New Orleans Hornets may package Darren Collison

• wes_mantooth

  

  hoops23;395606 wrote: With or without Jamison, we STILL WOULDN'T HAVE CAP SPACE.
  
  You're argument on this fact is terrible.

  
  This is absolutely true. The cap situation is so ugly that even if they don't resign Lebron, they have very little room to sign anyone for more than around 6 mil. The Jamison move was tremendous, but they didn't get it done on the court.
• thedynasty1998

  

  How would they still have no cap space if they didn't have Jamison's contract on the books?
• wes_mantooth

  

  They are way, way over the cap. Gilbert had to write a hell of a check last year...something like 30 mil I think...for being over. It has only gotten worse this year.
• wes_mantooth

  

  I cannot find anything that really explains there cap situation, but I did find this chart...
  
  http://www.realcavsfans.com/showthread.php?t=21368
  
  This is from 09....it is worse now.
• thedynasty1998

  

  Maybe I'm missing something, but this is the guys under contract and what they are due next year:
  
  Jamison - $13.3 million
  Williams - $9.3
  Varejao - $7.0
  West - $4.6
  Gibson - $4.0
  Moon - $2.9
  Parker - $2.8
  Telfair - $2.7
  Hickson - $1.5
  Powe - $900k
  
  
  That's $49 million. Let's say the cap is $55 million next year, that means they are currently under. Obviously they are hoping to sign Lebron which puts them over, but without Jamison's $13 million, they are only due $36 million next year and that gives them some room to go out and get someone.
  
  Maybe I'm missing something?
• jpake1

  

  With those two guys gone, they've got cap space. But how did you get rid of Jamison and what'd you bring in? Obviously whoever he was traded for would add onto that 36M if James doens't resign.
• thedynasty1998

  

  My point has always been that the Cavs shouldn't have traded for Jamison. Therefore, you don't have him on your books and can pursue a free agent this offseason.
• jpake1

  

  I liked the trade. I didn't think they were champs before it and I didn't think they were champs after it. Even with Amare it wasn't remotely close to a given, but it would probably help keep LBJ in Cleveland. But that may still happen, so who knows.
• dave

  thedynasty1998;395953 wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but this is the guys under contract and what they are due next year:
  
  Jamison - $13.3 million
  Williams - $9.3
  Varejao - $7.0
  West - $4.6
  Gibson - $4.0
  Moon - $2.9
  Parker - $2.8
  Telfair - $2.7
  Hickson - $1.5
  Powe - $900k
  
  
  That's $49 million. Let's say the cap is $55 million next year, that means they are currently under. Obviously they are hoping to sign Lebron which puts them over, but without Jamison's $13 million, they are only due $36 million next year and that gives them some room to go out and get someone.
  
  Maybe I'm missing something?

  
  You are correct. They went "all in" so to speak with Jamison. Now they have no draft picks, and if Lebron leaves Jamison will be the centerpiece to the team for the next 2 yrs.
• thedynasty1998

  

  First off, Amare was going to be a free agent, so they knew they were only going to have him for one season.
  
  Secondly, they do win the championship with him. Amare would have fit in perfect with what the Cavs like to do. He can knock down the 15 footer and moves well without the ball and doesn't need the ball in his hands all game to be productive. Run the pick and roll with Lebron and Amare every time down the court and you have an explosive offense.
  
  Lastly, you don't trade for Jamison if you don't think he brings you a championship this year. That post didn't even make any sense, you bring in a bad contract like Jamisons, ONLY if you think it wins you a championship. If you don't think it does, there is no reason to even sniff that trade. The Cavs are stuck with him now and can't even make another move to imrove their roster now.
• BR1986FB

  thedynasty1998;396126 wrote:First off, Amare was going to be a free agent, so they knew they were only going to have him for one season.
  
  Secondly, they do win the championship with him. Amare would have fit in perfect with what the Cavs like to do. He can knock down the 15 footer and moves well without the ball and doesn't need the ball in his hands all game to be productive. Run the pick and roll with Lebron and Amare every time down the court and you have an explosive offense.
  
  Lastly, you don't trade for Jamison if you don't think he brings you a championship this year. That post didn't even make any sense, you bring in a bad contract like Jamisons, ONLY if you think it wins you a championship. If you don't think it does, there is no reason to even sniff that trade. The Cavs are stuck with him now and can't even make another move to imrove their roster now.

  
  As I mentioned before, I wasn't a fan of the Jamison trade but it was pretty much done out of desperation if you ask me. I think FERRY felt that had to do something, ANYTHING to show Lebron they were doing their best to bring him a championship. And as I said in previous posts, if LBJ leaves, it backfired big time.
• jpake1

  

  thedynasty1998;396126 wrote:First off, Amare was going to be a free agent, so they knew they were only going to have him for one season.
  
