What Would You Pay to "Dump" Wallace?

[hwangjini_1]

nothing. his salary is not a real problem for this team right now. there is no free agent the celtics cannot sigh due to wallace's salary. this team is on a 3 year rebuild and knows it wont contend for those 3 years. the key to the rebuild are the assets. wallace's contract will go away soon enough.

wallace's salary ends in 3 years, and actually becomes a possible trade asset (expiring) the end of next season.

why send out assets to get rid of non-major problem? it is smarter and simpler to live with this albatross of a contract for another 1 and 1/2 seasons and keep the assets instead.

the celtics are not going to contend this year or next regardless of whether wallace and his poison pill contract are with them or not.

[green147]

Like Golden State did, you only tie bad contracts with assets if you know a big star wants to come here. Right now, there's no need to sacrifice anything to give him up. We are about to have a bunch of players on rookie-level contracts, so cap room isn't really a problem for the near future. If Kevin Love says, "Hey, I'd love to wear Celtic-green when I become a FA," that's when you salary dump Wallace with picks or some of the teams' younger assets. Until then, his contract (and lack of production) are frustrating, but it's not really hurting the C's.

[aporel#18]

the only price I'd pay would be taking on Amare's contract, which may be the only worse contract in the NBA, but is one year shorter.

Makes no sense to give up assets to get rid of Wallace, by the time the Cs are in win-now mode he'll be an expiring and a nice piece to trade.

[D.o.s.]

Every post on this page makes a lot of sense to me.

[LarBrd33]

If you traded Bradley + Wallace for an expiring contract, it frees up a significant chunk of cap space this summer.. enough to sign a max contract or absorb a max contract from someone else.

Then the question becomes, do you think we could replace Bradley with a better free agent this summer?  I'd say yes.

Bradley himself would be a restricted free agent.  Could always bring him back.

Edit:  Bradley is 17th on the list:  http://hoopshype.com/free_agency_2014.htm ... do you think you have a shot at any of the top 16?  if so, the trade makes plenty of sense...

or you just hang onto the cap space and try to make a play for a 2015 free agent like Kevin Love.  If the WOlves worry about re-signing him, I see him getting traded a year from now during the deadline.  Being able to absorb his salary would be a bonus.

Big picture flexibility.  Bradley's a free agent anyways.

[JSD]

Every team should have been allowed to use an amnesty cut. I still can't believe how the league punished teams who didn't make bad decisions, and the fact that there was little to no uproar about it.

[Lucky17]

Every team should have been allowed to use an amnesty cut. I still can't believe how the league punished teams who didn't make bad decisions, and the fact that there was little to no uproar about it.

Every team was.

[JSD]

Every team should have been allowed to use an amnesty cut. I still can't believe how the league punished teams who didn't make bad decisions, and the fact that there was little to no uproar about it.

Every team was.

Oh really? Great. So the Celtics still have one in the barrell to fire off.

Amnesty Wallace!!!! 

Every team was allowed an amnesty of their own players at the time it was introduced. What I'm suggesting is that every team should have gotten to use an amnesty buyout regardless of where the players contract came from. That way it was an assett given to every team and not just teams who signed players to terrible deals.

[LooseCannon]

Every team should have been allowed to use an amnesty cut. I still can't believe how the league punished teams who didn't make bad decisions, and the fact that there was little to no uproar about it.

Every team was.

Oh really? Great. So the Celtics still have one in the barrell to fire off.

Amnesty Wallace!!!! 

Every team was allowed an amnesty of their own players at the time it was introduced. What I'm suggesting is that every team should have gotten to use an amnesty buyout regardless of where the players contract came from. That way it was an assett given to every team and not just teams who signed players to terrible deals.

They didn't want teams to be able to trade for a player for the purpose of amnestying him, picking up assets along the way.  That would benefit big market owners with deep pockets.

[JSD]

Every team should have been allowed to use an amnesty cut. I still can't believe how the league punished teams who didn't make bad decisions, and the fact that there was little to no uproar about it.

Every team was.

Oh really? Great. So the Celtics still have one in the barrell to fire off.

Amnesty Wallace!!!! 

Every team was allowed an amnesty of their own players at the time it was introduced. What I'm suggesting is that every team should have gotten to use an amnesty buyout regardless of where the players contract came from. That way it was an assett given to every team and not just teams who signed players to terrible deals.

They didn't want teams to be able to trade for a player for the purpose of amnestying him, picking up assets along the way.  That would benefit big market owners with deep pockets.

Not if every team was only allowed to do it ONCE. It would have made things fair, that's all it would have done.

[LooseCannon]

Also, the teams that were poorly-run and trying to screw the players so that owners could have guaranteed profit needed some sort of bribe to get them to agree to a deal.