Analyze This Quote From Wyc

[Roy H.]

All other things aside, you consider Gallo to be a $20 million player?  Obviously, before the injury.

As to this, Gallinari was a player on a $20M+ contract, just a statement of fact.  Just like Fourier is a player on a $18M contract and Richardson is on a $12M contract.  Clearly, I like Gallinari at $6.5M a whole lot more than at $20M but you criticized the Celtics for not using the TPE (and likely a Pick) to get Fournier and pay him $18M.

I am not sure that the Knicks would have even done this trade back when we could have done it.  Fournier was an asset they had to use in their discussions for Mitchell or Kyrie.  That ship has sailed now but there is no way to know that the Knicks even do that deal in June or July.  And for me, I would rather not have Fourier back in any case.

Fournier wasn't an asset.  He was salary filler.  Now maybe they needed his salary to make a bigger move, but he isn't considered an asset.  He is overpaid and everyone knows it.

Alright, semantics.  I agree on Fournier.  He is overpaid and overrated but still has some level of usefulness as a player for a team like the Lakers.  He would have been filler in for example a Mitchell trade that involved Westbrook.  If they dumped him on us for a draft pick, it would have made it harder for the Knicks to do a trade for Mitchell.  So I am speculating that the Knicks would not have wanted to trade him to us in say July when Mitchell (for example) was still out there.

My point is that I don't just assume that all we needed to do was pick up the phone and we could have had Fournier.  I doubt we wanted Fournier in any case.  I don't anyway.  And if you are saying he was not an asset for the Knicks, what value does he have for us?  To me, even less.  So what exactly did we miss out on?  An overpaid player that has no value in a trade other than filler?  That you can only use if another "no value" player like Westbrook is involved?

True or false:  having available trade filler is better than not having available trade filler?

Fournier isn't the guy I would have targeted, because he has a multiple year deal.  I would have targeted guys like Burks or Noel.  Or, take assets from the Knicks for taking on Kemba, and use Kemba's salary slot and the assets you got back to trade for a better player at the deadline.

The Celtics had moves available to make the team better.  I don't know why this point is controversial.  They chose not to go "all-in".  That's potentially a justifiable position, depending upon how you feel about spending tens of millions for a marginal improvement in our title chances.  But, it was ownership's / Brad's choice not to maximize our title chances, and it rubs me the wrong way for Wyc to keep talking about how he's fully committed to a title.

[Roy H.]

Also, people need to stop calling Hauser a scrub or someone the Celtics took a flyer on.  After a year of watching him in the G League and in practices, management clearly saw something they liked a lot.  He was under contract at the minimum this year with a small guarantee.  The Celtics ripped up that contract so they could sign him to multiple years of guaranteed money.  They didn’t need to do that.  Rather, they chose to because they like him so much.  The team clearly views him differently than the rest of the candidates on the back for the roster — even without Gallo’s injury he was going to be on the edge of the rotation/have a chance to crack it.

Just because we haven’t seen it doesn’t mean the team hasn’t, and they’ve had a lot more to look at.

I'm fine with the Hauser signing, and he shouldn't be treated like a training camp invitee, but let's not pretend he's a proven commodity, either.  He's got 158 minutes of NBA experience.

We have a very good roster.  But, it's a roster that has some holes, partially due to bad luck and partially due to conscious choice.  There are various ways to look at this:

1.  We missed an opportunity.  The TPE -- and the associated salary slot -- are gone, and they're not coming back.  That's a hit to our title chances.

2.  NBA rosters can have 15 players.  Post-deadline last year, we carried 5 unusable players, and it's looking like we're going into the season with as many as 6 unproven or unusable guys.  Keeping a couple of high-energy end of roster guys isn't a bad thing.  Spending 40% of your roster on guys you won't play is.

3.  The roster isn't ideal, but this isn't a finished product.  The team will take a look in training camp to see how useful the FAs it's brought in can be, and will adjust accordingly.  It's likely that most of the same free agents available now will be available in October or November.

4.  Flexibility is key.  Signing guys to completely non-guaranteed deals is key, so that we can waive them when we decide who to target with the remaining TPEs / DPE, etc.

5.  Vonleh, Bruno, Layman, Valentine, Jackson and Thomas are legitimately NBA-caliber players who should play an important role.

