# Wanna know why W Szczerbiak might get traded to the Clips for a 2nd round pick? READ!



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

Don't call me an idiot--read this article, click on this link:

http://www.realgm.com/src_gm_articles.php?artid=brave_world

The people at realgm provide the best content on the web you'll FIND regarding how today's NBA works.

After you fellers read the article, why don't we discuss it?


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

I still don't think that the trade would work moneywise


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The OUTLAW</b>!
> I still don't think that the trade would work moneywise


Hey, way to not even read the article. The Clips are the ONLY team that is way under the salary cap right now, they can take on a salary without having to match it money-wise. Why do you think the Nuggets were able to take on Don Reid in that trade with Orlando? Orlando traded them the Clips' 2003 #1 pick and Don Reid for a future second-round pick. The Nuggets could do that because they were a LITTLE bit below the salary cap (by a few million). The Clips are WAY under the cap right now, they could actually pull a COUPLE of heists like the one the Nuggets pulled. Probably even bigger, once teams REALLY start freaking out.

PEOPLE! You need to READ THAT ARTICLE! If you want to understand why this summer has been so weird--if you want to understand why teams are freaking out so much about the luxury tax--YOU NEED TO READ THIS ARTICLE! Do it!

THEN, we can talk about it! Reading that article is WAY more important than another retarded Kobe vs. T-Mac discussion! DO IT!


----------



## shroombal (Jul 17, 2002)

wut a boring article...


----------



## MightyReds2020 (Jul 19, 2002)

This trade will work cap wise because Clippers are significantly under the cap and they could trade their picks for most players. However, I don't see this as possible because the Clippers have their own FA issues. They will prefer to sign someone to a one-year deal because they need all this money to resign FA-to-be Elton Brand, Andre Miller, Michael Olowokandi, or even Lamar Odom. Unless Donald "Stingy" Sterling willing to open his pocket in the future which is not likely


----------



## starbonis (Aug 7, 2002)

even with my poor english, I understand that this lux-tax is something to be considered with in the years to come.

How will teams fighting for Duncan, Kidd or Garnett do to have the space under this cap. Trading major players for future picks is certainly not the safest way to build.

On the other , having teams spending millions is also not really equitable considering the sport spirit of fairness facing the challenge


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>shroombal</b>!
> wut a boring article...


If you want to actually UNDERSTAND what goes on in the NBA, you need to understand the economics of the NBA. In other words, you have to actually read articles that seem a little boring (although I think this article is fascinating, certainly the most fascinating NBA-related article I've read all summer.) Otherwise, you're doomed to a "Who's better, Kobe or T-Mac?" existence.

Do you really want to just sit around dumbfounded when Orlando trades Don Reid and a 1st round pick to the Nuggets for a 2nd round pick? WOULDN'T you LIKE to understand WHY a trade like that would HAPPEN?

C'mon, shroombal, try reading that article again, you'll thank me for it later.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

So basically if your team is already over the tax you have to match that $ for $ and pay a 10% fee plus miss out on a possible 18 million dollar rebate? (did I get this right?)

From an owners point of view I can see why I would dump top notch players and potential top notch players if your under or near bieng under the limit.

If your over your already screwed any way so owners like Cuban(who actually likes owning a team not the prestige of saying he owns a pro team) might as well throw the money @ players because they are going to miss out on the rebate any way.
Help me out if I got this wrong. I might need it put in laymans terms.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MightyReds2020</b>!
> This trade will work cap wise because Clippers are significantly under the cap and they could trade their picks for most players. However, I don't see this as possible because the Clippers have their own FA issues. They will prefer to sign someone to a one-year deal because they need all this money to resign FA-to-be Elton Brand, Andre Miller, Michael Olowokandi, or even Lamar Odom. Unless Donald "Stingy" Sterling willing to open his pocket in the future which is not likely


The point of this article isn't really to back up a Wally World for a 2nd round pick trade scenario, it's to give you guys an understanding of WHY such a lop-sided trade would actually make SENSE for a team just over the luxury tax brink like Minnesota.

