ytownfootball;389232 wrote:Yeah...I mean who would have thought Jamison could have been had for the #30 pick in the upcoming draft. Trades aren't always done by Spocklike fricken logic. You throw out an offer and see what happens. Not everyone has the basketball acumen as you two.

Have you seen Jamison's contract? No one wanted him. The Cavs were the only team dumb enough to take on his contract. $28 million over the next two years is a lot of money for an average NBA PF.

thedynasty1998;389244 wrote:Have you seen Jamison's contract? No one wanted him. The Cavs were the only team dumb enough to take on his contract. $28 million over the next two years is a lot of money for an average NBA PF.

So...in your eyes the Cavs shit the bed on that trade. What makes you think NO wouldn't be capable of shitting the bed too?

Thanks for proving my point.

For the Cavs, it gave them another offensive threat. They were hoping to win a championship and thought Jamison could help them in their quest. That's why they were willing to bring in Jamison and his terrible contract. The Wizards were thrilled to get rid of Jamison, no matter what they got in return.

New Oreans isn't going to deal Collison because of a bad contract, they would deal him because they have Paul and would look to upgrade somewhere else. Completely different situations. New Orleans isn't going to give away Collison, they will trade him because he has value.

thedynasty1998;389244 wrote:Have you seen Jamison's contract? No one wanted him. The Cavs were the only team dumb enough to take on his contract. $28 million over the next two years is a lot of money for an average NBA PF.

I had MAJOR concerns about this contract and said "if you're gonna do it, you better have made a deal with the devil to win a championship because that contract's an albatross." (and will handcuff you from making any near future, major upgrades).

I didn't want Jamison. My feelings were "if you're gonna DO it, go for youth and grab Stoudemire. He may not have blended well with Shaq in the short term but I didn't think we'd bring back Shaq in 2010-11 anyway. Not saying Jamison's a BAD player but I would have preferred a younger "Robin" for LBJ.

ytownfootball;389232 wrote:Yeah...I mean who would have thought Jamison could have been had for the #30 pick in the upcoming draft. Trades aren't always done by Spocklike fricken logic. You throw out an offer and see what happens. Not everyone has the basketball acumen as you two.

If you think that trade has any chance of happening... I have some beach front property in Nebraska.

The proposed Collison deal and Jamison deals are completely different. In the Jamison deal, both teams were desperate. The Wizards wanted to get rid of him because of that crazy contract they gave him, and the Cavaliers wanted him to pacify Lebron James.

Imagine if the Cavs had not made the deal to acquire Jamison. They still beat Chicago and lose to Boston. But now you are under the cap and can puruse another free agent to go alongside Lebron. Now the Cavs are trying to sell Lebron that the current roster is good enough to win a championship, which it's not. And you are stuck with Jamison for at least a year and a half and he's eating up a whole lot of cap space.

thedynasty1998;389286 wrote:Imagine if the Cavs had not made the deal to acquire Jamison. They still beat Chicago and lose to Boston. But now you are under the cap and can puruse another free agent to go alongside Lebron. Now the Cavs are trying to sell Lebron that the current roster is good enough to win a championship, which it's not. And you are stuck with Jamison for at least a year and a half and he's eating up a whole lot of cap space.

Cavs didnt have the luxury of looking ahead. The Cavs needed an upgrade at the PF position and everybody in the league knew it. They took a chance on Jamison because they had to. There is nothing wrong with making that move.

Obviously Amare would have been the first choice, and they Cavs were desperate to upgrade the PF spot. Fact is that Kerr was unable to pull the trigger, rather than be left with nothing, Ferry pulled the trigger on the Jamison deal. Not the first choice with the contract issues, but a much better option than doing nothing. It was a flier. Hindsight makes it look bad now, but at the time it was a pretty good shot. I think a little time working together would have been helpful, remember, the Bulls series was the first time that line-up had seen the floor together...ever. Excuse me if I give a little leeway in light of circumstance, but barring injuries, things could have just as easily turned out differently.

I know it's easy to second guess now, but the moment that trade was made I said it was a horrible move. Although he was an upgrade, he wasn't worth screwing yourself for two years with his bad contract. You understand that the Wizards would have gave him away to anyone interested and the Cavs were the only team to show any interest at all.

And although Jamison can score a little, he's horrible on defense because of his lack of size. And it just relegated Hickson to bench play.

Heres a little more on Collison:

The Cavs' Next PG?

