need defense and dirty work.


Then look at the full picture

It's get SAR and have the full MLE to sign other veterans in exchange for the 1st round pick

or

Sign someone like Marshall (or even SAR himself) for the full MLE


Ford's article makes it sound like Thorn wants to use the MLE to sign other players. If this is not true, then you are right - giving up the #1 pick is meaningless since the Nets could simply sign SAR for the MLE. I would venture to say, though, that the fact that the two teams have been negotiating would at least hint that Thorn would like to use the MLE for something other than a PF.


----------



## Storyteller

Petey said:


> How so?
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> 1st year: 5 Million
> 2nd year: 5.4 (8% raise) Million
> 3rd year: 5.8 (8% raise) Million (opt-out)
> 
> Now 175% of 5.4 Million is...
> 
> 1st year: 9.45 Million
> 2nd year: 10.206 (756,00 raise)
> 3rd year: 10.962 (756,00 raise)
> 4th year: 11.718 (756,00 raise)
> 5th year: 12.474 (756,00 raise)
> 
> Now how is that less?
> 
> -Petey


You're right. I must be losing my mind....it's been a long and hot day here in Vegas....


----------



## Zybot

Petey said:


> How so?
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> 1st year: 5 Million
> 2nd year: 5.4 (8% raise) Million
> 3rd year: 5.8 (8% raise) Million (opt-out)
> 
> Now 175% of 5.4 Million is...
> 
> 1st year: 9.45 Million
> 2nd year: 10.206 (756,00 raise)
> 3rd year: 10.962 (756,00 raise)
> 4th year: 11.718 (756,00 raise)
> 5th year: 12.474 (756,00 raise)
> 
> Now how is that less?
> 
> -Petey


Not that this is related at all to the thread, but could Portland work out something similar with Pryzbilla, which would effectively be a 5 year contract for $41 million? Or is this term of the CBA changed next season? I am by no means a capologist.


----------



## Petey

Zybot said:


> Not that this is related at all to the thread, but could Portland work out something similar with Pryzbilla, which would effectively be a 5 year contract for $41 million? Or is this term of the CBA changed next season? I am by no means a capologist.


No, they can not. Read the quote I posted. They can offer him the MLE / Average player salary... and it would not take up their MLE. It's the MLE or 175% of last year's contract... which ever is higher. In Joel's case that is the MLE / average player salary.

-Petey


----------



## cpawfan

Storyteller said:


> Then look at the full picture
> 
> It's get SAR and have the full MLE to sign other veterans in exchange for the 1st round pick
> 
> or
> 
> Sign someone like Marshall (or even SAR himself) for the full MLE
> 
> 
> Ford's article makes it sound like Thorn wants to use the MLE to sign other players. If this is not true, then you are right - giving up the #1 pick is meaningless since the Nets could simply sign SAR for the MLE. I would venture to say, though, that the fact that the two teams have been negotiating would at least hint that Thorn would like to use the MLE for something other than a PF.


You are missing the full picture. The Nets would still use the TE with or with out SAR. Same with the MLE. Now they have lost a future first.


----------



## Zybot

What I meant, was could they offer an MLE with the third year as the player option and then sign a new 4 year contract (wink, wink) for 175% above the MLE.


----------



## Petey

Zybot said:


> What I meant, was could they offer an MLE with the third year as the player option and then sign a new 4 year contract (wink, wink) for 175% above the MLE.


Yes.

In fact, I think if he were willing to accept a 1 year MLE deal, you would have full bird rights on him. Which means you could go up to the max to retain him.

-Petey


----------



## tlong

cpawfan said:


> You are missing the full picture. The Nets would still use the TE with or with out SAR. Same with the MLE. Now they have lost a future first.



http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/3271334

The Nets no longer have the opportunity to get Stromile Swift. They *need * SAR and they would be wise to part with the 1st rounder to get him rather than risk him going to another team.


----------



## cpawfan

tlong said:


> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/3271334
> 
> The Nets no longer have the opportunity to get Stromile Swift. They *need * SAR and they would be wise to part with the 1st rounder to get him rather than risk him going to another team.


Well, I'm very happy that Swift is off the market as he doesn't bring any of the things I see the Nets needing at the PF spot.

The Nets would have been just fine without SAR


----------



## Blazer Freak

*SAR to NJ S&T Close..*



> The New Jersey Nets may have found their replacement for Kenyon Martin. And he's coming at a real bargain.
> 
> A team source said the Nets are very close to an agreement with Shareef Abdur-Rahim on a six year contract worth roughly $38 million.
> 
> To make the deal work under cap rules, the Portland Trail Blazers, who own Abdur-Rahim's rights, would have to agree to sign him to the contract and then trade him to the Nets using a $5 million trade exception that the Nets own. In return, the Nets would send a future first round pick to the Blazers.
> 
> If the Nets are unable to get the Blazers to agree to a sign-and-trade, Abdur-Rahim has agreed to sign with the Nets for their mid-level exception at five years for about $28 million, according to the team source. So, either way, it looks like the Nets will get their hands on Abdur-Rahim.
> 
> Either way it's a great deal for the Nets


LINK 

SAR for the TE and a future 1st. Sounds good to me, we got something for SAR.


----------



## Public Defender

*Re: SAR to NJ S&T Close..*

A draft pick from the Nets, unfortunately, could well be pretty lousy. With Vince Carter around for the whole season, a healthy Richard Jefferson, Jason Kidd, and now Shareef Abdur-Rahim, New Jersey may well be one of the four best teams in the East, behind (of course) Detroit and Miami, and I figure, probably Indiana with Artest back on board. 

But a first rounder's a first rounder, and I won't complain. Take that one, and the one we'll get from being in the lottery again, and maybe we can get one of the top picks next June. 

Maybe I should change my sig...


----------



## tlong

cpawfan said:


> Well, I'm very happy that Swift is off the market as he doesn't bring any of the things I see the Nets needing at the PF spot.
> 
> The Nets would have been just fine without SAR



Just which free agent PF would you target for the Nets anyway?


----------



## tlong

*Re: SAR to NJ S&T Close..*

Already posted.

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=182222&page=10&pp=15


----------



## Blazer Freak

tlong said:


> Just which free agent PF would you target for the Nets anyway?


They are down to Shareef and Donyell Marshall.


----------



## tlong

Blazer Freak said:


> They are down to Shareef and Donyell Marshall.



...and Donyell Marshall sucks.


----------



## cpawfan

tlong said:


> Just which free agent PF would you target for the Nets anyway?


It isn't about one free agent. The Nets need to improve their big man rotation and they don't need to be starters. I'd much rather have quality depth then 1 former All Star.

The difference in the impact that SAR and Marshall will make to the Nets record and playoff success is minimal. Evans would probably have a greater impact than either.


----------



## Trader Ed

Now that Swift has committed to the Rockets

If I were Nash I would hold out for the TE and the Clippers 1st round pick instead of NJ's

The clock is ticking for NJ... their TE expires on the 29th. They have now shown that they are willing to concede more to get Rahim. Now go for the Clipper pick.

In the end, like I have said before, they will cave in and offer a 1st. This time the Clipper pick. THe ESPN article is proof. They are gloating at how good a deal Rahim would be for the price and for the S&T exchange + the pick.

ITS STILL A STEAL with the Clipper pick, and the TE...

with the TE I still go for Gooden as a backup PF


----------



## Ed O

Trader Bob said:


> If I were Nash I would hold out for the TE and the Clippers 1st round pick instead of NJ's
> 
> The clock is ticking for NJ... their TE expires on the 29th. They have now shown that they are willing to concede more to get Rahim. Now go for the Clipper pick.


Did you see the Chad Ford article, TB?

The Blazers appear (to me) to have lost ALL leverage here. Here's the important part:


> If the Nets are unable to get the Blazers to agree to a sign-and-trade, Abdur-Rahim has agreed to sign with the Nets for their mid-level exception at five years for about $28 million, according to the team source.


It's possible that the Nets agreed that they had to offer a future first as part of their offer to Portland. It sounds to me, though, like if Portland hesitates the Nets will use their TE in another direction and sign SAR with their MLE.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong

Ed O said:


> Did you see the Chad Ford article, TB?
> 
> The Blazers appear (to me) to have lost ALL leverage here. Here's the important part:
> 
> 
> It's possible that the Nets agreed that they had to offer a future first as part of their offer to Portland. It sounds to me, though, like if Portland hesitates the Nets will use their TE in another direction and sign SAR with their MLE.
> 
> Ed O.



I ain't buyin' it. That is probably information leaked to the press to try and force the Blazers hand. It makes no sense for SAR to just accept the MLE.


----------



## Trader Ed

Ed O said:


> Did you see the Chad Ford article, TB?
> 
> The Blazers appear (to me) to have lost ALL leverage here. Here's the important part:
> 
> 
> It's possible that the Nets agreed that they had to offer a future first as part of their offer to Portland. It sounds to me, though, like if Portland hesitates the Nets will use their TE in another direction and sign SAR with their MLE.
> 
> Ed O.



I was just going back to read the thread since Saturday. I see what you mean. But its still up in arms

I also agree with you a future 1st say in 2007 might be the ticket. Since next years draft is skeptical, and 2007 may be a more talented draft.

BUT

I wonder if they would be willing to exchange the Clipper 1st round pick if we send them back the Detroit pick????


The Nets according to Mike Rice are giving the Blazers until Friday to accept the TE option. No mention of a draft pick.


----------



## Ed O

tlong said:


> It makes no sense for SAR to just accept the MLE.


What are his other options?

The Clippers?

The Nets were on a short timeline, and they had other options, including Donyell Marshall.

SAR's other options were significantly less appealing, I gotta think: more money with the Clippers, fighting for a starting gig in Miami, or being on an inferior team in a tougher conference for the Kings.

SAR might end up with more than the MLE, but even at the MLE he's making a good career move.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed

Ed O said:


> What are his other options?
> 
> The Clippers?
> Ed O.


Cleveland, San Antonio, maybe even Miami?

If you go for the MLE why not go to the champs? (assuming your trying to go for a winner)

Cleveland is looking pretty decent


----------



## tlong

Ed O said:


> What are his other options?
> 
> The Clippers?
> 
> The Nets were on a short timeline, and they had other options, including Donyell Marshall.
> 
> SAR's other options were significantly less appealing, I gotta think: more money with the Clippers, fighting for a starting gig in Miami, or being on an inferior team in a tougher conference for the Kings.
> 
> SAR might end up with more than the MLE, but even at the MLE he's making a good career move.
> 
> Ed O.



The Clippers are a better option than the MLE with New Jersey. The Nets have no shot at the title and Kidd is nearing the end of his career. Not a good career move. Wouldn't you rather live in LA than New Jersey?


----------



## tlong

Trader Bob said:


> Cleveland, San Antonio, maybe even Miami?
> 
> If you go for the MLE why not go to the champs? (assuming your trying to go for a winner)
> 
> Cleveland is looking pretty decent



Agreed.


----------



## Ed O

Trader Bob said:


> Cleveland, San Antonio, maybe even Miami?


San Antonio used part of their MLE on Oberto. Cleveland is a lottery team. Miami just signed Haslem to a big deal.

Cleveland is not a bad spot, but playing with Jason Kidd and Vince Carter is probably more appealing than LeBron and Z.

Miami paid Haslem a big chunk of change so SAR would be, at best, splitting time with him at the 4.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O

tlong said:


> The Clippers are a better option than the MLE with New Jersey. The Nets have no shot at the title and Kidd is nearing the end of his career. Not a good career move. Wouldn't you rather live in LA than New Jersey?


I wouldn't care, actually. I'd prefer to play with Kidd than anyone on the Clippers, and with the Clippers SAR would be coming off the bench.

LA would be a terrible fit in every way except that he'd make more money. So many people have said how he just wants to win, and the Nets are a great opportunity for him to prove that.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong

Ed O said:


> I wouldn't care, actually. I'd prefer to play with Kidd than anyone on the Clippers, and with the Clippers SAR would be coming off the bench.
> 
> LA would be a terrible fit in every way except that he'd make more money. So many people have said how he just wants to win, and the Nets are a great opportunity for him to prove that.
> 
> Ed O.



It's all about the Benjamin's.


----------



## tlong

Ed O said:


> I wouldn't care, actually. I'd prefer to play with Kidd than anyone on the Clippers, and with the Clippers SAR would be coming off the bench.
> 
> LA would be a terrible fit in every way except that he'd make more money. So many people have said how he just wants to win, and the Nets are a great opportunity for him to prove that.
> 
> Ed O.



Plus Cleveland is a better opportunity than New Jersey. With SAR they would go further in the playoffs than the Nets.


----------



## arcade_rida

> *If the Nets are unable to get the Blazers to agree to a sign-and-trade, Abdur-Rahim has agreed to sign with the Nets for their mid-level exception at five years for about $28 million, according to the team source. *So, either way, it looks like the Nets will get their hands on Abdur-Rahim.


Wierd


----------



## Petey

tlong said:


> Plus Cleveland is a better opportunity than New Jersey. With SAR they would go further in the playoffs than the Nets.


Really? They had the same record, although the Nets were without Kidd for 20 games, without Carter for 20 games, and RJ missed the last 50 games of the year. Plus the Nets play in the Atlantic vs. the Celtics, 6ers, Knicks and Raptors, while the Cavs play the Bulls, Pistons and Pacers.

Who goes further based on playoff positioning alone?

