Stay Tuned

It was about a week ago that someone told me that a Larry Hughes for Etan Thomas and Mike James swap may not go down until the last minute as the Bulls look for better deals for Hughes. The trade deadline is tomorrow at 3 p.m.

The Bulls have been active today, shipping Andres Nocioni and Drew Gooden to Sacramento for Brand Miller and John Salmons and according to various reports, they're open to other deals as well, so it's interesting to wonder whether they will be open to sending Hughes back to DC.

My feeling is that the WIzards would do it. As first reported here, the teams were close to finalizing a deal that would have swapped Hughes for Thomas and Antonio Daniels back in October but it fell apart when Hughes got hurt. I can't see why the Wizards would be willing to trade Thomas/Daniels and not Thomas/James.

The thing I can't figure out is what the deal would do for the Bulls, other than get Hughes out of town.

Stay tuned...


By Ivan Carter |  February 18, 2009; 6:44 PM ET
Previous: Post-Practice Update | Next: Chandler Deal Rescinded

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



THis rumor aint noting, Ivan, u just tryin to make us all excited bout tradin and stuff lol

Posted by: forbid | February 18, 2009 7:07 PM

That seems like a no-brainer for the Wizards. Trading two big contracts with zero production, for a member of the first triumvirate.

Posted by: emmet1 | February 18, 2009 7:19 PM

I actually think Mike James is a better player than Larry Hughes at this point. We do not need another injury bum. Thomas's contract will actually be valuable next year, as will James' deal. I guess if Hughes' deal expires next year then its a wash, but I think Hughes has a couple more years left. Hughes is too much like Caron but I will say this, Hughes can defend when he wants to.

Posted by: russcarreiro@yahoo.com | February 18, 2009 7:27 PM

Would the Cavs be open to trading LeBron James for Etan Thomas and Mike James?

If they are I think the Wiz should make that deal.

Posted by: Poopy_McPoop | February 18, 2009 7:58 PM

the cavs wouldn't consider any deal for lebron that doesn't involve oleksiy pecherov

Posted by: crs-one | February 18, 2009 8:00 PM

I say the Wizards should do the deal, if only to give their first year medical student training staff another body to "practice" on.

Now, if only we could get the rest of the 04-05 squad back -- Blake, Jarvis, Jeffries, Kwame, Peeler, Ruffin....

Posted by: disgruntledfan | February 18, 2009 8:01 PM

i think i smell... a Cavs-Bulls-Wiz trade at the deadline baby

Posted by: jahbless420 | February 18, 2009 8:01 PM

This would be awesome. We good trade 2 bad contracts for one, and at least in Washington Larry will contribute more than ET & MJ- together.

Posted by: djnumb | February 18, 2009 8:12 PM

I actually think Mike James is a better player than Larry Hughes at this point... Hughes is too much like Caron...
Posted by: russcarreiro@yahoo.com | February 18, 2009 7:27 PM

lmao do u even watch the Wiz, guy?? yeah mike "garbage" james, the 40-something, non-defense playing, shoot-first pg a$$h0Ie shooting 37% and averaging 8 ppg is better than LH. o and his game reminds u of the best player on our team so we def shouldn't do the deal. ROFL thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard

Posted by: prescrunk | February 18, 2009 8:15 PM

The Hughes deal would be a winner. Can't believe the Bulls would do it.

Posted by: joe2chase | February 18, 2009 8:23 PM

Seeing as how the Bulls just finished a 3-team trade for Brad Miller and John Salmons, I don't know that they will want to ship out Hughes for garbage (in the form of an injured Thomas and Mike "Streaky" James) but Ernie has a history of pulling off good trades (Stackhouse for Jamison, Kwame for Caron).