  Secondly, they do win the championship with him. Amare would have fit in perfect with what the Cavs like to do. He can knock down the 15 footer and moves well without the ball and doesn't need the ball in his hands all game to be productive. Run the pick and roll with Lebron and Amare every time down the court and you have an explosive offense.
  
  Lastly, you don't trade for Jamison if you don't think he brings you a championship this year. That post didn't even make any sense, you bring in a bad contract like Jamisons, ONLY if you think it wins you a championship. If you don't think it does, there is no reason to even sniff that trade. The Cavs are stuck with him now and can't even make another move to imrove their roster now.

  
  It's not a given Amare helps them win a championship. They weren't even close this year. I don't know if the difference between Amare & Jamison is enough to overcome that. I still think the guys around those two wouldn't have beat the Lakers. Amare fits perfectly into what the Cavs do? SMH. They play defense, he can't even fuckin' spell it. He would have been a nice addition, but please, he's far from a perfect fit for their culture.
  
  By the way, the last part of your post is fucking retarded, and is comical that you tell me mine didn't make sense. I liked the trade because they got a good player for virtually nothing-- they got better, just not enough. I didn't think they were champs before or even after. Just because they didn't win doesn't mean it was horrible, it just means they never had what it took to begin with. The part that is funny is this one-- I didn't trade for the poor bastard. It doesn't matter what the hell I thought. THEY, as in the CAVS FRONT OFFICE, thought it would win them a ring. So I don't know why the fuck you are giving me advice on when to trade and not to trade for a player. Go speak with the FO if you've got a problem. I said months ago I wouldn't have done that trade. I would have given whatever up for Amare because of the now and LONG TERM. I was against the Jamison trade, but that doesn't mean I didn't like it. I agree it's not what they needed. They needed a lot. Sometimes you can't get what you want, doesn't mean you don't try.
• jpake1

  

  BR1986FB;396130 wrote:As I mentioned before, I wasn't a fan of the Jamison trade but it was pretty much done out of desperation if you ask me. I think FERRY felt that had to do something, ANYTHING to show Lebron they were doing their best to bring him a championship. And as I said in previous posts, if LBJ leaves, it backfired big time.

  
  I can agree with backfired. However, I think that's how this ultimately goes down if he leaves; and not just because of Jamison. For a couple years now I've given the reciple for LBJ leaving several times. I got a lot shit for it and laughed away. But one by one they have all happened and now things are up in the air. Jamison's contract will hurt them a bit for a year or two, however, they still get some pretty good production. So if LBJ leaves, maybe it's not a bad thing they have Jamison. It's not like that money would be going to a max player-- nobody would go to Cleveland without LBJ there. At least with Jamison and Co. around they might make the playoffs. I just think their moves from the past couple of years will turn around to bit them in the ass; not just this move.
• IggyPride00

  

  without Jamison's $13 million, they are only due $36 million next year and that gives them some room to go out and get someone.

  Add Lebron's $17 million to that and you are at $53 million, so you would be essentially capped out with or without Jamison if the final cap is roughly $55-56 million.
  
  That was why they brought him in, because they weren't going to have the free agent room this summer financially, so it was Jamison or nothing.
• thedynasty1998

  

  Nothings a given, but Amare is a premier PF in the NBA, and you could argue that he's the best PF in the NBA. He eats up Garnett in the Boston series if they play, instead of Jamison who got ate up. The Cavs need a big who can space the floor and work in space, that's what Amare does.
  
  And let's not get into the discussion of Jamison's defensive incompetencies. He got ate up by Garnett.
  
  
  I just don't understand how you can say you like the trade, but don't think it put them over the top. The Cavs had the best record in the NBA, the only need to make that move is if it brings a championship. Jamison is on the books for 2 more years at too much money. And how many times do I have to say they got him for nothing, because Washington was willing to give him away to anyone that would take him. It's not that hard to understand. When you don't want a guy and want his contract off the books as badly as Washington did, they would have traded him for a new backboard if the league allowed it. The Cavs were the only team dumb enough to pull the trigger.
  