-Petey


----------



## FeloniusThunk

A future first is a better deal than next year's first (or second), so this sounds like an ok return to me. Sounds like Nash has played this correctly, though we'll still see, of course.

SAR still has plenty of options, if he wanted. A S&T for any midlevel expiring contract and a 2nd rd. pick would be pretty equivalent to what the Nets had on the table. If it were possible to combine SAR and DA/Ruben/Miles for a bigger expiring contract or decent player, that should have some appeal, too (like the Mavs or TWolves). This really wasn't the last possible deal on Earth, and wasn't worth much more than a free Denny's breakfast even if you took it.

Overall, this is worse than I had hoped last summer, but at least another first-rounder can always be used for something.


----------



## mgb

*First round pick for SAR*

I hope this is true.

I didn't see this posted any where, but if it has been or is embedded in a post then feel free to delete this post.

I'd love to get a 1st round pick for SAR, but if he is willing to sign for the mid level exception why would the Nets be willing to give up a 1st?


----------



## Leroy131

I don't believe for a second that Shareef agreed to the 5-year, $28 million if an S&T agreement couldn't be reached.


Rod Thorn: Sorry Shareef, but we couldn't agree on a deal with Portland.

Shareef: Oh, that's alright. $10 million is no big deal. I'm fine with taking
25% less guaranteed money because you couldn't agree on which future 1st rounder to give Portland.


----------



## jwhoops11

*Re: First round pick for SAR*

Stephen A Smith reported on Sportscenter tonight, that the Nets have agreed to sign Rahim outright for 5 years 29 million. At least from what he's reporting, no deal with the Blazers at all.


----------



## purplehaze89

*Portland receives NO compensation from New Jersey ESPN*

According to Stephen A. Smith on ESPN NEWS, SAR signed for the MLE at 5 years and 28 million to play for the Nets. IF this news is true and I'm not believing anything until I see that its official, all that holding out and posturing amounted to the worst-case scenario for Portland. No compensation at all. If true, good job Nash.


----------



## Utherhimo

*Re: First round pick for SAR*

he might take the mid level from the other team he wants to play for instead of the nets


----------



## Sambonius

I think Shareef should feel disrespected if Thorn says he wants him but isn't willing to give up a mid to late 1st round pick. If Shareef signs and takes 3 or 4 million dollars under market value because the GM for the team that wants him isn't willing to give up a late draft pick, I'd be really disrespected and go elsewhere.


----------



## mgb

*Re: First round pick for SAR*

Since nothing can be done until Friday it may be the Nets are just trying to put pressure on us to take a second round pick. But as I said it doesn't make much sense to the Nets to offer a first rounder if SAR is willing to take the MLE.


----------



## Trader Ed

well said Sambonius :woot:

I will believe it when I see it... Rahim still has options out there. He is not going to cave into a MLE yet. Goodwin is too cheap to allow that yet as well!


----------



## Utherhimo

*Re: First round pick for SAR*

smith still thinks were are the jail blazers


----------



## Petey

*Re: First round pick for SAR*



Utherhimo said:


> he might take the mid level from the other team he wants to play for instead of the nets


Did you miss the Bucks offered him 47 Million over 5 years? Or the Clippers were going to make a 3 year offer for more than the MLE per year? Or the fact he cancelled some parts of his trip?

SAR wants to play in NJ. Would he start w/ the Spurs? Is Duncan ready to move over to center? Would he start or get starter minutes w/ the Heat's Haslem and Zo? Or which team has a better chance to take at least a 3rd seed next year... the Nets or Kings?

It's a decent situation he is putting himself into.

To top it off, he's going to be playing w/ JKidd, and be hooked back up with Frank whom took part in his wedding and vice versa?

If it was about the money, he would have agreed to go to another team. If it's about going to a good situation, maybe the money is not worth as much to him/the Nets as 2 picks next year, or one used w/ the other to trade up?

-Petey


----------



## Tince

*Re: First round pick for SAR*

Either way, I don't think Nash should cave in and do a S&T with NJ if he only gets back the TE. At this point, Nash is still building and reputation as a GM and I believe sticking to his guns is better than looking soft and giving in by taking a TE, which holds little value for Portland.


----------



## Petey

*Re: First round pick for SAR*

How does the TE hold little value?

Look at the Nets. They were cutting salary, gutting their team. Then eventually will use up almost all of their TEs.

What if a player like Gooden goes on the block next season. If the Cavs or a team in that situation is looking for a pick, what better way to part with that player by picking up his salary, the other team taking back nothing?

-Petey


----------



## Tince

*Re: First round pick for SAR*



Petey said:


> How does the TE hold little value?
> 
> Look at the Nets. They were cutting salary, gutting their team. Then eventually will use up almost all of their TEs.
> 
> What if a player like Gooden goes on the block next season. If the Cavs or a team in that situation is looking for a pick, what better way to part with that player by picking up his salary, the other team taking back nothing?
> 
> -Petey


 I've reread what you've said a couple times and I still haven't caught why Portland should feel the TE has a lot of value to them based on their rebuilding plan.

Our GM has said we want to build through the young players, and not by picking up older FA's. Portland also doesn't appear to want to be picking up salaries unless it's for a player that is young, has a lot of talent, is and wonderful around the community. I seriously doubt that player is going to be picked up via the trade exception. 

If you don't believe me, John Nash said himself that the TE holds little to no value to Portland. I think having the image of being soft and taking the TE isn't worth it. Long term, Nash and the Blazers would be better off making the Nets snub SAR and letting the rest of the league know that we're going to stand our ground in trade talks.


----------



## Fork

Has this been posted yet?



The Nets got their man yesterday, and it was only because Shareef Abdur-Rahim is less greedy than his former employer.

The free-agent forward agreed to accept the lesser of two contract offers yesterday -- a five-year deal that will total $27 million to $30 million -- after the Nets failed to negotiate a better contract in a sign-and-trade scenario with the Portland Trail Blazers.

The agreement, which cannot be announced until Friday -- ostensibly the day the new collective bargaining agreement is signed -- was confirmed by agent Aaron Goodwin, whose 28-year-old client is expected to step right into the Nets' starting lineup at power forward.

-more-

http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1121753430144740.xml&coll=1


----------



## barfo

> The Nets got their man yesterday, and it was only because Shareef Abdur-Rahim is less greedy than his former employer.


That's funny. SAR voluntarily gave up $8 million so that the Nets could keep their 2nd round draft pick, and the Blazers are at fault for that?

Bye bye SAR. We never really loved you, y'know. The magic just wasn't there. I can't explain it. It's us, not you. Really, there's nothing wrong with you. No, that big scarlet "L" on your forehead didn't bother us, really. It's just that you weren't the man we were looking for. You just didn't thrill us the way Sheed did. Oh, I know, he was a *******, and god knows some of us are glad he's gone, but he knew how to excite a fanbase. A fanbase needs to feel something! Do you understand, SAR? It's not you. It's us.

barfo


----------



## Storyteller

This NJ.com piece is hilarious in its bias



> The Nets got their man yesterday, and it was only because Shareef Abdur-Rahim is less greedy than his former employer


Let's see, Portland, in exchange for participating in a S&T wants a first round pick in return or the rights to Ilic and they are greedy......NJ asked for, and got, 3 first round picks in return for being willing to participate in a S&T for Martin, so what does that make them?



> The Nets, meanwhile, gain a superbly talented forward, a career 20-and-10 man


But one who is apparently not worth giving up a low first round pick for, or the rights to Ilic.



> Though they can still use the trade exception -- or a piece of it, anyway, as Dooling figures to be worth about three years and $9 million -- there is no guarantee that Miami will be amenable to a sign-and-trade deal.


Portland doesn't want to participate in a S&T = greed. Miami doesn't want to participate in a S&T = that's their choice. Hmmmm.....


If I weren't in a hurry to get to an early meeting this morning, I could probably pull some more things out.


Bottom Line - SAR seems to want to play in NJ and I'm happy that he seems to be happy with that choice. More power to him. But I don't want to hear any more about how Portland saying that SAR is worth a decent draft pick in a trade is simply "greed" on their part. What about the "greed" of NJ wanting to get SAR but not being willing to part with a draft pick for him?

Honestly, neither team is greedy. They're both trying to do what's best for the franchise. So I don't want to hear spin on either side that "our team is above board but they're just greedy" or any other stupid remarks of the sort.


----------



## Vintage

SAR signed for the MLE?

I don't know whether or not to laugh/applaud/cry.

Laugh bec Nash held out and lossed. I am curious as to what other GMs think about him.

Applaud bec. SAR took less to move to NJ where he wants to play. That's happened twice now this offseason, a player choosing less money to play where he wants (Haslem the other).

Cry bec. now NJ looks to be a good team.


----------



## Petey

*Re: First round pick for SAR*



Tince said:


> I've reread what you've said a couple times and I still haven't caught why Portland should feel the TE has a lot of value to them based on their rebuilding plan.
> 
> Our GM has said we want to build through the young players, and not by picking up older FA's. Portland also doesn't appear to want to be picking up salaries unless it's for a player that is young, has a lot of talent, is and wonderful around the community. I seriously doubt that player is going to be picked up via the trade exception.
> 
> If you don't believe me, John Nash said himself that the TE holds little to no value to Portland. I think having the image of being soft and taking the TE isn't worth it. Long term, Nash and the Blazers would be better off making the Nets snub SAR and letting the rest of the league know that we're going to stand our ground in trade talks.


In some cases a TE is worth more than players in trade, as teams won't have to take money back. If the Blazers are a few games out of a playoff spot or a better playoff position, like the Nets were this year, don't think that TE will come in handy?

-Petey


----------



## Petey

Vintage said:


> SAR signed for the MLE?
> 
> I don't know whether or not to laugh/applaud/cry.
> 
> Laugh bec Nash held out and lossed. I am curious as to what other GMs think about him.
> 
> *Applaud bec. SAR took less to move to NJ where he wants to play. That's happened twice now this offseason, a player choosing less money to play where he wants (Haslem the other).*
> 
> Cry bec. now NJ looks to be a good team.


With SAR, he turned down the Bucks whom offered him Simmon's 47M/5Y deal, and the Clippers offer (shorter, but more money) to play w/ the Nets!

-Petey


----------



## Vintage

Petey said:


> With SAR, he turned down the Bucks whom offered him Simmon's 47M/5Y deal, and the Clippers offer (shorter, but more money) to play w/ the Nets!
> 
> -Petey



Which is also why I am crying...NJ looks like a strong team.


----------



## Trader Ed

we shall see if its true.. or wait till Friday and its more than the MLE

there have been too may reports of various sides to know which is true


----------



## KingofNewark

Storyteller said:


> This NJ.com piece is hilarious in its bias
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, Portland, in exchange for participating in a S&T wants a first round pick in return or the rights to Ilic and they are greedy......NJ asked for, and got, 3 first round picks in return for being willing to participate in a S&T for Martin, so what does that make them?
> 
> 
> .



The difference is Martin was restricted which meant the Nets could of matched the offer. Nets showed no intrest in keeping KMart for the max so they traded him to the Nuggets. SAR is an unrestricted free agent. Portland really has no ground to ask for Ilic. They should just take the scraps we're offering instead of nothing.


----------



## e_blazer1

KingofNewark said:


> The difference is Martin was restricted which meant the Nets could of matched the offer. Nets showed no intrest in keeping KMart for the max so they traded him to the Nuggets. SAR is an unrestricted free agent. Portland really has no ground to ask for Ilic. They should just take the scraps we're offering instead of nothing.


If there's a future first round pick involved, then it makes sense for the Blazers to do the sign and trade. If not, then I guess we'll find out whether Shareef really is willing to take a $10 million hit in pay.


----------



## YardApe

If SAR is going to take the MLE why in the world wouldn't he have gone to San Antonio? With the Spurs he'll win a ring. The Nets wont get past Miami or Detroit. 

SAR must have his reasons, but winning it all clearly isn't one of them.


----------



## schub

YardApe said:


> If SAR is going to take the MLE why in the world wouldn't he have gone to San Antonio? With the Spurs he'll win a ring. The Nets wont get past Miami or Detroit.
> 
> SAR must have his reasons, but winning it all clearly isn't one of them.


1. San Antonio doesn't have the full MLE. They used some of it Oberto.

2. Maybe, like Kidd 2 years ago, he doesn't want to win on the backs of players who won without him.


----------



## KingofNewark

Seem to forget the Nets with a lesser team got to the finals 2 years straight.

Detroit is lost without Larry.

Shaq is old and isn't getting any younger.

SA is good but SAR isn't intrested in being a bench warmer. Or going along for the ride like Glenn Robinson.


----------



## Petey

The Spurs have Luis Scola too, one of the top Euro PFs that they drafted a few year wanting to come over.

-Petey


----------



## gatorpops

After reading the article, I have a few questions for all of you? 

Why would SAR do this? He could have played for the team he wanted and got his 8m more anyway because NJ would give up at least a 1st darft pick to get him.

Who is the source of the article? Goodwin! Known to use the Media to get his way and put pressure on the two GM's to get something done. Announced 0n Tuesday but not able to be completed till Friday? The article sugests that their is still something that might change. I seriously question if this is a done deal. Doesn't make sense to me.

