NBA Trade Deadline Live-Blog
by John Bena (aka CavsBlogger) on Feb 19, 2009 11:09 AM CST
in Roster Moves
49 comments
This is your home for all the rumors, real and otherwise, when it comes to the NBA Trade Deadline. All trades must be completed by 3PM est today. We'll keep updating as the rumors and deals come in.
Have a rumor? Send it to me -- fearthesword@gmail.com
3:00 PM -- And.....TIME! While trades will be announced as the afternoon goes on, it appears the Cavaliers avoided the temptation and will take a team that is 41-11 into the playoffs. I wrote a couple days ago that I thought that was the best scenario. While all the trade talk is fun and exciting, I still believe that.
2:53 PM -- JA Adande is saying Shaq is staying put.
2:50 PM -- There is a possibility that the Cavs and Suns could get something done, just not involving the players we thought. A deal between Cleveland and Phoenix involving F Matt Barnes is a possibility.
2:45 PM -- Looks like Richard Jefferson will stay with Milwaukee. He had been linked to the Cavaliers, but we couldn't think the Bucks would dump another talented player to the Cavs, could we?
2:20 PM -- Line of the day so far, regarding the Knicks acquiring of Larry Hughes --
For the Knicks, the trade is a bigger deal. Hughes can be a dynamic scorer and fills a huge need for the Knicks in the backcourt as they continue their push toward the playoffs. The Knicks have struggled to find scoring at the two-guard since trading Jamal Crawford to the Warriors.
Who would have thought the words "dynamic" would be used to describe Hughes, and "push to the playoffs" when talking about the Knicks. The NBA -- Where B.S. Happens!
2:00 PM -- One hour to go. Does Danny Ferry and the brains behind the Wine and Gold have a bullet in their chamber??
1:48 PM -- The latest -- as I stated before, the Cavs and Suns are looking for a 3rd team to help the Suns out with the money. More to come...
There also appears to be a 2nd deal on the table. According to sources, the teams involved, including the Cavs, could be at the point where draft pick compensation is being discussed. This is just rumor.
1:37 PM -- Larry Hughes is on the move again, this time to New York and the Knicks. As for the Cavs, there is no way I trade Wally Szczerbiak to the Phoenix Suns in a deal for Shaq. Talk about financially crippling the franchise. Now, if we can get a 3rd team involved...
12:30 PM -- Sources, like ESPN's Chad Ford, are talking about the possibility that the Cavaliers could have a shot at Carlos Boozer as well. Personally, I have no idea how I would feel about that move. While there is no indication the Cavs are talking to the Jazz, he would be a better fit with Cleveland than Shaq, and the money the Jazz would save has to be enticing.
Noon -- 3 hours to go and the Cavaliers are one of the most aggressive teams in the NBA right now. It is appearing that the Cavs are trying to work a deal with Phoenix Suns for Shaq. Sources are telling Brian Windhorst that the Cavs have offered Ben Wallace and Sasha Pavlovic for the Big Diesel.
Windhorst explains that this deal would be great for the Suns because Wallace's contract actually goes down in value next year while Sasha's contract is only guarunteed for $1 million, making it close to an expiring deal.
The Cavs are also discussing Richard Jefferson with the Bucks, but that is considered a long-shot right now.
0 recs |
49 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
So, how good of a defender is Shaq diesel?
by hans on Feb 19, 2009 11:25 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
He’s still an intimidating presence inside, that’s for sure!
by John Bena (aka CavsBlogger) on Feb 19, 2009 11:26 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I’m a little unsure about who we give up though. If you took contracts out of it, Ben Wallace has been a more valuable player than Wally because he has been having a resurgance on defense this season and Wally, well doesn’t play defense as well. A basket saved (or defensed) is as good as a basket scored. Although I can’t see us trading both Wally and Sasha.
by hans on Feb 19, 2009 11:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
And now over at ESPN they are saying that the deal is not close to being completed, yes they talked but no there isn’t anything of much substance there.
by hans on Feb 19, 2009 11:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Of course they are. That way, if/when it happens they can say they broke the story. In the NBA, nothing is “close” or “imminent” until it happens.
by John Bena (aka CavsBlogger) on Feb 19, 2009 11:36 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Sacrilege, perhaps, but I’d rather have Benedict Boozer. From Ford’s ESPN chat:
Gustavo Freitas (Uberaba, Brazil): Hey, Chad. What?s up? I was wondering. If Shaq goes to the Cavs for Ben Wallace and Sasha Pavlovic, who will be the power forward? And then. Who?s going to go to the bench: Shaq or Z?
