Dont bother with Zero

[zunami23]

no look I'LL sigh first! haha Well thats foolishness. i didnt realise what you were on about. whyt would they want to sign jamison for another big contract over his expiring one now? he doesnt fit, it only works now because of the contract.

It doesn't have to be a long contract. 12 M, 2 years, what's wrong with that? They'd save money with the trade. And why wouldn't he fit at PF with Nene at center? It would work great in a fast-tempo offense. Defensively they'd be a bit screwed, but that's where Stevenson comes in.

[Happiness1982]

well it doesnt work because why in jesus would Jamison cut his wages in more than half for only 2 years? thats crazy talk, Zu! CRAAAAAAAAAZY TALK!

[zunami23]

well it doesnt work because why in jesus would Jamison cut his wages in more than half for only 2 years? thats crazy talk, Zu! CRAAAAAAAAAZY TALK!

Dude, minimum of 6 M... The amount can be anything you think is the middle ground with enough for Jamison and not too much for Denver. Jamison's gonna be 32 at the end of the season and I would assume he'd be happy being a starter in a championship caliber club. Who's gonna sign him to a 40 M, 4 year contract? Nobody. Well maybe the Knicks but that's beside the point.

[Happiness1982]

ok ok I feel you. But answer me this. if you want to dump money do you a) get rid of martin and camby NOW, take jamison and get nearly 20mil cap space OR b) get rid of them a year later and take on jamison.

consider: he WILL get more than 2 years, he WILL get more than 6 mil (i know you know that but still) and he wont fill their defensive hole.

[zunami23]

Of course I'd rather do A as a Nuggets fan, but that would be a horrible trade for the Wizards. If they do nothing they cut 16 M from Jamison's expiring contract. If they do my trade next off-season they cut a little under 5 M. If they do it now(the trade would work btw, still within 25%)... they'd be cutting -10.3 M. That means adding 10.3 M. That's 15 M worse than if they do it next off-season and it's 26 M worse than doing nothing! That's way too much. Don't check the math (it's frustrating), just trust me.

The best-case scenario would be for the Nuggets to get Jamison now while it not being a huge financial setback for the Wizards. http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=125~515~385~3020~851&teams=27~27~7~7~7&te=&cash=27:7
That trade for example, is too much of a setback for the Wizards. The incoming and outgoing values are equal but they'd be adding the 16 M to their cap space by giving the expiring contract away. This is why it's more reasonable to trade him with a new contract.

I was thinking about the Wizards the whole time even though I'm a Denver fan. Jamison's contract would be better if he wants it to be but how much do you think he should get?

[Happiness1982]

Ok well my issue is that it simply wouldnt happen from denver's standpoint after this year. I think jamison will command something like 8 maybe 9 mil on a 3 year deal. he might get 4 years in which case i think about 30mil is a good estimate.

i dont think its that bad for DC if they did it now. obv martin is a waste of money but half of that is offset by unloading thomas. and martin obv has big value in 2 years time. i mean, its not ideal i'll grant you lol

[zunami23]

Giving up Jamison now is gonna be bad financially for them if they don't get a big expiring contract in return. My trade could happen from Denver's standpoint because they would save money so why do you keep saying they wouldn't do it?! They'd save money even if Jamison got 12 M on 3 years (because of K-Mart's huge contract. Thomas's contract offsets half of it, but then there's Camby's contract).

Iverson/some useless scrub
Stevenson/Daniels(switch backcourt positions with AI)/Diawara
Melo/Kleiza/Najera
Jamison/Najera/Kleiza
Nene/Hunter

[Happiness1982]

I said they wont do it because I dont think Denver want to overpay an old guy with no D. they want the space. and yeah they'd save a bit but off the top of my head they'd still be in luxury tax territory i think. and why would they be happy with that if it meant giving up camby?

[zunami23]

Camby's turning 34 in March. They're not within remote reach of the luxury cap (3rd highest payroll in the NBA behind Celts and Knicks) so that's irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, I'd have to think long and hard about this trade if I was the GM and in the end I wouldn't have the balls to pull the trigger.

Anyway let's change the trading partner. I choose LA.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=981~617~1016~183~385~1784&teams=27~27~27~13~13~13&te=&cash=

[t-mac357]

bad trade for the lakers, they get a star player and 2 slackers for an all around do it all player in odom with 2 pretty good role players, bad move for the lakers

[steve]

Bad trade for the Lakers?  Under no circumstances whatsoever shall Kwame Brown ever step foot in the District of Colombia (or its neighboring suburbs) as a Washington Wizard (or in a Bullets, Capitols, Packers, or Zephrys throwback) under penalty of the pain.

edit - I also don't want to see a soft European jumpshooter anywhere near the Wizards unless Pesh is kicking his teeth in.

[t-mac357]

Bad trade for the Lakers?  

yes, odom is more valuable than any of the players in that trade, especially to the lakers

[zunami23]

Bad trade for the Lakers?  

yes, odom is more valuable than any of the players in that trade, especially to the lakers

They'd save money in the trade for free agency. I was supposed to have Songaila, not Haywood going to LA. I changed it now. But it's not that good of a deal for either team.

[EASTCOAST ASSASIN]

he is one of the best pg's in the nba he deserves the big bucks