Still, I'd laugh my ass off if Mike James switched teams 2x during yet another season...that guy is in the running for an NBA record "most teams joined". Would be even sweeter if I can rub it in my Bulls-loving friends' faces how they got GARBAGE. :)

Posted by: Crunkenstein | February 18, 2009 8:26 PM

What's in it for da Bulls???
Do they feel another injury coming on for Larry??
Is he due?
I have a higher opinion of James than some here.
But the growth of Critt makes this a win for EG if he can pull it off.
I think Larry would be a nice addition and = a few more wins this season.

Posted by: VBFan | February 18, 2009 8:30 PM

LHughes contract expires after next season, so cap flexibility is neither gained nor lost for either team.

Bringing in a backup PG would allow Chicago to shop hinrich more aggressively. And with today's trade, Chicago is a little thin up front.

I didn't know you could trade injured players though...

Posted by: jones-y | February 18, 2009 8:30 PM

I would argue that Devin Harris was the centerpiece of the Jamison trade not Stackhouse. I think Hughes would contribute alot more to our team than James or Thomas will total. We would also only have 13 players under contract next year.

Posted by: djnumb | February 18, 2009 8:32 PM

Would be great to get Larry Hughes back!

Posted by: washwiz | February 18, 2009 8:32 PM

Also, LHughes would probably want to resign with us past 2010. I don't see him having much free agent interest after next season, given his injuries and the other FA's that will be available. And he had his best years here, and was happy. So we could probably sign him for a lot less.

Posted by: jones-y | February 18, 2009 8:38 PM

James is a ball-hog and Hughes actually palys defense.

A no brainer to me, especially if you get rid of Etan's contract.

Why would the Bulls do it unless the Wiz are offering a pick?

- Ray

Posted by: rmcazz | February 18, 2009 8:47 PM

djnumb: Thanks, forgot to mention Devin Harris. Still in my mind a good trade knowing what we knew then (and how much time it's taken DH to develop--we didn't need/want a point guard at the time anyway)

Posted by: Crunkenstein | February 18, 2009 8:49 PM

Do it EG!! Do it immediately! more time for Critt and Hughes is better than Stevenson so we would get deeper at the SG position.

Posted by: Chad32 | February 18, 2009 9:00 PM

Yes, the question is why would the Bulls make such a trade or why did they apparently almost trade Hughes for Thomas and Daniels earlier this year.

Unless they thought Daniels still had some utility after the season he had last year.

If EG could somehow pull off the trade for Thomas and James, that would be great, since ET and James seem to be pretty marginal players.

Tim

Posted by: cannontl | February 18, 2009 9:22 PM

Trading for Hughes makes no sense for the Wizards. The season is effectively over, so it's not like his arrival will rejuvenate the franchise. With all of the injuries and age, Hughes is basically what Stevenson is on offense, a guy who stands out by the line and shoots threes. Assuming Stevenson gets healthy next year, having them both on board along with Nick Young is overkill. More significantly, trading two expiring contracts for one expiring contract is bad from a business perspective because it limits the potential trade moves the Wizards could make with the expiring deals.

"Yes, the question is why would the Bulls make such a trade or why did they apparently almost trade Hughes for Thomas and Daniels earlier this year."

He's worn out his welcome, pure and simple. Del Negro benched him back in January because, much like he did in Cleveland, Hughes pissed and moaned about how he wanted more PT and more shots despite the fact that he wasn't even playing that well. Hughes is an aging malcontent with declining skills who still thinks he deserves star treatment (despite the fact that he was never really a star to begin with). Bringing him back makes no sense for the Wizards, either on the floor or in the locker room.

Posted by: kalo_rama | February 18, 2009 9:30 PM

BTW, Stevenson was one of the reasons for the success of the Wiz last year without Gilbert.

He could play some defense and often could hit the open three. Two good skills for the Wiz to have.

With his injury problems, which he apparently will have for the rest of his career, and the fact that he had not shot well all year, I am wondering if he will ever be the same player again.

Posted by: cannontl | February 18, 2009 9:34 PM

The times we have play Hughes the last couple of years, either with the Cavaliers or Bulls, he seemed pretty close to the old Larry to me.