I'm mostly in category #2, although if Wyc is going to keep talking about there being no spending limit, etc., then I am going to take his word for it and criticize Brad for not using the TPE, as well.

[Vermont Green]

True or false:  having available trade filler is better than not having available trade filler?

Can't answer that unless you tell me what we had to give up to get Burkes or Noel.  A first?  A second?  A pick with so many protections that it never conveys?  And filler for what?  Westbrook?  It is not like these guys are going to get us Mitchell unless we give up a whole lot more, which we aren't.  Filler gets you more filler (another contract the team doesn't want) unless you include even more picks or other assets.

Take your guy Barnes.  Barnes would be a nice player to add.  Say we traded for Noel.  How exactly does that help us get Barnes?  Probably not at all is the answer.

[Roy H.]

True or false:  having available trade filler is better than not having available trade filler?

Can't answer that unless you tell me what we had to give up to get Burkes or Noel.  A first?  A second?  A pick with so many protections that it never conveys?  And filler for what?  Westbrook?  It is not like these guys are going to get us Mitchell unless we give up a whole lot more, which we aren't.  Filler gets you more filler (another contract the team doesn't want) unless you include even more picks or other assets.

Take your guy Barnes.  Barnes would be a nice player to add. Say we traded for Noel.  How exactly does that help us get Barnes?  Probably not at all is the answer.

It's pretty easy to put together a trade to get a player in Barnes' salary range.  Say that we got Noel, or Burks, or whatever expiring contract in the $10 million range.  We would have still had $7 million (or in Noel's case, $7.9 million) left of the TPE.  Use the rest of that on whichever expiring contract is left.  Say, Rudy Gay.

Then, at the deadline, if you want Barnes you package Noel + Gay (expiring contracts) + #1 for Barnes, or whatever target you want in that range.  Or, two #1s, or even more, if you're looking at John Collins.

Instead, we've let that salary slot go, meaning there's no current way to trade for a guy in the $15 - $20 million range without giving up a rotation player.

We even could have gotten into the $30 million range, depending upon how we'd approached the use of TPEs. 

For instance, trade TPE + small asset for Kelly Olynyk (or Josh Richardson or Kelly Oubre).  TPE #2 for Rudy Gay.  That's roughly $26 million in outgoing salary, which brings back a $32.5 million player (or multiple players).

These are the ways that teams maximize their spending, and that spending helps add to a contending roster.

[ozgod]

Also, people need to stop calling Hauser a scrub or someone the Celtics took a flyer on.  After a year of watching him in the G League and in practices, management clearly saw something they liked a lot.  He was under contract at the minimum this year with a small guarantee.  The Celtics ripped up that contract so they could sign him to multiple years of guaranteed money.  They didn’t need to do that.  Rather, they chose to because they like him so much.  The team clearly views him differently than the rest of the candidates on the back for the roster — even without Gallo’s injury he was going to be on the edge of the rotation/have a chance to crack it.

Just because we haven’t seen it doesn’t mean the team hasn’t, and they’ve had a lot more to look at.

I'm fine with the Hauser signing, and he shouldn't be treated like a training camp invitee, but let's not pretend he's a proven commodity, either.  He's got 158 minutes of NBA experience.

We have a very good roster.  But, it's a roster that has some holes, partially due to bad luck and partially due to conscious choice.  There are various ways to look at this:

1.  We missed an opportunity.  The TPE -- and the associated salary slot -- are gone, and they're not coming back.  That's a hit to our title chances.

2.  NBA rosters can have 15 players.  Post-deadline last year, we carried 5 unusable players, and it's looking like we're going into the season with as many as 6 unproven or unusable guys.  Keeping a couple of high-energy end of roster guys isn't a bad thing.  Spending 40% of your roster on guys you won't play is.

3.  The roster isn't ideal, but this isn't a finished product.  The team will take a look in training camp to see how useful the FAs it's brought in can be, and will adjust accordingly.  It's likely that most of the same free agents available now will be available in October or November.

4.  Flexibility is key.  Signing guys to completely non-guaranteed deals is key, so that we can waive them when we decide who to target with the remaining TPEs / DPE, etc.

5.  Vonleh, Bruno, Layman, Valentine, Jackson and Thomas are legitimately NBA-caliber players who should play an important role.

I'm mostly in category #2, although if Wyc is going to keep talking about there being no spending limit, etc., then I am going to take his word for it and criticize Brad for not using the TPE, as well.