  And I was the first one on here calling for Ferry to get fired. So, don't give me the "go call the FO". This is a message board. I like to discuss these things. Some people think the Jamison trade was a good one, I just don't happen to buy into it.
• jpake1

  

  Because they traded a useless pick for a pretty damn decent PF. They added a weapon. They got better. That's why I liked it. They were already over the cap. This wasn't like a Miami cicumstance where they had to be vary careful of their cap space in the very near future. I didn't think it put them over the top because I have never believed in the likes of Mo, Andy, etc. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Not every trade is one that makes you a champion; not too many are. I liked the trade because they improved-- that's the name of the game. There was a need to make a move. Ferry learned a lesson last year. He had the "best" team and still got fucked up. Had they NOT made a move this year and lost, you know you'd be on here bitching about that fact. It's completely 20/20 hindsight. Hell yeah he was pressured into a panic move. LBJ has that franchise by the balls. They took a chance because just sitting back wasn't an option, even if they had the "best" team. It's funny that you think the Cavs weren't smart enough to know they were overpaying. EVERYBODY knows he isn't worth that money. But sometimes to win a ring, you've got to owepay to get the pieces. When you're already over the cap, money isn't an issue with Gilbert. Do you understand that? Do you think money will be an issue in FA if LBJ leaves? I highly doubt it. Honestly, what stud will come to Cleveland without LBJ? It's not like they'd be able to load that team up with that 36M cap number you came up with. Gilbert knew and still does know that without LBJ there, they will be rebuilding. Jamison will come off the books soon enough.
  
  Cool for you to be the first one to call out Ferry. And I will give you the go call the FO if you want to bitch to me. Read what you wrote. You were talking to me as if I was actually part of the Cavs front office. They brought Jamison because they THOUGHT it would win them a ring. They did EXACTLY what you advised them to do. I don't fault them for the move. I fault them if they didn't do everything in their resonable power to get Amare. But they HAD to do something. They would have been hung if they wouldn't have made a move and still lost this year. They gave themselves a chance, they at least tried. But this is sports-- trying isn't good enough. Cleveland may very well find that out in July.
• IggyPride00

  

  Given how incompatible Shaq and Stoudamire clearly were on the court together in Phoenix the prior year, it would have been a disaster for Ferry to have brought him here.
  
  I think they could have found a way to make it work, but can you begin to imagine the outcry had it failed here as well people would be burning Cavs management at teh stake for having brought in a guy that showed for a season and a half to be incompatible with Shaq.
  
  Bringing him here would have been a way bigger risk than Jamison at the time anyway as conventional wisdom was they wanted that stretch 4 which is more Jamison's game anyway. It didn't work, but given the circumstances at the time it was the correct move. Everyone knew we were up shit creek if they didn't win it, so its not like this is any huge shocker as last year was the year to be all in.
• thedynasty1998

  

  I don't think we are that far apart in our opinions. I just didn't see Jamison being the guy to get them over the top and I personally wouldn't have touched him. Did he improve the team? I honestly don't know. I think Hickson fit what Brown wanted to do more, and by bringing in Jamison you had to play him the minutes.
  
  I've never been a Jamison fan. Sure he has always put up decent numbers and seems to be a really good guy, but he's undersized and has always played on underachieving teams.
  
  I just disagree with you that sitting back wasn't an option. Sure it was. They made a desperation move when they had the best record in the NBA. It didn't make sense then, and it makes even less sense now.
  
  If Lebron leaves, you want to rebuild tomorrow, but you really can't because you drafted a guy from the Congo last year, and traded away your first rounder this year and have Jamison's contract for at least a year. It just postpones the rebuilding process for another year.
  
  If Lebron resigns, they are the same team that lost to Boston.
• thedynasty1998

  

  IggyPride00;396301 wrote:Given how incompatible Shaq and Stoudamire clearly were on the court together in Phoenix the prior year, it would have been a disaster for Ferry to have brought him here.
  
  I think they could have found a way to make it work, but can you begin to imagine the outcry had it failed here as well people would be burning Cavs management at teh stake for having brought in a guy that showed for a season and a half to be incompatible with Shaq.
  
  Bringing him here would have been a way bigger risk than Jamison at the time anyway as conventional wisdom was they wanted that stretch 4 which is more Jamison's game anyway. It didn't work, but given the circumstances at the time it was the correct move. Everyone knew we were up shit creek if they didn't win it, so its not like this is any huge shocker as last year was the year to be all in.

  
  I completely disagree with this as well. If they bring in Stoudemire, you make things work with him on the floor. Forget Shaq, you can cut him. It becomes the Lebron and Amare show and you build around them. Amare is an elite player in this league. Shaq is not.
  
  Jamison is a far greater risk. Amare had one year left on his contract, so even if it doesn't work, he's off the books. Plus, he is every bit as good of a shooter as Jamison and is better is just about every other area of the game. Amare would have been about the safest move they could have made.
• jpake1

  

  thedynasty1998;396318 wrote:I don't think we are that far apart in our opinions. I just didn't see Jamison being the guy to get them over the top and I personally wouldn't have touched him. Did he improve the team? I honestly don't know. I think Hickson fit what Brown wanted to do more, and by bringing in Jamison you had to play him the minutes.
  
