PDA

View Full Version : Wallace staying with Nets - Verbal Agreement 4 yrs/40 million (Post 9)



We_need_players
07-01-2012, 10:20 AM
Marc Stein ‏@ESPNSteinLine
Word is Nets' deal with Gerald Wallace, originally forecast to be in the three-year, $24 million range, more likely to be a four-year pact

Mr. Baller
07-01-2012, 10:21 AM
At least that trade doesn't look AS dumb now

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 10:22 AM
OMG we sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo OVER PAID LMFAO

koreancabbage
07-01-2012, 10:23 AM
batum probably getting the same then.

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 10:25 AM
batum probably getting the same then.

Yeaaaa not happening. Batum def getting more than that.

koreancabbage
07-01-2012, 10:26 AM
Yeaaaa not happening. Batum def getting more than that.

yea i JUST saw

Wallace is a steal then by all accounts what Batum got.

arkanian215
07-01-2012, 10:27 AM
0a

JerseysFinest
07-01-2012, 10:27 AM
Overpay, but whatever at this point. The trade is done. If Deron re-signs, people will forget this even happened.

Mr. Baller
07-01-2012, 10:33 AM
The Nets have reached agreement on a 4 year, $40 million contract with Gerald Wallace, league sources confirm. NY Post first reported.

Woj

Mr. Baller
07-01-2012, 10:33 AM
More surprised about the length of the deal then the money, 4 years for him seems a bit much

king4day
07-01-2012, 10:34 AM
They overpaid but Wallace had the leverage. If they retain Deron and eventually land Howard, they suddenly look like a really good team.

KingsOfQueens
07-01-2012, 10:34 AM
And people say Batum was overpaid? If he gets 12M a year thats not bad at all.

JerseysFinest
07-01-2012, 10:34 AM
More surprised about the length of the deal then the money, 4 years for him seems a bit much

I mean, it had to be done. The trade would've looked significantly worse than it already did if Wallace had walked.

NYsFinest
07-01-2012, 10:35 AM
OMG we sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo OVER PAID LMFAO

Yea they did....

shep33
07-01-2012, 10:36 AM
Yeah, he got overpaid. 3 years at 24 makes sense, but this is pretty high imo.

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 10:36 AM
Yea they did....

umm what did you think he was getting paid?

Glen20
07-01-2012, 10:36 AM
yeesh thats a steep price

Mr. Baller
07-01-2012, 10:36 AM
I mean, it had to be done. The trade would've looked significantly worse than it already did if Wallace had walked.

Oh I agree they had to resign him, but thats a bad contract :laugh2: Imagine if they still trade for JJ now. They will be in salary cap hell

NYsFinest
07-01-2012, 10:37 AM
I mean, it had to be done. The trade would've looked significantly worse than it already did if Wallace had walked.

Would have been better off cutting their losses and letting him go...

nycericanguy
07-01-2012, 10:38 AM
Ouch...

You're telling me another team was going to throw that kind of money at Wallace?

SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT.

King should have kept his pick and just called Wallace at midnight and offered that same deal, Wallace would've taken it in a heartbeat. Clearly he's just looking for money as he has agreed to this deal without even seeing what NJ is going to look like.

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 10:38 AM
Would have been better off cutting their losses and letting him go...
wow the stupidity on here sometimes shocks me

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 10:39 AM
Ouch...

You're telling me another team was going to throw that kind of money at Wallace?

SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT.

King should have kept his pick and just called Wallace at midnight and offered that same deal, Wallace would've taken it in a heartbeat. Clearly he's just looking for money as he has agreed to this deal without even seeing what NJ is going to look like.

His BACKUP last year is getting a deal at $12MM per. Hell YEA someone was going to offer.

NYsFinest
07-01-2012, 10:39 AM
umm what did you think he was getting paid?

3/24.... just like you did when you first posted in this thread.

JerseysFinest
07-01-2012, 10:39 AM
Oh I agree they had to resign him, but thats a bad contract :laugh2: Imagine if they still trade for JJ now. They will be in salary cap hell

That's why I don't even understand why they would be interested in Johnson. If they added Johnson, to a re-signed Wallace, Williams, and Lopez, you are severely limiting your flexibility moving forward.

JerseysFinest
07-01-2012, 10:40 AM
Would have been better off cutting their losses and letting him go...