I think I fall into Category 3. I think we have a lot of time to figure things out.

[Celtics2021]

Also, people need to stop calling Hauser a scrub or someone the Celtics took a flyer on.  After a year of watching him in the G League and in practices, management clearly saw something they liked a lot.  He was under contract at the minimum this year with a small guarantee.  The Celtics ripped up that contract so they could sign him to multiple years of guaranteed money.  They didn’t need to do that.  Rather, they chose to because they like him so much.  The team clearly views him differently than the rest of the candidates on the back for the roster — even without Gallo’s injury he was going to be on the edge of the rotation/have a chance to crack it.

Just because we haven’t seen it doesn’t mean the team hasn’t, and they’ve had a lot more to look at.

I'm fine with the Hauser signing, and he shouldn't be treated like a training camp invitee, but let's not pretend he's a proven commodity, either.  He's got 158 minutes of NBA experience.

We have a very good roster.  But, it's a roster that has some holes, partially due to bad luck and partially due to conscious choice.  There are various ways to look at this:

1.  We missed an opportunity.  The TPE -- and the associated salary slot -- are gone, and they're not coming back.  That's a hit to our title chances.

2.  NBA rosters can have 15 players.  Post-deadline last year, we carried 5 unusable players, and it's looking like we're going into the season with as many as 6 unproven or unusable guys.  Keeping a couple of high-energy end of roster guys isn't a bad thing.  Spending 40% of your roster on guys you won't play is.

3.  The roster isn't ideal, but this isn't a finished product.  The team will take a look in training camp to see how useful the FAs it's brought in can be, and will adjust accordingly.  It's likely that most of the same free agents available now will be available in October or November.

4.  Flexibility is key.  Signing guys to completely non-guaranteed deals is key, so that we can waive them when we decide who to target with the remaining TPEs / DPE, etc.

5.  Vonleh, Bruno, Layman, Valentine, Jackson and Thomas are legitimately NBA-caliber players who should play an important role.

I'm mostly in category #2, although if Wyc is going to keep talking about there being no spending limit, etc., then I am going to take his word for it and criticize Brad for not using the TPE, as well.

I think I fall into Category 3. I think we have a lot of time to figure things out.

Definitely in Category 3.  We're running out of draft pick bullets to acquire impact players, so even if we could afford the salary we might not be able to afford the player.  The chamber isn't completely empty, but making a move now would be a bit shooting blind, acquiring someone without knowing if there's an actual need.  I'd rather wait to see what, if anything, we do need.  Hopefully the answer is nothing significant, and we can instead spend some of that draft capital next summer, acquiring a replacement for Al.

The only TPE-move I might have liked would have been to get Fournier for free and then send him to Indiana instead of Theis, because Fournier's salary could have matched Brogdan's to the penny.  However, the NBA has in the past signaled it might object to allowing a player acquired via a TPE/DPE to be quickly traded in a way that allows the team to take on more salary than the original exception, so it's not clear that would have worked.

[Moranis]

True or false:  having available trade filler is better than not having available trade filler?

Can't answer that unless you tell me what we had to give up to get Burkes or Noel.  A first?  A second?  A pick with so many protections that it never conveys?  And filler for what?  Westbrook?  It is not like these guys are going to get us Mitchell unless we give up a whole lot more, which we aren't.  Filler gets you more filler (another contract the team doesn't want) unless you include even more picks or other assets.

Take your guy Barnes.  Barnes would be a nice player to add. Say we traded for Noel.  How exactly does that help us get Barnes?  Probably not at all is the answer.

It's pretty easy to put together a trade to get a player in Barnes' salary range.  Say that we got Noel, or Burks, or whatever expiring contract in the $10 million range.  We would have still had $7 million (or in Noel's case, $7.9 million) left of the TPE.  Use the rest of that on whichever expiring contract is left.  Say, Rudy Gay.

Then, at the deadline, if you want Barnes you package Noel + Gay (expiring contracts) + #1 for Barnes, or whatever target you want in that range.  Or, two #1s, or even more, if you're looking at John Collins.

Instead, we've let that salary slot go, meaning there's no current way to trade for a guy in the $15 - $20 million range without giving up a rotation player.

We even could have gotten into the $30 million range, depending upon how we'd approached the use of TPEs. 

