Would you be more amendable to taking on a $23 million expiring contract OR a $11 million per year contract for 2 years? At the end of the day, you're still effectively paying $23 million but would one option fulfill your objectives better than the other?
FYI: The Sixers allegedly have $30 million to spend in cap space this offseason.
If I was Philly? No....
The Lakers and Phoenix are something different.
Lakers get Bargs and Jr Smith cut they do Phil a solid and they need players
Phoenix get Amare and Shump... They do it cuz they want Shump, and they love Amare out there
Personally, I think the latter option (2 years/$22 million) is the better option because it still allows them the opportunity to maintain their cap space this offseason (at $20 million as opposed to $7 million), which will allow them to acquire additional assets from other teams looking to dump contracts. I don't think they'd be averse to acquiring long-termed contracts (capped at 2 years) because they did so for Jason Richardson, who they chose not to buyout. If that's the case, why wouldn't something like this work....
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?trad...
Boston effectively gets out from under Gerald Wallace's 2 year deal, and aggregates that salary into an expirer that could be flipped in a deal for Kevin Love and $6 million worth of bad contracts from the Wolves (in 60 days). If the deal involves just picks (of which, the Celtics have 13 of in 5 years), they could make the deal immediately although I suspect that the Wolves will want some combination of prospects (e.g. Sullinger, Smart, Young, Olynk) involved.
Meanwhile the Knicks could create $10 million in cap flexibility in the immediate future AND an additional $5 million from waiving Keith Bogans unguaranteed contract. Things would fair better if we could include Larkin in the deal to Philly but he can't be traded until 6 weeks from now. Maybe we could substitute Hardaway for Shumpert and that would suffice.
EnySpree wrote:If I was Philly? No....The Lakers and Phoenix are something different.
Lakers get Bargs and Jr Smith cut they do Phil a solid and they need players
Phoenix get Amare and Shump... They do it cuz they want Shump, and they love Amare out there
Yeah, I'm very skeptical of Philly being interested in taking on that kind of money for such a marginal return. Of the two though, I think the latter is more realistic because it'd put a much smaller dent in their biggest asset.
I could see Phoenix being interested in Amar'e the player but Amar'e the contract would be a different story. He'd effectively consume all the cap space they'd have and I see a team like that being able to do something with the money they'd have at their disposal. Same with the Lakers. I could see them taking on JR Smith moreso than Bargs though. If they do, I'd just throw in Prigioni to clear the extra $2 million.
None of those teams are remotely close to being a contender, they have way too many young players and not enough vets, these are expiring contracts that can be flip by the trading deadline, so IMO it doest matter.
If im phil, i don't just do a trade for the sake of a salary dump if you have no one on deck (like pau or LBJ)especially if your goal is to atleast make the EFC game.
NardDogNation wrote:Would you be more amendable to taking on a $23 million expiring contract OR a $11 million per year contract for 2 years? At the end of the day, you're still effectively paying $23 million but would one option fulfill your objectives better than the other?FYI: The Sixers allegedly have $30 million to spend in cap space this offseason.
nahh ... amar'e would not join on those two options as if equivalent
If melo wants Pau, then Melo has to understand the risks that Pau can break down, it reduces cap "Opportuntiy" for future trades, and losing shump or THJ you lose a player or trade asset.
NO doubt Pau is a good short term boost to next season, but we need only one of Amare or Bargs to elevate their games on top of other changes to realize we are improved if Melo returns.
To dump salary without a purpose would not be a good idea. IM sure Melo wants Lebron and Phil could have tried but at the end of the day I doubt we are better than what miami was last season.
Nalod wrote:If melo wants Pau, then Melo has to understand the risks that Pau can break down, it reduces cap "Opportuntiy" for future trades, and losing shump or THJ you lose a player or trade asset.NO doubt Pau is a good short term boost to next season, but we need only one of Amare or Bargs to elevate their games on top of other changes to realize we are improved if Melo returns.
To dump salary without a purpose would not be a good idea. IM sure Melo wants Lebron and Phil could have tried but at the end of the day I doubt we are better than what miami was last season.
exactly.
and great point regarding the risk of signing P.Gasol long term.
I would still make this deal, maybe the knicks could get Thaddeus Young as some reports suggested and with the exception, they could get Pau.
Anji wrote:I would still make this deal, maybe the knicks could get Thaddeus Young as some reports suggested and with the exception, they could get Pau.
i wouldnt trade hardaway just to get rid of a expiring contract. hardaway was one of teh only positives of last season and will get better
The deal was Shumpert, not Thjr.
And since there is no reason for max cap space this season, it's not just a dump, Thaddus Young is a damn good player. And Pau would round out the court, win/win/win.
Anji wrote:The deal was Shumpert, not Thjr. And since there is no reason for max cap space this season, it's not just a dump, Thaddus Young is a damn good player. And Pau would round out the court, win/win/win.
True shumpert was discussed but i heard they were also looking for hardaway instead of shump in soem discussions
