Taking on bad contracts for this season

[celticpride1]

Say some teams want to dump some bad contracts on us for anther year of a rebuild. Would you take on those bad contracts for more picks in 2014 and 2015?

[greg683x]

it wouldnt be for just one year.  Why would a team dump an expiring contract on us and give us a pick??  That expiring could be a trade asset for them midway through next season.

it'd have to be on a contract with multiple years left on it, and my answer for that would be a big no.  we have enough picks, lets see what we get with them before we handcuff ourselves financially.

[indeedproceed]

it wouldnt be for just one year.  Why would a team dump an expiring contract on us and give us a pick??  That expiring could be a trade asset for them midway through next season.

This could actually happen. We could trade all our non-guaranteed contracts for around $9 million in salary. If a team needed that room to sign a free agent outright from a team that wouldn't negotiate a sign and trade (like what happened with the Warriors and Jazz), it could happen.

It won't happen, but it could in the right very unlikely context.

[Lucky17]

it wouldnt be for just one year.  Why would a team dump an expiring contract on us and give us a pick??  That expiring could be a trade asset for them midway through next season.

it'd have to be on a contract with multiple years left on it, and my answer for that would be a big no.  we have enough picks, lets see what we get with them before we handcuff ourselves financially.

Chicago would LOVE to dump Boozer for the price of a single 1st round pick.

[greg683x]

it wouldnt be for just one year.  Why would a team dump an expiring contract on us and give us a pick??  That expiring could be a trade asset for them midway through next season.

This could actually happen. We could trade all our non-guaranteed contracts for around $9 million in salary. If a team needed that room to sign a free agent outright from a team that wouldn't negotiate a sign and trade (like what happened with the Warriors and Jazz), it could happen.

It won't happen, but it could in the right very unlikely context.

This got me thinking

The Wizards might be pretty desperate to resign both Ariza and Gortat this offseason, they dont have a first round pick, but if we got 9 million in unguaranteed money they could dump.  I wonder if we could give them the cash and maybe a future pick for Martell Webster and Otto Porter

[D.o.s.]

it wouldnt be for just one year.  Why would a team dump an expiring contract on us and give us a pick??  That expiring could be a trade asset for them midway through next season.

This could actually happen. We could trade all our non-guaranteed contracts for around $9 million in salary. If a team needed that room to sign a free agent outright from a team that wouldn't negotiate a sign and trade (like what happened with the Warriors and Jazz), it could happen.

It won't happen, but it could in the right very unlikely context.

This got me thinking

The Wizards might be pretty desperate to resign both Ariza and Gortat this offseason, they dont have a first round pick, but if we got 9 million in unguaranteed money they could dump.  I wonder if we could give them the cash and maybe a future pick for Martell Webster and Otto Porter

I think a lot of that depends on how the duration of Pacers/Wiz plays out.

[greg683x]

it wouldnt be for just one year.  Why would a team dump an expiring contract on us and give us a pick??  That expiring could be a trade asset for them midway through next season.

This could actually happen. We could trade all our non-guaranteed contracts for around $9 million in salary. If a team needed that room to sign a free agent outright from a team that wouldn't negotiate a sign and trade (like what happened with the Warriors and Jazz), it could happen.

It won't happen, but it could in the right very unlikely context.

This got me thinking

The Wizards might be pretty desperate to resign both Ariza and Gortat this offseason, they dont have a first round pick, but if we got 9 million in unguaranteed money they could dump.  I wonder if we could give them the cash and maybe a future pick for Martell Webster and Otto Porter

I think a lot of that depends on how the duration of Pacers/Wiz plays out.

I agree.  I made my assumption based on them getting to the ECF finals, and while I dont think they'll beat the Heat, I think theyll push them to 6 games.  Yes, I know Im jumping the gun, but Indy barely has a pulse and Washington matches up with Miami very well.

It seem unreasonable to think the Wiz would give up on Porter so easily, but that team has been starved for success for so long, and they know losing either Gortat or Ariza would be huge.

[D.o.s.]

Right. I don't know what his stance is on the Wizards and going over the cap, but I know Ted Leonsis thinks taxes are basically class warfare, so... 

[greg683x]

Right. I don't know what his stance is on the Wizards and going over the cap, but I know Ted Leonsis thinks taxes are basically class warfare, so... 

well I dont know the specifics of their cap situation either, but Im from the DC area and obviously this has been a hot topic on the radio.  The consensus is that they'll be able to resign one but not both.  I would assume theyd look to keep Gortat first.

I obviously cant tell you what the coaches and management thinks of Porter, but I do know he has shown nothing his first year.  He started the season injured and was buried on the depth chart when he got healthy and the team was winning.  I bet 90% of fans would jump at getting rid of Porter if it meant theyd keep both Ariza and Gortat.  Obviously the fans dont run the team, but management there has been desperate to get this team winning again, and I bet they'd reach and roll the dice if it meant keeping their mojo going.....

after all, we gave up Joe Johnson to cement a strong playoff run. 

[McHales Pits]

I guess it depends on what is considered a bad contract.

Would I want Eric Gordon and a pick? No.

Would I want Boozer and a pick? Yeah. He may not be the best fit, but he can play and it would give us the additional draft capital to move up in the draft if necessary.

Would I want Sanders and a pick? You could argue that he has a bad contract, but he also fills a need on the team. If they were willing to offer a future pick just to get rid of him, I would take that.

[Moranis]

it wouldnt be for just one year.  Why would a team dump an expiring contract on us and give us a pick??  That expiring could be a trade asset for them midway through next season.

it'd have to be on a contract with multiple years left on it, and my answer for that would be a big no.  we have enough picks, lets see what we get with them before we handcuff ourselves financially.

Well if they needed to clear some cap room, we could absorb some pretty decent size contracts into our trade exceptions.  We could also send Bogans who could immediately get cut.  Obviously a team would do it if they needed the cap room (like say Houston needs to clear out Lin and/or Asik to sign Anthony).  Or we could be a third team in a trade (like Utah was last year).  Or a team just wants someone off their roster but they don't want to cut him (like Philly moving Turner).  Or any number of other options.  The only real problem is, Boston has a pretty limited window on when the big trade exception expires so it would have to be a trade that developed early on in free agency.

[CFAN38]

not sure who aside from Boozer will be on the "bad contract" trading block but the Cs could be players using Bogans non-guaranteed contract as intent cap relief for teams.

If the plan is to quickly build around Rondo then I doubt DA takes on bad contract this season for the sake of additional assets. If the plan is to trade Rondo and go with a full youth movement then it wont hurt to take on a vet for the season who isn't part of the long term plan.

[wdleehi]

It depends on what happens through the draft.



If the Celtics feel like they have the pieces ready to start moving forward with competing for playoffs spots to growing into a contender, no.  They have enough extra picks.




If they think they are a year away, then yes. 

[Roy H.]

not sure who aside from Boozer will be on the "bad contract" trading block but the Cs could be players using Bogans non-guaranteed contract as intent cap relief for teams.

Another obvious one is Jeremy Lin.

In addition to our non-guaranteed contracts, we have the large trade exception to take on salary.

[Evantime34]

Say some teams want to dump some bad contracts on us for anther year of a rebuild. Would you take on those bad contracts for more picks in 2014 and 2015?

Absolutely.

We might end up being good next year but we are not going to be at a championship level, which is why we should make any move we can to improve our future.