For instance, trade TPE + small asset for Kelly Olynyk (or Josh Richardson or Kelly Oubre).  TPE #2 for Rudy Gay.  That's roughly $26 million in outgoing salary, which brings back a $32.5 million player (or multiple players).

These are the ways that teams maximize their spending, and that spending helps add to a contending roster.

Plus, with Gallo now going down you have his salary to trade as well.  The only guy on the roster that won't be a key rotation player to use in a trade.

For a team claiming it is contending, it sure isn't acting like it.

[Celtics2021]

True or false:  having available trade filler is better than not having available trade filler?

Can't answer that unless you tell me what we had to give up to get Burkes or Noel.  A first?  A second?  A pick with so many protections that it never conveys?  And filler for what?  Westbrook?  It is not like these guys are going to get us Mitchell unless we give up a whole lot more, which we aren't.  Filler gets you more filler (another contract the team doesn't want) unless you include even more picks or other assets.

Take your guy Barnes.  Barnes would be a nice player to add. Say we traded for Noel.  How exactly does that help us get Barnes?  Probably not at all is the answer.

It's pretty easy to put together a trade to get a player in Barnes' salary range.  Say that we got Noel, or Burks, or whatever expiring contract in the $10 million range.  We would have still had $7 million (or in Noel's case, $7.9 million) left of the TPE.  Use the rest of that on whichever expiring contract is left.  Say, Rudy Gay.

Then, at the deadline, if you want Barnes you package Noel + Gay (expiring contracts) + #1 for Barnes, or whatever target you want in that range.  Or, two #1s, or even more, if you're looking at John Collins.

Instead, we've let that salary slot go, meaning there's no current way to trade for a guy in the $15 - $20 million range without giving up a rotation player.

We even could have gotten into the $30 million range, depending upon how we'd approached the use of TPEs. 

For instance, trade TPE + small asset for Kelly Olynyk (or Josh Richardson or Kelly Oubre).  TPE #2 for Rudy Gay.  That's roughly $26 million in outgoing salary, which brings back a $32.5 million player (or multiple players).

These are the ways that teams maximize their spending, and that spending helps add to a contending roster.

Plus, with Gallo now going down you have his salary to trade as well.  The only guy on the roster that won't be a key rotation player to use in a trade.

For a team claiming it is contending, it sure isn't acting like it.

Are you suggesting that the Celtics should have already made a trade involving Gallo?  Say, for Rudy Gay, for example?

[Goldstar88]

True or false:  having available trade filler is better than not having available trade filler?

Can't answer that unless you tell me what we had to give up to get Burkes or Noel.  A first?  A second?  A pick with so many protections that it never conveys?  And filler for what?  Westbrook?  It is not like these guys are going to get us Mitchell unless we give up a whole lot more, which we aren't.  Filler gets you more filler (another contract the team doesn't want) unless you include even more picks or other assets.

Take your guy Barnes.  Barnes would be a nice player to add. Say we traded for Noel.  How exactly does that help us get Barnes?  Probably not at all is the answer.

It's pretty easy to put together a trade to get a player in Barnes' salary range.  Say that we got Noel, or Burks, or whatever expiring contract in the $10 million range.  We would have still had $7 million (or in Noel's case, $7.9 million) left of the TPE.  Use the rest of that on whichever expiring contract is left.  Say, Rudy Gay.

Then, at the deadline, if you want Barnes you package Noel + Gay (expiring contracts) + #1 for Barnes, or whatever target you want in that range.  Or, two #1s, or even more, if you're looking at John Collins.

Instead, we've let that salary slot go, meaning there's no current way to trade for a guy in the $15 - $20 million range without giving up a rotation player.

We even could have gotten into the $30 million range, depending upon how we'd approached the use of TPEs. 

For instance, trade TPE + small asset for Kelly Olynyk (or Josh Richardson or Kelly Oubre).  TPE #2 for Rudy Gay.  That's roughly $26 million in outgoing salary, which brings back a $32.5 million player (or multiple players).

These are the ways that teams maximize their spending, and that spending helps add to a contending roster.

Plus, with Gallo now going down you have his salary to trade as well.  The only guy on the roster that won't be a key rotation player to use in a trade.

For a team claiming it is contending, it sure isn't acting like it.

