# Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah rumor threads)



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

*Utah trade is a joke.*

It makes no sense. Okay, lets trade for two 2 guards and then draft Martell Webster, a 2 guard. Basically, you get GG, who has been a bust in three cities already, Kirk Snyder, a guy with a bit of an attitude and not a ton of game, and a high school kid who needs minutes to develop. You basically do the same thing to Martell that you did with Jermaine and Travis. If you are going to draft a kid, let him have some minutes. If Nash makes this trade, we need to run him out of town with Patterson for keeping him. I say stay at three, draft Gerald Green, cut DA, and sign Michael Finley.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*

Is this in reference to a particular thread that's already open? I'm not trying to be merge-police, but with so many Utah rumors around it's hard to know which you're talking about exactly.

Ed O.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*



furball said:


> I say stay at three, draft Gerald Green, cut DA, and sign Michael Finley.




Preach


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*

If the Blazers value Green more than Webster then I fail to see why we would take our 2nd guy in Webster and take another late 1st round prospect, doesn't seem worth it. If the Blazers however value Webster as an equal then I see where they are coming from, and if Green is there when the Jazz pick then it would turn out great.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*

Bucher just reported this on the draft show


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*

Bucher said the deal is close but not a done deal


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



cimalee said:


> Ruben doesn't want to play for the Jazz


Well, I don't want him to play for Portland. 

So I guess the score is 1 to 1.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*

Did ESPN say that Utah deal includes their 27th pick? If so, that's a pretty good trade for Portland. They can probably still get Martell Webster at the 6th pick, and then get a freebie at 27, plus their own pick in the second round. That's 3 picks in the first 35 players chosen!


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Fork said:


> Well, I don't want him to play for Portland.
> 
> So I guess the score is 1 to 1.



I would rather have him than snyder and gordon


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Talkhard said:


> Did ESPN say that Utah deal includes their 27th pick? If so, that's a pretty good trade for Portland. They can probably still get Martell Webster at the 7th pick, and then get a freebie at 27, plus their own pick in the second round. That's 3 picks in the first 35 players chosen!



yep it includes the 27th pick


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Talkhard said:


> Did ESPN say that Utah deal includes their 27th pick? If so, that's a pretty good trade for Portland. They can probably still get Martell Webster at the 7th pick, and then get a freebie at 27, plus their own pick in the second round. That's 3 picks in the first 35 players chosen!


 they also said, we are giving them Monya. That makes the price
to high unless they give us next yrs pick unconditionaly


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



cimalee said:


> Bucher said the deal is close but not a done deal


so was it ruben and the 3 for gordan, snyder and both picks?
never mind...


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



DrewFix said:


> so was it ruben and the 3 for gordan snider and both picks?


correct


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*

Some of you guys live in Portland...would you want to live in SLC?

Go Blazers


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*

The "deal" is ruben the 3 and rights to monya to the Jazz.

We get Snyder/Gordon the 6 and 27


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



cimalee said:


> correct


thanks any way cim, this rules if we can still get webster!


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



CatchNRelease said:


> Some of you guys live in Portland...would you want to live in SLC?
> 
> Go Blazers


 

If I was getting paid millions? Yea, I'd live there for about half the year.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Bookworm said:


> The "deal" is ruben the 3 and rights to monya to the Jazz.
> 
> We get Snyder/Gordon the 6 and 27


waita'minute. AND the rights to monya? now it's not sounding all that great. we havent even seen the cat play for the blazers yet.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Fork said:


> Well, I don't want him to play for Portland.
> 
> So I guess the score is 1 to 1.


LOL :laugh:


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



DrewFix said:


> waita'minute. AND the rights to monya? now it's not sounding all that great. we havent even seen the cat play for the blazers yet.


Psssst.....maybe the Blazers have a secret....Monia probably sucks....

:yes:


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Bookworm said:


> The "deal" is ruben the 3 and rights to monya to the Jazz.
> 
> We get Snyder/Gordon the 6 and 27


I was OK (but not too happy) with the deal, but if it in fact does involve Monya, I am really not happy with it. Nash can make it up to me by hiring Terry Porter... SOON!


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*

we haven't even figured out the correct spelling of his name how can we trade him?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Damian Necronamous said:


> Psssst.....maybe the Blazers have a secret....Monia probably sucks....
> 
> :yes:


No Blazer sucks. No Blazer has ever sucked. No Blazer will EVER suck. (Nanananananana, I'm not listening, I'm not listening)


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*

The deal they had on the screen at the end of the show did NOT include Monia


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Fork said:


> Well, I don't want him to play for Portland.
> 
> So I guess the score is 1 to 1.


Well, *I* want him playing for Portland. Since he's been here he's been one of the very few players to bring it every night. And at least sometimes, that energy is contagious (though I sure don't recall Miles catching that particular bug very often).

That said, because of the team's need to clear some room at the SF position *and* because I don't ever view any player as "untouchable" if moving him will make the team better, I'd be okay. Still, I'd much rather it be Miles heading out.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*

Well too freaking bad Rube!

Btw, I'd be pissed if we trade Monya in THAT deal. Portland's giving up too much. I'd rather not have their #27 pick then.


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*

ESPN did not have monia in the trade


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Blazerben4 said:


> ESPN did not have monia in the trade


Well, they did in the 1st graphic they put up, but not in the 2nd.

I wonder which trade is REALLY on the table.

My guess is the trade NOT involving Monya is more accurate.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Blazerben4 said:


> ESPN did not have monia in the trade




Correct they showed the purposed deal on the screen . It just had Ruben and the 3 pick going to the Jazz


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Utah trade better be contingent*

The Utah trade better be contingent on at least two things:

First, Marvin is not available at 3. If Blazers trade first and Marvin is there, then this pick could end up looking like Sam all over again.

