elindholm
edited for content
I think the first round pick we got for him is the reason he's no longer a Sun.
That's Ennis, right? Not exactly a great return.
I think the first round pick we got for him is the reason he's no longer a Sun.
That's Ennis, right? Not exactly a great return.
Bingo. Plus the fact we didn't want to pay him 60 million dollars!
The pick was nice but it was a very low return for trading Gortat... not much at all. Now having to pay Gortat 60 million dollars is legitimate. Anyone who listened to Gortat knew he was about the money and exploring his options when he had the opportunity. He had an inflated ego.
don't know that it was all that inflated. He had a really nice year for the wizards and just received a $60 million contract.
Joe
The pick was nice but it was a very low return for trading Gortat... not much at all. Now having to pay Gortat 60 million dollars is legitimate. Anyone who listened to Gortat knew he was about the money and exploring his options when he had the opportunity. He had an inflated ego.
isn't every player who's never made a huge payday about the money?
An interesting way to put it. I certainly think every player wants to receive his fair share. However, like a number of people in everyday life, maximum money is not always the primary driver.
Your time machine told you?
John Gambadoro @Gambo987 · Jul 2
Cavs could be in contention for Frye and lookout for Rockets if a Melo deal doesn't happen.
https://mobile.twitter.com/daldridgetnt/status/484907260846411777?p=vDavid Aldridge @daldridgetnt
Blazers did not think they'd be able to sign Spencer Hawes, who's talking w/Suns, or Channing Frye, rumored to be target of Cavaliers.
Frye's market should now be closer to $4M/yr if even Hawes only got less than $6M/yr.Adrian Wojnarowski @WojYahooNBA · 1m
Free agent Spencer Hawes has reached agreement on a four-year, $23M deal with the Los Angeles Clippers, league sources tell Yahoo.
Adrian Wojnarowski @WojYahooNBA
Free agent Spencer Hawes has reached agreement on a four-year, $23M deal with the Los Angeles Clippers, league sources tell Yahoo.
If the decision was as simple as Hawes over Frye is it really that difficult of a decision?
They're basically the same player but Hawes is younger, will give you a better shooting % , a bit more rebounding, and better at the rim defense. Neither player is physical in the paint. Isn't it time to move on from Frye?
What are we paying Frye these days?
If the decision was as simple as Hawes over Frye is it really that difficult of a decision?
They're basically the same player but Hawes is younger, will give you a better shooting % , a bit more rebounding, and better at the rim defense. Neither player is physical in the paint. Isn't it time to move on from Frye?
What are we paying Frye these days?
Frye is better in the locker and is a much better defender in just about every other way. Also, Frye is far less likely to offend a large group of people. Well, except the "Rebound Now" group which finds him rather offensive.
I know I've said this many times before but I like to repeat myself. I like to repeat myself. If they are confident that Channing just wore down last season, we'd be foolish to not bring him back. But if they really believe that sometimes you get good Channing and sometimes you get bad Channing, then I think we should part ways.
Steve
Sadly this is what I think.
What does this mean?Frye is better in the locker and is a much better defender in just about every other way. Also, Frye is far less likely to offend a large group of people. Well, except the "Rebound Now" group which finds him rather offensive.
I know I've said this many times before but I like to repeat myself. I like to repeat myself. If they are confident that Channing just wore down last season, we'd be foolish to not bring him back. But if they really believe that sometimes you get good Channing and sometimes you get bad Channing, then I think we should part ways.
Steve
Frye is better in the locker and is a much better defender in just about every other way. Also, Frye is far less likely to offend a large group of people. Well, except the "Rebound Now" group which finds him rather offensive.
I know I've said this many times before but I like to repeat myself. I like to repeat myself. If they are confident that Channing just wore down last season, we'd be foolish to not bring him back. But if they really believe that sometimes you get good Channing and sometimes you get bad Channing, then I think we should part ways.
Steve
What does this mean?
What does this mean?