Possible Backup PF Solution?

[matthi3205 0]

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?playe...19~19~4~19&te=&cash=

 

That trade could help all 3 teams.

 

Nelson/Hinrich/AJ

Hinrich/Pietrus/JJ/Lee

Pietrus/Lewis

Lewis/Noah/Williams

D12/Battie/Williams

[D-Guy 0]

sheldon williams just married candice parker, maybe we can get her as a package deal.

[Shine88 89]

quote:

Originally posted by FENDI:

Man, bringing the Landlord here? Say, might as well bring Josh McRoberts and play them with JJ.

 

lol

[CRAZY SERB 0]

quote:

Originally posted by matthi3205:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?playe...19~19~4~19&te=&cash=

 

That trade could help all 3 teams.

 

Nelson/Hinrich/AJ

Hinrich/Pietrus/JJ/Lee

Pietrus/Lewis

Lewis/Noah/Williams

D12/Battie/Williams

 

i like this scenario. we'd finally get the PG we need and dwight would get some help he needs. but i don't like your lineup though.

 

Hinrich/Nelson/AJ

Pietrus/Nelson/Lee/JJ

Lewis/Pietrus

Noah/Lewis/Williams

D12/Battie/Williams

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by matthi3205:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?playe...19~19~4~19&te=&cash=

 

That trade could help all 3 teams.

 

Nelson/Hinrich/AJ

Hinrich/Pietrus/JJ/Lee

Pietrus/Lewis

Lewis/Noah/Williams

D12/Battie/Williams

 

Hinrich's out for several months. In the short term, we'd be trading Cook, Turk, and Bogans for Shelden Williams.

 

Meanwhile, the Kings make out like bandits, and the Bulls give up perhaps their biggest available asset in Hinrich and Noah who still has a little value, to get back Brad Miller and Keith Bogans.

 

The only way this trade would happen is if the Kings sent this year's pick to Chicago and next year's pick to Orlando(and before you say that isn't allowed: shut up, I'm smarter than you ever will be, and yes, in this case it is very much allowed). Since the Kings are looking at a potentially high lottery pick this year, that won't happen.

 

I will say that this trade is far closer to being sane than most trades that get posted on this board though.

[PNuT1423 0]

i don't think noah is doing well enough to warrant a start on our squad. as far as i'm concerned his game hasn't translated as of yet, and he'd probably get slapped in the locker room at some point for talking trash.

 

lol and lets just bring the whole duke team here so we can be a textbook example about how most college players can't translate to the nba. i always thought the bobcats were reserved for that. while sheldon does have some game, if we're going to trade for a pf he might as well be a big one with a shot/athletic ability, i.e. lemarcus aldridge, he torched us well in that portland game, the roy/aldridge pick and roll is entirely sick, i wish oden was an all star so they'd just overlook him, but they still probably wouldn't trade him either way.

 

the best argument so far is for dwaye jones on the other post, well if he was let go, i didn't see news of it yet... but he's cheap.

[Mr Charisma 0]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

The only way this trade would happen is if the Kings sent this year's pick to Chicago and next year's pick to Orlando(and before you say that isn't allowed: shut up, I'm smarter than you ever will be, and yes, in this case it is very much allowed).

ROFL !!!

 

The art of arrogance is one I truly admire.

 

And I'll be one that is honest enough to admit that I don't understand why, in this case, it would be allowed. What are the conditions in which a team can trade away their #1 picks in consecutive years? Or has that whole rule been nullified and I'm still living in the Dark Ages?

[Penny Hardaway's Ghost 260]

Dwayne Jones gets my vote for right now....

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Charisma:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

The only way this trade would happen is if the Kings sent this year's pick to Chicago and next year's pick to Orlando(and before you say that isn't allowed: shut up, I'm smarter than you ever will be, and yes, in this case it is very much allowed).

ROFL !!!

 

The art of arrogance is one I truly admire.

 

And I'll be one that is honest enough to admit that I don't understand why, in this case, it would be allowed. What are the conditions in which a team can trade away their #1 picks in consecutive years? Or has that whole rule been nullified and I'm still living in the Dark Ages?

 

The whole problem with the way the Ted Stepien rule is typically explained is that people try to simplify it to explain only the part that's applicable in their specific situation, and then that specification becomes their interpretation of the rule.

 

The rule actually states that team can not legally enter any trade that would leave them without A first round draft pick in consecutive future drafts.

 

Now, it does not say that a team cannot enter a trade that will leave them without their first round pick in consecutive future drafts.

 

It also doesn't say that they cannot enter a trade that will leave them without a first round pick in consecutive drafts.

 

In this rule's case, slight changes in how you are intrepreting wording can be very significant.

 

In the case of the Kings, they could trade this year's pick and next year's pick, simply because they already have the rights to another pick next season(Houston's).

[Mr Charisma 0]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Charisma:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

The only way this trade would happen is if the Kings sent this year's pick to Chicago and next year's pick to Orlando(and before you say that isn't allowed: shut up, I'm smarter than you ever will be, and yes, in this case it is very much allowed).

ROFL !!!

 

The art of arrogance is one I truly admire.

 

And I'll be one that is honest enough to admit that I don't understand why, in this case, it would be allowed. What are the conditions in which a team can trade away their #1 picks in consecutive years? Or has that whole rule been nullified and I'm still living in the Dark Ages?

