With Tyson Chandler Gone and Amare on Hold, Is There a Door No. 3?

whatever you say, I agree with.

I don’t like option number 2, mainly because it would leave us with a glut of bigs vying for minutes and no real 3.

This is interesting. If the Maloof’s aren’t trying to save money, but they’re trying to improve the team, then they need to take a risk. This is a risk. I would do the Beno Udrih/Brad Miller for Willie Green/Sammy D deal myself. You get rid of Udrih’s contract, but you take on Green’s. You get Sammy D for 2 seasons, but you lose Brad MIller.

I’ll put a caveat on this. I do this deal if you could pull off a Raef LaFrentz/Ike DIogu deal with John Salmons and Kenny Thomas and a 1st rounder. Lots of cap room for that deal, but at the same time the Kings get that defending shot blocker rebounder they need. I think if you do something like this TZ, you do this to get your team better defensively in the interim. I like that Dalembert’s contract is only 2 years long after this season. This is a quality risk for the Kings to take without Chandler around.

My question: Would Philly do it? (I think it’s a fanshot time on Liberty Ballers…)

If we can get a center who can actually play defense and it doesn’t add a big salary burden I’m all for it. Any of those deals look pretty good to me.

 I would think that Salmons has fairly high trade value with a couple of other teams so it would be better to send him in a separate deal, meaning Deal# 1 and # 3 would be great.

I don’t see Philly taking back Kenny Thomas. But I really like the idea of Deal #1.

Miller, Moore and Beno for Dalembert and Andre Miller would work under the cap. I think Philly would be less likely to go for it, but I;d like to try for it.

But there’s a pretty big difference between Tyson Chandler and Samuel Dalembert.

Dalembert’s numbers look good but man is he frustrating to watch on a night-in/night-out basis. I’d give him a month and a half before he joins the Beno Udrih Club.

Does Brad + Mikki work?

I’m not worried about the minutes thing associated with option #2. JT/Hawes/Dalembert could play in any combination, and they would have 96 minutes to split between them.

As far as the 3 is concerned, let Garcia play with the starting five and throw a few more minutes Greene’s way.

Would cost $15.7 million in 2009-10, and $17.2 million in 2010-11. That’s pretty prudent spending to fill two positions if they could all co-exist and play off each other.

Choice #3 costs us $15M over the next 2 years for a backup center just to loose K9 a year earlier. Plus if we don’t get the #1 draft & Rubio doesn’t enter, the best player available may be another center. And, we add $2M to our salary next year assuming we would have bought out MM anyways.

Choice #2 costs us $5M over the next 2 years for a backup center and get rid of K9 one year earlier & we lose our starting SF. And, the draft ramifacations are the same.
And, we reduce our 2009 salary by $2.5M.

Choice #1is about a wash financially, but because I don’t know what Green’s buy out is I can only estimate that the deal would cost us about $3M over 2 years. Brad would be moving to backup anyways so having Dalembert as backup would also be awash. Since one is a better defender and shoot block and the other a better scorer & assist man you can assume their performance is compareable. Since I assume Green is being bought out( I don’t know just guessing) then the whole purpose is to get out of the last 3 yrs of Beno’s contract.

So, #1 is the only one that makes financial sense, because we don’t lose any player performance except at the PG, and we get out of 3 yrs of Beno’s contract. But, without moving anyone else we don’t gain significant Cap Space, and therefore, we can’t go after another PG in the FA market. So, unless we can trade for a starting PG which isn’t likely unless we already have a deal on the stove (2 days left), then we’ll be forced to take a PG with our 1st pick even if he isn’t the BPA.

Then is we have the chance to draft Rubio or Wall ( assuming he’s as good as projected) we’ll have used 2 consequative !st for PG’s and I don’t like that. #2 & #3 cost us money just to lose talent so, I say no. #1 saves us money, doesn’t improve our talent, & may force into a bad draft pick. I say no, to this one also.

Brad can perform as a reasonable Backup center, K9 isn’t hurting the team other than wasting money, and Beno isn’t a good PG but he’s been better lately. And, I think in 2010/2011, if we’ve drafted our starting PG, Beno will be a reasonably price backup, and still a moveable produce.

I don’t see the reason for forcing the issue. MM will be gone next year one way or another. Miller & K9 will be more moveable at the 2010 trade dead line. Salmons’ has greater value than any of these deals bring. If you can’t deal outright for expiring, than wait 1 year. The new guys (Hawes, JT,Greene, BB, and the 3 draft choices) are going to need another year anyway. By then, when their ready or at least we have an idea of what we have, the cap space we get for the expiring will allow us to fill in the holes.

I’m not convinced Dalembert is going to get significantly better, so, I’m not particularly enthralled with getting him, but I don’t hate the concept.

Because of that I only like option 1 and that’s with the caveat there’s no other way to get rid of Miller for expirings. If this is the only way to get Beno and Miller out of town right now, I’d be willing to do it. The reason to do it is to get out of Beno’s contract.

I’d take the Thomas and Salmons for Dalembert deal in a heartbeat. Any way you can also take Willie off our hands?

these trades don’t interest me at all. It’s true that some Sixers fans hate Sammy for his sometimes bonehead plays, but he’s a solid stopper, his shot blocking is needed behind a defense that gambles for steals and has Andre Miller who can’t stay in front of quick point guards.

I’m also a Rider grad, go JT!

just saw Cochie Princeton is dedicating the court to him on Sat.

We’d be sending them back Salmons in his prime and Kenny Thomas near the end of the contract given to him by thr Sixers for another long expensive contract. Essentially we’d be giving them back Salmons after he turned into a really good starter as well as K9(woof!) after taking a few years off his contract. Then we’d be getting back another contract that’s too big and too long.

“Fool me once shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.”

Vic, Philadelphia PA : Chad, any chance the Sixers move Dalembert today?

Chad Ford: They’ve tried … and tried … and tried. Nothing is happening.

Make me wonder if Option 3 isn’t so far fetched.