Apparently Deron is a fan of his, and as I said King had to save face, so it essentially had to be done. But whatever happened, happened, I just hope we can move on from this.

nycericanguy
07-01-2012, 10:41 AM
His BACKUP last year is getting a deal at $12MM per. Hell YEA someone was going to offer.

lol dude his backup is 23 years old with tons of potential.

POR wanted Wallace gone so they could start Batum instead.

No one was going to offer a declining 30 year old reckless SF $10m per, and for 4 years at that.

GiantsSwaGG
07-01-2012, 10:43 AM
Overpaid

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 10:43 AM
lol dude his backup is 23 years old with tons of potential.

POR wanted Wallace gone so they could start Batum instead.

No one was going to offer a declining 30 year old reckless SF $10m per, and for 4 years at that.

I love how Knicks fans throw the word Declining around because a guy is 29 going on 30. Then I look at the age of their big-3 and lol

NYsFinest
07-01-2012, 10:44 AM
wow the stupidity on here sometimes shocks me

Find me one non-nets fan on here who would want their team to sign Wallace for a 4 year 40 million dollar deal and I will agree with you... good luck

DragonJaii
07-01-2012, 10:45 AM
4 yrs dam

nycericanguy
07-01-2012, 10:45 AM
I love how Knicks fans throw the word Declining around because a guy is 29 going on 30. Then I look at the age of their big-3 and lol

really? you want to turn this into a Knicks vs Nets?

Amare & Chandler are both 29, and yes NY is in WIN NOW mode because of that. That's no secret.

yankeesown69
07-01-2012, 10:45 AM
Wow thats a lot of money for 4 years. He can be a good piece on a good team. Versatile player especially defensively and plays with a lot of energy. Like some people said 3 years 24 mill would have been more appropriate, but whatever Wallace had the leverage.

GiantsSwaGG
07-01-2012, 10:46 AM
lol dude his backup is 23 years old with tons of potential.

POR wanted Wallace gone so they could start Batum instead.

No one was going to offer a declining 30 year old reckless SF $10m per, and for 4 years at that.

Lol dude you shouldn't take him seriously. As you can ser nobody doesn't!

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 10:48 AM
really? you want to turn this into a Knicks vs Nets?

Amare & Chandler are both 29, and yes NY is in WIN NOW mode because of that. That's no secret.
And with Deron-Kidd-Wallace the Nets are in a different mode?

eternal slumber
07-01-2012, 10:49 AM
not to bash any NETS fans but this is overpaying Wallace. they did this just to justify the trade for the number six pick.

North Yorker
07-01-2012, 10:50 AM
For a guy that is 30 in 2 weeks, and with his style of play, I can see why this can be seen as a bad deal. Especially for $10M/yr.

He's not exactly the type of player that will age well.

JerseysFinest
07-01-2012, 10:51 AM
not to bash any NETS fans but this is overpaying Wallace. they did this just to justify the trade for the number six pick.

You're absolutely correct.

shep33
07-01-2012, 10:52 AM
not to bash any NETS fans but this is overpaying Wallace. they did this just to justify the trade for the number six pick.

Yeah, this is spot on.

Knicks21
07-01-2012, 10:52 AM
He didn't earn the nickname Crash for no reason. And pushing on 30 years old, ouch.

LTBaByyy
07-01-2012, 10:52 AM
Wow, way too much

black1605
07-01-2012, 10:53 AM
Love Wallace, probably my favorite player in the league, but as everyone said, the Nets are attempting to justify that awful trade.

Good for him though.

jimm120
07-01-2012, 10:54 AM
At least that trade doesn't look AS dumb now

The whole point of the trade was to show Deron Williams that the team didn't suck as much if the right pieces were added (unfortunately, the team still sucked after the trade too) AND to make it easier to re-sign Wallace (when a player is on your team, its always easier to work with them).

BTW, it was still a bad trade. Wallace SHOULD NOT have netted (no pun intended) a pretty high lottery pick considering his talents (good atm, not great) and the fact that he was leaving in the summer.

eternal slumber
07-01-2012, 10:55 AM
it would have been much better if they'd offer Batum the same deal or even the same deal Wolves are offering him rather than giving Wallace this much. overpaying, but it makes much sense.

Bob_at_york
07-01-2012, 10:55 AM
Good for the nets. If they had lost him that trade would have looked REALLY bad.

Tha Truth
07-01-2012, 10:56 AM
Way too much.