Why would the Nets do this? They were reportedly trying to get one more man to make this team be the contender they wanted. Why would they give up their addvantage to get another player with the MLE. Doesn't make sense to me.

gatorpops


----------



## e_blazer1

Fork said:


> Has this been posted yet?
> 
> 
> 
> The Nets got their man yesterday, and it was only because Shareef Abdur-Rahim is less greedy than his former employer.
> 
> The free-agent forward agreed to accept the lesser of two contract offers yesterday -- a five-year deal that will total $27 million to $30 million -- after the Nets failed to negotiate a better contract in a sign-and-trade scenario with the Portland Trail Blazers.
> 
> The agreement, which cannot be announced until Friday -- ostensibly the day the new collective bargaining agreement is signed -- was confirmed by agent Aaron Goodwin, whose 28-year-old client is expected to step right into the Nets' starting lineup at power forward.
> 
> -more-
> 
> http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1121753430144740.xml&coll=1



That article is so slanted in its perspective that it doesn't even get the facts right. First he says that Shareef has taken the MLE deal, then he quotes Shareef saying the Blazers and Nets are still talking and something new may be worked out, and finally he goes back to his ridiculous attempt to make the Blazers look bad by saying that Nash's "gamble" didn't pay off. This guy needs to go take a journalism course.

The facts, as nearly as I can make out from the multiple reports I've read, are that Shareef and his agent have agreed to a deal in concept with the Nets. The Nets will offer the Blazers a future first rounder in exchange for the S&T deal that will also generate a $4.9 million trade exception for the Blazers. If the Blazers turn down that deal, then Shareef has agreed to sign for the MLE.

This move is clearly aimed at giving Thorn more bargaining leverage with the Blazers. Now there's no threat of a S&T with another team or SAR accepting another MLE offer. Thorn can present the trade to the Blazers as a take it or leave it deal. Of course, the reality is that both SAR and the Nets desperately want the Blazers to take the S&T deal. It means another $8 million to Shareef and it lets the Nets use their MLE to fill in a couple of other holes in their roster. Now it's up to the Blazers as to whether they want to play ball or not.


----------



## Stepping Razor

According to Chad Ford, SAR is indeed on the verge of heading to the Nets... in a sign and trade that nets (sorry for bad pun) the Blazers the TE *and a future first-round pick*.

:banana: 

If true, this is great news for Portland (and, I think anyway, for NJ as well, although I know many Nets fans hoped to get SAR more cheaply).

Now, if only I had any confidence that Chad Ford actually knows what the hell he's talking about, I'd be very happy!

Stepping Razor


----------



## B_&_B

Stepping Razor said:


> According to Chad Ford, SAR is indeed on the verge of heading to the Nets... in a sign and trade that nets (sorry for bad pun) the Blazers the TE *and a future first-round pick*.
> 
> :banana:
> 
> If true, this is great news for Portland (and, I think anyway, for NJ as well, although I know many Nets fans hoped to get SAR more cheaply).
> 
> Now, if only I had any confidence that Chad Ford actually knows what the hell he's talking about, I'd be very happy!
> 
> Stepping Razor


GREAT NEWS! If it is indeed true. Nice work by Nash, standing firm and not giving in to the Nets PATHETIC offer. The Nets are still getting a VERY good deal too, they arent giving up much at all for a solid, proven guy like SAR, who will help them become a legit contender in the East.


----------



## Stepping Razor

Stepping Razor said:


> According to Chad Ford, SAR is indeed on the verge of heading to the Nets... in a sign and trade that nets (sorry for bad pun) the Blazers the TE *and a future first-round pick*.
> 
> :banana:
> 
> If true, this is great news for Portland (and, I think anyway, for NJ as well, although I know many Nets fans hoped to get SAR more cheaply).
> 
> Now, if only I had any confidence that Chad Ford actually knows what the hell he's talking about, I'd be very happy!
> 
> Stepping Razor


Hrm, I may have to semi-retract my banana-dance. (Doh!)

Upon closer review (i.e., actually reading past the first paragraph of Chad Ford's piece), it seems that Ford himself is unsure whether SAR is going to NJ as an S&T or an MLE. (Can I get an award for most consecutive acronyms in a sentence?)

Hopefully it's the S&T.

Sorry for the premature exuberance of the previous post.

Stepping Razor


----------



## The Sebastian Express

> The difference is Martin was restricted which meant the Nets could of matched the offer. Nets showed no intrest in keeping KMart for the max so they traded him to the Nuggets. SAR is an unrestricted free agent. Portland really has no ground to ask for Ilic. They should just take the scraps we're offering instead of nothing.


This quote is amusing. You state the difference is restricted, this is true, yes. Yet you then mention that Nets showed no interest in keeping KMArt for the max. 

They did not have to. Denver was prepared to offer a 6 year, 74 million contract. The Nets could have just let him sign it, and not match. Much like some teams do. Yet, instead, they offered to give more money and assist a team and a player, for.. compensation.

That is greedy. That is business. You have stated the Nets weren't interested in paying him big money. 

Portland is not being greedy. They are doing business. Portland has no interest in paying Shareef. Portland has no interest in the TE. Portland has no interest in ASSISTING A TEAM AND A PLAYER, much like New Jersey did with Kenyon/Denver, without COMPENSATION. 

So now you can use your MLE on Shareef, and no one else. Yet, like StoryTeller said, Miami would unlikely agree to ASSIST ANOTHER TEAM, especially in their own conference. No mention of them being greedy, though.

I dislike double standards that are so often used against Portland. They are old, and tiring. Do not be mad because we would not accept your scraps, allow you to keep the MLE to get more pieces to a contending team.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling

Nash replied to me via email that "We have no deal at this time but he (Shareef) can't sign a contract nor can we make a trade until the moratorium ends perhaps this Friday."

Sounds to me like there is no deal yet - but we're still trying.

Keep holdin' on.


----------



## Reep

Most reports, including some coming out of New York indicate that a S&T is almost done, but a few (O-live blog) are holding that Reef will sign for the MLE and ripping on the Blazers, like it is there fault. The banana dance will have to wait.

I'm amazed that the perception is that the Blazers are the greedy ones. The Blazers and the Nets are both businesses. They are negotiating a deal and one will end up paying more than they want to, but that is business. Since when is it one teams job to help another team out just to be nice? I'm still trying to figure out who the Nets think they are going to get at the end of the first round next year. :whoknows:


----------



## Dan

Reep said:


> Most reports, including some coming out of New York indicate that a S&T is almost done, but a few (O-live blog) are holding that Reef will sign for the MLE and ripping on the Blazers, like it is there fault. The banana dance will have to wait.
> 
> I'm amazed that the perception is that the Blazers are the greedy ones. The Blazers and the Nets are both businesses. They are negotiating a deal and one will end up paying more than they want to, but that is business. Since when is it one teams job to help another team out just to be nice? I'm still trying to figure out who the Nets think they are going to get at the end of the first round next year. :whoknows:


although I caught the tail end of it on the scroll, it looked like ESPN just said he signed the MLE.

I found it also odd that we're the greedy ones, when it's NJ who isn't paying him more and trading more for him.


----------



## e_blazer1

Hap said:


> although I caught the tail end of it on the scroll, it looked like ESPN just said he signed the MLE.


Since nobody can sign anything until after Friday at the earliest, we know that nothing has been inked yet.

As I see it, Shareef has only said that if the Nets offer the Blazer the S&T for the traded player exception and a future 1st rounder, and the Blazers turn that down, he will sign a MLE deal. Beyond that, nothing's changed.


----------



## Storyteller

KingofNewark said:


> The difference is Martin was restricted which meant the Nets could of matched the offer. Nets showed no intrest in keeping KMart for the max so they traded him to the Nuggets. SAR is an unrestricted free agent. Portland really has no ground to ask for Ilic. They should just take the scraps we're offering instead of nothing.


I was hoping that the end of my post would have pre-empted posts like this. 

Portland is not "greedy". New Jersey is not now, nor were they in the KMart situation "greedy".

However, it's possible to spin a case for either or both to be seen as "greedy". My point is that the article shows bias because it spins it for Portland and not for New Jersey or Miami or anyone else.


----------



## Ed O

From the New York Post (not Vecsey):



> "We asked for Ilic, the player they selected with the 43rd pick," said Portland GM John Nash, who suggested without Ilic, there would be no deal, even though the Blazers stand to lose Abdur-Rahim with nothing in return.
> 
> To entice Portland, league sources maintained, the Nets upped their offer to two second-round picks (from one) along with the trade exception. Nash already said he is not interested in the trade exception due to luxury tax implications.
> 
> "They are focused on something we're not prepared to do," said Nets team president Rod Thorn, who declined comment on specific aspects of negotiations. "We'll do what we have to do."


I wonder how this report factors in with the ESPN report of a first rounder... would Portland prefer Ilic to a first rounder? It's possible. Have they been offered a first rounder? Hard to say.

Ed O.


----------



## Petey

The Sebastian Express said:


> This quote is amusing. You state the difference is restricted, this is true, yes. Yet you then mention that Nets showed no interest in keeping KMArt for the max.
> 
> *They did not have to. Denver was prepared to offer a 6 year, 74 million contract. The Nets could have just let him sign it, and not match. Much like some teams do. Yet, instead, they offered to give more money and assist a team and a player, for.. compensation.*
> 
> That is greedy. That is business. You have stated the Nets weren't interested in paying him big money.
> 
> Portland is not being greedy. They are doing business. Portland has no interest in paying Shareef. Portland has no interest in the TE. Portland has no interest in ASSISTING A TEAM AND A PLAYER, much like New Jersey did with Kenyon/Denver, without COMPENSATION.
> 
> So now you can use your MLE on Shareef, and no one else. Yet, like StoryTeller said, Miami would unlikely agree to ASSIST ANOTHER TEAM, especially in their own conference. No mention of them being greedy, though.
> 
> I dislike double standards that are so often used against Portland. They are old, and tiring. Do not be mad because we would not accept your scraps, allow you to keep the MLE to get more pieces to a contending team.


The Nets would have matched that, they were not READY TO match the offer he got.

-Petey


----------



## Trader Ed

> To entice Portland, league sources maintained, the Nets upped their offer to two second-round picks (from one) along with the trade exception. *Nash already said he is not interested in the trade exception due to luxury tax implications.*



Nash does know.... right.. that the only way a S&T can be done with NJ is using the TE ???????? :banghead:

its the mechanism that allows it to happen.... otherwise he signs for the MLE

so why is Nash continually quoted as saying that? .... it makes no sense


----------



## Talkhard

Don't know if this has been posted or not, but the New Jersey Star Ledger is reporting that it's a done deal: the Nets will get Rahim for nothing.

http://www.nj.com/nets/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1121753430144740.xml&coll=1

I for one think Nash was completely reasonable in the negotiations. NJ was completely unreasonable. If I were Rahim, I would be insulted that they weren't willing to give up a second round pick for me!


----------



## Tince

*Re: First round pick for SAR*



Petey said:


> In some cases a TE is worth more than players in trade, as teams won't have to take money back. If the Blazers are a few games out of a playoff spot or a better playoff position, like the Nets were this year, don't think that TE will come in handy?
> 
> -Petey


 If Portland was on the verge of being a playoff team, the TE would be helpful. As far as I understand, the TE only last one year and that's not within the window where Portland will be sniffing the playoffs...therefore TE still = no value to Portland.


----------



## Trader Ed

If we were to get a TE.. I would agree to terms with NJ on whatever deal.. then execute the deal on July 29th sometime. This allows us to carry the TE for a year, but use it after we resign Joel. Then we can seemingly get better as a team, and make strides towards the playoffs. THEN add a player with the TE after the moritorium next year and FA period. But still retaining Joel somehow.


----------



## e_blazer1

Trader Bob said:


> Nash does know.... right.. that the only way a S&T can be done with NJ is using the TE ???????? :banghead:
> 
> its the mechanism that allows it to happen.... otherwise he signs for the MLE
> 
> so why is Nash continually quoted as saying that? .... it makes no sense


Stop beating your head against the wall, Bob. You can hurt yourself that way. 

I think that what Nash meant is that he doesn't see much value in the trade exception because he doesn't plan to use it due to luxury tax implications. Any value in this S&T would come from draft picks or the rights to Ilic.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

Trader Bob said:


> Nash does know.... right.. that the only way a S&T can be done with NJ is using the TE ???????? :banghead:


He's not stupid. I take it as meaning that he's not interested in using the TE, so there better be something good coming along with it.


----------



## The Sebastian Express

Excuse me, they were apparently prepared to offer a 6 year, 82 million, front loaded, 15% trade kicker contract.


----------



## Vintage

Interesting.

So now it could be a S&T?


----------



## mediocre man

Trader Bob said:


> If we were to get a TE.. I woudl agree to terms with NJ onw hatever deal.. then execute the deal in August sometime. THis allows us to carry the TE for a year, but use it after we resign Joel. THen we can seemingly get better as a team, and make strides towards the playoffs. THEN add a player with the TE after the moritorium next year and FA period. But still retaining Joel somehow.




Doesn't their TE expire on July 29th? I believe in order to make the deal the trade would have had to be donw by then.


----------



## Reep

Dime magazine (on espn.com) reports:



> For a while there it looked like Shareef was going to set the precedent and take the midlevel exception from the Nets.
> 
> Not going to happen.
> 
> The Nets are finalizing a sign-and-trade that will bring Shareef to Jersey for just above the going rate — a reported $38 million over the next six years.


Don't lose hope.