SportsNation Chad Ford: (12:07 PM ET ) Yeah, it’s a bit of an odd pairing. What’s really interesting to me is I’ve been told they had a chance to get Carlos Boozer. Now, I know Cavs fans hate him for screwing the team in 2004. But he’s a MUCH better fit than Shaq. This is crazy.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 11:39 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
2 hrs to go and I’m rooting for no Shaq. Boozer, Joe Smith, or Jamison on the other hand … would be very nice.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 12:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
ESPN says:
[Joe] Smith, the source said, would like to do a buyout and then sign with the Boston Celtics as this season’s version of P.J. Brown.
by JulioBernazard on Feb 19, 2009 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i saw that, too. i’d like to think that smith would rather try to finish what they started last year in the playoffs with the cavs than sign with old buddy kg in boston. i doubt it’s a done deal to boston, if he were to get bought out.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I still hate Booz. Am I alone in this?
by JulioBernazard on Feb 19, 2009 12:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
No. You aren’t. I think there were alot of things said after the fact that make a Boozer deal impossible, even though this is a new regime.
by John Bena (aka CavsBlogger) on Feb 19, 2009 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
his actions were despicable, but … man, he’d look good on that frontline.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If he’s healthy… Which he still isn’t…
by painaxl on Feb 19, 2009 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
this is a good point. i read somewhere that he’s getting close to coming back from this most recent injury, to his knee, i think. i’ll see if i can find the reference …
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 12:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing too official, but, again, from Ford:
Boozer would be a great fit in Cleveland if healthy. I think all the hurt feelings would be smoothed over pretty quickly if he helped Cleveland win a title. He’s hasn’t played since mid-November with a knee injury but is nearing a return. It would be a low-risk move for the Cavs and would save the Jazz some serious money.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 12:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I think Shaq would be a net gain over Wallace. Yeah, you miss a bit of defense, but you’ve got a surefire finisher at the rim.
Also, I don’t understand Steven A. (what else is new?) screaming on ESPN about how Shaq and Z don’t fit together. Z can shoot the midrange and run the pick and roll while Shaq is down on the block.
by painaxl on Feb 19, 2009 12:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
A valid question. I would say it would shift based on what team. Probably Shaq or LBJ if it’s a smaller, more athletic four.
by painaxl on Feb 19, 2009 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Then again, I think this is the one issue with the deal. Most of the skepticism I hear nationally has to do with Shaq’s impact on the Cavs offense, which is what I find so baffling.
by painaxl on Feb 19, 2009 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
looks like you’ve seen the True Hoop commentary, though right? See below. I’m a huge Shaq fan, but I don’t see this as a fit.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He just wants to see the Cavs fail. I mean, how could he think that bringing in a future HOF’er, a guy with 4 rings who knows how to get it done during the playoffs, is anything but a bad move.
by John Bena (aka CavsBlogger) on Feb 19, 2009 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Steven A. is a blowhard. Ignore him. Henry Abbott, on the other hand, is usually quite reasoned in his analysis. Here’s what he says about Shaq on the Cavs:
But it makes me nervous. My main thought is, if I’m a Cavaliers fan, I want LeBron James on the move, with the ball, as much as possible. In the open court, in the half court, near the rim, and on the perimeter.
…
If you want James to have free rein to find angles to the rim, do you want half the court locked down by O’Neal and his defender?
If O’Neal kept James from making those forays to the rim, he would have a lot of explaining to do, in my mind.
Maybe I’m over-thinking, this though. O’Neal, in Cleveland, is a man with one last shot at a title, and he’s going to bring his A-game. His A-game tends to win titles.
Yeah, there’s a lot to like about Shaq’s resume, winning titles, but it’s not necessarily a great move. And this doesn’t even get into defense, lineups, etc.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 1:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m still glad we’re not trading for him.
by JulioBernazard on Feb 19, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m relieved, too. Would’ve been a splash, but I can’t see how it would be have been a very wise move.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 1:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I did see this, but didn’t quite understand the implication. Yes, Shaq is a large guy and stays down low. However, when he won with Miami, Dwayne Wade drove a lot, as I recall. Kobe Bryant wasn’t always as much of a jump shooter as he is now (although he was, admittedly, less of a slasher then D. Wade). So is the argument that he’s drastically slower then he was a few years ago? So much so, that he wouldn’t be able to get out of the way for a driving scorer?
by painaxl on Feb 19, 2009 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hadn’t really thought of it that way – you make a good argument. i think that abbott is saying that shaq circa 2009 is an older, heavier, slower, more deliberate player … and maybe also that those lakers and heat teams executed more efficiently in the halfcourt? and i don’t think it’s about getting out of the way, but about occupying that space in the first place, with at least one other monster.
regardless, the thought of shaq finishing lobs from lebron is a nice one – recall all those missed layups/dunks off lebron feeds, e.g. vs. the lakers in the q? beyond this, though, i hope the cavs don’t bite on the trade.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Our old pal Larry Hughes is NYK-bound.