Second, Portland can get out if Charlotte steps up with 5+13. For obvious reason.

The Utah trade isn't that bad, I just want to make sure the Blazers are not locked in until Utah picks. Too much can happen before that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*

I doubt that Utah would be acquiring Ruben because they want him. They'd be taking him because the Blazers would WANT them to. Whether that's wise of the Blazers or not is one thing, but either way it shouldn't affect Utah's actions.

Utah might WANT him to hold out. They could simply suspend him without pay and save themselves hundreds of thousands--maybe millions--of dollars.

I am happy to see this being a "close" deal. Not because I think it's a great deal, but because I fear we'll simply sit at the #3 and pick either Webster or Green... when one of them (at least) would be sitting there at #6 in a deal like this.

I also am intrigued by adding Snyder, and at #27 we could get another decent prospect (or 27 and 35 might be enough to move into the middle of the first round).

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Utah trade better be contingent*

Agreed 100%. I think that I posted those exact two caveats in one of the other %threads about the potential deal.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



> I also am intrigued by adding Snyder


Tell me more. I don't know anything about Snyder, but in the one game against Utah that I saw on TV he looked great.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Ed O said:


> I doubt that Utah would be acquiring Ruben because they want him. They'd be taking him because the Blazers would WANT them to. Whether that's wise of the Blazers or not is one thing, but either way it shouldn't affect Utah's actions.
> 
> Utah might WANT him to hold out. They could simply suspend him without pay and save themselves hundreds of thousands--maybe millions--of dollars.
> 
> ...


Great. That's all we need is 4 more young guys to go with all the young guys. Unless you can get two players in the lottery, I would not want two or three picks in this draft.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Talkhard said:


> Tell me more. I don't know anything about Snyder, but in the one game against Utah that I saw on TV he looked great.


He is very athletic, and he was the offensive focus at Nevada. He was never a great shooter, but his junior (and final) year he showed an improved jumper.

He was rumored to be on Portland's radar for some time last year, but he ended up going to Utah with their second pick in the first round.

I guess the reason I'm intrigued by him is because of his athleticism and his strength. He's still only 22, and he's a natural 2 guard. 

Ed O.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Crimson the Cat said:


> Well too freaking bad Rube!


]

I agree. Who does Ruben think he is? Does he even think for one second the Blazers will consider what he wants? (or Utah, or anyone else for that matter) Nash hates this guy--I hope he doesn't let his personal feelings affect his judgement. I mean, RP's value vs. how much he's worth is about right--it's not like a Shawn Kemp situation. I don't want to make an otherwise bad trade just to rid ourselves of Rube. If they can't move him AND help the team, don't trade him. Who really cares if he runs his mouth? I'm indifferent to it, anymore. 



Crimson the Cat said:


> Btw, I'd be pissed if we trade Monya in THAT deal. Portland's giving up too much. I'd rather not have their #27 pick then.


]

See above.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Talkhard said:


> Tell me more. I don't know anything about Snyder, but in the one game against Utah that I saw on TV he looked great.



Hes a Bonzi wells type player


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*

Portland does not trade for a pair of 2 guards so they can draft another one. The Blazers make this trade because they are targeting Bynum. ESPN has Bynum ranked as the 2nd best center in the draft, and after I watched him in the Jordan Classic, I have to agree. Also, I think he has a bigger upside than Bogut. The kid is only 18 yrs. old and has Shaq like size and moves.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

*Re: Utah trade better be contingent*

96%...cool.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: Utah trade better be contingent*



DrewFix said:


> 96%...cool.


4% :whoknows:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*

They'd better hope that Bynum is the real deal. Trading #3 for two guards that have done nothing in the league and a High School center is assanine.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

*Re: Utah trade better be contingent*



Reep said:


> 4% :whoknows:


the percent sign looks like a little baby 96...


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*

This trade with *UTAH WILL NOT HAPPEN!* My sources indicate this is a smokescreen and the Portland/Charlotte trade will happen.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



cimalee said:


> Hes a Bonzi wells type player


I'd even go out on the limb and say Bonzi is much more of a threat on the basketball court than Snyder. I don't see Snyder being anything more than a career bench player going from team to team. People call him a shooting guard but the dude can't even shoot decently, he reminds me of a poor man's Ruben Patterson in all honesty, with less energy and hustle.


----------



## Pure Scorer (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*

I think taking Bynum at #6 is a good move, but I think they'd be better off getting Humphries and drafting Webster. Bynum and Zach do not seem like they would work well together in the post (they would clog the lane, which wouldnt let telfair penetrate. They both have a similar game, although zach can extend the d with his range somewhat, but i still don't like the idea of having two big-bodied primarily low post players playing heavy minutes together, especially when your pg relies on penetration as much as telfair does) so unless you were also planning on trading Zach, I wouldn't take Bynum. 

If the blazers could get Humphries I would do that trade in a second. Humphries provides a backup Pf, and zach could play some minutes at C if you need more minutes for Humphries. He also has a lot of potential, could turn out to be better than Randolph, and would fit nicely with what the blazers are trying to do.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

*Re: Utah trade better be contingent*

The reason this trade will not happen is because it is right there in the open, it's a huge smokescreen in order for the Blazers to trade with the Bobcats. There is no way the Bobcats will not have Chris Paul by the end of the draft.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*

I will crown Nash as a genious if he some how parlays the 3rd pick into Gerald Green and Bynum/Digou/another good prospect.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*

no way to get green and bynum - both certain top 10 picks at this point.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*



SolidGuy3 said:


> This trade with *UTAH WILL NOT HAPPEN!* My sources indicate this is a smokescreen and the Portland/Charlotte trade will happen.


Great. A 20 year old with sources.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*



crowTrobot said:


> no way to get green and bynum - both certain top 10 picks at this point.


