Re: Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification
posted at 2/16/2014 12:11 AM EST
How's this for running and hiding?
Things Fiercy was wrong on lately:
1. Felt that when I told a poster the Knicks 'can't trade a 1st round pick until 2018' in response to that poster saying the Knicks could trade their 2015 for Rondo I was talking about in the summer of 2016 and not NOW.
WRONG: What a tool. Clearly the thread was about what the Knicks and Celtics could do in trading for Rondo NOW and not the technicality that as soon as the 2016 draft is over the Knicks can trade their 2017 draft pick. WOW! Shows how far a loser will go to try and 'call someone else out' on something.
2. Tried to use the 'right to swap picks' as evidence that a team can trade a pick in the first round of a draft that it is prohibited from trading a pick in based on league rules.
WRONG: Swapping picks and trading them away entirely are two SEPERATE things. Duh
3. Humphries is a 'trade priority' because he is gone as an UFA if we don't trade him by the deadline in 2 weeks. Repeats multiple times all night that Hump is 100% gone with no compensation if we do not trade him by the deadline.
WRONG: Chris Forsburg (and then Mployee-kudos) say the Celtics can use him in a sign and trade this summer. Forsburg predicts it MORE likely they do that than deal him.
Link to Forsburg's ESPN article: http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/10439094/at-trade-deadline-boston-celtics-shakeup
4. Sign and trade is not an option. 'Evidence' provided is a cut and paste from the new CBA Fiercy puffs his chest out over that says it is 'not advantagous anymore for a player to seek a sign and trade'
WRONG: Poor Fiercy and his lack of reading comprehension skills. The article clearly is referencing max contract all-stars like Dwight Howard, who was forced to take a 4 year deal at 4.5% raises from Houston (88 million) over a 5 year deal at 7.5% from the Lakers (118 million). He left 30 million on the table. It was not 'advantagous' to his bank account to do so (but his mental health is better).
Are the Celtics going to offer Humphries the 5/65 max extension Fiercy? Hahaha
Why did Bogans agree to be signed and traded for 5 million? Didn't he know the C's were going to rebuild? Oh... maybe it was b/c the Nets could give him 4 times more money in a sign and trade than any other team would give him in unrestricted free agency.
5. A rumor article saying Boozer could be on the move 'proves a point' that Fiercy was right to say it was very likely Boozer would be traded at the deadline... but wait... Fiercy said Boozer would be paired with the Bulls 2014 pick as compensation for the big contract he is owed through next season.
WRONG: The article DOES NOT mention the very valuable 2014 pick being dangled if a team takes Boozer. That WILL NOT HAPPEN (2 weeks left to prove me wrong on that and Fierce right). Furthermore (icing on the cake) the same article Fiercy pastes to help his cause says it is UNLIKELY Boozer be traded and MORE LIKELY the Bulls use the amnesty clause on him this summer. The EXACT thing I told Fierce was more likely months ago. (In addition to a pick in the teens in a deep draft being foolish to give away). Fierce... WRONG AGAIN!
6. Humphries would not agree to a sign and trade when he can just outright sign with a new team as an UFA for the same amount of money.
WRONG: Fiercy quickly changed the subject away from how a S&T could help Humphries to this gem after refusing to say if he thought Hump was worth the 4 year 50 million max the C's could sign and trade him for (coward). While it is possible he could hit UFA and find his 'highest bidder', there are unfortunately going to be 8-11 teams with the 7-9 million in cap space needed to give Humphries his market value of like 3 years 27 million or 4 years 32 million. NO team will give him close to the 4 years 50 million Boston can sign and trade him for (unless they give back contracts in return). What if those 8-11 teams with space don't want him? What if he doesn't want to go there? Most are not playoff teams. Wouldn't the sign and trade option be useful for Hump now? He can work with Boston to get a few million more and to a team he wants if Boston gets something in return for taking back a contract of like 4-7 million and draft picks/young talent. Unless he is traded for a Ben Gordon type expiring and first rd pick right now, the Celtics are in a BETTER financial position to deal him this summer in a sign and trade. Like Forsburg said.
7. Felt I said I would rather 'take cash' for Humphries by letting him walk as an UFA.
WRONG: My exact comment clearly showed I would rather have 12 million off the books than take back a sizeable Bass/Wallace type veteran contract... unless the asset we got back was a VERY good one.
Then he repeatedly asked the question: 'Where was anybody saying take back a bad contract for Humphries?'
My response: 'Where is it guaranteed the Celtics can move him for an expiring and a 2014 pick?'
Fiercy says the Celtics HAVE TO trade Humphries or 'get nothing' he is wrong. If the only offers are a bad '15 contract, they can keep him, do a sign and trade and get 'something'.
8. Fiercy says the Celtics would have 58.5 million in contracts next season if they let Humphries walk. He subtracted 12 million from current 70.5 million payroll.
WRONG: The Celtics have 46.5 million in salaries for next season w/o Humphries. Joel Anthony likely picks up his 3.8m option (the cost of two 2nd rd picks) that is 49.7m. The QO option for Avery will be offered. That is 3.6m, so total is 53.3m. Regardless Fierce was WRONG to subtract 12m from 70 million.
9. Unrestricted free agents can leave their current team and sign for 5 years from a new team.
and please, read that again... SERIOUSLY???
This was pretty much the biggest blunder I have seen IN A LONG TIME around here. Fiercy had no clue about possibly the BIGGEST change in the new CBA. After acting like a CBA guru in demeaning others? What a tool. This is idiocy at its zenith folks. He paid no attention to the Howard/Lakers drama or the upcoming Melo/Knicks situation huh? No clue that teams cannot sign other teams players for more than 4 years but can keep there own for 5. WOW!
10. Xavier McDaniel was signed after Reggie Lewis died.
WRONG: Reggie was alive and played the entire 1992-93 season with him.
11. Dave Gavitt was 'setting the Celtics back' by going for the playoffs in 1993, 1994 and 1995.
WRONG: He only did this in 1992-93 when he was in a Danny Ainge after game 7 of the 2012 ECF position. In 1994 he wanted to lose and built a team that went to the lottery. In 1995 he wanted to lose and was demoted from his CEO postion.
12. Dave Gavitt chose to go for the playoffs with Dominique Wilkins over rebuilding.
WRONG. Gavitt was forced out for not wanting to make moves like this and Red picked Wilkins.
13. If Fierce thinks what Gavitt did in '92 and '93 was what set the Celtics back more than the decisions of Red in 1989 than he is WRONG.
Can't wait for the deadline to pass with the Bulls not trading their 2014 1st rd pick in a cash dump with Boozer so an 'undecided' becomes one more in Ram's favor.