If he has worn out his welcome with the Bulls and we could get rid of ET and James, I say bring him on. If Hughes does not work out somehow with the Wiz, his contract expires anyway at the end of next year.

Posted by: cannontl | February 18, 2009 9:49 PM

Hope we get this done! I like Etan, but I think he'd actually be a better fit for the Bulls.

I like the move to open more pt for McGee and Crittenton, as well as Dixon and Blatche.

Hughes would be a nice upgrade at SG, and I'd love to see him back. Haywood, Jamison, Butler, Hughes and Arenas is a solid front 5. Bring the young guys off the bench... McGee, Blatche, McGuire, Young, Crittenton. Plus add in a high draft pick.

This would mix in with some nice moves overall IMO ... essentially this equals Daniels/Etan, 2 of our worse contracts, to bring back Hughes who formally made up our "Big 3" before the arrival of Caron. Add this move with the deal with Memphis to return the "conditional" JCN pick for Crittenton. The signing of Dixon to a league minimum deal. The drafting of McGee. Not bad overall. The firing of Eddie Jordan unfortunately was not a good move. And he's the man who really knew how to use Hughes too btw.

We should include Pecherov and get Cedric Simmons in the deal. He gets no pt with them, and he is a down low rebounder type we need off the bench. I thought we had interest in drafting him when he came out of college.


The question about this deal is... what happens to Stevenson??

Posted by: Darnell1 | February 18, 2009 10:12 PM

It's jumping the gun, but is there any chance that player contracts might be re-worked in the off-season to resolve the luxury cap issue?

e.g. could the Etan Thomas deal be structured with three year payout as opposed to one $7 mil. next year? Arenas already made an accommodation last year, but is there any chance that he, or Jamison will re-work their deals so that the Wiz can sign their pick in this years draft? Are any of these options being considered, are they realistic?

Posted by: JPRS | February 18, 2009 10:13 PM

More significantly, trading two expiring contracts for one expiring contract is bad from a business perspective because it limits the potential trade moves the Wizards could make with the expiring deals.

Posted by: kalo_rama | February 18, 2009 9:30 PM

I have to agree with kal on this one.

Posted by: bulletsfan78 | February 18, 2009 10:25 PM

Here's the latest from ESPN folks:

"Chicago also would go back into tax territory if it did the rumored Hughes deal with Washington for Etan Thomas and Mike James, so that one looks dead, too."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=TradeTalkRoundup-090218

Posted by: t-train | February 18, 2009 10:42 PM

I hate everything Ernie does, but getting Larry Hughes back would be a good thing if it gets Etan and James off the books.

Larry knows the offense, and the Wiz would benefit from a having a third scorer.

Posted by: erniegone | February 18, 2009 10:52 PM

"With all of the injuries and age, Hughes is basically what Stevenson is on offense, a guy who stands out by the line and shoots threes."

Have to disagree with this. Even if he's the same type of player, he's much better in every category.

This season, Stevenson is shooting 31% from the field, 27% from the 3, 53% from the line.

This season, Hughes is shooting 41% from the field, 39% from the 3, and 81% from the line.

Both have had injuries and missed time. That's not an excuse for either player.

Basically, Hughes this year is what Stevenson was last year (actually, he is still better in every offensive category than Stevenson was), and last year Stevenson was a pretty key player in our success. The only difference is the durability, of which Stevenson has lost, and of which the Wizards should be wary of considering their recent history.

"Assuming Stevenson gets healthy next year, having them both on board along with Nick Young is overkill."

As this season should have taught us, it is never overkill to be 3-deep at any position. Especially when 2 of the guys mentioned have injury concerns.

Posted by: psps23 | February 18, 2009 11:00 PM

Ha Ha Michael Ruffin traded twice in one day,despite not have played this season.

Posted by: jeremydvid | February 18, 2009 11:25 PM

"Larry knows the offense, and the Wiz would benefit from a having a third scorer."

He knew the offense. This isn't the same team (or coach) he played for and he's not the same player.