Anyone who was watching New Orleans Hornets basketball last season knows something's got to give this summer. Without necessarily meaning to, Hornets GM Jeff Bower drafted Chris Paul's replacement when he chose Darren Collison with the 21st overall pick last summer . . .only he's not about to let Chris Paul go. It worked out great for the team last season, when Paul went down with an injury and Collison averaged 18.8 points and 9.1 assists as a starter, but now that Paul's return is imminent the word is Collison could be trade bait this summer.

More specifically, the Hornets would like to use Collison as a means of unloading an undesirable contract, with the most likely candidate being Emeka Okafor. Okafor is owed in excess of $54 million over the next four seasons, and the Hornets would like to cash him in for cap space and flexibility. Cleveland is over the cap, so they have to trade dollar for dollar, plus or minus the allowed 25%. Okafor and Collison make a combined $12.901 next season, so a package of Delonte West ($4.5 million non-guaranteed), Daniel Gibson ($4.015 million) and Sebastian Telfair ($2.7 million ending contract) would get it done. Gibson backs up Marcus Thornton at the two, Telfair gets a chance to show he belongs in the NBA playing behind the league's best point guard.

The Hornets could terminate West, who has a partially guaranteed deal worth $500,000, and then go after someone like Brendan Haywood, who gave the Washington Wizards almost exactly the same numbers as Okafor gave the Hornets last season. Haywood's numbers slipped a bit in Dallas, where his role was never exactly defined, but as a starter alongside Chris Paul there is little doubt Haywood would at least replace Okafor's production at probably two-thirds the cost. Other possible targets include Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Channing Frye and Brad Miller.

With Collison in place the Cavaliers could send Mo Williams to Toronto for Jose Calderon straight up and let Calderon back up Collison. Williams is an upgrade over Calderon, and would bring All-Star credentials to Toronto as the Raptors desperately seek a way to keep Chris Bosh in town. Calderon's production fell off a bit last season, and the Raptors often looked better when Jarrett Jack was running the team. He would be a solid back-up to Collison, and could also start if Collison failed to continue the meteoric success he had as a rookie.

The Raptors are working the phones trying to make some things happen before Bosh makes his final decision to leave town. The Cavaliers want to put some more pieces in place around LeBron, and Okafor and Collison would add another dynamic to the team. Meanwhile, the Hornets cut some costs while also adding some younger pieces to the mix. All three teams benefit in this scenario, and that's what makes a perfect transaction.

KR1245;389697 wrote:Heres a little more on Collison:

The Cavs' Next PG?

Anyone who was watching New Orleans Hornets basketball last season knows something's got to give this summer. Without necessarily meaning to, Hornets GM Jeff Bower drafted Chris Paul's replacement when he chose Darren Collison with the 21st overall pick last summer . . .only he's not about to let Chris Paul go. It worked out great for the team last season, when Paul went down with an injury and Collison averaged 18.8 points and 9.1 assists as a starter, but now that Paul's return is imminent the word is Collison could be trade bait this summer.

More specifically, the Hornets would like to use Collison as a means of unloading an undesirable contract, with the most likely candidate being Emeka Okafor. Okafor is owed in excess of $54 million over the next four seasons, and the Hornets would like to cash him in for cap space and flexibility. Cleveland is over the cap, so they have to trade dollar for dollar, plus or minus the allowed 25%. Okafor and Collison make a combined $12.901 next season, so a package of Delonte West ($4.5 million non-guaranteed), Daniel Gibson ($4.015 million) and Sebastian Telfair ($2.7 million ending contract) would get it done. Gibson backs up Marcus Thornton at the two, Telfair gets a chance to show he belongs in the NBA playing behind the league's best point guard.

The Hornets could terminate West, who has a partially guaranteed deal worth $500,000, and then go after someone like Brendan Haywood, who gave the Washington Wizards almost exactly the same numbers as Okafor gave the Hornets last season. Haywood's numbers slipped a bit in Dallas, where his role was never exactly defined, but as a starter alongside Chris Paul there is little doubt Haywood would at least replace Okafor's production at probably two-thirds the cost. Other possible targets include Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Channing Frye and Brad Miller.

With Collison in place the Cavaliers could send Mo Williams to Toronto for Jose Calderon straight up and let Calderon back up Collison.

Cavs w/LBJ

PG-Collison/Calderon
SG-Parker/Green
SF-LBJ/Moon/Green/Williams
PF-Jamison/Hickson/Powe/Varejao
C-Okafor/Varejao

?'s-Shaq or Z coming back. Very thin back court, but we could play LBJ at the 2 and Jamison at the 3.

Obviously the biggest question mark of them all is LeBron returning.

Who wrote that article that you quoted?

Like was said above, how does that trade make sense for New Orleans. They are not going to trade Collison for a couple backups.

Jamison at the 3? That's a joke right?