Antipod
07-01-2012, 10:58 AM
Oh man, everybody is overpaid this summer. WTF GMs?

netsgiantsyanks
07-01-2012, 11:02 AM
Oh man, everybody is overpaid this summer. WTF GMs?

in gerald's case, he had all of the leverage in the world.

netsgiantsyanks
07-01-2012, 11:03 AM
not to bash any NETS fans but this is overpaying Wallace. they did this just to justify the trade for the number six pick.

ding ding ding

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 11:04 AM
This deal is really a 3/$30 Million deal, last year Wallace being waivable via Stretch exception





“For new contracts, salary of waived players to be “stretched” for cash purposes such that the player’s remaining protected compensation would be paid over twice the number of remaining contract years plus 1 year.

“In lieu of the usual cap treatment, the waiving tam may elect to have the waived player’s salary follow the stretched cash allocation, except that stretching a waived player’s salary for cap purposes is not permitted where the portion of total team salary attributable to all waived players in any future season would exceed an agreed upon percentage of the salary cap in effect during the season in which a player is waived.”

That second paragraph basically means there will be limits to prevent teams from abusing the stretch exception.

But as a practical matter, what I see happening is teams overpaying for marginal players, knowing that they can dump a guy owed $10 million in the final year of his contract if it is only going to count as $3.33 million against the cap in the ensuing three years.

Slimsim
07-01-2012, 11:05 AM
not so bad if they get howard and deron

eternal slumber
07-01-2012, 11:05 AM
Good for the nets. If they had lost him that trade would have looked REALLY bad.

i don't agree with this. we all know that the NETS made a mistake by trading their unprotected pick for Wallace, but to say that if they've lost Wallace in FA, that will make this trade looked really bad FOR THEM is not right. by giving him this much, the NETS FO is just compounding their mistakes.

the 3 year, $24 million is fine, but a 4 year, $40 million is not smart at all.

Dankster
07-01-2012, 11:06 AM
Well based on some of these exorbitant contracts being spoken about (ie: Batum, Hibbert, etc.) 10 mil per year isn't that bad for a former all star. But 4 years is definitely too long--if they did 2 years at 20 mill that would've been much more logical.

The free agent market this year looks like a lot of people are going to get overpaid. Crash is still worth at least 7-8 mil per year, so 2 extra mil per season isn't THAT bad, but the amount of years is a bit too much.

NYsFinest
07-01-2012, 11:06 AM
Oh man, everybody is overpaid this summer. WTF GMs?

Insane... glad the lockout worked. With Hibbert apparently being offered the Max, I am curious to see what happens with Brook Lopez.

netsgiantsyanks
07-01-2012, 11:07 AM
i don't agree with this. we all know that the NETS made a mistake by trading their unprotected pick for Wallace, but to say that if they've lost Wallace in FA, that will make this trade looked really bad FOR THEM is not right. by giving him this much, the NETS FO is just compounding their mistakes.

the 3 year, $24 million is fine, but a 4 year, $40 million is not smart at all.

the pick was protected, it just wasn't protected enough.

Slimsim
07-01-2012, 11:07 AM
It's not as bad as it looks to be honest just look at amare

AddiX
07-01-2012, 11:08 AM
I think the new amnesty has really changed the way teams and owners with money are doing business w free agents.

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 11:08 AM
Well based on some of these exorbitant contracts being spoken about (ie: Batum, Hibbert, etc.) 10 mil per year isn't that bad for a former all star. But 4 years is definitely too long--if they did 2 years at 20 mill that would've been much more logical.

The free agent market this year looks like a lot of people are going to get overpaid. Crash is still worth at least 7-8 mil per year, so 2 extra mil per season isn't THAT bad, but the amount of years is a bit too much.

Alot of GM's are giving out these deals because contracts are now waivable in the last year it seems.

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 11:08 AM
I think the new amnesty has really changed the way teams and owners with money are doing business w free agents.