 

The whole problem with the way the Ted Stepien rule is typically explained is that people try to simplify it to explain only the part that's applicable in their specific situation, and then that specification becomes their interpretation of the rule.

 

The rule actually states that team can not legally enter any trade that would leave them without A first round draft pick in consecutive future drafts.

 

Now, it does not say that a team cannot enter a trade that will leave them without their first round pick in consecutive future drafts.

 

It also doesn't say that they cannot enter a trade that will leave them without a first round pick in consecutive drafts.

 

In this rule's case, slight changes in how you are intrepreting wording can be very significant.

 

In the case of the Kings, they could trade this year's pick and next year's pick, simply because they already have the rights to another pick next season(Houston's).

Thanks !!

 

Is there a way to easily get around this rule? For example, let's say I wanted to trade picks for 2 consecutive years, but do not currently have another one. Could I obtain a "conditional 1st round pick" from someone else (or the same trading partner) for one of the two years to get around it, even if the condition was ridiculous (for example, I only get the pick if it's the 29th pick of the 1st round)?

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Charisma:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Charisma:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

The only way this trade would happen is if the Kings sent this year's pick to Chicago and next year's pick to Orlando(and before you say that isn't allowed: shut up, I'm smarter than you ever will be, and yes, in this case it is very much allowed).

ROFL !!!

 

The art of arrogance is one I truly admire.

 

And I'll be one that is honest enough to admit that I don't understand why, in this case, it would be allowed. What are the conditions in which a team can trade away their #1 picks in consecutive years? Or has that whole rule been nullified and I'm still living in the Dark Ages?

 

The whole problem with the way the Ted Stepien rule is typically explained is that people try to simplify it to explain only the part that's applicable in their specific situation, and then that specification becomes their interpretation of the rule.

 

The rule actually states that team can not legally enter any trade that would leave them without A first round draft pick in consecutive future drafts.

 

Now, it does not say that a team cannot enter a trade that will leave them without their first round pick in consecutive future drafts.

 

It also doesn't say that they cannot enter a trade that will leave them without a first round pick in consecutive drafts.

 

In this rule's case, slight changes in how you are intrepreting wording can be very significant.

 

In the case of the Kings, they could trade this year's pick and next year's pick, simply because they already have the rights to another pick next season(Houston's).

Thanks !!

 

Is there a way to easily get around this rule? For example, let's say I wanted to trade picks for 2 consecutive years, but do not currently have another one. Could I obtain a "conditional 1st round pick" from someone else (or the same trading partner) for one of the two years to get around it, even if the condition was ridiculous (for example, I only get the pick if it's the 29th pick of the 1st round)?

 

Honestly, I have no idea since I don't think anyone has ever seriously attempted what you're describing, but I'd guess that the answer is more than likely no. You could pull off something close perhaps, if you structure multiple trades on the days surrounding one of the two drafts your trading picks away from. Trade your '09 pick the day before the '09 draft, then trade your '10 pick the day after the draft(since at that point, the '09 pick you traded was no longer a future pick) to get around the rule that way. But in terms of trading and leaving yourself with just a conditional pick? No, I don't think that'd be allowed.

[Mr Charisma 0]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Charisma:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Charisma:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

The only way this trade would happen is if the Kings sent this year's pick to Chicago and next year's pick to Orlando(and before you say that isn't allowed: shut up, I'm smarter than you ever will be, and yes, in this case it is very much allowed).

ROFL !!!

 

The art of arrogance is one I truly admire.

 

And I'll be one that is honest enough to admit that I don't understand why, in this case, it would be allowed. What are the conditions in which a team can trade away their #1 picks in consecutive years? Or has that whole rule been nullified and I'm still living in the Dark Ages?

 

The whole problem with the way the Ted Stepien rule is typically explained is that people try to simplify it to explain only the part that's applicable in their specific situation, and then that specification becomes their interpretation of the rule.

 

The rule actually states that team can not legally enter any trade that would leave them without A first round draft pick in consecutive future drafts.

 

Now, it does not say that a team cannot enter a trade that will leave them without their first round pick in consecutive future drafts.

 

It also doesn't say that they cannot enter a trade that will leave them without a first round pick in consecutive drafts.

 

In this rule's case, slight changes in how you are intrepreting wording can be very significant.

 

In the case of the Kings, they could trade this year's pick and next year's pick, simply because they already have the rights to another pick next season(Houston's).

Thanks !!

 

Is there a way to easily get around this rule? For example, let's say I wanted to trade picks for 2 consecutive years, but do not currently have another one. Could I obtain a "conditional 1st round pick" from someone else (or the same trading partner) for one of the two years to get around it, even if the condition was ridiculous (for example, I only get the pick if it's the 29th pick of the 1st round)?

 

Honestly, I have no idea since I don't think anyone has ever seriously attempted what you're describing, but I'd guess that the answer is more than likely no. You could pull off something close perhaps, if you structure multiple trades on the days surrounding one of the two drafts your trading picks away from. Trade your '09 pick the day before the '09 draft, then trade your '10 pick the day after the draft(since at that point, the '09 pick you traded was no longer a future pick) to get around the rule that way. But in terms of trading and leaving yourself with just a conditional pick? No, I don't think that'd be allowed.

Undoubtedly my example was extreme, but it is quite common for traded 1st round picks to be conditional (if not top 5 or if not lottery).

 

Thanks again for the info !!!