ESPN confirms the Vince Carter to Houston talks

Again, here's what I don't get: why is Houston making a play for Vince Carter when they could make the same play for a cheaper Antawn Jamison? What use does Carter have in Houston? Won't he just replicate McGrady? Jamison would fit in a lot better, wouldn't he?

And from our perspective, how could you not do Ron Artest's expiring contract and Carl Landry for Jamison? That's almost too good to be true.

almost 3 years ago Mike Prada 32 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I would jump on that

so quick if I were washington. I don’t think they’re trading Jamison though because they don’t want to upset Arenas. He took less so Jamison could get what he wanted and ditching that before they even took the court together might cause some problems

rockin' the crab dribble since 2009

by hibachi on Feb 17, 2009 5:05 PM EST reply actions

Is Artest's FG% forreal though?

38.8%?? That’s wild.

rockin' the crab dribble since 2009

by hibachi on Feb 17, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions

He started the season horribly

He’s been a bit better lately, but not much. I think he might be the first player I’ve ever seen go to a better team and have his fg% drop.

by pantslessyoda1 on Feb 17, 2009 11:42 PM EST up reply actions

Jamison insists on playing PF

and Houston already has about four of those. I know, I know, he’s better than all of them, but I would imagine Houston’s defensive scheme can accomdate a wing with suspect defense more than it can a PF.

Also, while VC does replicate McGrady, I can’t imagine Morey has that much confidence in McGrady playing much over the rest of his contract.

by Jon L on Feb 17, 2009 5:11 PM EST reply actions

My assumption is Houston would give us back a PF

Either Scola or Landry. They’d then have the same number of power forwards. Hell, we could take Chuck Hayes back too.

The other points are salient though.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Feb 17, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions

It would have to be Scola

Because the Rockets matched Charlotte’s offer last year, they can’t trade Landry without his consent (which he might give, but I don’t think it’s that likely). I also think Scola is one of those “more valuable to the Rockets than to some other teams” players, at least in Houston’s eyes.

Either way, both Scola and Landry make around $3m a year, so Houston would have to throw in a lot more (ESPN’s story has McGrady going to NJ for Carter and Trenton Hassell). Assuming also that they don’t trade McGrady for Jamison, as that would leave them without a viable SG, and that they don’t want to trade Battier for reasons that should be obvious, the trade that I got to work was Jamison and Etan for Scola, Artest, Barry, Luther Head and Chuck Hayes.

I have a really hard time believing Houston makes that trade.

by Jon L on Feb 17, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions

Because the Rockets matched Charlotte’s offer last year, they can’t trade Landry without his consent

I don’t think this is true because Landry signed a multi-year contract, not a one-year deal on the qualifying offer.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Feb 17, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions

You may be right

I got that info from ESPN’s trade machine, but who knows.

Even if Houston could trade Landry instead of Scola, though, Landry makes slightly less than Scola so they’d have to give up all of that anyway, which again, seems like kind of a lot for Jamison and Thomas.

by Jon L on Feb 17, 2009 7:18 PM EST up reply actions

I'm thinking just Jamison

Jamison and Dixon for Artest and Landry.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Feb 17, 2009 7:22 PM EST up reply actions

I suppose that looks okay

but isn’t part of the point of trading Jamison (or Butler) getting rid of another contract as well?

by Jon L on Feb 17, 2009 7:54 PM EST up reply actions

Oh, definitely

I just doubt Houston wants anything to do with Etan or Darius. And we’d get more talent back this way. Landry is a flat-out stud.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Feb 17, 2009 8:02 PM EST up reply actions

you are assuming too much

Pradamaster, you are assuming the Wizards are looking for cap relief. We can’t know that with certainty. It doesn’t seem like the Wizards are looking to make a trade unless Grunfeld is doing some last-minute posturing and at this point I really doubt it.

If the Wizards were as strapped for money and/or cap relief as is argued ad nauseum at this website then Grunfeld wouldn’t be sitting on his hands right now.

Were people really going into this week expecting a trade to happen?

by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 17, 2009 5:31 PM EST reply actions

Who's assuming anything?

They should be looking for cap relief. Whether they actually are or not doesn’t change that.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Feb 17, 2009 5:33 PM EST up reply actions

And anyway

If you do not assume the Wizards want cap relief, then you are assuming that Abe is willing to pay the tax.