It has nothing to do with it at all. Amnesty can only be used once on a player with a contract done under the old CBA

eternal slumber
07-01-2012, 11:12 AM
the pick was protected, it just wasn't protected enough.

sorry, my bad, but still, right? if it was a lottery protected, i still think PORTLAND would have made the trade cause we all know that the Blazer is cutting as much possible contacts this past trade deadline, but it is what it is.

if they still had that pick, i think trading with the MAGIC for Howard is much easier to get done with especially how long DRUMMOND slid in the draft.

netsgiantsyanks
07-01-2012, 11:15 AM
sorry, my bad, but still, right? if it was a lottery protected, i still think PORTLAND would have made the trade cause we all know that the Blazer is cutting as much possible contacts this past trade deadline, but it is what it is.

if they still had that pick, i think trading with the MAGIC for Howard is much easier to get done with especially how long DRUMMOND slid in the draft.

we could have even gave them the rockets pick that would have been ours if the rockets made the playoffs. we would still have the lotto pick and could have used it to get dwight.

eternal slumber
07-01-2012, 11:19 AM
we could have even gave them the rockets pick that could have been ours if the rockets made the playoffs. we would have still had the lotto pick and used it to get dwight.

exactly dude.

blastmasta26
07-01-2012, 11:20 AM
Justification for a bad trade, but $10 mil is only overpaying by about $2 mil I would say, so it's not too bad. The length is the problem, but if that stretch exception works like the article posted in this thread, then 3 years is fine as well.

jd25213
07-01-2012, 11:24 AM
If this helps to keep Deron, then I can't argue.

I Rock Shaqs
07-01-2012, 11:26 AM
Lol I know the nets have a ton of cap space, but wasn't there a lockout from over-paying all these not so great players.

eternal slumber
07-01-2012, 11:39 AM
btw, are the NETS serious about JJ and Scola? would both deals close the door for Howard to Nets? why don't they just wait for Howard to come to brooklyn?

netsgiantsyanks
07-01-2012, 11:40 AM
^i doubt the deals fall through.

eternal slumber
07-01-2012, 11:43 AM
btw, on Wallace 4 year contract, it seems that all four years are guaranteed rather than only 3 years.

eternal slumber
07-01-2012, 11:45 AM
^i doubt the deals fall through.

hope so for the NETS sake especially JJ's contract, if there is a contract as worst in the league as Amar'e, it's JJ's.

popo85
07-01-2012, 11:46 AM
Good player but will be making 10 mill at age 34-35 not sure if he can keep up prodcution at that age.

jrm2054
07-01-2012, 11:48 AM
I swear i ****ing hate billy King 10 mill a year years good job idiot

netsgiantsyanks
07-01-2012, 11:50 AM
Good player but will be making 10 mill at age 34-35 not sure if he can keep up prodcution at that age.

he will be 34 when his contract is up.

xxplayerxx23
07-01-2012, 11:51 AM
IMO nothing justfys that trade. Im sorry but they could of gotten wallace. If they threw this offer at him he would of came, and they would have a top 6 pick right now.

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 11:53 AM
IMO nothing justfys that trade. Im sorry but they could of gotten wallace. If they threw this offer at him he would of came, and they would have a top 6 pick right now.

thats highly debateable considering the offers that are being thrown around but fact of the matter is he was already here made the decision easy.

xxplayerxx23
07-01-2012, 11:55 AM
thats highly debateable considering the offers that are being thrown around but fact of the matter is he was already here made the decision easy.

Id love to see another team throw 3 years at wallace yet 4 years with 10 million per

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 11:56 AM
Id love to see another team throw 3 years at wallace yet 4 years with 10 million per

The dude is 29 not 100 and the deal is really 3/30

netsgiantsyanks
07-01-2012, 11:57 AM
^i heard all 4 years are guaranteed.

Chill_Will_24
07-01-2012, 11:57 AM
IMO nothing justfys that trade. Im sorry but they could of gotten wallace. If they threw this offer at him he would of came, and they would have a top 6 pick right now.

You think Deron Williams stays for a no name rookie when he repeatedly told King that he wanted veterans?

When the Nets traded for Wallace it was with Deron's approval and if they resigned him it's cuz Deron like him. Its that simple.

I dont like the length of the deal but whatever. At least it will be a big expiring at some point

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 12:00 PM
^i heard all 4 years are guaranteed.

The stretch exception essentially makes a guaranteed 4th year still an option year for the team.

xxplayerxx23
07-01-2012, 12:01 PM
You think Deron Williams stays for a no name rookie when he repeatedly told King that he wanted veterans?

When the Nets traded for Wallace it was with Deron's approval and if they resigned him it's cuz Deron like him. Its that simple.