How will he fit in D’Antoni’s system?
by JulioBernazard on Feb 19, 2009 1:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Looks like deckchairs on the Titanic, as none of the contracts go beyond 2010 … and Jerome James is actually in the last year of his deal.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Posted by windhorst on 02/19/09 at 1:31PM
Hey guys, I just got a phone call and there’s a big move on the horizon involving the Cavs. The logistics are being worked out right now between the three teams, but I’ll make an official post as soon as my source calls me back.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 1:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
aw crap, ignore this. i got suckered by the cleveland.com hoi poloi
Folks:
We just talked with Brian, and this commenter is NOT Brian Windhorst. So anything you see posted by “Windhorst” is not from the PD beat writer. Carry on.
- Editors
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yup. i am a Moron. ah well, 45 minutes to go.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 1:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
From ESPN:
POSTED: Feb. 19 — 2:47 p.m. ET
J.A. Adande: I’ve been told Shaq isn’t going anywhere.
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 1:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
sorry CavsBlogger, didn’t mean to step on your toes …
by macasson on Feb 19, 2009 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just say no
to Matt Barnes
Shaq would be interesting while Boozer (if healthy) makes the Cavs the favorites in the EAST (even more so).
by Hardcore Legend on Feb 19, 2009 1:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Where are the onslaught of deal?
I thought teams were dumping contracts in this economy??!?!
by Hardcore Legend on Feb 19, 2009 2:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Well, one team dumping a contract is another taking on a contract…
by JulioBernazard on Feb 19, 2009 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Orlando makes a move
to get a PG. Here I thought they’d fade into oblivion quietly.
by Hardcore Legend on Feb 19, 2009 2:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
the best deals available to the cavs were definitely camby and boozer (let’s say he’s ready to come back at 100%)—assuming wally was the primary factor in the package that the cavs shipped out. strategically, each provides front court depth, rebounding, and toughness, and financially, both are sub-$12mm guys who come off the cap after the 09-10 season, at the latest.
moving wally, though, was only the right thing to do for a smart deal. i love the restraint and adherence to principle that ferry and the whole org have shown today. jim paxson would have jumped at sending wally and sasha to PHX for shaq.
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 19, 2009 3:13 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Do we need Wally?
The question is who helps you win? Wally is a set shooter that struggles making easy layups and can’t play defense. He’s also been known to be a malcontent when it comes to playing time.
I just don’t see how holding onto Wally makes the team better.
by Hardcore Legend on Feb 19, 2009 3:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
keeping wally isn’t the smart thing to do b/c of on-court stuff. not by a long stretch. although, i’d argue that wally does a great job of stretching the defense, and he definitely doesn’t struggle to make easy layups. plus, while he’s a bad defender, he’s at least trying his ass off on that end and getting in people’s way.
the brilliance of this non-move is solely contained in the salary and cap implications. to take on shaq’s bloated $20mm for this year and next, you HAVE TO move out a similarly bloated contract…aka wallace. at $14.5mm this year and $14mm next for ben, you just absolutely cannot suffer both shaq and wallace’s contracts on this team. you may say that they both expire at the end of next year, so who cares…well, gilbert cares, in that the luxury tax level is likely going DOWN next season, and lugging those two contracts will jack up his luxury tax bill, and potentially hamstring the cavs from being able to go after a marquee sidekick for LBJ.
at long last, there’s a system and driving principle in place in the cavs’ front office…one that appears to be taking us in the right direction.
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 19, 2009 3:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ben Wallace was part of the trade
involving Shaq. They would be saving $.5 M on that swap plus they expiring contract from Wally.
by Hardcore Legend on Feb 20, 2009 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i’m not sure i follow you…but i believe you’re missing my point. the wallace/sasha – shaq deal, obviously, did not get done. the rumor was that had the cavs subbed wally for wallace, then the suns would have taken the deal and shaq would be a cav (i have no idea what actually went down, but i’ll go off of the rumors for now). what i’m saying is that it was a GREAT move by ferry to resist b/c if we were going to take back shaq’s mammoth contract, we had to move out wallace’s mammoth contract. if we had given into the suns’ (alleged) demand, then wallace and shaq would be on the cavs together…eating up a preposterous amount of cap space (and earning gilbert a HUGE luxury tax bill).
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 23, 2009 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Socialize With FearTheSword
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