The far more likely middle ground is that the Wizards want cap relief but are trying to avoid having to trade Jamison to do it.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Feb 17, 2009 5:36 PM EST up reply actions

why?

are you concerned about Pollin’s retirement fund?

we’ll see. for the future of the Wizards sake I hope they keep him. The only good reason to get rid of him (other than Abe can’t afford it) is because they have a plethora of players that can play the 4 position.

fwiw, I’m not assuming anything (though I’m not saying it’s wrong to make assumptions), I just don’t feel like I know. I have no idea what Pollin’s financial situation is. I also realize the wizards right now are only at risk of being over the luxury tax for 1 year, and I’m aware that the Wizards have in the past said they won’t sign a deep bench player if it takes them over the cap, but otherwise they’re not against breaking the cap.

so we’ll see… you may very well be right, which would suggest a wizards intuition that I don’t have. and if it’s true that talks between the cavs and the wizards haven gotten more serious today then maybe it’s possible.

by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 17, 2009 5:43 PM EST reply actions

only reason?

The only good reason to get rid of him (other than Abe can’t afford it) is because they have a plethora of players that can play the 4 position.

not quite. he doesnt want to be here. hes frustrated, and hes letting his frustration boil over to his teammates. hes dividing the team between young guys and veterans, and it really is hindering the development of guys like young, mcguire and javale. now, tapscott is to blame too, but jamison is only making things worse. not that you can really blame him though. i would be happy to see him go to cleveland and win a title. not happy for lebron, but happy for jamison.

by joshp on Feb 17, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions

if he's dividing the locker room....

…I agree. But I think the perspective within the Wizards organization is he provides valuable leadership and has brought focus to the team despite their awful season. I have no idea what’s true or not.

by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 17, 2009 5:53 PM EST up reply actions

It's a pretty fair assumption

To expect Abe Pollin, who has never wanted to go over the luxury tax in the best of times for both the economy and the state of the team, to do so in the worst of times. Nevermind his financial situation. And it’s not like we’re talking about barely going over the tax — we’d be anywhere from 6-10 million dollars over it. Like joshp said, that equates to nearly 20 million dollars in expenses. I don’t know about you, but I’m not holding out hope that Abe changes his ways. You can if you wish.

If my assumption is indeed correct, that means, then, that if we don’t trade Jamison, we have to cut costs in another way. That’ll mean selling our top five draft pick (which has already been hinted at today) and gutting our team of key young talent to entice the very few buyers that exist to take on our crappy long-term contracts for expiring deals. Down the road, when the tax level flatlines even more in 2010, that means not re-signing Brendan Haywood and not taking the opportunity to use Etan and MJ’s contracts to bring in an upgrade to the level of talent.

It’s either do all that or bite the bullet and trade Jamison for cap relief. If we have the chance to do the latter, then I feel like you have to do it. The alternative is very problematic.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Feb 17, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions

maybe

but do you agree, trading Jamison to go under the luxury tax is different than refusing to sign some third-rate bench player in order to stay under?

the point about the state of the economy perhaps makes your assumptions completely worthwhile.

by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 17, 2009 6:05 PM EST up reply actions

Yes

I do agree. But then you have to consider a) the state of the economy, b) the state of the team (11-42, not a contender) and c) the degree to which Jamison puts us over the luxury tax.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Feb 17, 2009 6:11 PM EST up reply actions

That one year

may cost the Wizards $23.4 Million dollars

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Feb 17, 2009 6:22 PM EST up reply actions

Jamison doesn't have the celebrity

of Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady. He won’t sell as many tickets as VC will and he won’t have the personality of a TMac or VC, and considering Yao doesn’t have too much personality, that would leave the Rockets without an entertainer.

by morethesamewiz on Feb 17, 2009 6:01 PM EST reply actions

They're not trying to sell tickets right now

They’re trying to win a championship

rockin' the crab dribble since 2009

by hibachi on Feb 17, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions

T-Mac has personality?

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Feb 17, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions

they've got plenty of "star" power in Ming

And they’ll sell many more tickets , and more merchandise , and more luxury boxes , etc….. if they win more games….
and win a Championship

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Feb 17, 2009 6:23 PM EST up reply actions

But what's better than having star power?

Having lots of star power. Just ask Jerry Jones.

Bullets Forever: A blog dedicated to the Washington Wizards with analysis, commentary, and more YouTube videos than your eyes can handle.

by Jake Whitacre on Feb 17, 2009 6:27 PM EST up reply actions

"Plus 6 is enormous," Morey says. "It’s the difference between 41 wins and 60 wins." He names a few other players who were a plus 6 last season: Vince Carter, Carmelo Anthony, Tracy McGrady.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html?_r=3&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=all

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Feb 17, 2009 9:08 PM EST reply actions 1 recs