Hey crow: how many of your 27 posts have been dedicated to proclaiming where Bynum is going to go in the draft? I swear I've seen at least five posts where you've said he won't be available at X.

Not a huge deal, but it seems like a weird thing to be a broken record over...

Ed O.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*



furball said:


> Great. A 20 year old with sources.


Just trust me furball. If it doesn't happen I'll take the blame but I'm 100% certain this trade will happen.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*

If Nash can parlay #3 into Green or Webster at #5 and someone like Bynum or Vasquez at #13 then he's a genius.

If Nash can parlay #3 into Green or Webster at #6 and A-Vicious at #27 then he's a genius

If Nash can parlay #3 into Bynum at #6 and Salim Stat-Amire at #27 then I'll never root for this team until he is fired.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*

Thinking more about this I am just so concerned that Nash will "F" this up. I am not the GM nor do I claim to be but here's my choices (ranked):

#1: Trade 3 for 5 and 13 (draft webster and vasquez if available) :banana: 
#2: Trade 3 and Rube for 6 and 27 (draft webster and diogu if available) :clap: 
#3: Keep the pick and take webster/green :biggrin: 
#4: Hire frickin' TP already! :cheers: 

Do not:

#1: Trade with the Lakers under any circumstance. For some reason they would luck out and get a star! :curse:
#2: Include Monia unless we absolutly have to.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*



Ed O said:


> Not a huge deal, but it seems like a weird thing to be a broken record over...


and it seems like a weird thing to call someone out over :biggrin: 

if i seem obsessed it's because i think the blazers should take bynum at 6. i think he is more special and has more potential to have long term impact towards building a championship team than either green or webster.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*

I saw some clips of Bynum and I have to admit I was pretty impressed. I'm surprised he hasn't gotten a little more run from mock drafts and fans. That must be because most of us just see these HS players in the all-star games which don't favor the big men. But what I saw from Bynum was a 7 footer with soft hands, good foot-work and very good coordination for his size and age. Not that you can tell a lot from highlite clips.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke.*



SolidGuy3 said:


> This trade with *UTAH WILL NOT HAPPEN!* My sources indicate this is a smokescreen and the Portland/Charlotte trade will happen.


I seriously hope you and your source are right, SolidGuy. Because I really don't care for any of the Blazers/Jazz scenarios that have been discussed on this forum so far.

Chris Paul's stock is rising fast, and Charlotte may just want him bad enough to give us their #5 amd #13 for him + filler. I just worry about them seeing Antoine Wright or Raymond Felton as viable options and decide to keep their picks.

Aw heck. I'd be okay with keeping the #3 and simply taking Green or Webster.

PBF


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*

I don't get it. I just don't understand why Portland would make this deal.

They move down, why? To pick up #27? Their roster is full enough of young players, they don't need another guaranteed contract that comes that low in the draft. If it's another lottery pick, that's different in my mind. But can the Blazers really find someone at #27 who can leapfrog over the other young guns to get playing time? If not, why get another guaranteed contract?

There's no cap savings. Snyder is guaranteed at least as long as Patterson. Giricek has one year more than Patterson. Is Patterson that much of a "bad seed" that he has to be moved?

I'm no fan of Giricek - he has yet to prove any consistency in shooting and has a reputation of having a poor attitude. Snyder might develop, but certainly didn't perform above expectations this last year.

I don't see why this rumor would be appealing to the Blazers.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*

trust your instincts.....

I wonder if another team is not involved in this, or as others have speculated.... its to draw out Charlotte to commit to their 2 picks instead.


We would go from SF overload to SG overload. makes me wonder too

We already have DA and Monia (if he is not included.. which I hope he is not)

and are adding Giricek, Snyder

and drafting probably either Green or Webster

but me thinks if this deal goes down it will be Bynum instead



remember all those Sheed for Jamison rumors???? it did not happen did it?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*



Storyteller said:


> I don't get it. I just don't understand why Portland would make this deal.
> 
> They move down, why? To pick up #27? Their roster is full enough of young players, they don't need another guaranteed contract that comes that low in the draft. If it's another lottery pick, that's different in my mind. But can the Blazers really find someone at #27 who can leapfrog over the other young guns to get playing time? If not, why get another guaranteed contract?
> 
> ...



The only way this rumor should be appealing to the Blazers is that it might "encourage" Charlotte to step up. Other than that the entire board agrees with you Storyteller


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*

I Just hope solidguy3 has credible sorces but if not I still think its a gain for portland we get Webster either way


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*



mediocre man said:


> The only way this rumor should be appealing to the Blazers is that it might "encourage" Charlotte to step up.


I've been thinking about that tonight - and I've read this thread with speculation to that point.

One thing I haven't seen anybody mention, though, is that Charlotte made 4 qualifying offers today. Raises the chances significantly that they will have 8 returning players from this last year and not just the 4 who are under contract today. Coincidence? Or is this a prelude to them trading up, using their 2 lottery picks to get a higher one? I'm not saying that their move is a definitive statement, but simply that it's interesting.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*



Storyteller said:


> I've been thinking about that tonight - and I've read this thread with speculation to that point.
> 
> One thing I haven't seen anybody mention, though, is that Charlotte made 4 qualifying offers today. Raises the chances significantly that they will have 8 returning players from this last year and not just the 4 who are under contract today. Coincidence? Or is this a prelude to them trading up, using their 2 lottery picks to get a higher one? I'm not saying that their move is a definitive statement, but simply that it's interesting.


No doubt... I had not seen that they did that today. Thanks for pointing that out, Storyteller! That is really interesting. Makes you wonder, huh? :biggrin:


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*

What's with the huge Bynum love-fest today? I swear, one week ago, hardly any of you guys had even heard the dude's name. And now all of a sudden I'm seeing posts from people here saying they'd be happy if Nash were to pull the strings it takes to take Bynum at #6? At #5???