C’s added Brogdon and Gallo in the off-season and they aren’t acting like they are trying to contend? Obviously the Danilo injury wasn’t ideal, however,  Boston is fairly deep at PF already. Brad is very specific about the type of players that he adds to the roster and he’s not going to sign someone like Demarcus Cousins before training camp has started just because the C’s are thin at the 5. Season hasn’t even started and I’m sure Stevens wants to see how the 2 way players look before making a move. Almost all trades happen around the deadline and that’s also when the majority of buyouts seem to happen. Fairly confident that Brad will add another piece when the opportunity presents itself.

[Moranis]

True or false:  having available trade filler is better than not having available trade filler?

Can't answer that unless you tell me what we had to give up to get Burkes or Noel.  A first?  A second?  A pick with so many protections that it never conveys?  And filler for what?  Westbrook?  It is not like these guys are going to get us Mitchell unless we give up a whole lot more, which we aren't.  Filler gets you more filler (another contract the team doesn't want) unless you include even more picks or other assets.

Take your guy Barnes.  Barnes would be a nice player to add. Say we traded for Noel.  How exactly does that help us get Barnes?  Probably not at all is the answer.

It's pretty easy to put together a trade to get a player in Barnes' salary range.  Say that we got Noel, or Burks, or whatever expiring contract in the $10 million range.  We would have still had $7 million (or in Noel's case, $7.9 million) left of the TPE.  Use the rest of that on whichever expiring contract is left.  Say, Rudy Gay.

Then, at the deadline, if you want Barnes you package Noel + Gay (expiring contracts) + #1 for Barnes, or whatever target you want in that range.  Or, two #1s, or even more, if you're looking at John Collins.

Instead, we've let that salary slot go, meaning there's no current way to trade for a guy in the $15 - $20 million range without giving up a rotation player.

We even could have gotten into the $30 million range, depending upon how we'd approached the use of TPEs. 

For instance, trade TPE + small asset for Kelly Olynyk (or Josh Richardson or Kelly Oubre).  TPE #2 for Rudy Gay.  That's roughly $26 million in outgoing salary, which brings back a $32.5 million player (or multiple players).

These are the ways that teams maximize their spending, and that spending helps add to a contending roster.

Plus, with Gallo now going down you have his salary to trade as well.  The only guy on the roster that won't be a key rotation player to use in a trade.

For a team claiming it is contending, it sure isn't acting like it.

Are you suggesting that the Celtics should have already made a trade involving Gallo?  Say, for Rudy Gay, for example?

Gallo can't be traded until December I believe.  I'm saying if they had used the 17 million TPE, they'd have a lot more salary options to use in trades.

[Vermont Green]

True or false:  having available trade filler is better than not having available trade filler?

Can't answer that unless you tell me what we had to give up to get Burkes or Noel.  A first?  A second?  A pick with so many protections that it never conveys?  And filler for what?  Westbrook?  It is not like these guys are going to get us Mitchell unless we give up a whole lot more, which we aren't.  Filler gets you more filler (another contract the team doesn't want) unless you include even more picks or other assets.

Take your guy Barnes.  Barnes would be a nice player to add. Say we traded for Noel.  How exactly does that help us get Barnes?  Probably not at all is the answer.

It's pretty easy to put together a trade to get a player in Barnes' salary range.  Say that we got Noel, or Burks, or whatever expiring contract in the $10 million range.  We would have still had $7 million (or in Noel's case, $7.9 million) left of the TPE.  Use the rest of that on whichever expiring contract is left.  Say, Rudy Gay.

Then, at the deadline, if you want Barnes you package Noel + Gay (expiring contracts) + #1 for Barnes, or whatever target you want in that range.  Or, two #1s, or even more, if you're looking at John Collins.

Instead, we've let that salary slot go, meaning there's no current way to trade for a guy in the $15 - $20 million range without giving up a rotation player.

We even could have gotten into the $30 million range, depending upon how we'd approached the use of TPEs. 

For instance, trade TPE + small asset for Kelly Olynyk (or Josh Richardson or Kelly Oubre).  TPE #2 for Rudy Gay.  That's roughly $26 million in outgoing salary, which brings back a $32.5 million player (or multiple players).

These are the ways that teams maximize their spending, and that spending helps add to a contending roster.

Sounds good on paper but I don't think SAC trades a starting player for two useless players on bad contracts and a pick.  If it is two picks in the high 20's likely, still not sure.  But you have to give up something to get Fournier, maybe a pick (remember, Fournier was in the discussion to get the Knicks Mitchell or even Durant) and two more picks.

