Did we choose a 3 team deal over the 2 team one?
- Thread starter Vlade4GM
- Start date
Andriod_KiNg
Starter
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ys-mcgradytalks021810&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Big reason was that T-Macs agent basically threatened the Kings if they didn't move him to NY..... he is the same guy that represents Tyreke Evans.
We also got a expiring out of this deal and kept K9s contract on books (who we waived) So we have two huge expiring coming off the books and made nice with Arn Tellem.
Big reason was that T-Macs agent basically threatened the Kings if they didn't move him to NY..... he is the same guy that represents Tyreke Evans.
We also got a expiring out of this deal and kept K9s contract on books (who we waived) So we have two huge expiring coming off the books and made nice with Arn Tellem.
Our deal amounts to about the same either way, the Rockets seemed to improve things on their side. We could have taken on the Knicks assetts but it appears we prefered the flexibility if we couldn't get the players we wanted from the Knicks. Plus we did Evans's agent a solid, not that those guys ever seem to remember.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
I'm not sure, but I don't think getting Hughes makes any difference, we didn't dump any additional contracts than the original Houston deal.
Why would we cower to threats like that? That's ridiculous if you ask me. At the very least we can say we'll waive him and he can sign with NY.
I just think that we should have been the ones to get the Knicks picks and maybe Hill, not the Rockets. We obviously are giving the Rockets the main prize in Martin.
Andriod_KiNg
Starter
But the deal never real change for the Kings, the only thing that happend was the Rockets getting Hill (6-10 softie) a chance to swap the 2011 1st round (protected top 3 i think) and a protected 1st in 2012.
If the Knicks suck the Rockets dont get anything, if the Knicks do good, they will get 1 high first rounder.
Im sure Petrie is looking at the team the same way we are, we have a top 10 pick coming up in the draft, about 20 million in cap space and we are maybe 1 or 2 players away from competing (Defensive Big ? or Pure Shooter ?)
discocricket
G-League
Making other teams in our conference better by kowtowing to agents isn't something I want my GM to be known for.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
I don't think teams should ever help other teams when they don't have to. Even if we assume that there's no way to get the Knicks' assets, then at the very least we shouldn't have agreed to it in order to just not help the Knicks or Rockets. We facilitated the Knicks and we got nothing for it.
Are we helping other teams or not screwing ourselves? Agents don't remember when we do nice things for their clients but they sure remember when you stick it to them.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
That's kind of what it looks like -- the Rockets were the ones to benefit fromt he extra maneuering. Lost Landry, but otherwise managed to get Kevin Martin, Jordan Hill and a #1 for TMac's sad old butt, which is a nice haul.
Whether we ended up with Kt and Hughes, or jsut TMac, financially it was hte same thing for us. All enders. So no advantage to us, other than perhaps proving that KT was so flexible that we could keep him right through the end of his interminable contract.
hammystyle
Starter
Hill, and the Knicks picks had nothing to do with us. Those were payment to the Rockets for taking on Jeffries contract.
I'm not whether the trade was in jeopardy, whether we cowered to idle threats from Tellm, or whether it was just a favor to Tellem, but it doesn't hurt us any, so what's the big deal?
Vlade4GM
All-Star
They'll always do what's beneficial to them and their clients. If bad blood gets in the way of that then they'll forget the bad blood.