HOWEVER, the more assets you have, the better. The Clips could trade a 2nd round pick for Wally World and THEN, if they don't want to re-sign him (and they DON'T), they could turn around and trade him for a lottery pick next summer. Is this unfair? YES, I guess--but we're talking about economics here, people!

The Clips could trade a 2nd rounder for Wally, and THEN turn around and trade him to the Knicks for New York's 2003 or 2004 #1 pick and Othella Harrington. Or to the Rockets for Houston's 2004 or 2005 #1 pick, Kenny Thomas, and Jason Collier. Or to the Hawks for Atlanta's 2004 or 2005 #1 pick, Dermarr Johnson, and Emmanuel Davis. Or the Jazz for Utah's 2003 #1 pick, John Amaechi, and Deshawn Stevenson.

I know all of this sounds ridiculous from a BASKETBALL standpoint, but when you look at it from an ECONOMIC standpoint, it makes a TON of sense! So GO READ THAT ARTICLE!


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dragnsmke1</b>!
> So basically if your team is already over the tax you have to match that $ for $ and pay a 10% fee plus miss out on a possible 18 million dollar rebate? (did I get this right?)
> 
> From an owners point of view I can see why I would dump top notch players and potential top notch players if your under or near bieng under the limit.
> ...


No, you seem to be getting it, Dragnsmke1. The Timberwolves, by dumping Wally World (and the $2.9 mil he is owed for next season) on the Clips in exchange for a future 2nd round pick, would go from being INSIDE of luxury tax territory (a $52+ payroll) to OUTSIDE of luxury tax territory (a sub-$52 mil payroll). Of course, Kevin McHale just made that offer to Ricky Davis, so maybe Minnesota is one of those teams that doesn't GET IT.

Unless Minnesota and Cleveland are doing something we don't KNOW about. A Wally-for-Davis swap that would include several other players, a swap that would get Minnesota OUT of luxury tax territory and Wally World INTO a Cavs uniform longterm? Who knows.

ANYWAY, you seem to be getting it, Dragnsmke1. Here's another scenario that might happen, just so you can get a feel for how this works.

Alonzo Mourning to the Mavs; Nick Van Exel, Shawn Bradley, and Evan Eschmeyer to the Heat

Van Exel, Bradley, and Eschmeyer make a COMBINED $17.8 mil next year. Mourning makes $20.6 mil. The trade works salary-wise. The Heat's payroll WITH Mourning = around $55 mil. The Heat's payroll AFTER this trade = around $52 mil. SO, more players would probably have to get involved: Anthony Carter, Laphonso Ellis, Tariq Abdul-Wahad. Maybe even Brian Grant and Michael Finley, I don't know.

THE POINT HERE is that the Heat would actually consider this trade, because it makes so much sense from an ECONOMIC standpoint. They would save themselves over $20 MILLION by agreeing to such a deal. What do YOU think the owner of the Heat is more interested in, holding onto Mourning for one more year and winning 40 ballgames or saving himself OVER $20 MILLION? You know?

Pretty crazy, huh?


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

Okay I must admit that I didn't read the entire article, just read until I got the gist of the message but I didn't get down to the part where the Clips were specifically mentioned. does anyone believe the the Clips braintrust would be smart enough to do this especially since I believe that this is the only year that they will be under for quite a while. They could use those additional picks to reload.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The OUTLAW</b>!
> Okay I must admit that I didn't read the entire article, just read until I got the gist of the message but I didn't get down to the part where the Clips were specifically mentioned. does anyone believe the the Clips braintrust would be smart enough to do this especially since I believe that this is the only year that they will be under for quite a while. They could use those additional picks to reload.


Elgin Baylor is one smart cookie. And Donald Sterling is a very shrewd businessman. I gotta think that this is the reason why nothing has been done about Michael Olowokandi yet. By re-signing Olowokandi, they will jeopardize all that cap room they currently have. By making a couple of shrewd trades with some DESPERATE teams, teams that are currently IN luxury tax territory just BARELY (those teams are, just so you know, Milwaukee, Toronto, Minnesota, Indiana, Miami, Atlanta, Memphis, Phoenix, and, if they re-sign Rashard Lewis to more than what they're currently offering, Seattle), BEFORE dealing with Olowokandi, the Clippers can really LOAD UP on some great assets.