I know we're in the market for a good backup PF, but COME ON, PEOPLE! Bynum may be impressing people in workouts, but do you SERIOUSLY pass on Gerald Green, Martell Webster, Channing Frye, or Antoine Wright to get him? Immediate impact players for a backup / project? AT #5???

REALLY???

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*



Storyteller said:


> One thing I haven't seen anybody mention, though, is that Charlotte made 4 qualifying offers today. Raises the chances significantly that they will have 8 returning players from this last year and not just the 4 who are under contract today. Coincidence? Or is this a prelude to them trading up, using their 2 lottery picks to get a higher one? I'm not saying that their move is a definitive statement, but simply that it's interesting.


Well, they're definately keeping their options open. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the qualifying offers automatically kick in, making the players theirs (and tradeable), after 24 hours?

PBF


----------



## adotjames (Jun 21, 2005)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*



ProudBFan said:


> What's with the huge Bynum love-fest today? I swear, one week ago, hardly any of you guys had even heard the dude's name. And now all of a sudden I'm seeing posts from people here saying they'd be happy if Nash were to pull the strings it takes to take Bynum at #6? At #5???
> 
> I know we're in the market for a good backup PF, but COME ON, PEOPLE! Bynum may be impressing people in workouts, but do you SERIOUSLY pass on Gerald Green, Martell Webster, Channing Frye, or Antoine Wright to get him? Immediate impact players for a backup / project? AT #5???
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more. I think we may be forgetting about our last little project at center (Ha), not to mention former top ten selection Joel Pryzbilla. If Nash leaves this draft with Giricek as our long awaited answer at the 2, it will be a sad sad day in Blazer country.


----------



## Leroy131 (Mar 11, 2004)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*

I still have to believe that the Utah deal is being leaked to put the sweats on Charlotte (or anyone else wanting the pick). If they have to settle (and assuming they're still getting the guy they would take at #3 @ #6), I don't think the Utah deal is terrible if we pick up a couple of assets in Snyder (who can become an effective player) and the #27, where we're bound to find a worthwhile frontcourt player (Taft, Simien, Diogu, Blatche, etc.). I just worry a bit that Charlotte will take Webster #5. 

And I'll echo PBF's thoughts on Bynum - take the lovefest somewhere else.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*

...is still being hotly discussed:

Blazers send the #3 pick and Ruben Patterson to Utah for Gordon Giricek, Kirk Snyder, the #6 pick, and the #27 pick.

They even reported that Ruben is saying he doesn't want to play for Utah, so they seem to be up-to-date on their info.

Damn. I *really* hope this one doesn't pan out. I don't really care for either Giricek or Snyder, I doubt either Green OR Webster will be there at #6, and with the #27 pick you're just going after the best player available anyway.

PLEASE GOD, LET THIS BE NOTHING MORE THAN A SMOKE-SCREEN!

:gopray:

PBF


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*



ProudBFan said:


> ...is still being hotly discussed:
> 
> Blazers send the #3 pick and Ruben Patterson to Utah for Gordon Giricek, Kirk Snyder, the #6 pick, and the #27 pick.
> 
> ...


Well, one of: 

Bogut, M. Williams, Paul, D. Williams, Green or Webster WILL be there at the #6 pick, otherwise somebody has picked two guys, which is illegal. And if Green and Webster are gone, it's because a higher rated prospect slipped to us, so we'd be stoked. But I doubt that all these teams are moving up to the #3 pick to select the guys we want. I think Green goes 5th and we get Webster at #6. 

Giricek is okay, at least a decent backup SG who can shoot. Snyder is a year removed from being a mid first round pick. Even if we don't want/need him, he's still a fairly valuable commodity. We can always trade him for somebody else later in part of a package. So that's basically 3 first round picks for 1 first round pick. Sounds like a pretty decent deal to me.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*

I just saw it being discussed on SportsCenter. Blegh. Hope not. How would this make any sense?


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*

I think it is getting out there and I think it is a smokescreen. Nash put this out there for Charlotte to hear and put pressure on them to step up their offer. Time will tell if this works. I really doubt the deal goes through though. The names Snyder and Giricek showed up because they play the SG position, not because we really want them. All teams know we need SGs so anyone who wants the 3rd pick would take this seriously considering we would be getting players at a position of need.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*



ProudBFan said:


> ...is still being hotly discussed:
> 
> Blazers send the #3 pick and Ruben Patterson to Utah for Gordon Giricek, Kirk Snyder, the #6 pick, and the #27 pick.
> 
> ...


I couldn't possibly agree more, bro'! This deal, if used as a smokescreen, to entice Bernie to cave in... then I'll be STOKED! However, if a deal goes through with Utah, we don't land Green/Webster at #6, and we don't pick up Humphries in the deal, I'll be rather disappointed. I'd rather Nash just take "his guy" (be it Green or Webster... I want Green :cheers: ) at #3 and call it a day. I'd MUCH rather he do that, as opposed to handing a divisional rival a stud PG prospect for a pair of "decent" SG's and a lower draft pick... ugh... the thought, alone, of this happening, is damn-near enough to make me sick to my stomach. Though, I must say that it is a little better than the "much anticipated" deal between the Blazers and the Lakers, as was being reported a few days ago.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*



mediocre man said:


> Other than that the entire board agrees with you Storyteller


I don't. I am not in LOVE with the rumored move, but I find it significantly better than simply sitting at #3 and taking Bynum (or whomever we'd want to take at 6).

I look at the Blazers roster and I see a dearth of depth and a dearth of talent. I see young guys, but I don't see many sure things--or even "probable things".

