Will Gerald Wallace's contract keep us from signing a third star if we get Love?

[Roy H.]

I disagree with this assessment that Wallace can't be traded. I think he has the perfect one-two punch that any rebuilding team would need: 1: short term contract (2 years) for big money ($20 millionish) 2: He's terrible and doesn't need time of the court. He allows the Timberwolves to meet salary requirements while still being able to play the young assets and draft picks they are about to acquired.

Wallace goes in any deal for Love.

Why would a rebuilding team prefer two years of bad salary, as opposed to expiring or non-guaranteed contracts?  That makes no sense. 

Another option is Utah, who might be willing to absorb Wallace for a 1st round pick.

It would cost more than one first rounder to do that.  They got two #1s for taking on the expiring contracts of Biedrins and Jefferson.  Asking them to take on two years of Wallace would likely cost at least two #1s.  Is that a price you'd be willing to pay?

[JSD]

The minimum team salary, which is set at 90 percent of the Salary Cap, an increase from the 85 percent from last season, is $52.811 million. Teams will have to spend that figure of the cap figure on player salaries starting this season.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/07/09/2013-14-nba-salary-cap-figure-set-at-58-679-million/

It makes sense if teams on the rebuild HAVE to spend the money. What are the TWolves going to do with cap space? I suppose they could look to absorb other teams bad contracts for picks, but what's that market going to be like? Is the precedent set by the GS/Utah trade still relevant? I don't think so. The Warriors made a terrible trade because they were desperate. I don't see that desperation out there anymore. And if I do see that desperation, it's with teams like the Knicks or Nets, who have no picks to trade.

The last time the Celtics traded a lottery pick and got a superstar player in return, they were able to attach a bad contract that had 2 years left on it.

[JSD]

The Celtics were able to make that trade for Ray Allen before there was a minimum salary requirement. The requirement only increases the likelihood that it can and will be done.

[JSD]

I never said a team would prefer it, I just don't think Wallace is untradable in a deal that would bring back Love.

[Roy H.]

The minimum team salary, which is set at 90 percent of the Salary Cap, an increase from the 85 percent from last season, is $52.811 million. Teams will have to spend that figure of the cap figure on player salaries starting this season.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/07/09/2013-14-nba-salary-cap-figure-set-at-58-679-million/

It makes sense if teams on the rebuild HAVE to spend the money. What are the TWolves going to do with cap space? I suppose they could look to absorb other teams bad contracts for picks, but what's that market going to be like? Is the precedent set by the GS/Utah trade still relevant? I don't think so. The Warriors made a terrible trade because they were desperate. I don't see that desperation out there anymore. And if I do see that desperation, it's with teams like the Knicks or Nets, who have no picks to trade.

The last time the Celtics traded a lottery pick and got a superstar player in return, they were able to attach a bad contract that had 2 years left on it.

First, the salary floor isn't an issue.  The Twolves could help out other teams trying to clear expiring contracts, such as the Rockets with Asik and Lin.  Alternatively, they'd just sign a player to a large one year contract using their cap space.  Their third option would be to sign nobody, and to just pay the fine (an amount equal to the difference between their payroll and the floor).  All are better options than taking on Wallace.

There's a world of difference between an overpaid Wally Szczerbiak (who was still a productive player and elite shooter, averaging 15 ppg before he was traded) and Gerald Wallace (who averaged 5 points and looked like a corpse).