  I've never been a Jamison fan. Sure he has always put up decent numbers and seems to be a really good guy, but he's undersized and has always played on underachieving teams.
  
  I just disagree with you that sitting back wasn't an option. Sure it was. They made a desperation move when they had the best record in the NBA. It didn't make sense then, and it makes even less sense now.
  
  If Lebron leaves, you want to rebuild tomorrow, but you really can't because you drafted a guy from the Congo last year, and traded away your first rounder this year and have Jamison's contract for at least a year. It just postpones the rebuilding process for another year.
  
  If Lebron resigns, they are the same team that lost to Boston.

  
  I agree, we aren't far apart. I was against the trade, but I'm not saying it was a bad one. It was actually a good trade IMO. I just liked other stuff more. There is a fine line, thus probably where confusion is coming from. Amare definitely should have been the trade. If you can't do Amare, then move onto Jamison. I just think they would be getting more heat right now from fans and maybe players had they not done a single thing. I know you can just see this board saying "My god, we had the best team last year and we still fuckin' lost. We had the best team this year and we still fuckin' lost. They should have made a move unlike last year". At least now, it's not about the effort, it's just that they weren't good enough.
  
  Of course you want to rebuild as quickly as possible, but how many teams do that just like that? It takes awhile. Had they not made the trade and LBJ leaves the lineup would looking something like this-- Mo, Parker, Moon, Hickson, and Andy. They'd need to definitely upgrade at SG, SF, and get a C since Andy shouldn't play there. Nobody knows whats up with Shaq and Z, let alone who wants them for big minutes? Even with that 20M, most players would be going to other teams, not the Cavs. It comes down to this, if LBJ leaves, no matter how you slice it, it will take the Cavs YEARS to recover from that type of loss.
• dave

  One thing eveyone can agree on is Ferry made quite a few bad moves over the last couple years. Many looked good at the time but they just didn't pan out.
• sportswizuhrd

  thedynasty1998;396318 wrote:I don't think we are that far apart in our opinions. I just didn't see Jamison being the guy to get them over the top and I personally wouldn't have touched him. Did he improve the team? I honestly don't know. I think Hickson fit what Brown wanted to do more, and by bringing in Jamison you had to play him the minutes.

  Correct me if I am wrong, but landing Amare would have meant JJ to PHX, right? Either way he wasn't going to get the playing time he was used to(w/the Cavs, more PT with the Suns probably).
• hoops23

  

  It's never a bad trade when you add a 20/10 guy to your team. I seriously don't know why it's so hard for anyone to realize that Jamison was NOT utilized here correctly.
  
  For gods sakes, the Washington Post was ripping Mike Brown during the Boston series because he wasn't using Jamison right. Not only that, but Jamison has NEVER played with Shaq and you throw him into the line up right in the heat of the playoffs.
  
  It was a disaster waiting to happen. Regardless, it doesn't matter now. Jamison can still put up 20 a game and if we keep him, he turns into a VERY nice expiring contract season after this upcoming season.
  
  And w/o Jamison we still don't have cap space. With LeBron, we're still over the cap... W/O LeBron and Jamison we're a couple million under, but not enough to do ANYHTING plus we'd lose our MLE.
  
  The MLE is pretty much the same amount of cap space we'd have w/o LeBron and Jamison, so again, we lost nothing.
  
  And Dave, please let the 30th pick go. That was getting us nothing to begin with and the Cavs are looking to buy into the first round, which will probably net them a pick between 16-24. So it'll work out in the end.
• dave

  Jamison was never going to be a 20/10 guy here, that was the problem. It was impossible on that team. It's been discussed too much though.
  
  Maybe I'm missing something but without Jamison and Lebron the Cavs would only be a couple million under the cap? I don't follow that stuff like I used to but is that really the case? Pretty sure they would have more than the MLE and you don't want to use up the MLE this year without Lebron. Then you still won't have flexibility next year.
  
  Also, the 30th pick isn't getting anything? There have been plenty of solid rookies taken around then, and this year the draft is pretty loaded. It never hurts to have picks, especially when you are rebuilding which is what they might have to do. This team is old without Bron. That's on Ferry for poor drafting and trading and Mikey for never giving Shannon a real shot or developing Boobie. They could have used that pick and bought another.
• jpake1

  

  I must be missing something too. Without Jamison and LeBron, wouldn't the Cavs have close to 20M?