----------



## Trader Ed

yep your right MM....

ok wait until the 29th then.... still should give us time to get someone after we take care of Joel


----------



## Reep

Trader Bob said:


> yep your right MM....
> 
> ok wait until the 29th then.... still should give us time to get someone after we take care of Joel


RealGM is reporting that the CBA ratification is delayed and they are pushing the FA deadline back to August 1. Does this wipe out the SAR deal? If Reef cannot be signed and traded until August 1, when does the TE expire? If it is July 29th, then this deal cannot happen without some help from the league (extension due to delay?).


----------



## Talkhard

Thanks, Reep. Hope that account is accurate.


----------



## Ed O

Talkhard said:


> Thanks, Reep. Hope that account is accurate.


Why do you hope it's accurate? That would kill the only chance Portland has of getting anything for SAR.

Ed O.


----------



## Reep

The only way this delay is good is if it gives NJ more time to think about it. If the league doesn't extend the TEs then it takes some heat off Nash as a deal couldn't be done. Not real good news for the fans.


----------



## RipCity9

*ESPN reporting SAR for 1st rounder nearly done*

If true, nicely done by Nash to holdout and get the pick.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2110920


----------



## Ed O

*Re: ESPN reporting SAR for 1st rounder nearly done*

Chad Ford wrote this story last night. Several other stories were written and they are at odds with what, if anything, Portland is going to receive for SAR.

The only thing that seems certain is that SAR is going to be a Net whether or not Portland works a sign and trade or not.

Ed O.


----------



## B_&_B

According to this recent report, Shareef will sign for the MLE.



> Report: Nets sign F Shareef Abdur-Rahim
> 
> July 19, 2005
> NEWARK, New Jersey (Ticker) - Free agent forward Shareef Abdur-Rahim reportedly has agreed to a five-year contract with the New Jersey Nets, who were looking to fortify their frontcourt.
> 
> The Newark Star-Ledger reported in Tuesday's editions that the 6-10 Abdur-Rahim, who spent the last one-plus seasons with the Portland Trail Blazers, will sign for the mid-level exception after the teams were unable to work out a sign-and-trade deal.
> 
> The mid-level exception allows teams over the salary cap to sign players and is expected to be between $4.9 million and $5.2 million once the new collective bargaining agreement is ratified. Abdur-Rahim's deal will be between $27 million and $30 million.
> 
> According to the report, Abdur-Rahim could have received a six-year, $38 million deal had he been signed by the Trail Blazers and dealt to the Nets for a $4.9 million trade exception and the rights to 2005 second-round pick Mile Ilic. But New Jersey was unwilling to part with Ilic.


----------



## HOWIE

*Re: ESPN reporting SAR for 1st rounder nearly done*

The first rounder would be nice to get for Rahim, it could be packaged with our lottery pick next season to move up. If Portland does get the pick then it is just another chip for getting what they need down the road. I hope that it goes down, I would like to see Rahim on a playoff team and Portland with another 1st round pick next season.


----------



## B_&_B

*Re: ESPN reporting SAR for 1st rounder nearly done*

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2429603&conly=#post2429603


----------



## RedHot&Rolling

*Re: ESPN reporting SAR for 1st rounder nearly done*

MOD'S - please merge this in with the SAR/NETS thread.....we don't need another one for this.

So many reports about this and NONE can be final until after the new CBA is finalized. Nash emailed a response to me this morning that it is still being discussed.


----------



## HOWIE

*Re: ESPN reporting SAR for 1st rounder nearly done*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2429603&conly=#post2429603


I liked this story better.....



> Report: Nets sign F Shareef Abdur-Rahim
> 
> July 19, 2005
> NEWARK, New Jersey (Ticker) - Free agent forward Shareef Abdur-Rahim reportedly *has'nt* agreed to a five-year contract with the New Jersey Nets, who were looking to fortify their frontcourt.
> 
> The Newark Star-Ledger reported in Tuesday's editions that the 6-10 Abdur-Rahim, who spent the last one-plus seasons with the Portland Trail Blazers, will *only play for New jersey if they can work with Portland on a sign-and-trade deal. Rahim told reporters that he wants someone to CTC, but that CTC better have a lot of zeros after it. As for signing for the mid-level exception Rahim just laughed.*
> 
> The mid-level exception allows teams over the salary cap to sign players and is expected to be between $4.9 million and $5.2 million once the new collective bargaining agreement is ratified. *Abdur-Rahim said that just wouldn't cut it for him to play with the likes of Jason Kidd and Vince Carter*
> 
> According to the report, Abdur-Rahim could have received a *much smaller payday if he didn't hold out for the $38 million deal given to him by the Trail Blazers*


----------



## Trader Ed

I do too... but we will see.. I hope we at least get a TE and a 1st round pick

I think the last 2 sentences are hard to believe. They are just poorly worded


----------



## Blazerfan024

> The Nets wanted Portland free agent Shareef Abdur-Rahim, and according to a report in Tuesday's Newark Star-Ledger, they got him.
> 
> Abdur-Rahim agreed to take $27-$30 million over the next five years — the least compensative of two possible contracts — because the Nets failed to negotiate a better deal or sign-and-trade scenario with the Trail Blazers.
> 
> The agreement can't be announced before Friday, coincidentally the date the new collective bargaining agreement is set to be signed. However, the deal was confirmed by Abdur-Rahim's agent Aaron Goodwin, whose client should step right into the Nets' starting lineup at the four spot.
> 
> Link


Looks like we are getting nothing in return.


----------



## Schilly

Blazerfan024 said:


> Looks like we are getting nothing in return.


ACtually there is nothing to indacte what you say to be true....If you read the facts of the article, Shareef has agreed to take the MLE in the event that Portland and NJ can't come to an agreement...here is a quote by shareef in that article.



> But if necessary, he will settle for the midlevel exception, the extra fund that capped-out teams can use for free agents, which calls for a starting salary of $4.9 million to $5.2 million, and can be stretched out over a maximum of five years.
> 
> Reached by phone in the early afternoon, Abdur-Rahim said a move was imminent.
> 
> "The only holdup has been the Portland-New Jersey thing, and I think they're going to talk more," he said. "But before the day is out, Aaron and I will talk. Something else could develop."


Shareef himself doesn't know if that is the final deal.


----------



## Storyteller

> The agreement can't be announced before Friday, coincidentally the date the new collective bargaining agreement is set to be signed.


Wow, what a coincidence...

In other news:

My foot is sore, coincidentally right after I dropped a 25 pound box on top of it.

My car is in need of repair, coincidentally right after I participated in a demolition derby.

My girlfriend is mad at me, coincidentally right after I forgot that yesterday was her birthday.


Who's the genius writing for Fox Sports News these days?????


BTW, this article is based on the same article that's been discussed all day. In my mind, nothing has changed:

1) SAR has agreed to take the MLE if that's what it takes to sign with the Nets.

2) The Nets have agreed to give him the MLE if that's what it takes for him to join their team

3) The Nets appear to still want to work out a sign-and-trade and are continuing to discuss this possibility with the Blazers. If the two teams can agree on compensation before the end of the moratorium, then the Nets can keep their MLE. If they can't agree on terms, then SAR will be signed with the MLE.

Am I wrong on any of this?


----------



## Reep

This whole thing is a mess of journalists worrying about getting the scoop before they actually have the news. I get so sick of this garbage journalism. Leave it to the Inquirer and get back to reporting the news.


----------



## Ed O

Storyteller said:


> 1) SAR has agreed to take the MLE if that's what it takes to sign with the Nets.
> 
> 2) The Nets have agreed to give him the MLE if that's what it takes for him to join their team
> 
> 3) The Nets appear to still want to work out a sign-and-trade and are continuing to discuss this possibility with the Blazers. If the two teams can agree on compensation before the end of the moratorium, then the Nets can keep their MLE. If they can't agree on terms, then SAR will be signed with the MLE.
> 
> Am I wrong on any of this?


I think that those are the three key points. It's hard to tell when/if new information has been introduced. Considering the brevity of the FOX report and the lack of corresponding "done deal" stories from other outlets, I think that it's probable that there's nothing new here substantively.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazerfan024

> ACtually there is nothing to indacte what you say to be true....If you read the facts of the article, Shareef has agreed to take the MLE in the event that Portland and NJ can't come to an agreement...here is a quote by shareef in that article.


umm.."Looks like" does not mean its going to happen. No where did I say its a "DONE DEAL" so please I did read it and I know the facts, and IMO with SAR's agent saying he will take the MLE if a deal cant be reached then if you were NJ would you work so hard to get a deal done with a S&T???


----------



## Schilly

Ed O said:


> I think that those are the three key points. It's hard to tell when/if new information has been introduced. Considering the brevity of the FOX report and the lack of corresponding "done deal" stories from other outlets, I think that it's probable that there's nothing new here substantively.
> 
> Ed O.


actually the Fox sports report is almost word for word trhe first bit of teh Newark Star ledger article, except "conicidental" which was "Ostensibly" in the Star ledger report.


----------



## Schilly

Star Ledger


> The agreement, which cannot be announced until Friday -- ostensibly the day the new collective bargaining agreement is signed -- was confirmed by agent Aaron Goodwin, whose 28-year-old client is expected to step right into the Nets' starting lineup at power forward.


Fox Sports


> The agreement can't be announced before Friday, coincidentally the date the new collective bargaining agreement is set to be signed. However, the deal was confirmed by Abdur-Rahim's agent Aaron Goodwin, whose client should step right into the Nets' starting lineup at the four spot.


Nice regurgitation


----------



## e_blazer1

The Fox report doesn't contain any new information that they've found on their own, it just refers back to the New Jersey Star Ledger as a source. Looking at their webpage, there's the original slanted piece by Dave D'Allesandro that we read this morning and a blog piece that really cites no source.

This whole thing is an example of the media feeding off of themselves and passing off less than the full story because they don't know what the full story is.

I'm still betting on the S&T because it makes the most sense for all parties concerned.


----------



## Schilly

Blazerfan024 said:


> umm.."Looks like" does not mean its going to happen. No where did I say its a "DONE DEAL" so please I did read it and I know the facts, and IMO with SAR's agent saying he will take the MLE if a deal cant be reached then if you were NJ would you work so hard to get a deal done with a S&T???


Just checkin!!!


----------



## Storyteller

Schilly said:


> Nice regurgitation


Coincidentally, the two pieces look very similar.

What are the odds of that happening?


----------



## CatchNRelease

Blazerfan024 said:


> ...and IMO with SAR's agent saying he will take the MLE if a deal cant be reached then if you were NJ would you work so hard to get a deal done with a S&T???


I'm hoping that they want to keep their MLE to sign another FA badly enough that they'll give up the pick/draft rights. That seems to be what Nash is gambling on.

Go Blazers


----------



## schub

I'm not sure why they all reference the Star-Ledger article when the New York Post article actually has quotes from Abdur-Rahim and Goodwin:

http://www.nypost.com/sports/nets/50126.htm


> "Shareef has decided that New Jersey is the place he wants to play next year," Aaron Goodwin, Abdur-Rahim's agent, said last night.
> 
> "I've committed to the Nets, that New Jersey is the place I want to be," Abdur-Rahim said last night. "We're still working toward a six-year deal. But I'm committed to New Jersey."


I'm not sure which went up first last night, but usually the Post is the first to go up.


----------



## Talkhard

I just saw the 11:00 news on TV here in N.J., and the sports guy said that Rahim is definitely signing for the MLE. No sign-and-trade.

For whatever it's worth . . .


----------



## Petey

Talkhard said:


> I just saw the 11:00 news on TV here in N.J., and the sports guy said that Rahim is definitely signing for the MLE. No sign-and-trade.
> 
> For whatever it's worth . . .


You live in NJ?

-Petey


----------



## Trader Ed

Reep said:


> This whole thing is a mess of journalists worrying about getting the scoop before they actually have the news. I get so sick of this garbage journalism. Leave it to the Inquirer and get back to reporting the news.



and now we have until Aug 1 to hear about it more and more


----------



## Trader Ed

Talkhard said:


> I just saw the 11:00 news on TV here in N.J., and the sports guy said that Rahim is definitely signing for the MLE. No sign-and-trade.
> 
> For whatever it's worth . . .



That is probably like watching KATU or KGW or whatever out here.... it only means they are regurgitating the many reports

at least there is one quote saying Rahim is still trying to get a 6 year deal. Which means S&T for Portland


----------



## RedHot&Rolling

*BREAKING NEWS!!!! NOTHING NEW ON THE SHAREEF TO THE NETS AGREEMENT!!!! 

SHAREEF HAS AGREED TO SIGN WITH THE NETS IF THEY CANNOT WORK OUT S&T WITH PORTLAND!!! 

GET YOUR PAPER HERE!! GET YOUR PAPER HERE!!!* 


Blah blah blah blah-blah-blah. Blah blah blah blah blah-di-blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah-blah-blah blah blah blah-blah-blah. Blah-di blah blah blah-blah-blah blah blah blah-blah-blah blah blah blah-blah-blah.

Blah NETS Blah!


----------



## Schilly

RedHot&Rolling said:


> *BREAKING NEWS!!!! NOTHING NEW ON THE SHAREEF TO THE NETS AGREEMENT!!!!
> 
> SHAREEF HAS AGREED TO SIGN WITH THE NETS IF THEY CANNOT WORK OUT S&T WITH PORTLAND!!!
> 
> GET YOUR PAPER HERE!! GET YOUR PAPER HERE!!!*
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah blah-blah-blah. Blah blah blah blah blah-di-blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah-blah-blah blah blah blah-blah-blah. Blah-di blah blah blah-blah-blah blah blah blah-blah-blah blah blah blah-blah-blah.
> 
> Blah NETS Blah!


