TaxMan
Starter
This is a shrew move by Petrie. Unlike most trades, a sign n trade is where the player gets to decide where he goes. For argument's sake, if Billups say to Detroit he wants to come to Sac, the Piston cannot say, "No way! You're going to Dallas instead, they offered a better deal."
So this gives us a chance to unload some bad contract(s); say John Salmons and KT for Billups. If the Piston say no, they risk losing Billups for nothing. Is signing Billups (or another star players) worth getting rid of some bad contracts? Perhaps. And I suspect that's what Petrie meant by "open question." It depends on the players involved. Of course we don't need Billups, but I'd rather have Billups than Salmons + KT, assuming the money is equal. It's a long shot to attract those elite star players, but it's Petrie's job to try.
Also, we could be the third team in a sign n trade. Remember the Spurs got involved in the Brad Miller snt and got Hedo in the process. We could join in the fun and either get rid of some bad contract or get a promising young player. Both good scenario.
I suspect the reason we contacted Mo Pete is because we're offering John Salmons in return for a sign n trade w/ Toronto (the Raptors tried to sign Salmons last year). At any rate, imo, Petrie is trying to getting rid of dead weight by signing good weight.
Thats exactly right. I'm not sure what the uproar is all about here. Nevermind the fact that it probably wouldn't happen in a million years.