ducks
07-08-2006, 09:05 AM
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1129/SPORTS0104
Robin Buckson/The Detroit News
M y moles are telling me that the Pistons never had an opportunity to do a sign-and-trade with Ben Wallace.
As good as it sounds, the rumors out of Chicago are wrong. The Pistons didn't have any deals on the table with the Knicks or 76ers.
The talk was they did, but Wallace, the free-agent center, KO'd any chance for a deal, insisting on taking the four-year, $60-million deal from the Bulls.
If that was the case, it certainly would have looked as if Wallace had an ax to grind with the Pistons. For sure, the Pistons would have been interested in making a deal. After all, no team wants to lose a star and get nothing in return.
But, why would Wallace nix a deal that potentially could have gotten him even more money?
A sign-and-trade deal is usually good for all parties involved.
The player's old team can always pay more than the team he's joining, so he'll get more than on the open market. And it allows the old team to receive a player or two in return.
Let's not forget that the Pistons' turnaround was fueled by a sign-and-trade deal. Grant Hill, a free agent at the time, was moved to the Magic for Wallace and Chucky Atkins.
It allowed Hill to get the maximum amount -- $92 million over seven years. It also allowed the Pistons to get Wallace, who turned out to be the cornerstone of what was a fantastic five-year run
Robin Buckson/The Detroit News
M y moles are telling me that the Pistons never had an opportunity to do a sign-and-trade with Ben Wallace.
As good as it sounds, the rumors out of Chicago are wrong. The Pistons didn't have any deals on the table with the Knicks or 76ers.
The talk was they did, but Wallace, the free-agent center, KO'd any chance for a deal, insisting on taking the four-year, $60-million deal from the Bulls.
If that was the case, it certainly would have looked as if Wallace had an ax to grind with the Pistons. For sure, the Pistons would have been interested in making a deal. After all, no team wants to lose a star and get nothing in return.
But, why would Wallace nix a deal that potentially could have gotten him even more money?
A sign-and-trade deal is usually good for all parties involved.
The player's old team can always pay more than the team he's joining, so he'll get more than on the open market. And it allows the old team to receive a player or two in return.
Let's not forget that the Pistons' turnaround was fueled by a sign-and-trade deal. Grant Hill, a free agent at the time, was moved to the Magic for Wallace and Chucky Atkins.
It allowed Hill to get the maximum amount -- $92 million over seven years. It also allowed the Pistons to get Wallace, who turned out to be the cornerstone of what was a fantastic five-year run