"This season, Stevenson is shooting 31% from the field, 27% from the 3, 53% from the line."

This season Stevenson has been hampered by injuries . Last season, his numbers were pretty much the same as the ones Hughes is putting up this season (and the season before that and the season before that).

"This season, Hughes is shooting 41% from the field, 39% from the 3, and 81% from the line."

41% shooting is pretty weak for a SG. Esp. a big SG. Hughes, like Stevenson, is a standstill 3-point shooter, a role that could easily be (and has been previously) filled by a healthy Stevenson at a 1/3 of the cost. If Stevenson's not healthy, they'll be more than able to fill his role with Young getting minutes and Arenas and Butler playing some at SG (with Crittenton).

"Both have had injuries and missed time. That's not an excuse for either player"

Excuse? Maybe not. Reasonable explanation of context? Of course it is. But in Hughes' case, most of the games he's missed this season haven't been because of injury. They've been because he complained his way out of the rotation and Del Negro benched him.You don't really think the Bulls have any interest in Thomas and James as players, do you? They're just desperate to get Hughes and his attitude out of their locker room and away from Derrick Rose and their other young players.

"As this season should have taught us, it is never overkill to be 3-deep at any position. Especially when 2 of the guys mentioned have injury concerns."

But the only way the Wiz would have two injury prone players at SG would be if they traded for Hughes. And if the point of acquiring him is insurance against Stevenson being hurt, then it doesn't make any sense to get an "insurance player" who is not only just as prone to injury, but costs almost 4 times as much.

Posted by: kalo_rama | February 18, 2009 11:30 PM

"But the only way the Wiz would have two injury prone players at SG would be if they traded for Hughes. And if the point of acquiring him is insurance against Stevenson being hurt, then it doesn't make any sense to get an "insurance player" who is not only just as prone to injury, but costs almost 4 times as much."

Hughes' contract is irrelevant to the discussion of his on-court production, because the Wizards will not be paying more to have him on the roster, nor will they have to pay that money any longer than they would with Thomas and James on board. Etan Thomas' contract is far worse in terms of production, as he would be the 5th option at center, yet would be paid more money than any of the 4 options ahead of him.

As for the "insurance policy" argument, it's better to have 3 guys, 2 of whom have injury concerns than it is to have 2 guys, one of whom has injury concerns. It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing.

"If Stevenson's not healthy, they'll be more than able to fill his role with Young getting minutes and Arenas and Butler playing some at SG (with Crittenton)."

That's playing with fire. Didn't work out so well this year. This was also the mentality that the Wizards used when they decided that Mason wasn't worth retaining.

"This season Stevenson has been hampered by injuries . Last season, his numbers were pretty much the same as the ones Hughes is putting up this season (and the season before that and the season before that)."

Exactly. And Stevenson was a pretty good player for the Wizards last season. If Hughes can bring that back at the cost of Etan Thomas and Mike James, I'd be more than happy.

Posted by: psps23 | February 18, 2009 11:58 PM

IF Larry comes back, does that mean MeShawn is on his way out?

Posted by: CBell29 | February 18, 2009 11:59 PM

"Hughes' contract is irrelevant to the discussion of his on-court production, because the Wizards will not be paying more to have him on the roster, nor will they have to pay that money any longer than they would with Thomas and James on board."

It's very relevant, because trading those two expiring contracts for Hughes' one expiring contract could significantly inhibit the team's flexibility to make deals. Having that expiring cap space in the form of 2 deals gives them a lot more options. Hughes doesn't bring anything that makes losing that really worth it.

"As for the "insurance policy" argument, it's better to have 3 guys, 2 of whom have injury concerns than it is to have 2 guys, one of whom has injury concerns. It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing."

Which makes it sound like those are the only two options. Which, of course, they aren't. It's not like their only two choices are "nothing" or "Larry Hughes."

"That's playing with fire. Didn't work out so well this year.

Because Arenas was hurt. If he's still hurt next year, it won't matter who the third string SG is.

