With Shaq gone for Wallace, who was bought out, what do we have to show for trading Shawn Marion?
Isn't Sarver essentially paying ten million for nobody?
This isn't exactly accurate.
I think it's a bit ridiculous to follow trades far after they happen because it's not really possible to say exactly what we have to show for Marion now...
A) We did get a good Shaq for a year and a half for. Although the success of the team wasn't great, it's not like the guy played like crap.
B) We got rid of Marcus Banks terrible contract.
C) We got Pavlovic (not that that is exciting, but we have him none the less).
D) It could be argued that it resulted in a Hill extension, Channing Frye, and possibly even a Nash extension.
E) It also isn't possible to track where every dollar we have as a result of these deals will go now and in the future.
F) It is possible that Marion would have walked elsewhere at this offseason anyways which would have left us with nothing but money (which is what your original complaint is).
G) It's not possible to know what Marion would have cost us if we did sign him to an extension and what future players we will sign that we wouldn't have been able to because of Marion's contract.
I am not saying all of these things are fact, because they probably aren't. I am simply pointing out that your statement is inaccurate and that it is ridiculous to act like we know exactly what we have now and will have in the future of a trade that happened two seasons ago.