Here's what they can try to get from each team:

MILWAUKEE: Sam Cassell and the Bucks' 2003 #1 pick (should be around #8-#9 overall) for a 2nd round pick

TORONTO: Michael Bradley, Mamadou N'Dyaiae, and the Raptors' 2003 #1 pick (should be around #11-#12 overall) for a 2nd round pick

MINNESOTA: Wally World for a 2nd round pick

INDIANA: Ron Artest and Primoz Brezec for a 2nd round pick

MIAMI: Laphonso Ellis and the Heat's 2003 #1 pick (should be around #11-#12 overall) for a 2nd round pick

ATLANTA: DerMarr Johnson and Emmanuel Davis for a 2nd round pick

MEMPHIS: Stromile Swift and Tony Massenburg for a 2nd round pick

PHOENIX: Joe Johnson (or Casey Jacobsen) and Randy Brown for a 2nd round pick

SEATTLE: Brent Barry for a 2nd round pick

BY THE WAY, Mamadou N'Dyaiae, Emmanuel Davis, Tony Massenburg, and Randy Brown are ALL free agents after next season, so the Clips WOULDN'T be committing themselves to unwanted multiyear contracts by acquiring one or more of these dudes.

ALSO, the Clips SHOULD be able to make TWO of the above trades. THEN they can worry about dealing with Olowokandi.


----------



## starbonis (Aug 7, 2002)

considering that all players want the max of money, this situation is going to go into a mess. The best economic solution is to have a teams full of rookies, without any couple of stars ???

Is there an economic reason in the Robison/kukoc trade


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Since it is the name players who are the most important to the NBA in terms of marketing, ratings, etc. and thus, generating revenue, it would seem to me that the best interest of the NBA would be to tweak this proposed new system in such a way as to make such lopsided trades, made out of financial desparation, less likely. A Wally World's marketing value would surely be diminished if fans can say, well...I guess he wasn't worth the extra money, and he was only worth a second round pick.

Likewise, the prospect of fans' favorite players being shuttled from team to team for pure economic reason will be a turn off to fans.

I understand the goal of equalizing the haves and have nots in the league to a certain extent, and prevent a New York Yankees "buy the best team available, because we have the money to do it" dominance. I know its tough for small market teams to compete if the market is laizzez-faire. 

That being said, the NBA as a whole is one big product, and too much parity would seem to make for a less exciting league.

I hope the arbitrations will work out a way to address some of these luxury tax issues, so that there is a little less of a Robin Hood mentality to the system, and the bizarre prospective trades cited in the article don't become NBA reality.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Since it is the name players who are the most important to the NBA in terms of marketing, ratings, etc. and thus, generating revenue, it would seem to me that the best interest of the NBA would be to tweak this proposed new system in such a way as to make such lopsided trades, made out of financial desparation, less likely. A Wally World's marketing value would surely be diminished if fans can say, well...I guess he wasn't worth the extra money, and he was only worth a second round pick.
> 
> Likewise, the prospect of fans' favorite players being shuttled from team to team for pure economic reason will be a turn off to fans.
> ...


Tom, I couldn't agree with you more here. Wally World getting shipped off for a 2nd round pick BY ITSELF sure doesn't SEEM good for the NBA.

BUT, this COULD be a SHORT-TERM problem. In other words, sure, there will be some teams that have to make some desperate moves here, but LONG-TERM, this keeps payrolls in check and rewards teams that avoid the luxury tax. In other words, teams that do their part to maintain a competitive balance in the NBA are rewarded; those that ignore the luxury tax (Portland, New York, and Dallas are the most obvious repeat offenders) will NOT be rewarded.

Unfortunately, both Dallas and Portland could REALLY benefit here, since their multimillionaire dot-com owners don't care about money. Dallas can tell Miami that, if they want to avoid losing $20+ million next year, they're going to have to pay the piper. In other words, Miami has to give Mark Cuban what he wants, HOW he wants it. Van Exel, Shawn Bradley, Evan Eschmeyer, and Tariq Abdul-Wahad for Alonzo Mourning, Anthony Carter, and Laphonso Ellis. Miami can TAKE that offer and save themselves over $20 million, or they can hold onto Mourning, lose that $20 mil, and win about 40 ballgames. You tell me, WHICH IS THE BETTER ALTERNATIVE? Talk about catch-22.