"This was also the mentality that the Wizards used when they decided that Mason wasn't worth retaining."

Not even close. The reality is that even if they wanted to keep Mason, he wasn't going to re-sign with the Wiz to be their third string SG when he had a shot to start for the Spurs and compete for a title. Certainly Grunfeld knew that. If they'd had the money under the tax, I'm sure they would have made a pitch for him. I'm equally sure he still would have gone to San Antonio

"Exactly. And Stevenson was a pretty good player for the Wizards last season."

Yes, exactly. Stevenson does the same thing that Larry Hughes does, for a fraction of the cost. And given that both of them are equally likely to go down with injury, there's no value added in bringing in Larry Hughes to do the same thing Stevenson does for 3-4 times as much. Hell, if Stevenson does get injured next season, they could just make the trade then, because no one else is going to trade for him between now and then. It's clear that the Cavs aren't interested in taking salary back for him, and I haven't seen any reports of other teams lining up with offers for Hughes.

Posted by: kalo_rama | February 19, 2009 12:19 AM

nice thanks ivan, glad to see you're reading my questions....ive been asking about this trade for a while....i really hope it happens.

Posted by: insanity999 | February 19, 2009 12:24 AM

The reality is that even if they wanted to keep Mason, he wasn't going to re-sign with the Wiz to be their third string SG when he had a shot to start for the Spurs and compete for a title. Certainly Grunfeld knew that. If they'd had the money under the tax, I'm sure they would have made a pitch for him. I'm equally sure he still would have gone to San Antonio

Posted by: kalo_rama | February 19, 2009 12:19 AM

I don’t believe Mason wouldn’t have resigned with the Wizards. He was their player and under the Larry Bird rule they could have offered him more money and exceeded the luxury cap to keep him. He is a better 2 guard than anyone the Wizards have including CB.

The reason they did not attempt to sign him was because Cheap Abe would not let EG go over the cap. This is the reason I call Abe “Cheap”, they would be a better team with Mason on the roster and everyone knows that. Since Abe thinks of the bottom line first this team will never win a championship till he sells the team.


Posted by: bulletsfan78 | February 19, 2009 12:49 AM

When are we going to need the two contracts' flexibility to make deals instead of Hughes' single contract? We play Hughes next year, and then his contract expires... I don't see us doing another (better) trade before then if we can't get a better trade now.

Posted by: VeCente115 | February 19, 2009 12:52 AM

Forget my post about getting Cedric Simmons in the deal w/ Chicago, appearantly he was already dealt...


Jared Jeffries???


This from Yahoo Sports:

Wizards discuss Jeffries

The Washington Wizards still have interest in bringing back New York Knicks forward Jared Jeffries, an Eastern Conference official said. Jeffries played for the Wizards his first four seasons in the league.

Could we be looking at a 3 way deal with Chicago and New York??

Here's a possibility... it does work in the trade checker.


We send James to New York for Jeffries.

DeShawn and Etan to Bulls for Hughes. The deal this way keeps the Bulls out of lux tax (which kills the deal w/James to Bulls according to ESPN as reported above), because DeShawn makes less than Mike James.

Then the Knicks and Bulls can work out a DeShawn plus filler for James swap.


This would be excellent IMO. It's basically the Hughes deal as Ivan reported, with the additional deal of DeShawn who'd be the odd man out to bring back Jeffries.

Again though.... Eddie Jordan was the guy who best knew how to utilize Jeffries and Hughes. Deal only really makes sense if he's coming back, which isn't going to happen.


Jeffries isn't much, but he was a pretty good rebounder, especially on offensive boards which we need. He'd be more versatile than DeShawn as a defender off the bench, with his ability to play the 2 through 4 spots. I'd just assume keep DeShawn, but if it helps get the Hughes deal done then I'm for it.

