i think thats verry stupid but!, i also like the trade, beacause it should give earl a starting job,He's been around since 98 been on 4 teams (His Hometown Cavs,Clippers,Warriors,Nuggets!) and has yet to start,butt he ahas always killed his teamates in the weight room(says slam magazine)
2007-01-12 15:19:41 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Basketball
IT HELPED THEM WITH THE SALARY CAP.
BOYKINS WAS NOR A PURE POINT GUARD.
THE TEAM WAS HURT BY THEIR SIZE WHEN IVERSON AND BOYKINS WERE ON THE COURT AT THE SAME TIME.
2007-01-12 15:26:43 · answer #1 · answered by smitty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Boykins will have a starting job for a while, but when Williams gets back, it will be back on the bench. I don't like the trade, and Karl did not like it either. I know they want to get rid of cap room, but they could have gotten atleast a 2nd rounder out of it too. Steve Blake is not quite the kind of player that strikes much interest, he did look good when he played for Maryland, but I guess they want a passer, atleast he does not turn the ball over alot. Matt Carroll from Charlotte is who I would have traded for personally, would have been good for both teams.
2007-01-12 18:06:33 · answer #2 · answered by abyamcha 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were trying to avoid luxury tax implications by cutting salary. Blake is a cheap but serviceable backup point guard. By all accounts, they would have preferred to dump Reggie Evans to save that money, but presumably could not find a taker.
People who are thinking they could have gotten more than Blake are missing part of the point; the problem would be to get more talent than Blake, but who aren't getting paid any more than Blake. That is the problem. Furthermore, there aren't many ways you can trade away more money than you get back. Notably:
- You can trade with a team under the salary cap. There are very few of those teams, and I can easily believe none of them wanted Boykins, and certainly weren't looking to give back anything interesting for him.
- You can trade with a team that has a traded player or injury exception that allows them to take the expensive player without giving anything back. That is what happened in this case; effectively they traded Hodge for Blake, and traded Boykins for nothing, enabled by an injured player exception Milwaukee received due to Bobby Simmons' injury
But the point being - very few teams in the league could take Boykins off their hands without giving back salary (which would have defeated the purpose). When you have fewer teams to deal with, there is less demand, and you aren't going to get as much back.
2007-01-12 15:33:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nuggets traded Boykins because the Nuggets did not want to pay a luxury tax on anything over the salary cap.
2007-01-12 15:23:56 · answer #4 · answered by voidedius 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
BEA THE NUGGETS WANT A GREAT DEFENDER AND A PURE SHOOTER, AND THE NUGGETS WANT TO HAVE ENOUGH SALATY CAP AND ALSO THEY WANT TO GET AWAY WITH A BALLHOG.
2007-01-13 10:51:23 · answer #5 · answered by Chuck Testa 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they traded him so that they wouldnt have to pay the luxury tax at the end of the sason
2007-01-12 15:25:02 · answer #6 · answered by Moss Boss 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
tThey dont want to pay him
2007-01-15 02:23:15 · answer #7 · answered by greatperson 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