The losers? Well, obviously, those teams that ARE hit with the luxury tax are losers. And lots of free agents this summer and next summer are losers, too--Rashard Lewis is the most obvious example so far, but don't worry, there will be others. But I'm not sure that this isn't a good LONG-TERM solution (i.e., a solution for the next five years, not the next twenty years, who knows what things will look like in twenty years or even TEN years).

IN ANY EVENT, the league has been warning teams about the luxury tax for 2-3 years now. Those teams that are getting screwed here--I listed those teams in an earlier post--have only themselves to blame. The league WARNED them, and they didn't LISTEN. So how much sympathy can you REALLY have for these teams? The Raptors didn't HAVE to re-sign Jerome Williams and Alvin Williams to those extensions; the Bucks didn't HAVE to give Tim Thomas WAY too much money; the Sonics didn't HAVE to sign Calvin Booth last summer; the Grizz didn't HAVE to give Jason Williams, Michael Dickerson, and Lorenzen Wright those terrible longterm extensions. IN OTHER WORDS, these teams did it to themselves.

[NOTE: Minnesota is a different story, they are TOTALLY SCREWED because of Kevin Garnett's HUGE contract, they DIDN'T know about this luxury tax business back when they gave him that big contract. Now THAT'S a problem, I think, don't you? Seems a little unfair to me.]

ANYWAY, for those of you who don't know what Tom and I are talking about, CLICK ON THAT LINK at the top of this post, read that realGM article. It's the most important article that you'll read about the NBA all summer long, TRUST ME.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, both Dallas and Portland could REALLY benefit here, since their multimillionaire dot-com owners don't care about money. Dallas can tell Miami that, if they want to avoid losing $20+ million next year, they're going to have to pay the piper. In other words, Miami has to give Mark Cuban what he wants, HOW he wants it.


Roby: Thanks again for the PM. Get back to me.

Slightly off topic, but what made me think of the Yankees example was a baseball documentary I was watching on the Classic Sports Channel not to long ago. The topic was baseball teams which lost year after year.

My dad always harps on the White Sox, which he justifies by stating that when he was growing up on the south side, the Sox would cultivate prospect after prospect, just to sell them to the Yankees when they hit their peak, and get a lousy deal in return.

What I learned in the show was that the league had a rule whereby every team had to start the season in the black. To stay in the league, a team had to have cash on hand to pay all of the previous years' hotel bills, train bills, player salary, support staff salary, rent, etc. If your attendence was poor, and you couldn't meet the expenses, the Yankees would come around at season's end and say "We hear you have a little problem...Well, we'll just take Player X off your hands for cash, and you'll be allowed to field a team next year." And of course, player x would be that teams' star. I had never heard of that rule before, and when I told my Dad that, it really put him back in his chair.

So, using the Dallas/Portland example you cited, we sure don't want the league to become the playground of the dot-com brats. But the luxury tax doesn't solve that problem. It only creates problems for the teams finincially capable of kind of competing with the blank check billionaires. Also,, I can;t help but think that even after the initial mess described and salaries become more uniform and bright lines are drawn regarding cap issues, there is going to be some luster taken out of the game. If there is no finaincial incentive for players to want to move, teams may become stagnant, and eventually we will get into the "too much parity" situation.

Anyway, the proposal as described just seems a bit too draconean to me. I hope the arbitration will soften the league stance a bit.


----------



## shroombal (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> 
> If you want to actually UNDERSTAND what goes on in the NBA, you need to understand the economics of the NBA. In other words, you have to actually read articles that seem a little boring (although I think this article is fascinating, certainly the most fascinating NBA-related article I've read all summer.) Otherwise, you're doomed to a "Who's better, Kobe or T-Mac?" existence.
> ...



Whoa!!! I read it !!! I just found it boring. But I like it since the Wizards could be trading their picks for good players. Yay!


