Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

    I would trade Humphries to the Suns for Okafor and a 1st rd pick or to Charlotte for Gordon and a 1st round pick... in a HEARTBEAT. That is what I prefer beyond anything else with this guy.

    My comments about using him in a sign and trade this summer should obviously only be seen as a scenario I desire if Ainge CANNOT get one of those type of deals.

    It sounds like some here approve of a panic deal where Ainge feels he 'has to' move Humphries by the deadline of 'get nothing for him' this summer (Fiercy's words). That is FALSE thinking. Humphries is exactly the type of free agent who can benefit from a sign and trade this summer while the Celtics benefit as well.

    I would be very dissapointed in Danny Ainge if he gave Hump away and took back a 2014-15 contract we don't need in the 6+ million range in return for just a 2nd round pick this year or a 1st rd pick in the future that will be in the 20's. His trade value this summer is more than that.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

    "I would be very dissapointed in Danny Ainge if he gave Hump away and took back a 2014-15 contract we don't need in the 6+ million range in return for just a 2nd round pick this year or a 1st rd pick in the future that will be in the 20's."

    I hear ya but I don't think Ainge will do that. A few desperate folks in this forum seem to want any kind of change for change's sake, regardless of the consequences, but to be honest they seem to be in a minority from what I can tell.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Brings us back to the question, where's the post that had the Celtics taking back a bad contract for Hump?

    [/QUOTE]


    The first question was:

    'Why was Fiercy saying the Celtics are guaranteed to get nothing and saying we HAVE TO trade Humphries by the deadline in his 'trade priority' thread the other day?'

    Is Fiercy so dumb that he doesn't realize it is better to try to sign and trade Humphries this summer than take back a bad contract for him now?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

    What happens if Ainge is not offered a first rd pick and expiring contract for Humphries Fierce?

    Did you think of that possibility? What if the only way to be rid of his 12 million expiring was to take back a bad contract of 6+ million for 2015?

    Wouldn't you explore the sign and trade possibilites this summer? I guess you didn't think creatively and outside the box on this one.

    Fiercy:

    "But the #1 priority is Humphries.

    Hump MUST be traded because he's an unrestricted free-agent.

    He's also 29 years old.

    Once Hump becomes an UFA, the Celts will get nothing in return."

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

    Anybody who speaks in absolutes about something that 100% is NOT an absolute is either ignorant to the situation or needs to clarify that he is making a prediction and not stating fact.

    It is not a fact that once Humphries reaches free agency he is 100% gone.

    Chris Forsburg, who gets paid to write for ESPN, said this the other day:

    What about Kris Humphries and that $12 million contract?

     

    The best situation for Boston might be to keep Humphries around through the end of the season and see what happens this summer. Getting him back at a lower price tag remains possible, while the worst-case scenario is the team simply sheds $12 million from its books (or uses Humphries as a sign-and-trade option).


    So did you not know the obvious Fierce or make the error of phrasing a prediction as a fact? Either way you were wrong.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

    Hahahaha

    Look at the coward squirm and LIE.

    I admitted I was wrong to want to trade Sully for Varejao b/c it probably was too much of a risk that it would really put the C's over the top. It was one of the TWO things I was wrong about recently when going up against Fierce comapred to the TWENTY-THREE TIMES I have been right. Hahahaha.

    I NEVER said Rondo for George was fair. That is a Fierce LIE.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

    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.

    WRONG.

    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.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Also, rame, if you want dumb then just look in the mirror.

    Remember your Anderson Varejao for Sully last season?

    Or the Rondo for George Hill trade is a fair trade but you don't want it to happen.

    If it's fair then why don't you want it to happen, duh!

    [/QUOTE]


    Yup, you are a LIAR

    Thanks for posting proof of your lying with my words from 2 months ago:

    The swap of PG's in NOT A FAIR TRADE.

    I simply said when you take into consideration losing the salaries of Lee and Wallace for the expiring Granger, cutting the money we have on the cap in '15 by more than half (17m to 8m) while ALSO ADDING A DRAFT PICK... That it can be argued the deal is 'fair' for both sides.


    Yet you continue to call it the Rondo for George Hill trade?

    LIAR

    If you say 'Ram argued that Rondo for two late first round picks and 27 million off the books could be discussed as a fair trade for both sides... but then said he would not do do the trade in the end b/c he thinks we can do better.' Then you would be right.

    If you say 'Ram says the Rondo for George Hill trade rumor was fair' then you are WRONG and a LIAR.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    10. Xavier McDaniel was not signed after Reggie Lewis died.

    WRONG: Reggie was alive and played the entire 1992-93 season with him.

     

    So you lie when you can't win the argument?

    That proves you're just making stuff up because I clearly said the Celts signed Xavier McDaniel after Larry Bird retired.

    [/QUOTE]

    Clearly? You said that?


    Nope, you said this:

    "But what I'm talking about is what the late Dave Gavitt did in the early 1990s.

    Bias and Lewis already died, the Celts then did nothing and chose to keep making the playoffs with Xavier McDaniel and Dominique Wilkins."