Someone has sampled enough wine this evening.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling

Schilly said:


> Someone has sampled enough wine this evening.


Yeah so. Was it red or white?

This story has me anxious for some reason. I banked on this summer for the past year and a half - it was/is Nash's opportunity to remake this team. And instead it appears more likely that the team is going forward with only young players and are not interested in obtaining veteran players who might increase our win totals.

So....I'm watching this story like it will somehow prove me right that Nash isn't a failure and will get something of value for NVE, Damon and Shareef, even if it's only a 1st rounder.

Really sad.

Just goes to show how much their (NVE, Damon, Shareef's) VALUE has dropped.

PS: it was red.


----------



## Public Defender

> Report: Nets sign F Shareef Abdur-Rahim
> 
> July 19, 2005
> NEWARK, New Jersey (Ticker) - Free agent forward Shareef Abdur-Rahim reportedly has'nt agreed to a five-year contract with the New Jersey Nets, who were looking to fortify their frontcourt.
> 
> The Newark Star-Ledger reported in Tuesday's editions that the 6-10 Abdur-Rahim, who spent the last one-plus seasons with the Portland Trail Blazers, will *only play for New jersey if they can work with Portland on a sign-and-trade deal. Rahim told reporters that he wants someone to CTC, but that CTC better have a lot of zeros after it. As for signing for the mid-level exception Rahim just laughed.*
> 
> The mid-level exception allows teams over the salary cap to sign players and is expected to be between $4.9 million and $5.2 million once the new collective bargaining agreement is ratified. *Abdur-Rahim said that just wouldn't cut it for him to play with the likes of Jason Kidd and Vince Carter.
> *
> 
> According to the report, Abdur-Rahim could have received a much smaller payday if he didn't hold out for the $38 million deal given to him by the Trail Blazers ...


Thanks, Howie, excuse me HOWIE - I haven't seen a good "CTC" reference in a while.


----------



## Leroy131

The whole approach by the media to this situation is rubbish. If we don't get a 1st or Ilic out of this then it's Abdur-Rahim and Goodwin's fault for painting themselves into a corner with New Jersey, in which case they deserve to lose the $8 million guaranteed money.


----------



## HOWIE

Public Defender said:


> Thanks, Howie, excuse me HOWIE - I haven't seen a good "CTC" reference in a while.


Eh, just thought that it might blow off some steam. I really would have liked to see Portland get a first rounder, but Rahim is the one that really got screwed.....he is out 8 million and Portland is out having to pay a penalty. Go Nets! :clap:


----------



## Ukrainefan

"Having secured a commitment from Shareef Abdur-Rahim, the Nets are working hard to make sure they can continue shopping for free agents. The Nets are trying to hammer out a sign-and-trade with Portland for the free-agent power forward so they can spend their mid-level exception on Miami point guard Keyon Dooling - who will visit the Nets this week - and perhaps a shooter such as Jon Barry or a forward like Malik Allen. According to several sources, the Nets have offered their $4.9 million trade exception along with a future lottery-protected first-round pick that extends beyond the 2006 draft. The Blazers appear to be fixated on acquiring Nets' second-round pick Mile Ilic, but the Nets have no intention of surrendering the 7-1 center." New York Daily News

If this is true it looks like we will get at least a future first out of NJ.


----------



## Zybot

Let's just take the 1st and move on. I don't know much about Ilic, but why would we want another Center project? My hope is that we can either use our 3 firsts to move up in the draft or to convince other teams to take DA for an expiring contract.


----------



## e_blazer1

Check this out from the New Jersey Star Ledger:



> According to a Western Conference general manager yesterday, the Nets may have dodged a bullet when Abdur-Rahim told them of his decision, but there still may be some subterfuge in the next few days. The GM said that the Trail Blazers are now trying to work out a sign-and-trade for Abdur-Rahim with Sacramento and a third team that would entice the free agent with a much larger contract, one in the $60 million region.
> 
> Goodwin said he had no knowledge of any such negotiation, and a Nets official said he didn't expect that to happen. Verbal commitments have been known to be worthless, however, notably last season with Carlos Boozer and the Cleveland Cavaliers.


Link 

Nash is certainly keeping this thing interesting. I don't know if this tactic will work or not, but it's roughly double the Nets' MLE offer. I'm not sure who the third team would be, but presumably it would be a team with cap space that could absorb a player or two from the Kings and pass the Blazers back a draft pick or two.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

Hopefully these reports are true and they are just negotiating the details of the first... ie, what year, what protections, etc.

We need to get a deal done (IMO) - we could really use that pick. Whether or not it turns out to be a great pick or player, it's still an asset that can be used to help Nash make a tough deal... say moving DA or Ruben.


----------



## Dan

e_blazer1 said:


> Check this out from the New Jersey Star Ledger:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Nash is certainly keeping this thing interesting. I don't know if this tactic will work or not, but it's roughly double the Nets' MLE offer. I'm not sure who the third team would be, but presumably it would be a team with cap space that could absorb a player or two from the Kings and pass the Blazers back a draft pick or two.


good find e_b. If this is what happens, and who knows if it will, would Shareef turn down *30* million dollars just to play on a team that *might* be a contender?


----------



## Ed O

I'll be very surprised if Nash can find a three-team deal that brings anything back to Portland.

The Kings want SAR, for sure, and they'd be willing to pay him. But the stuff they have to send to a potential third team (Skinner, Williamson) is practically useless and might entail them sending value with those players to the team with salary space. I don't see why either team would then be willing to send Portland any value. I also don't see why Nash would be interested in helping out at least one Western conference team. But we'll see what he can come up with, and there's certainly little harm in trying.

The story comparing SAR's promise to Boozer's is a false one, though. Boozer was not legally able to make the promise that the Cavs reportedly relied on when they thought he was coming back. SAR hasn't signed anything, clearly, and he could renege, but I don't think that Goodwin or SAR would do that based on where they are now.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan

Ed O said:


> I'll be very surprised if Nash can find a three-team deal that brings anything back to Portland.
> 
> The Kings want SAR, for sure, and they'd be willing to pay him. But the stuff they have to send to a potential third team (Skinner, Williamson) is practically useless and might entail them sending value with those players to the team with salary space. I don't see why either team would then be willing to send Portland any value. I also don't see why Nash would be interested in helping out at least one Western conference team. But we'll see what he can come up with, and there's certainly little harm in trying.
> 
> The story comparing SAR's promise to Boozer's is a false one, though. Boozer was not legally able to make the promise that the Cavs reportedly relied on when they thought he was coming back. SAR hasn't signed anything, clearly, and he could renege, but I don't think that Goodwin or SAR would do that based on where they are now.
> 
> Ed O.


30 million bucks is a LOT of money to throw away because you don't want to "renege" base on where they are now.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

Sacramento makes A LOT of sense for Rahim if he is interested. I think he would fit very well into what they are trying to do...

How might this deal look?

If Portland sends Rahim to Sacramento (over the cap), don't they still have to take salary back? A third team with cap room only makes sense to me if Rahim is being sent there, right? 

In which case, why wouldn't they just sign him if they want him and he would agree to go there?

If we had to take salary back from Sacramento, Bobby Jackson and Greg Ostertag (cut him!) are both expiring and might add up to enough to offer a $60 million contract to Rahim. I think Bobby Jackson + 1st rounder would look way better than what NJ is offering... it also fits the need of what Nash is apparently looking for - a short term signing for veteran backcourt help.


----------



## ProudBFan

*Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*

Nets puttin' the screws to the Blazers: "We want to do a sign-and-trade for Shareef, and we'll give you our Trade Exception and a 2nd-rounder."

Blazers puttin' the screws to the Nets: "Your Trade Exception is useless to us, and that 2nd-rounder is nothing at the tail end of a weak draft. If you want to do a sign-and-trade for Shareef, you gotta pony up your 1st-rounder."

Goodwin puttin' the screws to the Blazers: "Look man, we'll sign with the Nets for the MLE and leave you with nothin' if it comes to that."

Nets puttin' the screws to Shareef AND the Blazers: "Um... Okay. Great. Thanks!"

Shareef puttin' the screws to Goodwin: "What the hell did you just say that for, man! You just cost me 8 MILLION!"

Shareef's wife puttin' the screws to Shareef: "Either you get yourself a new agent, or you're sleepin' on the couch."

PBF


----------



## RedHot&Rolling

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*

Personally, I cannot wait for this one to be done. I am so sick of the drama around Shareef for the past year and a half!!

Just get it done.

Whether or not we get the 1st round pick - doesn't really matter - but we sure better not back down. Let them take it or leave it.

Who do the Nets think Shareef is........Kerry Kittles??? A second rounder!! Pah-leeeese!!


----------



## RedHot&Rolling

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*

The great thing about this particular game of chicken....is we're the one's driving the old--beater!!


----------



## e_blazer1

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



RedHot&Rolling said:


> The great thing about this particular game of chicken....is we're the one's driving the old--beater!!


Nah, the Nets have Kidd.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> .......I think Bobby Jackson + 1st rounder would look way better than what NJ is offering... it also fits the need of what Nash is apparently looking for - a short term signing for veteran backcourt help.


It keeps getting more interesting by the hour. Only three days left, though. Then someone will have to make a real decision.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



e_blazer1 said:


> Nah, the Nets have Kidd.


Disagree! That will be in 2007 or year 3 of the 7 yr contract Kidd signed.


----------



## STOMP

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



ProudBFan said:


> Shareef puttin' the screws to Goodwin: "What the hell did you just say that for, man! You just cost me 8 MILLION!"


after taxes, probably around 500,000 of that 8 is marked for Goodwin's agent fee, so I'd assume that SAR knows they're on the same page as far as trying to make a S&T happen.

STOMP


----------



## Storyteller

The article seems to be pointing towards something like:

Portland sends Abdur-Rahim to Sacramento

Sacramento sends Kenny Thomas to Atlanta

Atlanta sends a future pick to Portland


Atlanta can take the extra salary because it has the cap room. SAR could make about $53.8 million over 6 years in this deal.


A very interesting find, *e_blazer*!


----------



## e_blazer1

Anybody notice how the Oregonian's intrepid reporting duo of Canzano & Quick are not exactly all over this story? Why do we have to go to the New Jersey papers to find out about what's happening on this deal? This morning's paper was a fountain of information about Blazer free agent possibilities. I read with interest that AD was still on the scope (which I found interesting since just last night there was a report on the Net that he didn't like the Blazers' offer of 3 years and had X'd them off of his list). Of course, after firing up my trusty PC, I found that Daniels had agreed to sign with the Wizards.

Nice that the Oregonian manages to stay on top of the activities of the only major professional franchise in town.


----------



## B_&_B

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*

Ya, Shareef and especially his agent are morons for saying they'll take the MLE if a deal cant be worked out. You'd think they'd play hardball with the Nets and start talking to other teams to pressure the Nets into giving in and getting them more $$$. BUT, maybe SAR likes the potential of Ilic, and is fine with taking less money in order to help the franchise he'll probably finish his career with.


----------



## e_blazer1

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



RedHot&Rolling said:


> Disagree! That will be in 2007 or year 3 of the 7 yr contract Kidd signed.


It's a joke, RH&R (probably a bad one). I meant Kidd is the old *wife * beater.


----------



## e_blazer1

Just to be fair to Eric at O'Live, here's an interesting read on the Nets/Blazers/Goodwin trade dance:

Link 

Stick to your guns, John.


----------



## mediocre man

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*

Boy did I ever have the wrong idea when I read the title of this thread.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Ya, Shareef and especially his agent are morons for saying they'll take the MLE if a deal cant be worked out.


Why put the pressure on his future team when he can put the pressure on his former team?

By saying he's going to sign no matter what, it pressures the Blazers to take less than they would.

If he said that he would sign somewhere else (but really wanted to be with the Nets), he would be pressuring his future team to give up more.

Assuming a deal (S&T) will get done if you pressure one side or the other, wouldn't you much prefer to stick it to Nash and help out Thorn. I would be really surprised if a deal doesn't get made, but who wins? 

If Rahim had his way, I'm sure he'd prefer the Nets to get the better end of the deal...


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

Storyteller said:


> The article seems to be pointing towards something like:
> 
> Portland sends Abdur-Rahim to Sacramento
> 
> Sacramento sends Kenny Thomas to Atlanta
> 
> Atlanta sends a future pick to Portland
> 
> 
> Atlanta can take the extra salary because it has the cap room. SAR could make about $53.8 million over 6 years in this deal.
> 
> 
> A very interesting find, *e_blazer*!


I still don't understand why Portland doesn't have to take back salary... perhaps I just don't comprehend the rules in a three-way deal.

I thought that if you sent salary out, you had to take salary back, UNLESS you sent that salary to a team sufficiently under the cap... ie, we send Atlanta Rahim and they send us a pick.

Can you do it indirectly like that - using Sacramento as a buffer between us and the cap room?


----------



## e_blazer1

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> I still don't understand why Portland doesn't have to take back salary... perhaps I just don't comprehend the rules in a three-way deal.
> 
> I thought that if you sent salary out, you had to take salary back, UNLESS you sent that salary to a team sufficiently under the cap... ie, we send Atlanta Rahim and they send us a pick.
> 
> Can you do it indirectly like that - using Sacramento as a buffer between us and the cap room?


The rule for teams over the cap is that they can't *take back* more than 125% + $100K of what they send out in trade. Teams under the cap can take back any amount up til it would put them over the cap. In Storyteller's scenario, the Blazers send out SAR at say $8 mil per year to start. They're just taking back picks, which have no $ value, so they're OK. The Kings are taking back SAR at within 125% of what they're sending out, so they're good. The Hawks have enough cap space to take on Thomas' salary, so it works for them too.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

e_blazer1 said:


> The rule for teams over the cap is that they can't *take back* more than 125% + $100K of what they send out in trade.


Ahhh... I get it. Tricky. Thanks!


----------



## BIG Q

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*

But in this case, the Net's getting the better end of the deal is costing SAR $8 mil! I am possitive he is kicking his own butt for commiting to quickly now. A FRDP usually costs $3 mil. Do the Nets really think that SAR is not worth that extra bit?


----------



## Bookworm

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> I still don't understand why Portland doesn't have to take back salary... perhaps I just don't comprehend the rules in a three-way deal.
> 
> I thought that if you sent salary out, you had to take salary back, UNLESS you sent that salary to a team sufficiently under the cap... ie, we send Atlanta Rahim and they send us a pick.
> 
> Can you do it indirectly like that - using Sacramento as a buffer between us and the cap room?


 If you are over the cap you can always take in less than you send
out. For 2 teams over the cap salaries must be within 125%. Since
we are over the cap we can send trade anyone for a draft pick, as long
as the team we are trading with can absorb the salary.

SAR will make less than thomas so SAC can do this.. Atlanta is far
enough under the cap that they can handle Thomas's salary without
going over, so they can do this trade.


----------



## mook

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*

thanks for posting this, PBF. the Shareef thread is kind of an intimidating monster for me to try to wade through, and it seems you've brought me up to speed pretty quickly. now I'll just check out the last page.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



BIG Q said:


> But in this case, the Net's getting the better end of the deal is costing SAR $8 mil! I am possitive he is kicking his own butt for commiting to quickly now. A FRDP usually costs $3 mil. Do the Nets really think that SAR is not worth that extra bit?


He hasn't committed yet, as far as we know.

And you misunderstand my point. By saying that he is willing to take the MLE, he puts pressure on the Blazers to take less than they want for fear of losing him for nothing.

He has three options:

1. Do nothing.

2. Pressure the Nets into giving up a 1st (Threaten to sign somewhere else)

3. Pressure the Blazers into taking a 2nd (Threaten to sign the MLE)

So, why pressure the Nets when you can pressure the Blazers?

Saying that he is willing to take the MLE is the way to force the Blazers into accepting Thorne's terms. He'll get his money - I am almost positive of that. Hopefully, Portland can get a future 1st.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

If I were Atlanta (or probably any team w/ cap room), I would only do the deal with Skinner as he has a much shorter, cheaper deal than Thomas and he can play center.


----------



## Chalupa

I'm glad Nash isn't helping SAR get more money for nothing. I think his trade demand and his threat to hold out hurt the Blazers chances of getting fair value in return for him last summer. 

If SAR would have kept quiet about not being a happy camper and done what was best for the team, play back-up power forward, I could see Nash helping SAR out and taking just the trade exception.


----------



## Bookworm

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Why put the pressure on his future team when he can put the pressure on his former team?
> 
> By saying he's going to sign no matter what, it pressures the Blazers to take less than they would.
> 
> If he said that he would sign somewhere else (but really wanted to be with the Nets), he would be pressuring his future team to give up more.
> 
> Assuming a deal (S&T) will get done if you pressure one side or the other, wouldn't you much prefer to stick it to Nash and help out Thorn. I would be really surprised if a deal doesn't get made, but who wins?
> 
> If Rahim had his way, I'm sure he'd prefer the Nets to get the better end of the deal...



The best deal for the nets is the Trade exception..Once they use
their mle on SAR they will only have the vet minumum to go after
free agents..If they try to use the TE on another player they will
only have a couple of days to work it out and the other team might
play hard-ball like Nash is...A TE is useless without another team.


----------



## Ed O

e_blazer1 said:


> Nice that the Oregonian manages to stay on top of the activities of the only major professional franchise in town.


Well, I would guess that the Oregonian got a LOT of heat for getting the incorrect 'scoop' on the coachin search and, rather than get it wrong again, they're not even trying.

It's this sort of chilling effect on rumor reporting that I feared when people ripped into the Oregonian for getting things wrong.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1

Ed O said:


> Well, I would guess that the Oregonian got a LOT of heat for getting the incorrect 'scoop' on the coachin search and, rather than get it wrong again, they're not even trying.
> 
> It's this sort of chilling effect on rumor reporting that I feared when people ripped into the Oregonian for getting things wrong.
> 
> Ed O.


It's one thing to report incorrectly that a deal is done (last I checked a certain assistant coach still resides in Phoenix). It's another thing entirely not to report the on-going maneuvering on this trade. Sure, they should be careful to report accurately what is known and what is speculation, but simply ignoring the story shortchanges the readers too.

I thought they covered this kind of thing in Journalism 101.


----------



## BIG Q

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> He hasn't committed yet, as far as we know.
> 
> And you misunderstand my point. By saying that he is willing to take the MLE, he puts pressure on the Blazers to take less than they want for fear of losing him for nothing.
> 
> He has three options:
> 
> 1. Do nothing.
> 
> 2. Pressure the Nets into giving up a 1st (Threaten to sign somewhere else)
> 
> 3. Pressure the Blazers into taking a 2nd (Threaten to sign the MLE)
> 
> So, why pressure the Nets when you can pressure the Blazers?
> 
> Saying that he is willing to take the MLE is the way to force the Blazers into accepting Thorne's terms. He'll get his money - I am almost positive of that. Hopefully, Portland can get a future 1st.


No, I understood. It is just that SAR played this out wrong and put Thorn in the position that he can do nothing and get SAR even cheaper than the S&T. What it comes down to is: 1. Does Thorn want to save that extra year of salary and lower raises to SAR? Or 2. Would he like to utilize his MLE to get Dooling and others? 

There is a huge cost in there. If he saves all that money by giving SAR the MLE how does he fill out his team? Is it worth a possible trip to the finals to save that money? I am betting that Thorn is now trying to S&T for Dooling, thus getting SAR on the cheap (Sans FRDP) and trying to send a SRDP to Miami. 

Thorn has his commitment from SAR at a rock bottom price. Now he turns his attention to Miami and any other team that has a player he is interested in and offers TE and SRDP. That is where the real game is now being played IMHO. 

What are these other teams willing to accept from the Nets to help them out? I doubt Miami will help them at all as they are each others competition to get to the finals.Which brings Thorn back to Portland to negotiate if he is locked onto Dooling and can't get a deal with them.

In summation, SAR can only pressure the Nets. He has no leverage with Portland because Patterson could care less if he gets anything for a player he does not even want. It would just be a bonus, so swing for the fences because he is getting a fourth strike. But he has not signed anything yet, so he has leverage over the Nets to tell them to give up the FRDP/Ilic or he will go else where. He can still do that, may not be likely, but is out there.


----------



## kaydow

Chalupa said:


> I'm glad Nash isn't helping SAR get more money for nothing. I think his trade demand and his threat to hold out hurt the Blazers chances of getting fair value in return for him last summer.
> 
> If SAR would have kept quiet about not being a happy camper and done what was best for the team, play back-up power forward, I could see Nash helping SAR out and taking just the trade exception.


That's a good point (Although it was more Goodwin than SAR) None the less, it still made it hard to deal him for = value.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



BIG Q said:


> It is just that SAR played this out wrong and put Thorn in the position that he can do nothing and get SAR even cheaper than the S&T... Thorn has his commitment from SAR at a rock bottom price.


I don't think that is true. There is probably some stipulation in SAR's agreement... ie, I will take the MLE if the Blazers won't take x. Everything I have read points to the fact that he will sign the MLE IF HE HAS TO...




> In summation, SAR can only pressure the Nets. He has no leverage with Portland because Patterson could care less if he gets anything for a player he does not even want.


Huh? He doesn't care? Then he's stupid. When I get a new car, I'm not going to want my old one anymore, but that doesn't mean that I'm just going to leave it on the side of the road - I'm going to try and sell it (trade), or at least take the lousy return you get with a trade-in (S&T).


----------



## Bookworm

Ed O said:


> Well, I would guess that the Oregonian got a LOT of heat for getting the incorrect 'scoop' on the coachin search and, rather than get it wrong again, they're not even trying.
> 
> It's this sort of chilling effect on rumor reporting that I feared when people ripped into the Oregonian for getting things wrong.
> 
> Ed O.


 When do they get it right? Crapo last week was on the sports radio
and when asked why he didn't mention the Kent story..He came
up with some bs about how he had to check things out and didn't
want to run a story without colabaration. Since when? just call
quack and ask him..

As long as they say "it's rumored" there won't be as much flak..
Not commenting on rumors or trade speculation in the sports
section is not what most papers do..They got hammered because
they didn't say rumored, when they ask Nash a question they 
disregard his answer and print something wrong, they only
write negative stuff (ok 85%), and they are almost always
wrong on what is going on with trades and such...Why
would you want to read someone who is negative and wrong
over 90% of the time?

IMO the less the rag says the better...When they finally get
a real Reporter for the sports section I will care, until then,
I will get my news elsewhere


----------



## B_&_B

take it for whats its worth:



> Shareef Abdur-Rahim: Reportedly Lands with Nets
> 
> RotoWire.com Staff - RotoWire.com
> 
> Wednesday, July 20, 2005
> 
> Update: The New Jersey Star-Ledger is reporting that Abdur-Rahim has decided to accept a five-year deal from the Nets valued between $27 million and $30 million.
> 
> The Nets were not able to work out a sign-and-trade with the Trail Blazers, which would have given Abdur-Rahim more money. Now, the power forward settles for the mid-level exception and joins a team that already includes Jason Kidd and Vince Carter. The signing will not become official until Friday.


----------



## tlong

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> take it for whats its worth:



I ain't buyin' it.


----------



## DrewFix

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Huh? He doesn't care? Then he's stupid. When I get a new car, I'm not going to want my old one anymore, but that doesn't mean that I'm just going to leave it on the side of the road - I'm going to try and sell it (trade), or at least take the lousy return you get with a trade-in (S&T).


most solid point i've read in this albatros of a thread.










oh, wait this isn't the megalith reef thread at all...
i'm no daisy, i'm no daisy at'all.


----------



## Ed O

e_blazer1 said:


> It's one thing to report incorrectly that a deal is done (last I checked a certain assistant coach still resides in Phoenix). It's another thing entirely not to report the on-going maneuvering on this trade. Sure, they should be careful to report accurately what is known and what is speculation, but simply ignoring the story shortchanges the readers too.
> 
> I thought they covered this kind of thing in Journalism 101.


I don't know what they cover in Journalism 101, and to be honest I don't care when it comes to rumors and transactions in professional sports.

I'm not saying that they didn't get it wrong. They clearly did. The *outrage* that accompanied that story was entirely out of proportion, IMO, and it seems that the Oregonian has been burned and won't stick their neck out any more.

That's good for the Blazers, who can now operate without speculative reporting, but it's bad for Blazers fans like me who were interested in reading rumors from the O.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan

Ed O said:


> I don't know what they cover in Journalism 101, and to be honest I don't care when it comes to rumors and transactions in professional sports.
> 
> I'm not saying that they didn't get it wrong. They clearly did. The *outrage* that accompanied that story was entirely out of proportion, IMO, and it seems that the Oregonian has been burned and won't stick their neck out any more.
> 
> That's good for the Blazers, who can now operate without speculative reporting, but it's bad for Blazers fans like me who were interested in reading rumors from the O.
> 
> Ed O.


if the paper reported it as a *rumor* there wouldn't have been the out-rage. They reported it as "fact".

That and ****zano's constant "we obtained a ducument" horse crap. Maybe the Oregonian will learn and get rid of dumb and dumber.


----------



## Ed O

Hap said:


> That and ****zano's constant "we obtained a ducument" horse crap. Maybe the Oregonian will learn and get rid of dumb and dumber.


Or maybe they'll just publish a lot less about the team, and nothing controversial.

What is the deal with people calling Quick and Canzano names, anyway? Are we 10 years old?

Ed O.


----------



## B_&_B

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Why put the pressure on his future team when he can put the pressure on his former team?
> 
> By saying he's going to sign no matter what, it pressures the Blazers to take less than they would.
> 
> If he said that he would sign somewhere else (but really wanted to be with the Nets), he would be pressuring his future team to give up more.
> 
> Assuming a deal (S&T) will get done if you pressure one side or the other, wouldn't you much prefer to stick it to Nash and help out Thorn. I would be really surprised if a deal doesn't get made, but who wins?
> 
> If Rahim had his way, I'm sure he'd prefer the Nets to get the better end of the deal...


You quoted the first sentence in my post... did you not read the last sentence?


----------



## BIG Q

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> I don't think that is true. There is probably some stipulation in SAR's agreement... ie, I will take the MLE if the Blazers won't take x. Everything I have read points to the fact that he will sign the MLE IF HE HAS TO...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? He doesn't care? Then he's stupid. When I get a new car, I'm not going to want my old one anymore, but that doesn't mean that I'm just going to leave it on the side of the road - I'm going to try and sell it (trade), or at least take the lousy return you get with a trade-in (S&T).