----------



## shroombal (Jul 17, 2002)

But i'm wondering, where are u getting this Wally for a 2nd stuff??? Wouldn't wally for a 1st make more sense????


----------



## MightyReds2020 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> 
> No, you seem to be getting it, Dragnsmke1. The Timberwolves, by dumping Wally World (and the $2.9 mil he is owed for next season) on the Clips in exchange for a future 2nd round pick, would go from being INSIDE of luxury tax territory (a $52+ payroll) to OUTSIDE of luxury tax territory (a sub-$52 mil payroll). Of course, Kevin McHale just made that offer to Ricky Davis, so maybe Minnesota is one of those teams that doesn't GET IT.
> ...


I agreed with you most part but you gotta find a better example than the Zo to Mavs for NVE and Bradley trade. In this case Miami will get the extra $18 millions profit but you have to realize that Zo's contract runs out this year and NVE and Bradley still have long way to go. The Heat will gain $18 millions next year but put themselves into trouble in the next 4 years at least. If they do this trade the Heat will loss a combine of $52 millions in next 6 years until Bradley's contract is up(NVE's $50 millions + Bradley's $40 millions - Zo's $20 millions - $18 millions).

I know you were just trying to prove your points but please find a better example

EDIT: I wasn't sure about the salaries but those should be close.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MightyReds2020</b>!
> 
> 
> I agreed with you most part but you gotta find a better example than the Zo to Mavs for NVE and Bradley trade. In this case Miami will get the extra $18 millions profit but you have to realize that Zo's contract runs out this year and NVE and Bradley still have long way to go. The Heat will gain $18 millions next year but put themselves into trouble in the next 4 years at least. If they do this trade the Heat will loss a combine of $52 millions in next 6 years until Bradley's contract is up(NVE's $50 millions + Bradley's $40 millions - Zo's $20 millions - $18 millions).
> ...


Dude, yep, you're right, it's a terrible trade for a lot of reasons for Miami. But the point here is that it is a QUICK FIX. Problems down the road for Miami? ABSOLUTELY. But it WOULD prevent the Heat from losing a TON of money next year because of the luxury tax issue.

The Vin Baker trade was a quick fix. The Celtics, by making that deal, avoided entering luxury tax territory. Problems down the line? ABSOLUTELY. It's a quick fix, a desperate move.

Expect more quick fixes and moves even MORE desperate than the Vin Baker trade over the next several weeks.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>shroombal</b>!
> But i'm wondering, where are u getting this Wally for a 2nd stuff??? Wouldn't wally for a 1st make more sense????


Well, SURE, it would make more sense from the T-Wolves' perspective. But they're not in a position to negotiate, the CLIPPERS hold all the cards here. There are SEVERAL teams that will be wanting to do business with the Clips over the next several weeks, but the Clips will only be able to make a COUPLE of trades before they reach the salary cap limit. The CLIPPERS, therefore, are calling all the shots. If the T-Wolves don't want to pay the piper, well, they'll lose over $20 MILLION over this luxury tax issue. OR they'll have to do business with one of the teams that DOESN'T CARE about the luxury tax--either Portland, Dallas, or New York.

So YEAH, obviously, the T-Wolves don't WANT to trade Wally World away for a 2nd round pick, but they may have no choice. A big trade with the Trailblazers is another possibility, a trade in which Portland would be taking on, say, $20 mil and giving up $17 mil in salaries. That $3 mil difference in salaries doesn't mean anything to Portland, but it means a LOT ($20+ mil) to Minnesota.

Here's a trade that Minnesota may have to resort to making with Portland over the next few weeks:

Bonzi Wells (re-signed to a deal that starts at $5.5 mil) and Damon Stoudamire to the T-Wolves; Wally World, Terrell Brandon, Marc Jackson, Anthony Peeler, and a future 1st round pick to the Trailblazers

That trade would work salary-wise, and it would get Minnesota out of luxury tax territory. Minnesota would be taking on $19.0 mil worth of salaries and trading away $21.7 mil worth of salaries. That $2.7 mil that they're shaving off their payroll is SIGNIFICANT--it's enough to avoid the luxury tax. It's not just $2.7 mil--it's $20 MILLION. Does Kevin McHale want to trade for DAMON STOUDAMIRE? No! Does he want to give up a 1st round pick? No! But, again, he's not the one holding the cards here, Bob Whitsitt (the Blazers' GM) is!


