Taking Advantage of Teams that Want Cap Space (Us/Knicks/Blazers)
After the Knicks made the Crawford and Randolph trades, it was pretty obvious that the Knicks were clearing cap space for 2010, and they didn't seem to care about the skill of the player they got back. It's been general knowledge in the league that the Blazers need cap space in 2009.
Enter us.
We just so happen to have a 12 million dollar contract that expires in 2010 for the Knicks, and a 7 million dollar contract that expires next year for the Blazers. The Knicks also have several contracts that expire next year that the Blazers will want. All of this points to a trade.
How about this in two months (Al Harrington can't be traded with another player for two months):
We send out:
Larry Hughes
Drew Gooden
The Knicks send out:
Al Harrington
Jerome James
The Blazers send out:
Raef Lafrentz
We Get:
Raef Lafrentz
Al Harrington
The Knicks Get:
Larry Hughes
The Blazers Get:
Jerome James
Drew Gooden
I couldn't do this on the trade machine (though I tried) so I did some math on a calculator. We get back roughly 2 million more than we send out, the Knicks get back roughly 2 1/2 million less than they send out, and the Blazers get back roughly 1/2 million more than they send out.
I end with a question: If we’re over the cap during the year, but we have contracts that expire at the end of the year, and without those contracts we’re under the cap, are we over or under the cap?
--
Ok, how about this trade:
For those of you to lazy to click on the link:
We send out:
Larry Hughes
Drew Gooden
The Knicks send out:
Nate Robinson
Malik Rose
Jerome James
The Blazers send out:
Raef Lafrentz
Joel Pryzbilla
Travis Outlaw
We get:
Raef Lafrentz
Joel Pryzbilla
The Knicks get:
Travis Outlaw
Larry Hughes
The Blazers get:
Drew Gooden
Nate Robinson
Malik Rose
Jerome James
FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
But...
Why would we do that anyways? I thought you were going to propose we get back something more valuable than the expiring contracts we’re sending out. But Lafrentz and Harrington? Huh?
Not just that but Harringtons contract is up the same time as Hughes' so there's no point for the Knicks
by Juiceboxjerry on Nov 22, 2008 9:52 PM CST up reply actions
My thoughts too.
I wanted to say something, but I thought I was missing something, and I didn’t want to get blasted for posting something myopic.
Asked what kind of player he expects to be in the next five years, he said: "Not a star, but like, a superstar. Something around, like, Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, something like that."
Yeah, this doesn't make any sense.
If we are sending out expiring contracts, we need to get back someone who can play with Rose. If not, we can just keep Gooden and Hughes and let them expire.
According to the guy they call Screamin' A. Smith
over at ESPN.com, the Knicks now have enough room under the cap to sign both LeBron and another all-league talent such as Dwyane Wade or Chris Bosh. If this is true, I don’t think they need more cap space.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
They could go for all 3 and be really good.
Things could be worse.
by stupidgenius on Nov 23, 2008 2:47 AM CST up reply actions
Unlikely
It would be LeBron and some other star and 9 other league minimum players?
In a trust with Vinny Del Negro.
by NBA Observer on Nov 23, 2008 12:26 PM CST up reply actions
No, don't forget that the Knicks have not hesitated to breach
the luxury tax, and that was when they were horrible. If they get LeBron + one other major star, they’ll be competitive, which will make that much more of a compelling reason to once again go into luxury tax territory.
So it’ll be more like a 6 to 8 man rotation, meaning that three to five league minimum players will play next to LeBron, the other star, and the third option.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
Or even a bunch of above-average role-players
to surround the two or two-plus stars. One of them will probably David Lee after his contract extension.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
Isn't Isiah the expection rather than the rule?
Look at these contracts he handed out. Jerome James, Jared Jeffries, Eddy Curry?
In a trust with Vinny Del Negro.
by NBA Observer on Nov 24, 2008 8:47 AM CST up reply actions
I don't see any point for any of the teams involved in this proposed trade
Why? Why would any of them do this again?
As a Blazers fan
I would kill to see Jerome James down low dominating a game. I think the Blazers are just going to let Raef’s contract expire and play with their cap space this off season.
yeah, I was hoping to get a little more than just another C
unless Oden ends up sucking
by Bust a Bucket on Nov 23, 2008 6:17 AM CST up reply actions
How does this help the Blazers?
They get just a minimal benefit here. I think to get the Blazers to bite you have to take Martell Webster or Travis Outlaw off their hands.
In a trust with Vinny Del Negro.
Off their hands?
They’re both cheap and useful and young, they ain’t being moved to get either one off of the Blazer’s hands.
If one is moved, it’ll likely be Outlaw, but again— not just to open up space for the other. They each played about 30 mins a night last season (with Outlaw being backup PF and SF), and there is still plenty of room for ‘em both. Webster, even whilst injured, has won the starting SF spot and was lookin’ pretty good before he got hurt. Outlaw is, at least, instant offense off the bench.
Both useful, neither gonna be given away while they are on their cheap 2nd contracts.
Of course, I agree with you that neither of these trades help the Blazers at all as far as I can see.
Mortimer
I agree.
The original statement didn’t make sense. They are both good, not great players, not weights to be unloaded.
I think we should examine the clubs that are out of the running for the 2010 sweepstakes
This will help us locate the final destinations for Hinrich or Nocioni this season and perhaps Luol Deng next season if we really aren’t getting anywhere with him and Rose together. Then we can take our 2010 pieces to identify facilitators that could use our pieces or give us more flexibility in return.
One club I’m liking is the Indiana Pacers. They’re in too deep with Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy and they have the Granger contract starting next season. They’re on the hook for almost 42 million from those three alone through at least 2011.
In a trust with Vinny Del Negro.
I am not a capologist, but
How do three teams looking for cap space gain any by trading their own expiring contracts for the other teams expiring contracts.
This deal just shuffles the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Maybe the Blazers get some cap space this summer, but the Bulls and Knicks don’t seem to gain any additional advantage in 2010.
The only way that the Knicks take Larry Hughes
Is if we, or somebody else takes back Eddy Curry. They are trading long contracts for short ones period. If they dump Curry, the can sign David Lee to his extension.
While I would love to get rid of Hughes and Gooden, just because they are wasting OPM Laftentz and Harrington contract wise are essentially identical to Gooden and Hughes, one expires this summer, and the other expires next summer.
I would probably do this deal anyway, because Lafrentz is permantly injured, so it removes a body from our rotation. And I suppose I prefer to pay Harrington rather Hughes for the next 2 years and I might prefer Harringtons game slightly to Goodens, not really sure on that since Harrington has a rep as a malcontent.
Bulls, 2010 cap impact, zero
Hughes?
Would you do a B.Miller & M.Moore for L.Hughes & T.Thomas &A.Gray deal?
Kings take on $288,000 & both teams stay under LUXTAX.
by hudson101 on Nov 24, 2008 1:13 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Wait... huh?
The Blazers HAVE cap space… they don’t NEED cap space. It’s not as if 2009 is the killer free agent class everyone wants a part of, and the Blazers already have 20-30 million in cap space.
They could very well move Raef’s 12 million, but they ain’t using up a roster spot to accomplish the same thing or make a superfluous move. They are packed to the gills with players they wanna keep (really, Raef and Shavlick Randolph are the only players who don’t have that much value for their own play, and since Raef is a very good expiring deal, only Shavlick (who is decent, especially for a 15th man) isn’t someone they wanna keep. Roster spots are important to the Blazers).
They are also definitely not trading Joel Przybilla for cap space, when they wouldn’t even trade him for a better player— Joel’s backup play, solid defense, and top rebounding kinda helps the Blazers, more than adding to the already 20+ in 2009 cap space.
I’ll add this, since I don’t think most non-Blazer fans know this: Raef’s deal is maybe THE MOST attractive expiring contract in the league, but not only for its size— Raef had shoulder surgery right before the season started and has been relaxing on his farm in Iowa all year. After game 41, insurance picks up his salary. That means that whatever team trades for him, not only gets an expiring deal, they pay basically nothing on the contract because insurance picks it all up.
That means Raef’s expiring deal is more valuable than just future cap space for a team; not having to pay a 12 million dollar contract for half a season is very attractive for cost conscious teams (like the Suns, Bobcats, Bulls, anyone not named Knicks or Blazers).
That also means that Raef’s expiring deal will only be traded for sumthin’ good n’ useful for the now and future, not ‘just’ more cap space (when none more is needed) since Portland can let it expire and play with the cap space while enjoying actually saving Paul Allen some money themselves… there is no hurry to trade it to make sure they get ‘value’ for it, like other teams over the salary cap would want to do.
I’m sure Raef’s deal will be used in lotsa fan imagined trades, so everyone who loves to make awesome trades, remember that his contract is almost free after game 41!
On this, all depends!
Mortimer
It's true, Raef hasn't set foot in the State of Oregon in two months
and that’s just fine… unless you are the insurer.
by Bust a Bucket on Nov 24, 2008 6:58 AM CST up reply actions
I didn't know Raef moved back to Iowa
When he went to KU, his parents moved to Lawrence with him as I recall.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
That would be cool if he didn't suck.
Things could be worse.
by stupidgenius on Nov 25, 2008 4:18 PM CST up reply actions
It's really something of a joke
since the Blazers traded for him he has played sparingly, but somehow messed up his shoulder. They performed surgery on it and told him to go back to his farm in Iowa for the next year.
by Bust a Bucket on Nov 25, 2008 7:23 PM CST up reply actions
damn, you're like the LaFrenze family's old crony, aren't you
by Bust a Bucket on Nov 26, 2008 10:47 AM CST up reply actions
i love small towns like that...
1 tavern where everyone knows everyone… plus video poker and drink and smoke all day… very cool
by Bust a Bucket on Nov 26, 2008 4:55 PM CST up reply actions
How can everyone know everyone in a town of 5,200?
Things could be worse. We could have kept (name redacted).
by stupidgenius on Nov 26, 2008 10:41 PM CST up reply actions
Is Raef really religious?
Do you think he voted for McCain or Obama? just curious…
by Bust a Bucket on Nov 27, 2008 3:06 PM CST up reply actions
sorry, i thought you meant like 200 people
I also like towns of 5200, but not as much as towns of 252.
That’s cool though that you know Raef’s family. They should give everyone in town $10,000 because he is one of the most overpaid players ever and sucks.
by Bust a Bucket on Nov 27, 2008 3:08 AM CST up reply actions
As per above...the Blazers would not do this.
Where did you get the idea that the Blazers are looking for cap room? We have the expiring contract of Raef LaFrentz as one of our major bargaining chips.
Outlaw/Webster will not be going out the door in order to offload LaFrentz, just to bring back another big contract like Jerome James and a player like Gooden?
"You've been warned...!"
A Stern Warning : http://www.asternwarning.com

by 













