Okay, twice, ssspence, you included Okafor as a trade that was made because of a salary dump in Charlotte. But that's not right. Chandler has two years on his contract and both years are more expensive than that of Okafor's. I think that trade happened because both teams were unhappy with the performance of their centers and because New Orleans was looking to dump as much salary this year as possible even at the expense of taking on future years while maintaining the semblance of remaining competitive or even upgrading their talent.
Did Charlotte want to get out of longer term debt for enticing a future ownership change? Yes, but this trade was not a strict salary dump for expiring deals. And again, the Jackson trade was not a salary dump. The Jackson trade occurred because the Warriors needed to dump Jackson, not his salary. they were more than willing to keep Jackson for the length of the contract.
The other examples are examples of salary dumps and do prove that with expiring contracts, a team can lure excellent and promising talent from other teams with scrub expiring contracts and the possible draft pick or chip(Baby) thrown in.
Nick, i really don't follow you. what is it your look for here?
what did Golden State get out of the Jackson deal? relief from a long-term salary they wish they hadn't agreed to. To boot, that relief came in the form a of a guy who had been dumped by his previous team as part of a salary dump (Radmonovic) -- so there's another example.
what did Charlotte get out of the Okafor deal? relief from a long-term salary they wish they hadn't agreed to. To boot, that relief came in the form a of a guy who had been dumped by his previous team as part of a salary dump (NOHs failed attempt to get rid of Chandler for nothing before he failed his physical) -- so there's another example.
I'm making what I hope you'll agree is a clear point about the value of salary relief to NBA teams, particularly those who aren't very well run. considering the Cs could trade anywhere from $500k to $31m in expiring contracts to get a deal done in 2009-2010, why are you nit-picking me about the difference between teams that trade guys with long-term deals because they don't want to pay em, teams that sour on players with such deals, and teams that make trades for both reasons? what difference does it make? at the end of the day, the deals accomplish a P&L sheet the team can live with more than they could the day before based on the direction of their franchise.
call it cap relief, call it headache relief, whatever you like. the trades themselves are the point.
The reason for the nitpick is that you are discussing how teams would take less for the distinct reason of dumping salary and the examples you gave, those were not the express reason for the trade, they were a by product of it. In other words in the Okafor trade, the trade was initiated due to a disappointment of the play of both players and not as a salary cap move specifically, at least not on the part of the Bobcats, who took on more short term salary and who felt they were upgrading their talent.
Typically salary dumps that you are saying can be done with the Celtics admittedly inferior talent, consist of a team giving up talent and contract years for the express reason of dumping salary, regardless of what they take back. In the case of the above with Charlotte, the Bobcats would never have accepted a trade of garbage player expiring contracts for Okafor. Not a chance in the world that would happen. hence, that deal was not a salary dump. That Charlotte got rid of two years of a contract was a by product of the deal, not the reason the deal went down in the first place.
The same thing is true of the Jackson deal. You say they were getting rid of a contract they didn't want but that is not true. They were more than happy to keep and pay Jackson that salary so long as he acted like he wanted to be the player he was the last few years. But as soon as he became outspoken regarding not wanting to play there and then being a cancer in the locker room the overriding reason for the trade was his attitude and the need to get rid of him.
The fact that they took on a year of Vlad Rad at near $7 million is proof that the talent coming back on the short sale of the talent involved was more important than receiving salary relief, which is what you are claiming was the reason for the trade. Again, the fact that the Warriors got out of three years of a contract, especially in this instance is irrelevant. It is a by product of the trade. The Celtics, again, could never have gotten Jackson by just offering Scall, Tony and JR because getting rid of the salary was never a reasoning behind the trade.
All I am trying to say is that there are a ton of good examples of what you are trying to state without giving false proof with two examples that aren't examples of what you are talking about.
Topic: Nocioni to Boston rumored by Marc Stein! (Read 31063 times)