Article was written by Bill Ingram from Hoopsworld.


Who knows what to think. There are all sorts of wild rumors out there right now. Although, I would say that this guy knows more about the situation that you or I. Collison is a very solid player and he had a good rookie year but some act as if the Hornets are going to get an all-star for the kid. They have a crowded backcourt and somebody needs to go

KR1245;389811 wrote:Collison is a very solid player and he had a good rookie year but some act as if the Hornets are going to get an all-star for the kid. They have a crowded backcourt and somebody needs to go

Why? Collison makes peanuts. The Hornets don't have to do anything. The reason all this trade talk is going on is because it makes sense to trade him if they can get a starter back and/or drop a bad contract as well.

Chances of the Hornets getting a starter and dropping a bad contract without getting rid of Collison are slim. In order to drop one of their bad contracts you would think that Collison has to be included.

KR1245;389864 wrote:Chances of the Hornets getting a starter and dropping a bad contract without getting rid of Collison are slim. In order to drop one of their bad contracts you would think that Collison has to be included.

Yeah that's what I said. What I am saying though is that they do not have to trade him if they choose not to. His contract is not putting them in the poorhouse. My post came from the earlier post from where somebody said that they didn't think the Hornets could get much out of Collison, and they thought the Hornets would be lucky to get that craptacular trio from the Cavs.

The Hornets are in a good position with Collison. A team who needs a good PG will have to give them a respectable offer for them to trade Collison. The Hornets have leverage b/c they don't have to trade him. It's not against NBA rules to have 2 outstanding PGs on your team.

Bill Ingram seems to be nothing more than a blogger, hardly what I would consider credible.

As jordo said, New Orleans does not need to get rid of Collison, but he has value and if they trade him it's not going to be for Telfair and Moon. That's just idiotic to even throw around. They will be seeking a starter.

you guys are dogging on Jameson when people should be dogging on mike brown for not using him right. Jameson is at his best when he gets the ball on the block, not being a spot up shooter and thats what mike brown tried to make him be. yes he can hit the outside shot but thats not his game, his game is down on the low block

Crimson streak;390310 wrote:you guys are dogging on Jameson when people should be dogging on mike brown for not using him right. Jameson is at his best when he gets the ball on the block, not being a spot up shooter and thats what mike brown tried to make him be. yes he can hit the outside shot but thats not his game, his game is down on the low block

My beef with Jamison is his age and his contract. He's not a bad player. He's actually quite good but my feelings were if you're going to go "all in", get a younger, more athletic Stoudemire. Unfortunately Kerr wouldn't pull the trigger and Ferry felt we HAD to have Jamison. It was a huge risk that may end up backfiring big time.

May end up backfiring? It did and is backfiring. If they would have won the championship, you can say it was a good trade.

But Jameson wasn't going to be that guy to get them over the hump. And now they are stuck with him. Rather than having cap space to go out and sign someone else and without a draft pick in the 1st round, they have to stay put with Jameson.

I meant "backfiring" as in if Lebron leaves.

"Jamison wasnt the guy to put them over the hump"............its so easy to say this now. At the time the Cavs needed some frontcourt scoring and thats what Jamison gave them. Ferry HAD to make a move. It was championship or nothing for the Cavs. He couldnt sit there and worry about future cap space.

Jamison most definitely could have put the Cavs over the top IF he was used correctly.

Nobody on offense was used correctly, including LeBron James. How much of that is his fault, I'm not sure of.

I never thought Jameson was the piece to put them over the top. He's an average NBA starting PF, who doesn't play any defense. I said all along that if Stoudemire was even a chance, you do anything you need to to bring him in, because he would have made the difference; and if he wasn't, you stay put.

The Cavs made a move just to make a move. Jameson didn't really make them a better team.

thedynasty1998;390437 wrote:I never thought Jameson was the piece to put them over the top. He's an average NBA starting PF, who doesn't play any defense. I said all along that if Stoudemire was even a chance, you do anything you need to to bring him in, because he would have made the difference; and if he wasn't, you stay put.

The Cavs made a move just to make a move. Jameson didn't really make them a better team.

I guess we are going to agree to disagree on this one. Antawn Jamison is a better NBA player than JJ Hickson or anybody else that we had at the 4 spot. The Cavs needed some frontcourt scoring.
Shaq
Z
Hickson
Anderon Varejo
Leon Powe

Which one of those guys could the Cavs count on to give them some offense night in and night out? They didnt have a 4 or 5 on that roster that could produce consistently.

I agree with hoops23 on this one. Jamison wasnt used properly.......nobody was. Jamison was the right move at the time.