The Spurs are reported to be insisting on a pick for Richardson and probably want a better pick than what ours would be expected to be.  I don't think any of these trades are as easy as you think.  Maybe, hard to know, but I doubt it.  Just my opinion.

Sources say Jakob Poeltl and Josh Richardson are the two Spurs players most commonly involved in trade talk. While the Spurs have dropped their asking price for the utilization of their salary cap space, their asking price for Poeltl and Richardson remains high. For Richardson, the Spurs are requesting a first round pick. For Poeltl, the Spurs are asking for two first rounders.

[Roy H.]

True or false:  having available trade filler is better than not having available trade filler?

Can't answer that unless you tell me what we had to give up to get Burkes or Noel.  A first?  A second?  A pick with so many protections that it never conveys?  And filler for what?  Westbrook?  It is not like these guys are going to get us Mitchell unless we give up a whole lot more, which we aren't.  Filler gets you more filler (another contract the team doesn't want) unless you include even more picks or other assets.

Take your guy Barnes.  Barnes would be a nice player to add. Say we traded for Noel.  How exactly does that help us get Barnes?  Probably not at all is the answer.

It's pretty easy to put together a trade to get a player in Barnes' salary range.  Say that we got Noel, or Burks, or whatever expiring contract in the $10 million range.  We would have still had $7 million (or in Noel's case, $7.9 million) left of the TPE.  Use the rest of that on whichever expiring contract is left.  Say, Rudy Gay.

Then, at the deadline, if you want Barnes you package Noel + Gay (expiring contracts) + #1 for Barnes, or whatever target you want in that range.  Or, two #1s, or even more, if you're looking at John Collins.

Instead, we've let that salary slot go, meaning there's no current way to trade for a guy in the $15 - $20 million range without giving up a rotation player.

We even could have gotten into the $30 million range, depending upon how we'd approached the use of TPEs. 

For instance, trade TPE + small asset for Kelly Olynyk (or Josh Richardson or Kelly Oubre).  TPE #2 for Rudy Gay.  That's roughly $26 million in outgoing salary, which brings back a $32.5 million player (or multiple players).

These are the ways that teams maximize their spending, and that spending helps add to a contending roster.

Sounds good on paper but I don't think SAC trades a starting player for two useless players on bad contracts and a pick.  If it is two picks in the high 20's likely, still not sure.  But you have to give up something to get Fournier, maybe a pick (remember, Fournier was in the discussion to get the Knicks Mitchell or even Durant) and two more picks.

The Spurs are reported to be insisting on a pick for Richardson and probably want a better pick than what ours would be expected to be.  I don't think any of these trades are as easy as you think.  Maybe, hard to know, but I doubt it.  Just my opinion.

Sources say Jakob Poeltl and Josh Richardson are the two Spurs players most commonly involved in trade talk. While the Spurs have dropped their asking price for the utilization of their salary cap space, their asking price for Poeltl and Richardson remains high. For Richardson, the Spurs are requesting a first round pick. For Poeltl, the Spurs are asking for two first rounders.

The thing is, expiring contracts plus a pick have been the standard in trade discussions for decades.

[Celtics2021]

True or false:  having available trade filler is better than not having available trade filler?

Can't answer that unless you tell me what we had to give up to get Burkes or Noel.  A first?  A second?  A pick with so many protections that it never conveys?  And filler for what?  Westbrook?  It is not like these guys are going to get us Mitchell unless we give up a whole lot more, which we aren't.  Filler gets you more filler (another contract the team doesn't want) unless you include even more picks or other assets.

Take your guy Barnes.  Barnes would be a nice player to add. Say we traded for Noel.  How exactly does that help us get Barnes?  Probably not at all is the answer.

It's pretty easy to put together a trade to get a player in Barnes' salary range.  Say that we got Noel, or Burks, or whatever expiring contract in the $10 million range.  We would have still had $7 million (or in Noel's case, $7.9 million) left of the TPE.  Use the rest of that on whichever expiring contract is left.  Say, Rudy Gay.

Then, at the deadline, if you want Barnes you package Noel + Gay (expiring contracts) + #1 for Barnes, or whatever target you want in that range.  Or, two #1s, or even more, if you're looking at John Collins.

