Seems like Bulpett was the first to insist the decision would be tomorrow when others were sticking to the general 24-36 hour original timeline or expecting an announcement tonight.
Does it mean anything that a Boston guy had the more specific timing right first?
This is what I was thinking. Bulpett was the first to say it's tomorrow and it's not based off money? Then Blakely tweet out that Ainge is at the summer league, got off the plan with a grin on his face?
Honestly, "it's not about money" is best news for teams other than the Celtics, who have max cap space. The Heat don't, for instance. The Warriors can, but have to jump through a lot of hoops to get there.
I'd say it's best news for teams other than the Thunder, since they can pay Durant the most.
That was my interpretation, too. Not that he was going to take a first year pay-cut.
I was having a little fun being a negative Nancy. What it really means is that he's more likely to sign a multi-year deal. If it were about he money, he'd hit free agency again next season.
Still don't see the appeal of a long-term deal wherever he goes. If teams are willing, which they are, it doesn't make sense to A) not keep options open, and B) not make more money in the process. The 1 + 1 doesn't necessarily mean that he still wants to do this thing again next summer. Rather, it's just a business move.
It depends on the team. If he signs a 4-year deal in Boston, we could still have some cap room next summer to continue improving the team, either by free agency or even by taking on long-term salary this season. If he hits free agency next summer, the Celtics could create enough cap room to sign him, but that would be it as far as moves go.
Same would be true with Golden State. Iggy could be extended this summer potentially, and they could wind up with $20 million in cap space, giving them the opportunity to either add another large contract, or rebuild their bench with a few more bargain deals. If KD hits free agency again, they'd lose about $11 million of that cap space.
Ah, I guess there is that aspect of it, which makes sense. Though I still think it was mainly referring to not necessarily going to OKC just because of the money.
But if it was meant to signal that he's open to a multi-year deal, doesn't that help us the most, since we'll have the most cap space next year without any major re-signings we would have to do (like Curry or Aldridge)?
I think it helps Golden State the most. It sort of depends on what Iggy wants to take in terms of money, and their plans for Livingston. But if they want to bring them all back at salaries higher than their cap holds, they would not have the cap space to give KD a max offer. So that's a problem, and means that having to keep room for KD next year could cost them one of their few remaining rotation players. But they're also close to that number, so if Iggy took less and/or they move on from Livingston, KD on a multi-year deal could create actual cap space for them next summer.
It's a little confusing because we might even have a new CBA next year which could change he cap number significantly, or could change the max salary rules. But I think overall, Gooden State would suffer the most having to create max space for Durant in consecutive years. Boston would benefit because they could take advantage of trade opportunities, maybe extend KO without letting him hit free agency (which seems wise given the past three days of contracts), or save the space for an addition next summer. But while KD taking more than one year gives Boston flexibility, it allows the Warriors to maintain their roster, or add a piece depending on what Iggy does. In other words, Golden State could swing from a hardship (losing a player) to a positive (gaining a player), whereas Boston would only be able to gain a player.
EDIT: I had a screaming infant interrupt me about three times during this response. It's accordingly a little convoluted. I would not deserve a good grade in your class. But in conclusion, a multi-year deal would be good for Boston, but best for Golden State. (Or, arguably, best for OKC, since Durant might leave after a one year deal there, unlike other teams.) Spurs would probably benefit the least.