Posted by: Darnell1 | February 19, 2009 4:38 AM

bulletsfan78: "The reason they did not attempt to sign him was because Cheap Abe would not let EG go over the cap. This is the reason I call Abe “Cheap”, they would be a better team with Mason on the roster and everyone knows that. Since Abe thinks of the bottom line first this team will never win a championship till he sells the team."

I tried putting myself in Mason's place. I'm grateful to the Wiz for giving me a sustained shot and some time on the court when it counts. I like the guys on the team and hey, we even made it to the first round.

On the other hand, the Spurs have Tim Duncan and Tony Parker and all those big, showy banners hanging from the ceiling.

And they can even toss some extra cash my way.

So it comes down to: warm fuzzy feelings of gratitude versus real chance at big showy ring.

I'll send you a card at Xmas, Caron.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 19, 2009 7:33 AM

"They would be a better team with Mason on the roster and everyone knows that."

Yeah, but not everybody knew it last year. Roger didn't exactly come from nowhere, but nobody in the league expected that level of improvement. Here was a guy with indifferent skills who all of a sudden was hitting big shots as well as playing his usual outstanding defense. It's hard to explain that sort of improvement in mid-career. Popovich signed him because he regarded him as a perfect fit for the Spurs, not because he anticipated Roger's emergence as an almost-star. He's as pleasantly surprised as anyone.

You know who I'd compare Mason to? The quarterback, Trent Green. A guy who the Skins appreciated but also felt that, with his underwhelming arm, would never be a good deep thrower. So Casserly openly scorned the Rams for signing the guy for four million bucks. Then he had a pretty good start in St. Louis before going down with an injury and getting replaced by Kurt Warner. We all know how that turned out.

And of course, to everybody's amazement, winding up with Dick Vermeil in Kansas City and making a few All Pro teams.

His arm never got stronger, and his legs only got weaker, yet somehow he managed to be one heck of a QB. Thus lending support to Bill Walsh's theory that nobody knew less about playing quarterback than your average NFL scout.

Maybe Roger is like that.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 19, 2009 7:43 AM

So here is a trade no one will like, but technically works, gets us under the cap next year, and allows us the keep the draft pick and Jamison. We trade ET, MJ, AB, OP and our very high second round pick to New York for Marbury. We buy him out right before the deadline to sign with a new team for the playoffs (encouragement for him to take less). Should put us around 54M next year which should still allow us to sign our first rounder and possibly a free agent.

Posted by: rchorsch | February 19, 2009 8:42 AM

"lmao do u even watch the Wiz, guy?? yeah mike "garbage" james, the 40-something, non-defense playing, shoot-first pg a$$h0Ie shooting 37% and averaging 8 ppg is better than LH."

Hughes hasn't done anything this year or last year. At least James can knock down some shots. He has played pretty well for us. I think you are the one who isn't watching the Wiz. You guys who are fixated on Hughes actually being good are not watching the NBA. The guy has fallen off the face of the earth the last couple of years. This trade is garbage for garbage.

"o and his game reminds u of the best player on our team so we def shouldn't do the deal. ROFL thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard"

It reminds me of Butler only in playing style. Firstly, Butler is NOT our best player. Arenas is. When Butler is healthy and playing we are the worst team in the NBA. Face it, it is time to admit that Butler is a complimentary player. Arenas is a star caliber player. Im tired of fans in this area acting like that isn't true. Just because the guy got hurt does not mean he was not playing at an elite level. Caron is not anywhere near that level.

Posted by: russcarreiro@yahoo.com | February 19, 2009 9:13 AM


It would be a nice move but I don't see it happening. The Bulls have a big man in Miller and adding another point guard makes no sense. The Bulls must really not want Hughes on their roster to make this move. On the other hand it will improve the Wizards scoring. Hughes can come off the bench or start and contribute right away. Only problem I have is. What will the wizards do with the top 3 pick, if they end of getting it in the lottery.