Instead, we've let that salary slot go, meaning there's no current way to trade for a guy in the $15 - $20 million range without giving up a rotation player.

We even could have gotten into the $30 million range, depending upon how we'd approached the use of TPEs. 

For instance, trade TPE + small asset for Kelly Olynyk (or Josh Richardson or Kelly Oubre).  TPE #2 for Rudy Gay.  That's roughly $26 million in outgoing salary, which brings back a $32.5 million player (or multiple players).

These are the ways that teams maximize their spending, and that spending helps add to a contending roster.

Sounds good on paper but I don't think SAC trades a starting player for two useless players on bad contracts and a pick.  If it is two picks in the high 20's likely, still not sure.  But you have to give up something to get Fournier, maybe a pick (remember, Fournier was in the discussion to get the Knicks Mitchell or even Durant) and two more picks.

The Spurs are reported to be insisting on a pick for Richardson and probably want a better pick than what ours would be expected to be.  I don't think any of these trades are as easy as you think.  Maybe, hard to know, but I doubt it.  Just my opinion.

Sources say Jakob Poeltl and Josh Richardson are the two Spurs players most commonly involved in trade talk. While the Spurs have dropped their asking price for the utilization of their salary cap space, their asking price for Poeltl and Richardson remains high. For Richardson, the Spurs are requesting a first round pick. For Poeltl, the Spurs are asking for two first rounders.

The thing is, expiring contracts plus a pick have been the standard in trade discussions for decades.

It also seems like it’s been decades that we’ve hypothesized the Kings would trade Harrison Barnes, but nope.

[Roy H.]

True or false:  having available trade filler is better than not having available trade filler?

Can't answer that unless you tell me what we had to give up to get Burkes or Noel.  A first?  A second?  A pick with so many protections that it never conveys?  And filler for what?  Westbrook?  It is not like these guys are going to get us Mitchell unless we give up a whole lot more, which we aren't.  Filler gets you more filler (another contract the team doesn't want) unless you include even more picks or other assets.

Take your guy Barnes.  Barnes would be a nice player to add. Say we traded for Noel.  How exactly does that help us get Barnes?  Probably not at all is the answer.

It's pretty easy to put together a trade to get a player in Barnes' salary range.  Say that we got Noel, or Burks, or whatever expiring contract in the $10 million range.  We would have still had $7 million (or in Noel's case, $7.9 million) left of the TPE.  Use the rest of that on whichever expiring contract is left.  Say, Rudy Gay.

Then, at the deadline, if you want Barnes you package Noel + Gay (expiring contracts) + #1 for Barnes, or whatever target you want in that range.  Or, two #1s, or even more, if you're looking at John Collins.

Instead, we've let that salary slot go, meaning there's no current way to trade for a guy in the $15 - $20 million range without giving up a rotation player.

We even could have gotten into the $30 million range, depending upon how we'd approached the use of TPEs. 

For instance, trade TPE + small asset for Kelly Olynyk (or Josh Richardson or Kelly Oubre).  TPE #2 for Rudy Gay.  That's roughly $26 million in outgoing salary, which brings back a $32.5 million player (or multiple players).

These are the ways that teams maximize their spending, and that spending helps add to a contending roster.

Sounds good on paper but I don't think SAC trades a starting player for two useless players on bad contracts and a pick.  If it is two picks in the high 20's likely, still not sure.  But you have to give up something to get Fournier, maybe a pick (remember, Fournier was in the discussion to get the Knicks Mitchell or even Durant) and two more picks.

The Spurs are reported to be insisting on a pick for Richardson and probably want a better pick than what ours would be expected to be.  I don't think any of these trades are as easy as you think.  Maybe, hard to know, but I doubt it.  Just my opinion.

Sources say Jakob Poeltl and Josh Richardson are the two Spurs players most commonly involved in trade talk. While the Spurs have dropped their asking price for the utilization of their salary cap space, their asking price for Poeltl and Richardson remains high. For Richardson, the Spurs are requesting a first round pick. For Poeltl, the Spurs are asking for two first rounders.

The thing is, expiring contracts plus a pick have been the standard in trade discussions for decades.

It also seems like it’s been decades that we’ve hypothesized the Kings would trade Harrison Barnes, but nope.

True.  And they want to win this year.  But, he’s a pending FA.

But, plenty of other players would be potentially available with another $12 - $17 million in salary fodder, which is the real point.