In response to Fiercy's comment:
In response to rameakap's comment:
If you care so much about me posting that percentage you are welcome to hit the archives and find the 8-10 examples I gave of some of my arguments with you.
I believe I won around 6-7 of them. 2-3 were too early or impossible to determine. You won maybe 1 of them?
How has Boozer and the Bulls highly valuable 1st rd pick in the teens for an expiring contract worked out for you?
Rondo and Wallace for Hill, Granger and two first rd picks in 2016 and 2018 is still fair enough to discuss in my book. Why do you constantly fail to provide all the facts?
George Hill is NOT the biggest asset in that trade. Draft picks and cap space are. Do you get these things? The Celtics move on from 12 million in '15 and a max extension for Rondo next year to $0. They move an untradable 20 million invested in a 32 year old Wallace to a very tradable 16 million invested in a 28 year old Hill.
Get it? The Celtics save 16 million.
If they traded him to the Knicks with Wallace for Amar'e, Shumpert and Tim Hardaway Jr. The Celtics save nothing in '15 and 8 million in '16 with draft picks in '18 and '20. Practically the same deal except Hardaway Jr. and Shumpert (a FA after next season) have more value than Hill.
I am not in favor of either of those trades. But I 100% made my points on them as being 'fair enough to discuss' and showed Fierce to be wrong in his attacks on me. So that is another win:-)
Like I said, Rondo for George Hill didn't happen and will never happen.
So how can you claim you won that argument.
It's your opinion but it's not a fact.
Also, Boozer and a 1st round pick for an expiring contract is just one of my trade proposals.
I didn't say it will definitely happen.
All I said was it's possible.
And all I said was the trade was NOT Rondo for Hill and I didn't think it would happen nor did I want it to happen.
All I said was it was fair enough for both sides that we could discuss it and not dismiss it as being a joke of an offer by Indy. I was right in that line of thinking. You were wrong to call it 'Rondo for Hill' and wrong to say that it was a terrible trade idea. So really you were wrong twice.
It is possible the Bulls trade Boozer and their pick. Same with the Celtics and the Pacers trade.
I simply said there is little to no chance Chicago moves a 1st rd pick in such a deep draft just to be free of Boozers cash in 2015. The amnesty option was still there. Yes, the owner still pays him the 15m even if amnestied, but it was the tax hit they mostly cared about.
My opinion was that the Bulls would rather amnesty Boozer and keep such a great pick than trade a pick to be done with his contract after this season. I made the FAR better argument for this than you did. Which is why I consider it yet another W for me.