Adding Snyder and the #27 in addition to whomever we'd take at #6 gives us two more chances for players that will make an impact in the league. Their salaries will be minimal: Snyder has less than $3m guaranteed over the next two years before the team has an option on him for less than $2.5m, and whomever we get at #27 would make significantly less over the two guaranteed years before Portland gets two option years under the new CBA.

I'm not in love with Giricek, but he's a less-than-MLE guy that could fill a role as a shooter either for Portland or another team... he'd be easier to move than DA or Ruben because of his smaller contract IMO.

Remember that this team last year had to use Geno Carlisle, James Thomas, and Maurice Baker. It planned on relying on Richie Frahm heading into the season and it chose to sign, and then use, 19 year-old Ha Seung-Jin. And remember that Portland stands to lose Damon, NVE, and SAR as free agents. 

This is a team that needs players and it needs prospects and it needs to watch its budget. This kind of deal accomplishes those things to me.

I've got my fingers crossed that Charlotte steps up to the plate with the 5 and 13, but I'll live with this rumored deal.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*



Fork said:


> Bogut, M. Williams, Paul, D. Williams, Green or Webster WILL be there at the #6 pick, otherwise somebody has picked two guys, which is illegal. And if Green and Webster are gone, it's because a higher rated prospect slipped to us, so we'd be stoked. But I doubt that all these teams are moving up to the #3 pick to select the guys we want. I think Green goes 5th and we get Webster at #6.


For some reason, this basic math eluded me in the other thread, but you're TOTALLY right here, Fork: if Portland likes those six guys, they're going to get one. It's possible they'll have their choice between two of them, if something crazy happens.

I've discussed my thoughts on the rest of the value of the package elsewhere, but (like you) I think it's not too bad.

Not great, but not bad.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*

Getting back to the premise of this thread: I wonder whether the local FOX station had new info, or was just repeating what ESPN "learned". Nowadays mere repetition of a story doesn't seem to be an indicator of its truth 

Ed O.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*

I don't see Snyder as better backup than Monya. Monya is an athetlic defender but he also has a jumpshot. 

If we cut Anderson and Frahm, we will be needing guards. But Monya, Snyder, Gircek and Webster/Green/Wright is a little much, and will also take minutes away from Travis Outlaw. 

Ruben Patterson on the other hand, will come in very handy as a backup PF. Otherwise, we'll wind up bringing in some CBA scrub.

I just don't think we'll get anything that valuable at 27, and Gordon/Snyder are not too thrilling either.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*



CanJohno said:


> I couldn't possibly agree more, bro'! This deal, if used as a smokescreen, to entice Bernie to cave in... then I'll be STOKED! However, if a deal goes through with Utah, we don't land Green/Webster at #6, and we don't pick up Humphries in the deal, I'll be rather disappointed. I'd rather Nash just take "his guy" (be it Green or Webster... I want Green :cheers: ) at #3 and call it a day. I'd MUCH rather he do that, as opposed to handing a divisional rival a stud PG prospect for a pair of "decent" SG's and a lower draft pick... ugh... the thought, alone, of this happening, is damn-near enough to make me sick to my stomach. Though, I must say that it is a little better than the "much anticipated" deal between the Blazers and the Lakers, as was being reported a few days ago.


I completely agree, but if the Blazers don't end up with Green I'll be very dissapointed. I don't care if Jesus Christ is available with our draft pick, I really want us to take Green. I don't really like this deal and I DO believe it is out there for everyone to hear so it can make Charlotte sweat a little but if it does happen the best case scenario is ending up with Green at 6 and Blatche with the 27. I wouldn't be thrilled with Snyder but whatever.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*

I don't understand the hatred for this deal. It's like anything less then getting the 5/13 and were better off staying at #3 even though Green and/or Webster will be there at #6. Why would we NOT want an additional pick plus a couple players that fill a need on this team. I don't like Giricek or Snyder that much but they both have shorter and cheaper contracts then Patterson making them easier to throw into a deal.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*



Sambonius said:


> I completely agree, but if the Blazers don't end up with Green I'll be very dissapointed. I don't care if Jesus Christ is available with our draft pick, I really want us to take Green. I don't really like this deal and I DO believe it is out there for everyone to hear so it can make Charlotte sweat a little but if it does happen the best case scenario is ending up with Green at 6 and Blatche with the 27. I wouldn't be thrilled with Snyder but whatever.


Word! :cheers: Well, lets just hope our questionss are answered (correctly) tomorrow! :biggrin:


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: Ruben does not want to play for Jazz*



Bookworm said:


> The "deal" is ruben the 3 and rights to monya to the Jazz.
> 
> We get Snyder/Gordon the 6 and 27



That trade was shot down by Nash a long time ago.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*



Spoolie Gee said:


> I don't understand the hatred for this deal. It's like anything less then getting the 5/13 and were better off staying at #3 even though Green and/or Webster will be there at #6. Why would we NOT want an additional pick plus a couple players that fill a need on this team. I don't like Giricek or Snyder that much but they both have shorter and cheaper contracts then Patterson making them easier to throw into a deal.


 I agree...


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*



Spoolie Gee said:


> I don't understand the hatred for this deal. It's like anything less then getting the 5/13 and were better off staying at #3 even though Green and/or Webster will be there at #6. Why would we NOT want an additional pick plus a couple players that fill a need on this team. I don't like Giricek or Snyder that much but they both have shorter and cheaper contracts then Patterson making them easier to throw into a deal.


Utah deal likely gives us Webster, Snyder, Giricek and #27. It also gets Patterson's contract off the books and helps clear up the SF log-jam.

Charlotte deal likely gives us Webster OR Green and our pick of Antoine Wright, Fran Vasquez, Andrew Bynum, Rashad McCants, Sean May, Ike Diogu, Chris Taft, or Martynas Andriuskevicius.