I dont like the length of the deal but whatever. At least it will be a big expiring at some point

So williams is staying because of wallace? The trade was horrible, the contract isnt that terrible, My point if they wanted him he could of been had for this without giving up the pick

Chill_Will_24
07-01-2012, 12:06 PM
So williams is staying because of wallace? The trade was horrible, the contract isnt that terrible, My point if they wanted him he could of been had for this without giving up the pick

So we are still talking about that trade? Its done. In hindsight it wasnt that bad now that Wallace has been resigned to a reasonable deal and Williams is probably staying the latter being what really mattered.

waveycrockett
07-01-2012, 12:09 PM
So williams is staying because of wallace? The trade was horrible, the contract isnt that terrible, My point if they wanted him he could of been had for this without giving up the pick

I know alot of people like to pretend Gerald Wallace is a bum and not an allstar 2 years ago but the fact is its a lot easier to resign your own players than it is to sign someone elses.

Chill_Will_24
07-01-2012, 12:12 PM
I'm less concerned about this Wallace deal than about this ridiculous trade for JJ AKA the worst contract in the NBA after Amare

fadedmario
07-01-2012, 12:15 PM
4/40 million is not that bad if they keep Deron. If Deron leaves, then it looks like ****.

arkanian215
07-01-2012, 12:17 PM
0a

nycericanguy
07-01-2012, 12:18 PM
The stretch exception essentially makes a guaranteed 4th year still an option year for the team.

lol umm no it doesn't they still have to pay it and it still counts against the cap, just stretched out.

Its a 4 GUARANTEED years, by your logic you could just shave off 1 year off every contract?...:confused:

xxplayerxx23
07-01-2012, 12:19 PM
So we are still talking about that trade? Its done. In hindsight it wasnt that bad now that Wallace has been resigned to a reasonable deal and Williams is probably staying the latter being what really mattered.

My point is if you were to offer him 4 years 40 million dollars without trading fro him you would of had both the pick and wallace

KniCks4LiFe
07-01-2012, 12:21 PM
4 yrs. 40 million is not overpaying. Do you guys know what Gerald Wallace does on a court when motivated? he's as close to Scottie as they come.

Lets really look at it at 10 million per year

11 yr. vet, 6'7 SF, career 47% shooter, he's 13/6/1/1 on a normal night, he makes it difficult for any SF to score. I think he's one of the few who have single handedly shutdown James when he feels motivated to http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=jamesle01&p2=wallage01

10 million is actually paying him what he's worth. Loul Deng is paid 13 million. Gerald is being paid 3 million less.

xxplayerxx23
07-01-2012, 12:21 PM
Can't know that for sure. I definitely didn't like the trade when it happened but I can see why they did it. Just because Wallace signed now doesn't mean he would have had he remained w/ Portland all of last season. Also, many people believe that Wallace's presence on the Nets impacts Deron's decision since it was Deron who wanted Wallace in the first place.

Por didnt want him, I can see what your saying but i dont think wallace had any impact. Wallace wasnt going to get this in the open market after last year. IMO You could of had both, but hey its easy to say that after the fact.

jmoney85
07-01-2012, 12:25 PM
if asik is getting 8 mil per offers than wallace is worth 10 mil... I am a little worried about the length but please god dont trade for JJ....good player but terrible contract

Chill_Will_24
07-01-2012, 12:27 PM
My point is if you were to offer him 4 years 40 million dollars without trading fro him you would of had both the pick and wallace

Ok and my point is that your point is already been stressed enough by almost everyone including myself. Its over now. Im really bummed that we missed on Drummond (who could be a bust) and Barnes (who i was never high on) but besides that nobody in this draft screamed "better than Wallace" except Davis.

Moreover i believe at the time the Nets still had a chance at making the playoffs so i guess King wanted to go for it

Chill_Will_24
07-01-2012, 12:28 PM
if asik is getting 8 mil per offers than wallace is worth 10 mil... I am a little worried about the length but please god dont trade for JJ....good player but terrible contract

Big men get paid. Which is the reason i find it funny that some think lopez wont be overpayed

arkanian215
07-01-2012, 12:31 PM
0a

KniCks4LiFe
07-01-2012, 12:35 PM
I don't see the big deal. 10 million per is not overpaying him. Gerald Wallace had to do so much for Portland, he was part of the Nets turning it around last season. Other SF's might get paid more than him and aren't any better. Watch Iggy is going to get.

UPRock
07-01-2012, 02:59 PM
So no Kirilenko then.

Vinylman
07-01-2012, 03:01 PM
To much imo but at least he will only be 33 turning 34 when the contract ends...

much worse deals out there

beasted86
07-01-2012, 03:03 PM
lol dude his backup is 23 years old with tons of potential.

