While plenty of media outlets are speculating about a potential deal between Cleveland and Phoenix,...

While plenty of media outlets are speculating about a potential deal between Cleveland and Phoenix, we’ve heard some talk of a possible trade between Cleveland and Washington actually. The deal would essentially be a cost-cutting move for the Wizards, sending Antawn Jamison and filler (Mike James) to the Cavs for Ben Wallace and Sasha Pavlovic. Wallace seems likely to retire, and Pavlovic is on a non-guaranteed contract for next season. It’s not clear whether the Wizards would need to surrender the #5 pick. Jamison is attractive to the Cavs since he’s exactly the type of combo forward they were missing to match up with Orlando’s Rashard Lewis and Hedo Turkoglu.

From Hoopsworld via Draft Express- I like this potential move better than the Shaq alternative

5 months ago Juannieboy 16 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Now this I like better than the deal for Shaq. Jamison was about as good as Shaq last season in win value, and allows the upgrade (i.e. whichever player we do get) to play alongside Z at center (obviously the Shaq trade would move Z to the bench). He seems a better fit for the team chemistry (nothing against Shaq personality, but its a “big” personality).

Here’s the only downside when comparing it to Shaq, Jamison is under contract for three more years so that hits into next season’s free agent market for us. $11.6 million for next year, $13.3 million for 2010-11, and $15.1 million for 2011-12.

Not sure if the link works above, but here’s another.

by hans on Jun 16, 2009 4:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Your second paragraph is the important point. You cannot take on extra expensive years unless the player is a big upgrade (ala Gasol). For this reason, I like the shaq for 1 year deal much much better.

by oxforddave on Jun 17, 2009 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Considering that Shaq would ask for and probably receive an extension if he was traded to Cleveland anyways, I don’t think the 3 years left on Jamison’s contract are that big of deal.

I’d take either of these guys. I hope Ferry can get one of these deals done.

by Cols714 on Jun 17, 2009 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i’m going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on this one. you point out the salary situation, which i’m not crazy about…and though cols mentions shaq’s desire for an extension, i actually think that a cleveland deal would NOT include an extension. so, from that perspective, i like the shaq deal better, and that’s before mentioning it allows us to make a run at bosh next summer.

there are 2 on-court reasons that i think shaq is a better deal, too: 1. limit z’s minutes, while still getting effective C play, 2. our problems w/ the magic (and the lakers, for that matter, though that was only two games) stemmed from our inability to defend the post effectively. shaq is a much better solution, though short term, in post defense than jamison.

by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 17, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah signing Jamison does nothing to solve the problem we have with big man centers who can score down low against us. I mentioned somewhere else though that I don’t think its necessary for the Cavs to find their offensive improvement and defensive improvement in the same player, If they trade for Jamison, they would still have to sign/trade for a big bodied defensive center, but its easier a defense only center than a combo (offensive and defensive threat) center, which Shaq would be.

by hans on Jun 17, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you’re right…it doesn’t have to be one player that addresses both of those issues. let’s say shaq’s $20mm is what we’re willing to spend to plug the front court hole…if we move for jamison we could sign someone else for next year at $8.4mm, which ain’t bad. but, you start to run into problems as jamison’s number escalates over the subsequent 2 seasons. which brings me back to shaq being a pretty nice solution, as it opens us back up to get a one-stop-shop in bosh in summer ’10.

by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 18, 2009 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I’m am going back and forth on this for sure. I love the one and done year that Shaq’s contract offers us, but at the same time over the course of the next two seasons and possibly the third, Jamison can offer almost an equal level of production that Shaq would bring (for next year only of course) and I am wondering if what we can get in 2010 through free agency would be only marginally more valuble talent wise and probably only equal talent/monetary cost wise.

by hans on Jun 18, 2009 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

this very much hinges on what you think we can do in FA in 2010. i happen to think we’ve got a very good shot at bosh, and that bosh is a legitimate difference maker, worth a max-type deal.

by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 18, 2009 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Performance wise, with age regressing shaq more so than jamison, I’d bet that they’d be about equal if not slightly in favor of jamison in regards to value.

by hans on Jun 16, 2009 4:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The #5 pick? That doesn’t seem right.

I refuse to ever root for a team that routinely does the MVP chant for opposing players.

by TheVanillaGorilla on Jun 17, 2009 12:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This is the deal that will get done not Shaq.

Thanks for the info, good stuff.

Baseball is God's sport! All Truth Goes Through Three Stages 1.It is ridiculed 2.It is violently opposed 3.Finally, it is accepted as self-evident. kinesiologist

by E5 on Jun 17, 2009 5:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I speak for mostly every Wizards fan

THIS TRADE IS ABSURD!!!!!!!!

by lj15 on Jun 18, 2009 9:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

yes I’m sure most Bucks fan would have said the same thing about the Mo Williams for Damon Jones and Joe Smith trade.

Player talent is only one component of roster construction, the guaranteed portion of the player contract is the other.

by hans on Jun 18, 2009 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know you probably didnt know this but

the Wizards are NOT looking to shed salary. Its been broken down many times before and proven to be true, but everyone (mainly fans of other teams and the national media) still think that the Wizards are desparately looking to shed salary and “build for the future” by dumping 22pt/10reb players for nobody.

Also, the Bucks are/were in a totally different situation so it doesnt even make sense to make that comparison.

by lj15 on Jun 22, 2009 8:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would pull the trigger on this trade immediately.

by JulioBernazard on Jun 19, 2009 9:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

a similar trade was proposed by the Celtics

this by their main author Jeff Clark on CelticsBlog under the heading of “Silly Wild Amusing Guesses”

Celtics trade Ray Allen and Tony Allen for Antawn Jamison, Mike James, and Etan Thomas. The Wizards are looking to shed future salary and stay competitive. In this deal they don’t even have to give up the #5 pick. They would then have a lineup of Arenas, Ray, Butler, Blatche and Haywood (plus whoever they pick up in the draft). The Celtics get a big man that can space the floor with outside shooting and help Perk and KG with rebounding. He also gives us a super-sub off the bench and insurance in case KG’s injury issues linger. James and Thomas are expiring deals so anything they give us in terms of depth would be a bonus.

by tandur on Jun 20, 2009 12:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs