I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.

[JSD]

It's fair to assume that Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass, as evident by the fact that Detriot just out right cut him.

Would you have done that trade if you were Danny?

[manl_lui]

I am a bit confused...could someone explain this to me

had we actually trade Bass and Wallace for Josh, it also means we are committed in paying him the 2 years and 13 mil

But now that he is cut, the teams that are trying to sign him, they do not pay him 13 mil? but they could offer something like vet min, a mid or something like that?

If it's the latter, say we kept Rondo, we could've had Josh Smith for the vet min. while he still gets paid by Detroit? right?

[littleteapot]

No

[gpap]

Meh, I think it's time to move on from Josh Smith.

You know something is not right when even the Detroit Pistons are waiving you.

[JSD]

I am a bit confused...could someone explain this to me

had we actually trade Bass and Wallace for Josh, it also means we are committed in paying him the 2 years and 13 mil

But now that he is cut, the teams that are trying to sign him, they do not pay him 13 mil? but they could offer something like vet min, a mid or something like that?

If it's the latter, say we kept Rondo, we could've had Josh Smith for the vet min. while he still gets paid by Detroit? right?

Yeah, that's how I understand it.

[Donoghus]

I've never wanted Smith near this basketball team.

Rather swallow one more year of the Wallace albatross than take on Smith and that contract.

[Onslaught]

Why?

[MBunge]

It's fair to assume that Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass, as evident by the fact that Detriot just out right cut him.

Would you have done that trade if you were Danny?

No.

If they'd cut him earlier and I could have added him to the team for next to nothing, I might have done that and held off on trading Rondo.  But I'm not giving up anything of real value for Josh Smith after his history in Atlanta and Detroit.

Mike

[D.o.s.]

My suspicion is actually the opposite from yours, JSD -- I think that Detroit cut Smith because they didn't want to take on players like Bass and contracts like Wallace, and those were the only deals out there.

[kozlodoev]

My suspicion is actually the opposite from yours, JSD -- I think that Detroit cut Smith because they didn't want to take on players like Bass and contracts like Wallace, and those were the only deals out there.

This doesn't make much sense. How is it better to have no player, and a contract worse than Wallace's (which is what they achieved by cutting Smith).

[GreenWarrior]

I wouldn't mind seeing Wallace & Bass traded, but I don't want to see them traded that badly.

[Csfan1984]

My suspicion is actually the opposite from yours, JSD -- I think that Detroit cut Smith because they didn't want to take on players like Bass and contracts like Wallace, and those were the only deals out there.

This doesn't make much sense. How is it better to have no player, and a contract worse than Wallace's (which is what they achieved by cutting Smith).

Good call DOS.,
Koz if you are using stretch to avoid tax due to expecting to max sign of Monroe.  Smith stretch is better than Wallace stretch. This is because Smith had an extra year his stretch means less $ a year. Stretch rule is 2x years left +1 year. Longer the contract easier the stretch.

[the coreys]

Makes you wonder what fans actually see in players. He blows. With Rondo here it would blow even more.

[kozlodoev]

My suspicion is actually the opposite from yours, JSD -- I think that Detroit cut Smith because they didn't want to take on players like Bass and contracts like Wallace, and those were the only deals out there.

This doesn't make much sense. How is it better to have no player, and a contract worse than Wallace's (which is what they achieved by cutting Smith).

Good call DOS.,
Koz if you are using stretch to avoid tax due to expecting to max sign of Monroe.  Smith stretch is better than Wallace stretch. This is because Smith had an extra year his stretch means less $ a year. Stretch rule is 2x years left +1 year. Longer the contract easier the stretch.

The math in this case is clearly for letting Bass expire and waiving Wallace with a stretch, simply because Smith makes a boatload of money:

Smith's stretch -- $28 million over 5 years = ~5.6 million dead cap.
Wallace's stretch -- $10.1 million over 3 years = ~3.3 million dead cap.

The only caveat is that you can only stretch contracts signed under the new CBA, and I'm not sure Wallace's is.

Also wanted to comment on the bold part: exactly the opposite is true, because in shorter contracts, the "relative weight" of the extra year is higher. At least provided you define "easier to stretch" as "providing the highest cap savings relative to the original per-annum amount".

Example: a $10 million per season contract stretches to $3.3 mil if it's a one-year deal ($10*1/3), and for $4 mil if it is a 2-year deal ($10*2/5). The longer the deal, the higher the stretch amount.

[Neurotic Guy]

Josh Smith easily has the record for most discussed player coming back in a trade.   Not totally sure why since most here really seem not to want him.  Yet, we go over it again and again.

3 years form now, when he can be had for $3M and we have a strong veteran lineup, I could see adding him as a bench player -- but only if we have confidence that he would focus on D and boards.