Sorry, but I'm not sure what my being "new" has to do with anything ... I am sure the "Okur situation" has been discussed, debated or whatever to no end. However, it still doesn't change the fact that Okur became an unrestricted free agent after only 2 years because Joe D only signed him to a 2 year contract (instead of the standard 3 yr min deal). Thus Joe D put himself in a position to have Okur walk ala BigBen. As for Mike James, I've never considered him a "loss". I liken his situation to Max's in the sense that I don't think it would hurt us if he left. He can be replaced just as Mike James was. Now, what are the chances that Joe would not have traded Corliss if he had known Ben would walk?
Now, what are the chances that Joe would not have traded Corliss if he had known Ben would walk?[quote MrKent] - Corliss was so weak he barely tried to trade him. 100% he would've moved Corliss.
James wasn't adequately replaced until Joe drafted Stuckey. Obviously that's a loss considering it took Joe 3 years to do it.
That might be stretching it a bit. Our starters signed here because it's gravy. They'll never have it as good anywhere else <<cough>> BigBen <<cough>>. If any of our starters would have gotten more elsewhere, I'm certain most Pistons fans would question the judgment of the player who left and the team that signed them <<cough>> da Bulls <<cough>>
Good point. Joe tried Aroyo (sp), but obviously that didn't work. You could also argue that Okur wasn't a "loss" because McDyess "adequately" replaced him.
Yes, but would he have moved Corliss so soon? Corliss could have really helped us during the 2005 Finals, when so many fans were talking about how tired poor Tayshaun was ... or complaining about how LB was only playing McDyess and Lindsey off the bench.
There's always the possibility that Corliss was one of those guys that LB would have hated no matter what, and that led to his eventual trade.
Exactly. The new CBA changed the rules so teams could retain their 2nd round picks like Okur and Arenas. So, Joe D didn't just let Okur have unrestricted status after 2 years - show the man some respect in that regard.
Hey, if I didn't respect the man, I'd still be angry and bitter about Darko, Rodney White, Mateen Cleaves, my sister Clarice and the stalking charges ... uh ...
He probably would have still traded him.... He probably would have done better homework and we would have gotten a better replacement then Nazi...
faulty logic here: 1. You can't build a team, at the same time thinking, I'll trade those guys anyway. 2. Opponents, of course, know your position: why to make a trade, knowing that in next year player will be a free agent anyway?
i just answered the question.... if we knew ben was walking away would we have kept Corliss and not traded him.... I am pretty sure Joe didn't think he was in our long term future either way. But if Joe knew a year ahead that ben was 100 percent not coming back he would have done a better job being prepared for it. Most here say that the Nazi signing was a quick scared reaction type signing.
Nobody here knows what was going on behind closed doors but at least in media Ben's message was "don't worry, we'll do it ( resigning)". In forums there were some who suggested that better trade Ben than wait for unseeable future. Well, those posters were ripped to death.
At least Joe was able to cancel out that Nazr singing when he traded for the expiring contracts of Brezec and Herrmann. We later traded Brezec for the also expiring Dixon and of course chose to re-sign WH. If it were a true mistake, we'd be stuck with him.
I see it a little different. Sticking with Nazr would have made Joe's mistake even worse. Joe's the man, but trading Nazr didn't "cancel" his mistake. I give props to Joe - he makes mistakes, but he doesn't let them hang around and fester.