    A Bias and Lewis had both already died (so this is the Fall if 1993)

    B. The Celts chose to keep making the playoffs with X and 'Nique

    So you are taking about after they are both dead and McDaniels was signed over a year before Lewis died. So you were wrong. It doesn't say anything about them using McDaniels to replace Bird.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Yet you continue to call it the Rondo for George Hill trade?

    LIAR

    If you say 'Ram argued that Rondo for two late first round picks and 27 million off the books could be discussed as a fair trade for both sides... but then said he would not do do the trade in the end b/c he thinks we can do better.' Then you would be right.

    If you say 'Ram says the Rondo for George Hill trade rumor was fair' then you are WRONG and a LIAR.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Rondo and George Hill are the main parts of that deal.

     

    Even if the Celts dump salary, it's still not fair.

    Get it?

     

    Look at you squirm.

    HAHAHA

    [/QUOTE]

    Nope. Draft picks and cap space are the main parts of the deal for Rondo dummy.

    At the time Lee hadn't been traded. I specifically said it was Lee being traded for Hill and Wallace being traded for Granger and Rondo for the picks and cap space.

    Get it?

    Look at all all the blunders you have made! Hahaha. Yet you STILL lie about me and try to worm your way out of them. It is amusing. Keep it up. You will just keep on being proven wrong.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Nope. Draft picks and cap space are the main parts of the deal for Rondo dummy.

    At the time Lee hadn't been traded. I specifically said it was Lee being traded for Hill and Wallace being traded for Granger and Rondo for the picks and cap space.

    Get it?

    Look at all all the blunders you have made! Hahaha. Yet you STILL lie about me and try to worm your way out of them. It is amusing. Keep it up. You will just keep on being proven wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The draft picks of the Pacers are insignificant because we all know they will be contenders for years to come.

     

    Also, the Bayless for Lee trade proves that you don't have to sacrifice Rondo just to dump salary.

     

    Why would you sacrifice an All-Star PG in Rondo just so you can dump salary?

    [/QUOTE]


    That's why I said I thought the Celtics could do better. Duh.

    You wanted to laugh at the trade over and over like a mentally unstable little child and then LIE about my thoughts on it.

    There was the chance Rondo was never the same after his ACL injury. Like Tim Hardaway.

    And the chance that still remains that Rondo will not resign here or that his max deal is a huge overpay that will cripple the franchise.

    It was also fair to disucss that Hill, while not the same player or as good a player, might be better for Stevens system, make it more of a lateral move and that by costing 2/3 as much next year and half as much 2015-16 that he could help the Celtics add another piece they could not

    But those are the reasons why it was 'fair' to 'discuss' what the trade looked like from both sides. Which was all I did. I was right to say it could be argued it was fair if you looked deeper at all the angles, which an ignorant person like you failed to do. 

    All you do was laugh... and you were WRONG

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Humphries trade deadline and sign and trade this summer clarification

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Clearly? You said that?


    Nope, you said this:

    "But what I'm talking about is what the late Dave Gavitt did in the early 1990s.

    Bias and Lewis already died, the Celts then did nothing and chose to keep making the playoffs with Xavier McDaniel and Dominique Wilkins."


    A Bias and Lewis had both already died (so this is the Fall if 1993)

    B. The Celts chose to keep making the playoffs with X and 'Nique

    So you are taking about after they are both dead and McDaniels was signed over a year before Lewis died. So you were wrong. It doesn't say anything about them using McDaniels to replace Bird.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Xavier McDaniel played for the Celtics from 1992 to 1995.

     

     

    rame

     

    I know your processor is slow.

    So I'll bear with you.

    The point is instead of the Celtics rebuilding after Bird retired, the Celtic front office opted to keep making the playoffs by signing players like Xavier McDaniel and a 35-year old Nique.

    Get it now?

    [/QUOTE]


    I get what you are now trying to say you meant.... after the fact.

    The fact is, you did not mention Bird's retirement in a post that clearly states after the deaths of Bias and Lewis (so before the 1993-94 season) the Celtics signed Xavier McDaniels and Dominique Wilkins.

    Your words are false.

    I guess you can now say you meant to phrase it differently. But your words don't lie. I mean if you told me that you meant to say after Bird retired they signed X and after Lewis died they signed 'Nique. I'd probably believe you.

    But of course you are the kind of petty small absolute piece of garbage that went on and on about the Knicks technically being able to trade their 2017 1st round pick in the summer of 2016 when I said they 'could not trade a 1st round pick until 2018'. Clearly I was talking about right now, especially in regards to the thread and what I was responding to. Fierce the loser went on a tangent about the summer of 2016 to try and prove me 'wrong' when everyone with half a brain knew I was talking about right now in 2014.

    So your words were false. You said after Lewis died the Celts signed Xavier McDaniels.

    I will not give you the benefit of the doubt in correcting your statements b/c of the petty childish and obnoxious way you rail on people over their 'exact words' all the time here.

     

Share