Yeah, I guess I could live with either one... but I'm really not sold on Snyder or Giricek as anything more than potential trade-bait (and mediocre trade-bait at that).

PBF


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*

PBF-

Didn't you really like Snyder last year?


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*



ProudBFan said:


> Utah deal likely gives us Webster, Snyder, Giricek and #27. It also gets Patterson's contract off the books and helps clear up the SF log-jam.
> 
> Charlotte deal likely gives us Webster OR Green and our pick of Antoine Wright, Fran Vasquez, Andrew Bynum, Rashad McCants, Sean May, Ike Diogu, Chris Taft, or Martynas Andriuskevicius.
> 
> ...


 
Yea, I'd take the #5 and #13 deal every day of the week and twice on Sunday over the Utah trade. But it's not looking like Charlotte will give up both picks.  So I guess this is better then nothing especially if Nash isnt 100% sold on Green.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*



Tince said:


> PBF-
> 
> Didn't you really like Snyder last year?


I dunno. Maybe, but I don't remember being on the Snyder bandwagon last season. I think I was just more anti-Telfair @ #13 than pro anything else. If you can post a link to remind me who I was pulling for last season, I'd appreciate it... because I just can't remember now.

PBF


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*

I wouldln't give up Marvin Williams for anything short of a combination of either Green/Webster and Bynum. 

Marvin appears to have the best chance of being a star in this league. I think Bynum as the chance to be the most dominate player in the draft, and Green having more superstar potential than Webster.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Damn. Local FOX news reporting Utah deal...*



ProudBFan said:


> I dunno. Maybe, but I don't remember being on the Snyder bandwagon last season. I think I was just more anti-Telfair @ #13 than pro anything else. If you can post a link to remind me who I was pulling for last season, I'd appreciate it... because I just can't remember now.
> 
> PBF


 I have no link, I just thought I remember you wanting us to pick Snyder. It's very possible you just didn't like the Telfair pick and since Snyder seemed like the logical choice, you said we should take him over Telfair.

I'm curious now what you think of picking Telfair at #13. I'm assuming you wouldn't even consider trading Telfair for Synder.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

keep in mind guys, just because Green has the most chance of becoming a super star doesn't necessarily make him the most attractive. How far into the playoffs have teams with Tracy McGrady gotten? 

I would MUCH rather have a guy who could come in and play well with Telfair, Outlaw, Zach, Miles, and Joel. Someone who isn't going to have an ego trip. Green may have all the talent in the world, but if he's got the ego to go with it he's no use to us. How well have the Lakers done with Kobe and no Shaq?

Personally I would rather have a bomber than an athlete. A Ray Allen instead of a Vince Carter. If Webster can be that Ray Allen then I say take him over Green. 

And another thing, I still hold out hope that we could trade the pick for an established player. I havne't been up on the boards, did anyone ever think that New York traded for Quentin Richardson specifically to make a deal with us? We like Richardson, he's friends with Miles, and NY has no need for another shooting guard. 

Anyone ever consider QRich and the #8??? Would you do that deal?


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

NateBishop3 said:


> Anyone ever consider QRich and the #8??? Would you do that deal?


It seems to me that DA has been as good (if not a better) shooter than Q Rich over his career. 

I also don't think that a Richardson/Miles combo is going to help the team gel, it might just seperate it more.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

NateBishop3 said:


> Anyone ever consider QRich and the #8??? Would you do that deal?


For Ruben and the #3? The salaries don't quite match up even under the new CBA (where Ruben's $2m signing bonus would not fit within the 25% buffer) and NY would be restricted from packaging Q with any other players.

Assuming the salaries could work, it's a tough call. Especially if Bynum is considered by the Blazers to be on the same level as a prospect as Green and Webster.

I know Hap would probably hate this. He's not a big Richardson fan iirc.

Ed O.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I don't think the deal is official yet, is it? I remember reading something a day or two ago that said it hadn't gone through yet. If it weren't consumated until day of the draft he could still be moved.

Oh, and edited to add that QRich broke Dan Majerle's three point record with the Suns last year, so I would have to say he is probably a better shooter than DA ever was. That doesn't mean he's the kind of shooter we need, but I don't think I would compare Richardson to...cough.... DA.... That's a slap in the face :biggrin:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

NateBishop3 said:


> I don't think the deal is official yet, is it? I remember reading something a day or two ago that said it hadn't gone through yet. If it weren't consumated until day of the draft he could still be moved.


It's not official from what I've seen, but he can be moved on his own at any time whether he's a Sun or a Knick. He can also be part of a three-way deal, I suppose, as part of a deal with Portland/Phoenix/NY.

Once the Knicks have him, though, they can't package him with any outgoing players for two months (except if the other team has a trade exception, in which case they could trade a second player for that trade exception and Richardson for an assigned player exception).

Of course, that's the current CBA, not the upcoming one, so things might shift a bit.

Ed O.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Yeah, that's what I thought. So it IS something to consider. It was a thought that crossed my mind after I heard the Knicks were trading for him. The deal made no sense to me. Not saying it's GOING to happen, just something to keep in the back of your mind :biggrin:


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Quentin Richardson is yuck, a younger and more athletic version of Derek Anderson. I would not welcome his addition to this team.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

On KGW, Nash said he wanted to maximize the value of the No. 3 pick. If the Blazers could get their man of Webster or Green and add another pick, why not do it?
The more I see Webster, the more I'm starting to like him. Green's stock seems to be starting to fall a bit, as far to the Lakers at No. 10. Jay Bilas even had him behind Webster as the top shooting guards in the draft.
Webster also seems to be more of the good character-type player that this team covets now.
I'll be happy with either guy.

As far as the Utah trade, it's not a terrible trade, but not exactly the greatest. You get rid of Ruben's contract, then cut DA and you relieve yourselves of those two.
Snyder and Giricek will provide some competition at the much needed 2 spot.

