Reply With Quote
It's hard to imagine NO taking on RJ's contract but if they were remotely interested, I would absolutely do it. It gives exactly what we need.. toughness and defense down low. I would be tempted to throw in Neal or Green to make the deal happen.
The NBA's goal with its NO franchise is to have it be acquired by a private owner, period. Under that paradigm, the NBA should do everything in its power to sheld large contracts even if the move appears marginal to the average fan. Shedding about 7M in salary plus potentially picking up a first round pick, plus cheap contracts is EXACTLY what NO is about right now. Until that team is sold, it's all business in NO. The league has a responsibility to the rest of the owners. Accordingly I don't think an Okafor RJ swap is that far fetched, and frankly the Spurs would have more leverage than most would think in such trade talks for the same reason.
It's hard to imagine NO taking on RJ's contract but if they were remotely interested, I would absolutely do it. It gives exactly what we need.. toughness and defense down low. I would be tempted to throw in Neal or Green to make the deal happen.
did that article seriously compare young duncan/robinson to okafor/old duncan??
Not happening.
Not true - they can't amnesty RJ after trading for him. Puts the whole theory to sleep.
NO aren't taking RJ's contract and even if they're up for a deal like that all the other NBA teams will throw a hissy fit worse than whan happened when the Chris Paul deal to the Lakers was on the table. How people can't quite grasp that is unbelievable in the extreme.
If they're trading away Okafor, which they would love to, it would be for an expiring contract, such as Okur + filler or even into Indiana's huge available cap space, say Okafor + Minny's pick + future 1st round pick for a TE. But they're not taking back a contract as bad as RJs. Not that I think Indiana would be up for a deal like that, but NO certainly would.
Who woulda thunk an article like this would get people so worked up on a possible trade. So much analysis, scenarios, and the like... lol
all these brought up scenarios don't mean unless something happens, or at the very least, the FO throws a bone and the sports media spins it into a newsworthy headline.
If you hear about it, it will never happpen....
So because Aminu is a bust, they should trade him and Ariza for a player that is worse, older and more expensive than Ariza ? How that makes any sense?
Plus, if they trade Ariza and Aminu for Jefferson, they can't use the amnesty clause on him. We're the only team able to do it.
We should stop these delusional attempts to get rid of Jefferson. Nobody in the NBA wants him for 9/10m a year.
No as in you wouldn't do this (or a similar trade) or no as in the trade is a pipe dream?
I'll believe this when I see it actually happen.
Another argument: even if we could trick the Hornets into making a bad deal, the league would surely veto it.
Would trading Jefferson,Anderson and a 1st round draft pick for Okafor save the Hornets close to $10 million in salary over the next 2 seasons? Gives NO a far reaching prospect in James Anderson and gives them a future first rounder.
As unlikely as this rumor may seem, this trade, including the principals involved, make the most sense - by far for both teams.
Okafor's salary is for the next 3 seasons:
2011 - $12,541,812
2012 - $13,543,250
2013 - $14,544,687
Total: $40,629749
RJ's salary is also for the next 3 seasons:
2011 - $9,282,000
2012 - $10,164,000
2013 - $11,046,000
Total: $30,492,000
How this trade benefits the Spurs:
This trade benefits the Spurs because it will unload a young SG (Anderson), who desparately wants more playing time. With both Danny Green and Gary Neal continuing to flourish in their roles, the Spurs will not miss Anderson at all. The fact of the matter is it's very fair to say that THEY are the reason Anderson has become expendable. The trade also benefits the Spurs in that they would no longer be forced to continue relying the play of an undersized center (Blair), who is out of position. Of course getting rid of Jefferson, would allow to Spurs to get rid of his bad contract and prevent them from having to utilize the amnesty provision in order to do so. Furthermore, getting rid of RJ immediately opens the door for Leonard to assume a permanent starting role. And the most important benefit of all, the acquisition of Okafor gives the team the much-needed shotblocking, scoring and rebounding presence to pair along with Duncan. Okafor's presence will instantly improve the Spurs post defense and FG% defense. The Spurs will then have the necessary muscle needed to match up with the likes of Perkins and Ibaka (OKC); Gasol and Bynum (Fakers) and Nowitzki and Haywood (Mavs). Since, the Spurs are currently the #2 seed, this move could propel them over the top.
