Nobody seems to care that most teams wont be willing to take our trash as a salary dump. Expirers don't simply grow on tree's; they're worth talent and draft picks because they unload a mess of money (that's currently being wasted) and allow a team to either resign a player who may bolt or go after some hidden treasure in the free agent market.

Basically, what I'm saying is that expirers are worth a whole lot more than Foyle or Dunleavy. Would YOU be willing to throw away an expiring contract (that may potentially pay for a free agent center like Joel Pryzbilla) in exchange for Adonal Foyle?

Most people are claiming, "Well, so-and-so has a hole at small forward, so they'd gladly take Dunleavy in a trade for <insert-expirer>"... but isn't it more likely that a team would allow that contract to expire in order to pursue a better small forward in the free agent market...?

The ESPN Warrior clubhouse forums are littered with these. Nonstop trade proposals that are nothing more than obvious, unlikely salary dumps... unloading Foyle, Dunleavy, Fisher, and Murphy (oh, and Pietrus, too... gotta make the trade's "fair" ) onto 3 different teams and often leaving us with Jamaal Magloire and over 15 million dollars in cap space.

When are people going to realize that this sort of ideal situation for Golden State (all the while, screwing 3 other teams out of interesting young prospects in the process) just isn't going to happen? I understand the pain, people, but let's keep things realistic...

Well, some teams are so far over the cap that the would be willing to trade a expirer for a better player with a bad contract. They Knicks have done it several times. Portland, too...

But yeah, most of this trades have no chance of becoming reality, even if they work under the cap. For a trade to WORK, it has to benefit both teams, or at least look like it.

So what does your Murphy/Pietrus for Smith/Pachulia idea fit in? Not only does the salaries NOT work but you have the Hawks handing over their best player in Smith and their ONLY center in Pachulia for a PF and swingman which they have plenty of. That would leave them with NO center and about 4 shooting guards (Pietrus, Childress, Johnson, and Stoudemire)

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Did you just call Josh Smith their "best player"??? Over Joe Johnson and (currently) Al Harrington?!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Good one. I thought for a minute you were serious.

By the way, where (in that trade) does it include any expirers...? There are no expirers featured in the Smith/Murphy trade, so referring to that is really irrelevant to the topic. If you don't think the Hawks would take the trade, that's your own personal problem. But the trade is very legit when it comes to talent-for-talent. Read the entire thing (including the idea of them pursuing a free agent center with the money they get from Harrington's exit) before you spout off a bunch of problems that I've already proved wrong in the thread.

ask any atlanta fan whether if they had to chose between Josh smith and joe Johnson, all I have heard is "Josh smith is the franchsise, the next garnett, blah blah blah." So, maybe the management is smarter then that, but if they aren't, then Josh Smith is significantly more important to the Hawks then any other player.

Stateofflux wrote:ask any atlanta fan whether if they had to chose between Josh smith and joe Johnson, all I have heard is "Josh smith is the franchsise, the next garnett, blah blah blah." So, maybe the management is smarter then that, but if they aren't, then Josh Smith is significantly more important to the Hawks then any other player.

They probably think so... but it ain't. Joe Johnson is the franchise player. Look at his contract.

If the Atlanta Hawks fans like Josh Smith more than Joe Johnson, it's because they're shallow half-wits whose only need during a basketball broadcast is to be pacified with the proper amount of high-flying dunks. Josh Smith (at this current place in time) is garbage compared to Joe Johnson! He's a pee-on. Kid's a jock sniffer at this point. A hardcore, shot-blocking jock sniffer.

Major potential? Sure. Better than Joe Johnson? "The Franchise"??? That's like us dubbing Pietrus the future franchise. It just makes me laugh.

the next garnett eh? kinda overexaggerating dont you think?

[quote=They probably think so... but it ain't. Joe Johnson is the franchise player. Look at his contract. [/quote]

The contract or salary doesn't always tell the whole story. Dwayne Wade is the obvious franchise player on that team. Sorry, its not Shaq and Wade is making $3.8M. Allan Houston and Chris Webber are the highest paid players on their team but both are far from being the franchise player. Chris Paul? Rookie of the Year is the Hornets franchise player at this point...$3.3M.

Anonymous wrote:The contract or salary doesn't always tell the whole story. Dwayne Wade is the obvious franchise player on that team. Sorry, its not Shaq and Wade is making $3.8M. Allan Houston and Chris Webber are the highest paid players on their team but both are far from being the franchise player. Chris Paul? Rookie of the Year is the Hornets franchise player at this point...$3.3M.

You missed the sarcasm ( ), pal.

Anonymous wrote:[quote=They probably think so... but it ain't. Joe Johnson is the franchise player. Look at his contract.

The contract or salary doesn't always tell the whole story. Dwayne Wade is the obvious franchise player on that team. Sorry, its not Shaq and Wade is making $3.8M. Allan Houston and Chris Webber are the highest paid players on their team but both are far from being the franchise player. Chris Paul? Rookie of the Year is the Hornets franchise player at this point...$3.3M.[/quote]
shhhhhhhhhhhhh... don't tell 32 that the blob scoring 12.7 ppg isn't the reason the heat won game 3

oh, btw that was disease, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in on this comp

I said that in another thread. Shaq could have had a much bigger game than he did. This doesn't offend me, you drama queen.