According to Ivan the Wizards are over the cap and adding a top pick will push it even higher, plus the Wizards have to determine if Tapscott is their future coach. I don't think Tapscott is the future for the Wizards. I think Ernie should apologize to Eddie Jordan and re-sign him. Otherwise, they'll have to lobby hard for Avery Johnson, they need a coach with a winning attitude and who can coach tough defense within this team.

Posted by: rcnasa | February 19, 2009 9:17 AM

"Which makes it sound like those are the only two options. Which, of course, they aren't. It's not like their only two choices are 'nothing' or 'Larry Hughes.'"

If a better deal comes around, then the Wizards should be all ears. But right now, there doesn't seem to be anything close to it. And given the fact that the Wizards will struggle to even sign one, let alone both of their draft picks, I don't see another addition to that position coming in the offseason that can contribute the way Hughes could. So it may not be their only choice to add another guard, but it's pretty close.

"Because Arenas was hurt. If he's still hurt next year, it won't matter who the third string SG is."

And I'll argue that even if Arenas is healthy, if we have a 1st or 2nd string SG shooting 31/27/53 percentages, this team won't be going anywhere anyway.

"Yes, exactly. Stevenson does the same thing that Larry Hughes does"

Stevenson did what Larry Hughes does. Each year Stevenson has been here, his shooting percentages have dropped significantly. His FG% has gone from 46.1% - 38.6.% - 31.2% in his 3 years. His 3pt% has gone from 40.4% - 38.3% - 27.1%. And now that he's battling constantly nagging, and possibly chronic injuries, I wouldn't bank on him returning to form.

It basically comes down to which is better for the Wizards: 2 expiring contracts from players that at best should provide a 5th option at center and a 3rd option at pg VS 1 expiring contract from a player that could be a potential starter at SG. Personally, I'd take the risk.

Posted by: psps23 | February 19, 2009 9:27 AM

"Hughes hasn't done anything this year or last year. At least James can knock down some shots."

Aside from the fact that Mike James hasn't done anything this year or last, and the fact that he fell off the face of the earth long before Hughes did, the stats tell that this statement is wrong.

Mike James is shooting 37.6% from the field, 38.4% from 3, and 78.4% from the line this season.

Hughes is shooting 41.2% from the field, 39.2% from 3, and 81.2% from the line.

Posted by: psps23 | February 19, 2009 9:33 AM

Hughes hasn't done anything this year or last year. At least James can knock down some shots. He has played pretty well for us...Butler is NOT our best player. Arenas is...

Posted by: russcarreiro@yahoo.com | February 19, 2009 9:13 AM

Gilbert hasn't done anything this year or last year. At least Caron can knock down some shots. He has played pretty well for us. Mike "garbage" James is shooting 37.6% from the field, 38.4% from 3, and 78.4% from the line this season. Maybe you do watch the Wiz if you consider that playing "pretty well for us". Hughes is shooting 41.2% from the field, 39.2% from 3, and 81.2% from the line.

Posted by: prescrunk | February 19, 2009 10:06 AM

Stevenson's back injury is chronic and the Wiz surely wish they hadn't signed him to a 4-yr. deal two summers ago. Trading for Hughes give us a legit SG who actually is a good defensive player and has shown he is a great compliment to AJ and Arenas. He's a nice insurance policy if Arenas returns as no more than a guy who can score 20-25 points a night with no D. I think the Wiz see Hughes as a long-term fit for the next 2+ years to compliment the current core.

The reason Chicago likes the deal is that Hughes contract lasts through 2011 while ET's and James' contracts end in 2010. Chicago is trying to clear cap room and doesn't want to be saddled with Hughes contract going into the 2010 FA summer and are paying Hughes $15M next year while they still have Gordon, Hinrich, and Rose under contract.

I personally would rather the Wiz sit tight rather than take on another huge LT contract for a chronically injured player, but Hughes is only 29 and played his best ball here. This is low-risk move for the Wiz to slightly improve the team without hurting its lottery position. Hughes would at least give us a legit 3rd scoring option and a better defensive player than anyone on the roster.

Posted by: wizfan89 | February 19, 2009 10:40 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company