Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samichna
Get real. Roenick is barely a shell of what he once was.
|
I didn't say that he was at the level of Thornton merely pointing out that namebrand players (and was still one at the time of the trade) often go for nothing. This was at least a step up from that, a lot of trades in the new CBA will be salary dumps, this was in part a salary dump trade, I'm not saying it was an even steven trade, those happen once in a blue moon, I'm just saying that the return is fairly decent.
I'll give you that Roenick is seemingly near the end of his career, I had not realised he was so low in scoring this year, my mistake on that.
I think I'll just summarize my argument:
A)Is it a fair exchange in terms of talent for talent? no not really, but then how many trades are.
B)Should they have shooped him around and could they have gotten something better? Most likely yes but part of the reason for this trade was salary dump thus a completely fair trade may have either a)negated any savings or b)or more than likely cost them more money.
Does either statement A or B make this an absolutely horrible trade, one that will go down as one of the OMG worst trades ever, no, hardly not, there have been far worse trades in the past and will be far worse trades in the future (especially due to the new CBA)