After weeks of mystery with what the Blazers are going to do, even confusing some GMs along the way, now it's being made known what they're going to do the day before the draft? I fail to believe this trade is "the one" that will ultimately go down.
Some trade will happen though, I think. I can't wait for tomorrow. This is exciting! Please.. don't blow it Nash!


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

dont be surprised if the utah trade happens that the blazers then package the #27 and the #35 together to move up in the first round again

say maybe to one of Denver's two late firsts
#20 or #22


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

alext42083 said:


> On KGW, Nash said he wanted to maximize the value of the No. 3 pick. If the Blazers could get their man of Webster or Green and add another pick, why not do it?
> The more I see Webster, the more I'm starting to like him. Green's stock seems to be starting to fall a bit, as far to the Lakers at No. 10. Jay Bilas even had him behind Webster as the top shooting guards in the draft.
> Webster also seems to be more of the good character-type player that this team covets now.
> I'll be happy with either guy.
> ...



Why in the world would we want to get rid of Ruben's contract for two contracts that are longer in length?


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

*Utah ups the ante?*

Steve Luhn of the Salt Lake Tribune writes Jazz push harder to get Williams: Like players in a high-stakes poker game, nobody involved in the scramble for Portland's No. 3 pick in the NBA draft tipped their hand Monday...In an attempt to jump ahead and select Illinois point guard Deron Williams, The Salt Lake Tribune has learned that the Jazz have offered Portland the No. 6 and No. 27 picks in this draft, as well as a future first-round pick. Shooting guard Gordan Giricek could also be included in the deal. 

http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_2828356


I don't know... If it was unconditional, and maybe if it was Snyder instead of Gordon.

I think I might consider Ruben and #3 for the 6th, the 27th, a future first rounder, and Snyder.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Utah ups the ante?*

This tells me the "done deal" between Utah and Portland that was announced on ESPN last night was not "done" at all. I suspect some other teams may be coming forward with new offers today for the #3 pick.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

*Re: Utah ups the ante?*

Agreed... I don't think Nash, being the super patient man that he has displayed over the past two years, would consumate a deal the night BEFORE the draft. Why not wait until the very last minute and see what else happens to come your way? 

You gotta know when to hold 'em Johnny!!!! :biggrin:


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

*Re: Utah ups the ante?*

My only hope is that we don't take Bynum over Webster or Green if we trade down to six. I think I would be physically sick.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: Utah ups the ante?*

Absolutely agreed. Wait it out. The noose tightens.

Like I posted in PBF's thread: What we do signals who our dance partner is. 
MWilliams - keeper
Paul - Charlotte
DWilliams - Utah

Nash is too veteran to pull a rook move too early today. Everything has to remain contingent until our PICK is also secured.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

*Re: Utah ups the ante?*

God I love Draft day! :banana: :clap: :banana: 

The offseason is seriously the best time of year for us blazer fans. That's why the past two summers have been so hard. Trader Bob used to keep us happy. He understood that the offseason was all we had to look forward to :biggrin:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: Utah trade is a joke. (merged Utah threads)*



ProudBFan said:


> What's with the huge Bynum love-fest today? I swear, one week ago, hardly any of you guys had even heard the dude's name. And now all of a sudden I'm seeing posts from people here saying they'd be happy if Nash were to pull the strings it takes to take Bynum at #6? At #5???
> 
> I know we're in the market for a good backup PF, but COME ON, PEOPLE! Bynum may be impressing people in workouts, but do you SERIOUSLY pass on Gerald Green, Martell Webster, Channing Frye, or Antoine Wright to get him? Immediate impact players for a backup / project? AT #5???
> 
> ...



if we can eventually upgrade at SG via FA/trade yes. dominant centers are what win championships more than anything else, and if rumors are accurate he has real potential to be one. if blazers interest in him is all a smokescreen and he's more of a project than rumored, sure, you're right. otherwise assuming utah trade goes down i'd take the chance on him at 6 or lower, particularly since it sounds like bobcats are looking at webster leaving us with green at 6, and i'm not sold on green being "immediate impact". and i don't consider either green or webster as meriting value of #3 with the potential trades out there - good chance we could squeeze more out of utah than anyone has said so far.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

The Oregonian is saying Randolph for Boozer 

It can not happen as I previously stated... Zach is a poison pill until July 1, then he becomes BYC making it much more complicated and having to wait until Friday

Previous rumor: (Jazz agree to take on Ruben?)
Deseret News

Salt Lake tribune


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

An update on RealGM



> Portland is reportedly adamant about keeping things open for another team to come in at the 11th hour with a deal that they’d prefer.
> 
> It is not a negotiation tactic to squeeze more out of Utah because the deal which would send Giricek, Snyder and the 6th pick for the 3rd and Patterson will not change.
> 
> The Blazers are just holding out hope that a dream-like deal will appear if their phones are still accepting calls and despite media reports that have Deron Williams on the next plane to Salt Lake City, they want other GM’s to know that his plane can still go to a number of cities, including Atlanta and Los Angeles.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*This makes a lot more sense*

Somewhere on hoopshype I believe it was the Salt Lake City Tribune said that the Jazz had offered Portland #6, #27 and a future 1st for #3 and Ruben Patterson. As a fan I'd be elated if Nash did that. that adds assets and subtracts salary.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: This makes a lot more sense*



mediocre man said:


> Somewhere on hoopshype I believe it was the Salt Lake City Tribune said that the Jazz had offered Portland #6, #27 and a future 1st for #3 and Ruben Patterson. As a fan I'd be elated if Nash did that. that adds assets and subtracts salary.


I like that deal too... especially because it doesnt involve Monya.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: This makes a lot more sense*

If true, it's one of the best proposals I've seen also. As long as #6 results in either Webster or Green.