The point being is that you own your car. Nash has no claim to SAR, he is not under contract. If he was a RFA that would be different. Sure, Nash wants something if he can get it, but swing for the fences. There is no pressure on him. I like what Nash is doing. I want the Nets FRDP, without any restrictions on it. But the only way to get it is to show you could care less, and that is what he is doing. He has set his price. 

Look, few if any of us seem to upset that Nash is not trying to peddle Damon any longer. We know that for the most part he could care less about where he goes unless he is contacted for a S&T. Then he cares, but shows very little interest to raise the value. Maybe get DA included. 

Same with NVE, Nash figures "go ahead, knock my socks off." Nash still holds the rights to NVE so he can show more interest. Get a little more creative in proposals. Heck, even be able to make a proposal rather just fielding S&T offers.

Sure, SAR has more value than Damon and NVE, but it seems like it is not much more. The best tact seems to appear to care less.


----------



## PorterIn2004

Ed O said:


> Or maybe they'll just publish a lot less about the team, and nothing controversial.
> 
> What is the deal with people calling Quick and Canzano names, anyway? Are we 10 years old?
> 
> Ed O.


Didn't you hear, Ed? In the New Agreement they've done away with age caps regarding obnoxious, petty, and childish name calling. Rumor has it that, while such moves might contribute to the "dumbing down" effect, it's almost sure to increase tensions, raise aggravation levels, and lead to more fighting, all of which should ultimately raise revenue. Sure it comes as a blow to some but, they're assuring us we'll all be better off in the end.


----------



## ProudBFan

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*

Another line-item for the Screw-Fest:

Blazers puttin' the screws to the Nets: "Oh yeah? Well, we'll just see what kinda deal Sacramento is willing to give us for a Shareef sign-and-trade."

As they say in the commercials... "I'M LOVIN' IT!"

PBF


----------



## Dan

Ed O said:


> Or maybe they'll just publish a lot less about the team, and nothing controversial.
> 
> What is the deal with people calling Quick and Canzano names, anyway? Are we 10 years old?
> 
> Ed O.


so, are you going to reccommend people (including yourself) stop calling Patterson and Nash "patternash"?

are you going to email Canzano to have him stop calling Nash, Patterson and Allen the "Three Amigos"?


----------



## tlong

Hap said:


> so, are you going to reccommend people (including yourself) stop calling Patterson and Nash "patternash"?
> 
> are you going to email Canzano to have him stop calling Nash, Patterson and Allen the "Three Amigos"?



There is nothing inherently offensive about the names "Patternash" or "Three Amigos."


----------



## Ed O

Hap said:


> so, are you going to reccommend people (including yourself) stop calling Patterson and Nash "patternash"?


First of all: I'm not recommending anyone refrain from namecalling. I just don't think it's very becoming of our community. It makes us seem petty, though, and it's hard to take other comments seriously when someone's calling names. Just my opinion, of course.

Secondly, I call them PatterNash occasionally for two primary reasons:

1. They, combined, perform the job that Whitsitt did. When we're talking about player contracts or coaching moves or whatever, we could always say, "Whitsitt did XXX." At this point--to me, anyway--the overlap of responsibilities between John Nash and Steve Patterson is unclear. I'm not complaining, because I don't NEED to know the specifics, but when I'm not sure I lump them together as "PatterNash".

2. "PatterNash" is shorter than "Steve Patterson and John Nash" or "Nash and Patterson" and it's also more clear (since Steve Nash plays for the Suns and Ruben Patterson plays for the Blazers, it's possible that mere reference to a last name could cause confusion).

As tlong just posted, there's nothing bad--either inherent or implied--about "PatterNash". Just like there's nothing wrong with "SAR" or "Bassy".

Compare that to "Crapzano" or "Dumb and Dumber" and I don't think it's the same thing.



> are you going to email Canzano to have him stop calling Nash, Patterson and Allen the "Three Amigos"?


Even assuming Canzano's nickname is meant as a slight (and maybe it is, I don't know) I wouldn't email him. He certainly doesn't care what I think, and I don't really care what he thinks, either.

Ed O.


----------



## mavsman

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



BIG Q said:


> The point being is that you own your car. Nash has no claim to SAR, he is not under contract. If he was a RFA that would be different. Sure, Nash wants something if he can get it, but swing for the fences. There is no pressure on him. I like what Nash is doing. I want the Nets FRDP, without any restrictions on it. But the only way to get it is to show you could care less, and that is what he is doing. He has set his price.
> 
> Sure, SAR has more value than Damon and NVE, but it seems like it is not much more. The best tact seems to appear to care less.


I don't get this logic at all. Pretend that if SAR signs for the MLE with the Nets and the Blazers end up with nothing that you don't care? And how does that put pressure on the Nets?

If I am the Nets I can tell SAR that we are trying to work with Portland but they are being unreasonable. We made them a fair offer but they apparently would rather get nothing for you than except our offer.

Also why couldn't the Nets say O.K. SAR sign a one year deal for our MLE and we will immediately sign an extention for 5 years which would make it equivalent to the 8 mil per deal we were going to do on the sign and trade? Is that within the rules?


----------



## ProudBFan

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



mavsman said:


> I don't get this logic at all. Pretend that if SAR signs for the MLE with the Nets and the Blazers end up with nothing that you don't care? And how does that put pressure on the Nets?


Apparently the Blazers are trying to put pressure on the Nets via a 3-team trade involving Sacramento and some other team that will pretty much double what he'll get from the Nets under any circumstance. See the "Shareef may be going to the Kings" thread in this forum.

PBF


----------



## Dan

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



mavsman said:


> I don't get this logic at all. Pretend that if SAR signs for the MLE with the Nets and the Blazers end up with nothing that you don't care? And how does that put pressure on the Nets?
> 
> If I am the Nets I can tell SAR that we are trying to work with Portland but they are being unreasonable. We made them a fair offer but they apparently would rather get nothing for you than except our offer.


Shareef "so wait...I'm not even worth a 1st round draft pick to you guys?"



> Also why couldn't the Nets say O.K. SAR sign a one year deal for our MLE and we will immediately sign an extention for 5 years which would make it equivalent to the 8 mil per deal we were going to do on the sign and trade? Is that within the rules?


Joe Smith knows if that's against the rules.


----------



## mook

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*

the problem with SAR signing a one-year contract is that it leaves him with no security. he's one injury away from getting zilch. see Karl Malone, for example. 

I've wondered about that, though. He's made a ton of dough already. if I were in his shoes, I'd consider just taking the short-term deal and then signing with a team where I could get to the playoffs and regain my 19pt/8reb form. 

Miami would be thrilled to rent him at that price. Shaq has certainly helped more than one guy get a decent contract (Derek Fisher, Mark Madsen, Devean George, etc).

if that were SAR's new strategy, though, I don't see why he'd go to New Jersey before considering Miami.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> You quoted the first sentence in my post... did you not read the last sentence?


So you don't think they're morons then? That's fine...

I responded to your post directly, but this is a point that I wanted to make in general, so I apologize if it seems like I was trying to shred you or something like that when you were considering those aspects at the end of your post.


----------



## Ed O

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



theWanker said:


> if that were SAR's new strategy, though, I don't see why he'd go to New Jersey before considering Miami.


Miami just spent a bunch of money on Haslem. There's no guarantee that SAR would even start for them. At best, SAR would be on the front end of a timeshare at the spot, and at worst he'd be at the back end.

Ed O.


----------



## FeloniusThunk

Ed O said:


> That's good for the Blazers, who can now operate without speculative reporting, but it's bad for Blazers fans like me who were interested in reading rumors from the O.


On the other hand, if the Oregonian doesn't want to even try anymore, then the market opens up for a competitor with a more interesting offering. Win-win, it just takes a little time for the market to adjust.


----------



## Ed O

FeloniusThunk said:


> On the other hand, if the Oregonian doesn't want to even try anymore, then the market opens up for a competitor with a more interesting offering. Win-win, it just takes a little time for the market to adjust.


Perhaps. My understanding is that the barriers to entry for a daily newspaper are considerable, though, especially in a longtime one-daily town like Portland.

Ed O.


----------



## chula vista blazer

I think we're stuck with bad sports reporting until and unless circulation takes a dip downwards.

I also think the reason why the Oregonian didn't break much that's new in the NJ affair is because of a lack of good relations with the Blazers. If I was Nash, I wouldn't leak anything to Canzano. Come to think of it, he had bad relations at Fresno with Tarkanian as well. Not too bright a guy...


----------



## tlong

chula vista blazer said:


> I think we're stuck with bad sports reporting until and unless circulation takes a dip downwards.
> 
> I also think the reason why the Oregonian didn't break much that's new in the NJ affair is because of a lack of good relations with the Blazers. If I was Nash, I wouldn't leak anything to Canzano. Come to think of it, he had bad relations at Fresno with Tarkanian as well. Not too bright a guy...


That didn't seem to be the case when he had Tarkanian on his radio show the other day...


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*

and he woudl jump to a team that was nearly in the Finals... closer than say... NJ was


----------



## BIG Q

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



mavsman said:


> I don't get this logic at all. Pretend that if SAR signs for the MLE with the Nets and the Blazers end up with nothing that you don't care? And how does that put pressure on the Nets?
> 
> If I am the Nets I can tell SAR that we are trying to work with Portland but they are being unreasonable. We made them a fair offer but they apparently would rather get nothing for you than except our offer.


If SAR signs for the MLE it puts no pressure on the Nets. What I am speaking to is that SAR should be pressuring the Nets not to use the MLE and get a deal done. I too would expect this response from SAR:



hap said:


> Shareef "so wait...I'm not even worth a 1st round draft pick to you guys?"


As to a fair offer, I am sure that SAR has heard the term "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." And as Hap pointed out, Joe Smith and Minnesota will tell you all about those "wink-wink" deals.


----------



## Tince

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*

Another SAR thread??? Once this gets merged with the other SAR thread, we may end up with a record length thread.


----------



## ProudBFan

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*

I (starter of this thread) agree. Please merge.

BTW, Eric M. (OLive Blazers Blogger) is gonna be posting the Anatomy of a Screw-Fest to the Blazers Blog soon. He thinks it's hilarious!

PBF


----------



## e_blazer1

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



ProudBFan said:


> I (starter of this thread) agree. Please merge.
> 
> BTW, Eric M. (OLive Blazers Blogger) is gonna be posting the Anatomy of a Screw-Fest to the Blazers Blog soon. He thinks it's hilarious!
> 
> PBF


Link


----------



## chula vista blazer

tlong said:


> That didn't seem to be the case when he had Tarkanian on his radio show the other day...


Time heals all wounds. Check his blog, he mentions a letter from Tark saying that he will never again talk to him.

"But Jerry Tarkanian, who called into the show, said his life was more peaceful after I blew town. I didn't remind him that I'm still in possession of a letter he once wrote to me vowing to never talk to me again after a column I wrote on his program at Fresno State"


Pretty telling , I think.


----------



## Iwatas

http://www.nypost.com/sports/nets/50561.htm

The Nets have offered a pair of second-round picks with their trade exception. The Blazers rejected that proposal and want the draft rights to Mile Ilic, the Nets' second-round pick last month. The Nets refuse to put Ilic in the deal. So according to several league sources, the Nets are preparing to make their next offer a future, lottery-protected first-round pick with the trade exception.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/nets/50561.htm


----------



## arcade_rida

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



Hap said:


> Shareef "so wait...I'm not even worth a 1st round draft pick to you guys?"
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Smith knows if that's against the rules.


But maybe he thinks its going to come in handy later. I mean I don't think he is looking at it like that. He wants to win a championship and having th Clippers 1st + the Nets 1st next year will help a lot.. With those 2 picks they can do a lot of things.


----------



## Dan

*Re: Anatomy of a Screw-Fest*



arcade_rida said:


> But maybe he thinks its going to come in handy later. I mean I don't think he is looking at it like that. He wants to win a championship and having th Clippers 1st + the Nets 1st next year will help a lot.. With those 2 picks they can do a lot of things.


as will being able to get a player or players with the MLE.

if he was interested in winning a championship, he would've gone to a team that actually had a good shot at winning one, San Antonio.


----------



## ProudBFan

LOT of pressure on Thorn right now. On one hand, the Blazers, Kings, Goodwin, and some "mystery team" are reportedly working on a S&T deal that will more than double what Shareef stands to make if he signs with the Nets for the MLE. And on another hand, Orlando just made a 3 year / $9M offer to Dooling.

If Thorn uses his MLE on Shareef, he likely won't be getting Dooling. So if he wants both of them, he better put that 1st rounder on the table asap.

PBF


----------



## Ed O

The latest  (most of it is rehashed, but the first paragraph is new as far as I can tell, even if it doesn't have a lot of info):



> Free agent forward Shareef Abdur-Rahim has agreed to play for the New Jersey Nets, a person familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press on Thursday.
> 
> A team source told ESPN Insider Chad Ford earlier in the week that the Nets were very close to an agreement n a six-year contract worth roughly $38 million.
> 
> To make the deal work under cap rules, the Portland Trail Blazers, who own Abdur-Rahim's rights, would have to agree to sign him to the contract and then trade him to the Nets using a $5 million trade exception that the Nets own, according to Ford. In return, the Nets would send a future first-round pick to the Blazers.
> 
> If the Nets are unable to get the Blazers to agree to a sign-and-trade, Abdur-Rahim has agreed to sign with the Nets for their mid-level exception at five years for about $28 million, the team source told Ford.


Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan

*(Shareef) Done Deal?*

Blazers get the (lotto-protected) 1st rounder + TE from New Jersey. Shareef gets a 6 year, $38M contract.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2113558

PBF


----------



## Schilly

*Re: (Shareef) Done Deal?*

Says teh same dang thing that's been being said all week pretty much, by saying that if the S&T can't be agreed on, he iwll take the MLE.


----------



## Reep

*Re: (Shareef) Done Deal?*

further down:



> If the Nets are unable to get the Blazers to agree to a sign-and-trade, Abdur-Rahim has agreed to sign with the Nets for their mid-level exception at five years for about $28 million, the team source told Ford.


More ESPN jumping the gun I think.


----------



## ProudBFan

*Re: (Shareef) Done Deal?*



Reep said:


> further down:
> 
> More ESPN jumping the gun I think.


Damn these friggin 'news' outlets. They keep regurgitating the same stuff and acting like progress has been made.

The link to this story on their main page makes it sound like it's a done deal.

Nevermind. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Hey Mods, delete this thread, please?

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan

*Re: (Shareef) Done Deal?*

So it looks like we're still waiting for the CBA to go into effect, and that the Blazers and Nets are still discussing the terms of the S&T. I would ask Nash the question flat-out, but I know he'd respond with, "I am not at liberty to discuss it at this time.".

PBF


----------



## goglik

*Re: (Shareef) Done Deal?*

Since Espn reporting this can we assume that it is a done deal. 
Does this deal brings us Clifford Robinson too along with the first round pick?


----------



## ProudBFan

*Re: (Shareef) Done Deal?*



goglik said:


> Since Espn reporting this can we assume that it is a done deal.
> Does this deal brings us Clifford Robinson too along with the first round pick?


It's not a done deal. The only thing about it that's 'done' is that Shareef has made it known that he WILL be a Net next season, one way or another. The Blazers & Nets are apparently still discussing a sign-and-trade deal to make it happen. And if that fails, Shareef will sign for the Nets MLE.

As for Cliffy, dunno. There are rules about signing free agents and then turning right around and trading them. It might be that you can't sign them then turn around and trade them _by themselves_, but maybe you can sign them and then include them in a package.

PBF


----------



## goglik

*Re: (Shareef) Done Deal?*

I dont understand one thing. Why would New Jersey do any trades with Portland, when Shareef is free agent. If they do a trade they loose a pick or something, so why do a deal with Portland if you are New Jersey, when you can just last until July 29th.


----------



## ProudBFan

*Re: (Shareef) Done Deal?*



goglik said:


> I dont understand one thing. Why would New Jersey do any trades with Portland, when Shareef is free agent. If they do a trade they loose a pick or something, so why do a deal with Portland if you are New Jersey, when you can just last until July 29th.


Because if the Nets sign Shareef with their Mid-Level Exception (which is all they would have to sign him with due to being over the salar cap), then it uses up their MLE and they can't sign anyone else (and they have other holes to fill in their roster).

However, if they trade for Shareef, they still have their MLE to use on another player. And because the Blazers hold Shareef's Bird Rights as the team he played for last season, they are the only team who can execute the required sign-and-trade deal that the Nets and Shareef would like to see happen (it would give Shareef and additional $8M-$9M over what he'd get if he simply signs with the Nets for their MLE).

The only sticking point right now seems to be what the Nets are willing to give the Blazers in the sign-and-trade. The Blazers reportedly want the Nets' (lottery protected) 1st rounder next season OR Mile Ilic (lord knows why). And, so far, the Nets have been unwilling to pony up their 1st rounder.

Personally, I'd rather see Nash get the Nets 2007 1st rounder (unprotected) than their 2006 1st rounder (protected), since the 2006 draft is expected to be so weak due to the age restriction kicking in with the new CBA.

PBF


----------



## goglik

*Re: (Shareef) Done Deal?*

Thanks for explanation....I got it now.


----------



## truth

That Thorn is unbelievable...He somehow manages to get Denver to cough up 3 first round draft picks,one of them the Clips unprotected for Kmart who is ridiculously overated..Before all is said and done he manages to get Vince,Shareef and still keep the Clipper pick..Unbelievable


----------



## Reep

Okay, now it is done.

link


----------



## e_blazer1

*Deal Done*

If Chad Ford is to be believed. And Nash gets his 2006 lottery protected first rounder.

ESPN


----------



## Reep

*Re: Deal Done*

Finally. :cheers: 

Now the mile long thread can end.


----------



## e_blazer1

*Re: Deal Done*



Reep said:


> Finally. :cheers:
> 
> Now the mile long thread can end.


I see you beat me to the punch by a minute. Nice work, Reep.


----------



## ABM

*Re: Deal Done*

Wow, three 2006 1st Rounders.

Just imagine what those could be parlayed into. :drool:


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: Deal Done*

This is like the 3rd posting of the article


----------



## ABM

*Re: Deal Done*

What about Uncle Cliffy? Is he headed here, too?


----------



## e_blazer1

*Re: Deal Done*

I think this is a pretty fair deal for all concerned. If GMs weren't such bandits by nature, they could have gotten to this point a lot sooner.

Oh well. I wonder who we'll use that trade exception (that Nash said he had no use for) on . :devil2:


----------



## Trader Ed

So in other words we get the Clipper pick?

just as long as its not a lottery pick...


go Clippers :woot:


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: Deal Done*



e_blazer1 said:


> Oh well. I wonder who we'll use that trade exception (that Nash said he had no use for) on . :devil2:


Gooden


----------



## ProudBFan

*Re: Deal Done*



Reep said:


> Finally. :cheers:
> 
> Now the mile long thread can end.


Which one?

PBF


----------



## e_blazer1

*Re: Deal Done*



Trader Bob said:


> This is like the 3rd posting of the article


As far as I can see it's only the second (Reep beat me by a minute). The other one was a different link.


----------



## BBert

Before this thread goes to thread heaven, I just wanted to remark that it seems weird that probably the longest Shareef Abdur-Rahim thread in history has no contribution from Playmaker. It just seems like something's missing.


----------



## Trader Ed

*Re: Deal Done*



e_blazer1 said:


> As far as I can see it's only the second (Reep beat me by a minute). The other one was a different link.


Reep, you and Ed O... way below... 

Ed O beat you all


----------



## e_blazer1

*Re: Deal Done*



Trader Bob said:


> Reep, you and Ed O... way below...
> 
> Ed O beat you all


Not that it matters in the least, but Ed's is a link to a different story. Reep's was the first to the Chad Ford piece.


----------



## e_blazer1

Blazer Bert said:


> Before this thread goes to thread heaven, I just wanted to remark that it seems weird that probably the longest Shareef Abdur-Rahim thread in history has no contribution from Playmaker. It just seems like something's missing.


He's been posting a bit on the Nets' board. Probably sizing up his new home.


----------



## ProudBFan

Why did the Done Deal thread get merged but the Kings thread did not???

PBF


----------



## e_blazer1

ProudBFan said:


> Why did the Done Deal thread get merged but the Kings thread did not???
> 
> PBF


I'm not a mod (heck, I'm not even a supporting member - (cheap), but I'd guess it's because the Done Deal thread relates directly to the Nets deal. Frankly, I thought it worthy of a new thread just to call attention to the fact that the deal was done. A lot of people may be tired of reading this monster. 

IMO, the Kings thread should just be allowed to die a natural death.


----------



## schub

Trader Bob said:


> So in other words we get the Clipper pick?
> 
> just as long as its not a lottery pick...
> 
> 
> go Clippers :woot:


Impossible. The Clippers pick does not have lottery protection.


----------



## Masbee

Trader Bob said:



> So in other words we get the Clipper pick?
> 
> just as long as its not a lottery pick...
> 
> 
> go Clippers :woot:


What makes you think it would be the Clippers pick?

Are you making a joke, or do you really think this?

For those that might be confused by this post - 

IT IS NOT THE CLIPPERS PICK.


----------



## Reep

*Re: Deal Done*



e_blazer1 said:


> Not that it matters in the least, but Ed's is a link to a different story. Reep's was the first to the Chad Ford piece.


Thank you, Thank you. I would like to thank all of my fans and the little people that supported me along the way.


----------



## e_blazer1

*Re: Deal Done*



Reep said:


> Thank you, Thank you. I would like to thank all of my fans and the little people that supported me along the way.


Guess it matters to *some* people.


----------



## Ed O

schub said:


> Impossible. The Clippers pick does not have lottery protection.


I agree that it's not the Clippers pick, but the Nets could add lottery protection to the pick before sending it to the Blazers, so it's not impossible.

Ed O.


----------



## NetsanityJoe

gj to both sides. nobody gets screwed, everyone is happy. this move makes the nets franchise better, portland franchise better, gives SAR another year and more money and makes goodwin happy.

just wish it got done sooner so we didnt have to go through this drama. so gj to both por & nj. enjoy your pick guys, thanks for doing business :cheers:


----------



## schub

Ed O said:


> I agree that it's not the Clippers pick, but the Nets could add lottery protection to the pick before sending it to the Blazers, so it's not impossible.
> 
> Ed O.


If the Nets added lottery protection to a Clippers pick, what pick would they Blazers get if it landed in the lottery? It would never be the same team's pick.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling

Like pulling teeth!!!

Glad its done. Glad we held out for what we wanted. Sad that SAR is only worth 1/3 of Kenyon Martin.

(Now, let's hope something goes wrong in NJ so that the pick goes to #15!!)


----------



## Webster's Dictionary

NetsanityJoe said:


> just wish it got done sooner so we didnt have to go through this drama. so gj to both por & nj. enjoy your pick guys, thanks for doing business :cheers:


If it had gone through sooner we wouldn't have had anything to talk about the last few weeks, now would we?

I'm wondering about the pick. I'm assuming that it is the Nets pick. If it's lottery protected this year, then do we get it next year regardless?

Also, if it _was_ the Clipps pick (I'm pretty sure it isn't), but if it was, I'm pretty sure that NJ couldn't lottery protect it, because then they would be making that pick, but we wouldn't get one the next year from the Clipps. I guess maybe NJ could give us theirs in 07, but I don't think it would work.

Just for the record, I think the news of the deal deserves its own thread, if for no other reason than to inform people (like me) who wandered through the forum earlier, and didn't decided to come in here to beat the dead horse some more.


----------



## Ed O

schub said:


> If the Nets added lottery protection to a Clippers pick, what pick would they Blazers get if it landed in the lottery? It would never be the same team's pick.


Heh. Good point. It's possible that they could receive the Clippers' pick, unless it's in the lottery, in which case they'd receive the Nets' pick the following year.

It's less likely, of course.

Ed O.


----------



## DrewFix

this is ludacris!!! how many pages do i have to go back to figure out that the deal was friggin' done and what we got? why the hell does the fact that it finaly got done mean that it should be merged with this 25 page thread? 
stupid!
this, in my opininion, is over moderation!


----------



## Trader Ed

That is what I was wondering... as long as it was not a lottery pick we could get it. So if NJ has 2 picks next year, and one is acquired from the Clippers... and that picks is near a lottery pick, but is not.. then why woudl we nto get it?

Do we not get the higher of the 2 picks? I am guessing Nash would not of gone through all of this poker playing without getting some details and assurance of what he is getting

but sorry, I thought it was said the Clippers pick was lottery protected for next year only. But I must of been wrong. so no problem


I guess we shall see when its an officially done deal.

So for the record.... which picks do NJ have next year?


----------



## Trader Ed

I merged it with the Rahim talks because there was several threads started on it already.

and I still have my doubts if this is official or not. Let me see it on NBA.com or Blazers.com or the Nets site....

there has been weeks of speculating


----------



## Dan

DrewFix said:


> this is ludacris!!! how many pages do i have to go back to figure out that the deal was friggin' done and what we got? why the hell does the fact that it finaly got done mean that it should be merged with this 25 page thread?
> stupid!
> this, in my opininion, is over moderation!


don't look at me, I rarely merge threads anymore.

btw, you guys do know that you can adjust your page limit, so instead of a 25 page thread, it'd have 50 posts per page, and be just under 9?


----------



## DrewFix

Hap said:


> don't look at me, I rarely merge threads anymore.


i think i over "exclamated". really though can someone re-post the link or would that be over linking? is it really a "done deal" or what?

and i forgot about the page limit thing. thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Talkhard

> Frankly, I thought it worthy of a new thread just to call attention to the fact that the deal was done. A lot of people may be tired of reading this monster.


Absolutely right. ESPN is reporting a done deal, and they wouldn't do it if they weren't sure. This is very big news and it deserves its own thread. How else will the casual forum member, or someone who doesn't want to wade into this monster, learn about it?


----------



## HB

Wouldnt it be interesting if the blazers gave away another piece that lead to a championship


----------



## Talkhard

> Wouldnt it be interesting if the blazers gave away another piece that lead to a championship


Forcing the Nets to cough up their first-round pick next year is hardly "giving" Rahim away. But if he wins a title with the Nets, I will be very happy for him. He deserves a championship, and he wasn't going to get it in Portland.


----------



## Dan

Hbwoy said:


> Wouldnt it be interesting if the blazers gave away another piece that lead to a championship


wouldn't it be funny if the curse of Shareef was real, and the net's totally sucked next year?


----------