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

*TOMBOERWINKLE#1:*

"Too much parity"? Take a look at the NFL. The REASON why it's the best of all the professional sports leagues is because of its PARITY. A team like the New England Patriots can go from a, what, five- or six-win season to winning the damn Super Bowl IN ONE SEASON. It's a lot of fun.

I don't think there IS such a thing as "too much parity"--a little parity is EXACTLY what the NBA needs. And DEAR LORD is it what MLB needs! I mean, DUH!

You wrote: "Also, I can't help but think that even after the initial mess described and salaries become more uniform and bright lines are drawn regarding cap issues, there is going to be some luster taken out of the game. If there is no financial incentive for players to want to move, teams may become stagnant, and eventually we will get into the "too much parity" situation."

Again, take a look at the NFL. How do teams build a contender in the NFL? Not by signing a bunch of big name free agents--the Redskins tried that when Daniel Snyder took over, and it got them nowhere. Teams in the NFL build a contender through THE DRAFT. A team like the Pittsburgh Steelers can compete, year in and year out, despite being in a small market like Pittsburgh because they have an outstanding scouting department. I'd like to see the same sort of thing happen in the NBA.

And, just because contracts will go way down for the players, that doesn't mean they don't have any incentive to get better. Sure, they will be playing for only, say, a six year $50 mil contract instead of a six year $75 mil contract. But JESUS, that's STILL $50 MILLION, you know?

Again, some teams and some players are going to REALLY get the screw job in the short term, but, like I said, these teams have been getting WARNED by league officials for at LEAST a couple of years now about the luxury tax.

ONE THING that I'd like to see something done about, though, is the Timberwolves' situation. It's bad enough that McHale got caught in that Joe Smith business a couple of years back. But, like I said earlier, when McHale re-signed KG to that huge extension, that was BEFORE the current collective bargaining agreement was drawn up. I think an exception should be made for such situations, don't you?

BY THE WAY, the three franchises that don't care about payroll--Dallas, Portland, and New York--not ONE of those teams have made it as far as the conference finals since the new CBA went into effect. The Knicks are, of course, a bad team that is only getting worse and worse with every move that the worst GM in perhaps the HISTORY of the NBA, Frank Layden, makes. The Trailblazers have a perpetual team chemistry problem (proving that you can't win with a bunch of stars, you have to have ROLE PLAYERS). As for the Mavs, well, they may be a couple of lop-sided luxury tax-driven transactions away from putting together a team that can't be beaten, not by the Lakers, not by the Kings, not by ANYBODY. We'll see.


----------



## JoeF (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> Unless Minnesota and Cleveland are doing something we don't KNOW about. A Wally-for-Davis swap that would include several other players, a swap that would get Minnesota OUT of luxury tax territory and Wally World INTO a Cavs uniform longterm? Who knows.


If you make a restricted free agent an offer and his team matches the offer, there is a one year trade restriction on obtaining the player. Davis can't be traded to the Twolves for one year by any team in the NBA.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JoeF</b>!
> 
> If you make a restricted free agent an offer and his team matches the offer, there is a one year trade restriction on obtaining the player. Davis can't be traded to the Twolves for one year by any team in the NBA.


You're right, good call, my bad, thanks.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Even if the Wolves did want to free cap, they aren't stupid enough to trade an All-Star for a damn 2nd round pick!

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Next thing you know we'll be hearing rumors that the Rockets might trade Francis to a team that is under the cap for a lousy 2nd round pick!


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

And the Clippers wouldn't want Szcerbiak...they already have Quentin Richardson (who could be a star), Lamar Odom, Corey Maggette, and Eric Piatkowski. If the Wolves wanted to give Wally to the Clipps for a 2nd round pick (yeah right), then the Clippers would surely want to include either Odom or Q, otherwise they have too many great SGs and SFs. They aren't going to trade Q, and it looks like Odom is going to get another chance to prove himself.


----------