How this trade benefits the Hornets:
The trade benefits NO in that by exchanging RJ's contract for Okafor's, they will be saving probably roughly over $10 million over the next 3 years. RJ will give them an instant starter at the 3 spot, with Ariza backing him up off the bench. In Anderson, the Hornets get a young, developing and hungry SG, who has shooting ability and upside. In Blair, they get a young, undersized PF, who will improve their frontline depth, so long as there are no Whataburgers in the Crescent City. Also for Blair, he will no longer have to play the 5 spot and go up against bigger centers. He can then pair with Chris Kaman to solidify their frontline. Another benefit for the Hornets is, by trading Okakor, they are free to resign Kaman this offseason, if they so choose to do so. I doubt it, but the option for them is there. And with two first round picks, one perhaps even in the top 5, they will be able to literally rebuild their frontline, on the cheap.
The way I see it, is since the Hornets are currently owned by the league and are woefully cash-poor, they will be looking to build almost exclusively via the draft. Therefore, they almost have to unload Okafor on some team - especially since they have been unable to find any takers for Kaman, and his expiring contract.
With the relationship and mutual respect between the two front offices, I see a favorable deal here for both teams, that will hopefully get done.
The only problem I foresee is if this rumor actually has any substance. I won't believe the rumor until someone more reputable reputation.
Man i gotta say some Spurs fans here are totally delusional.
1st - NOLA is not saving roughly 10m simply because this season has already started and the players are getting paid already. Not to mention they would be adding Anderson's salary and Blair's.
2nd - They don't want to resign Kaman. They've been trying to trade him since they got him. They don't see him as their future starting Center and considering his injury history, they are probably right.
3rd- Do you guys truly believe Jefferson is better than Ariza to start over him ? NOLA would have 3 SFs in their lineup making 20m. Not to mention that adding Jefferson means less playing time for Aminu, a young SF they probably want to develop while they're tanking.
4th - Assuming they want to get rid of Emeka, i team like POR, desperate for a quality starting material Center, could easily offer them Camby's expiring + a pick or a young prospect, something much better than taking 's contract.
5th and last - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
It may not happen, at all. Those were just some reasons as to why it would make sense for both teams, it if did.
The problem is the Hornets are already paying Ariza for the next two seasons. Makes no sense to acquire another SF with a similar contract. If Ariza wasn't there, then it would make sense.
Could Spurs had a word with Batum and/or Hibbert about free agency ? Or is it prohibited to talk ?
I'd prefer ride with the actual roster until this summer, dump RJ, and see what the free agency brings.
Definately no to trade for an overpaid center
don't the hornets still have their amnesty option? why would they trade okafor for jefferson when they can just amnesty okafor?
Stop posting in this thread!!!!!!!!
Off topic but the above is something everyone should pause and think about.
Those of you who were around when David Robinson was coming up for his last contract will recall a lot of fans (posters) thought big Dave would take a minimal contract to give us more cap room to chase other opportunities. Dave had other ideas.
Why wouldn't Tim be the same way? Both guys took less than market deals during their prime to help the team get other pieces. When they get to the end of their career like Tim is approaching, their mindset might well be, "Don't insult me with some ty contract, I gave up money when it counted, don't try and nickel and dime me now, I want to be paid what I am worth."
I don't think Tim is going to take too small of a deal, not saying he is going for max money but he ain't playing for chump change either.
We aren't getting Emeka Okafor. This thread is a in joke. We have nothing to offer for the guy, and a team with pieces to trade will get him. We are stuck with what we have.
and maybe you'll pick up Dwight Howard too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