Charlotte's #5 & #13 for #3 also is a good trade for us. We should throw in our 2nd Round pick to this if it get's it done. We don't really need a player from the 2nd round IMHO.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Why in the world would we want to get rid of Ruben's contract for two contracts that are longer in length?


In the case being discussed there are at least three answers to your question:

1. Snyder's deal isn't longer. There are only two more guaranteed years before an option kicks in. Giricek's is a year longer, though.

2. Trading two smaller contracts is easier than one bigger one.

3. Both GG and Snyder can player positions where we currently only have one player, and that player is DA.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: This makes a lot more sense*

I don't see how money can match up. Unless Utah somehow can clear money under the cap to absorb Ruben's salary (and $2m trade kicker) the Jazz will have to send players back to Portland.

Snyder and Lopez and Borchardt are possibilities, I guess, with the latter two being cuttable right off the bat, perhaps, and they're on their last year of their deal.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I simply love the way the Blazers' Brain Trust (remember, it's not just Nash) is playing their cards on this one.

Go Blazers!

PBF


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: This makes a lot more sense*

Why not take some combination of #6, #27, #35, and future 1st and maybe a player or two and turn that into the #5 and #13? That would give Charlotte more picks next year when they have more cap space to sign even more players. Plus they are in need of players. I know that they are looking to move up though.


Maybe someone who has had more coffee this morning can figure out a 3-way deal with Utah, Charlotte, and Portland. I just cant make it work out in my head this morning.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Dammit! I am supposed to be writing a boring catalogue of animal toxicology studies. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to concentrate. Will this day ever end? Will tonight ever arrive? Here it is 8:16 and I am going NUTS (OK, I admit, I didn't have far to go).
I printed up my draft tracker to note down the picks.
I wish there was a Bay draft party.
At least the Blazers pick and/or deal will be early so I won't be in the middle of dinner and try to cheer while choking to death on filet of sole (tonight's menu). 
Oh damn, it's only 8:18!!!! :krazy:


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

Here we go, wonder if this has been reported:

In an attempt to jump ahead and select Illinois point guard Deron Williams, The Salt Lake Tribune has learned that the Jazz have offered Portland the No. 6 and No. 27 picks in this draft, as well as a future first-round pick. Shooting guard Gordan Giricek could also be included in the deal. 

In addition, the Jazz have agreed to take baggage-toting veteran Ruben Patterson as part of the proposed trade, which seems to be designed to blow away any competition the Jazz might have for the No. 3 pick.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: This makes a lot more sense*



Ed O said:


> I don't see how money can match up. Unless Utah somehow can clear money under the cap to absorb Ruben's salary (and $2m trade kicker) the Jazz will have to send players back to Portland.
> 
> Snyder and Lopez and Borchardt are possibilities, I guess, with the latter two being cuttable right off the bat, perhaps, and they're on their last year of their deal.
> 
> Ed O.


Utah is about $5.25 mil under the cap now until July 1... the would nto haev to send back too much


like I said before.. Giricek for Ruben and exchange picks...

them adding a future 1st, #27 and #6 makes it tempting


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

OntheRocks said:


> Here we go, wonder if this has been reported:
> 
> In an attempt to jump ahead and select Illinois point guard Deron Williams, The Salt Lake Tribune has learned that the Jazz have offered Portland the No. 6 and No. 27 picks in this draft, as well as a future first-round pick. Shooting guard Gordan Giricek could also be included in the deal.
> 
> In addition, the Jazz have agreed to take baggage-toting veteran Ruben Patterson as part of the proposed trade, which seems to be designed to blow away any competition the Jazz might have for the No. 3 pick.


In a way, I'm wondering if this is a better deal than 5+13. It is essentially 6+[1-10 next year]+27 if it is not lottery protected. Kudos to Utah for stepping up to the plate to get what they want. Bickerstaff must be sweating up a storm. I think Charlotte could end up being the big loser in this draft they way that Boston was a few years ago when they had multiple picks and got nothing out of it.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

This has to be Utah interested in Zach , If Nash  trades Zach for Boozer man It would be a sad


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

cimalee said:


> This has to be Utah interested in Zach , If Nash trades Zach for Boozer man It would be a sad


i agree it would be sad, but if it happens it would obviously be a financial decision. after last year's disappointing season the blazers wouldn't consider zach as likely to be worth the rest of his contract, which is something that they will be fighting the cap against for years.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

crowTrobot said:


> i agree it would be sad, but if it happens it would obviously be a financial decision. after last year's disappointing season the blazers wouldn't consider zach as likely to be worth the rest of his contract, which is something that they will be fighting the cap against for years.


Boozer's contract is pretty big too. 12 million per year. I can't see Portland making that deal.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

Reep said:


> In a way, I'm wondering if this is a better deal than 5+13. It is essentially 6+[1-10 next year]+27 if it is not lottery protected. Kudos to Utah for stepping up to the plate to get what they want. Bickerstaff must be sweating up a storm. I think Charlotte could end up being the big loser in this draft they way that Boston was a few years ago when they had multiple picks and got nothing out of it.


For me the attractriveness of the future pick depends on how protected it is. I don't see Utah doing too much better than they did this year and even if they get Paul or D. Williams they aren't going to win that many more. So it could very well be another top lottery pick.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Fork said:


> Boozer's contract is pretty big too. 12 million per year. I can't see Portland making that deal.



i thought boozer's was 3 years shorter? maybe i heard wrong.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Can you imagine Patterson in Utah? :rofl: I don't think Utah fans are ready for that.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

crowTrobot said:


> i thought boozer's was 3 years shorter? maybe i heard wrong.


I think it's one year shorter. Player option in 09/10. Zach's ends in 2010/11.


----------