POR wanted Wallace gone so they could start Batum instead.

No one was going to offer a declining 30 year old reckless SF $10m per, and for 4 years at that.

Nobody else was going to pay a 28yr old with a microfracture repaired knee, with eye and back problems an uninsured $100M contract either....

But what can we say? Teams get desperate.

Punk
07-01-2012, 03:42 PM
Nobody else was going to pay a 28yr old with a microfracture repaired knee, with eye and back problems an uninsured $100M contract either....

But what can we say? Teams get desperate.

Seriously? Can you Heat bandwagon trolls have some class when it comes to discussing topics? This has nothing to do with what the Knicks gave Amare.

To make this post look even worse, he never had back problems at all in Phoenix.

The Knicks were not in play for Deron Williams, Dwight Howard commanding 106 million. The Nets are.

Thus making this signing look a bit overpaid in the minds of others.

greg_ory_2005
07-01-2012, 03:58 PM
That seems like too much. He isn't even that good anymore.

JerseyPalahniuk
07-01-2012, 04:19 PM
That seems like too much. He isn't even that good anymore.

Such insightful and unique comments hahaha. The colors definitely add to your knowledge.

beasted86
07-01-2012, 04:53 PM
Seriously? Can you Heat bandwagon trolls have some class when it comes to discussing topics? This has nothing to do with what the Knicks gave Amare.

To make this post look even worse, he never had back problems at all in Phoenix.

The Knicks were not in play for Deron Williams, Dwight Howard commanding 106 million. The Nets are.

Thus making this signing look a bit overpaid in the minds of others.

You sound pretty mad. Why don't you go shoot for 30,000 posts by the end of the week to blow off some steam. okay?

Knicks were in play for all free agents in the summer of 2010 and chose to pay $20M+ for a PF to get you 17/8 47% instead of keeping their own home grown PF who earns $11M now for another team and will get you 20/9 50%. So I just find it completely hypocritical for Knicks fans of all people to criticize the office moves of another organization about the decisions they make when just like in 2010 we don't know what other moves are to follow.

As long as the Nets can keep building something positive, I don't see anything worng here. The team has improved over the past couple years despite having a plague of injuries. Just seems like this lame Knick/Nets rival crap is getting out of hand. Always seems like there is one lame fan in every thread who is throwing dirt on the moves, trades, signings, and even rumors of the other team.

Robbw241
07-01-2012, 05:13 PM
Eh, at least he's back

Sssmush
07-01-2012, 06:37 PM
Good news for the Nets.

I felt bad for them after that trade when people were saying they'd get nothing out of the deal.

Sssmush
07-01-2012, 06:37 PM
Wallace is considerably better than Gilchrist at this point.

bryan71023
07-01-2012, 06:44 PM
In 16 games Gerald Wallace played for the Nets he average 15.2PPG 3.1AST 6.8REB 1.4STL 86% FT in 35 Minutes. Those are really good numbers and people make it seem the Nets are the only team that over pays look at what the Wolves offer to Batum that's insane it's just the culture of the game players get over paid plus on Wallace's fourth year the Nets can just waive him and surrender only $3.3 Million so it's not a big deal like many of you guys are making it.

Yanks All Day
07-01-2012, 07:03 PM
Gerald Wallace deserves $10m per year. The guy can flat out play basketball. Williams, Brooks, and Wallace is a very good offensive core to begin with, if you're the Nets. Add Dwight Howard (face it, it's bound to happen) whether it be this year or next, and that can change the defensive quality as well. A core group of Deron Williams, Marshon Brooks, Gerald Wallace, and Dwight Howard would only need a few pieces (stretch 4 and bench depth) to be a serious contender. Plus, its not like the Nets had a real choice. Keeping Wallace means they have a much better chance at Deron, which increases their chances at Dwight. If they let the 6 pick go for 30 games of Crash, they'd be set back for years. Now, it looks like they can have a bright future.

Chill_Will_24
07-01-2012, 07:14 PM
Wallace is considerably better than Gilchrist at this point.

Agreed. Wallace is underrated for what he brings. The heart he plays with is amazing. Find me a fanbase that didnt love him while he played for their team.

Will Drummond be the megastar that he can be? Maybe. Will Gilchrist turn into the player he is projected to be? Doubt it (im not a fan of his game).

I cant see any player that they could have had at number 6 that would be better than Wallace would be for them even if there is a possibility they could have had him for free