The Mad Rush for 2010 Cap Space
by Storyteller on Dec 16, 2008 2:08 PM PST
62 comments
Created this as a blog on my site today, but thought I'd post it here as well.
I read a rumor today - in the NY Daily News among other places - about the Knicks possibly moving Eddy Curry to continue to try to obtain the maximum amount of cap space in July of 2010. That teams are trying to get well under the cap in order to try to make offers to such players as LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh has been discussed a lot recently in the media. But what I haven’t seen much of is editorializing on whether or not such a strategy is a good one.
After all, for every Phoenix-signs-Steve-Nash-with-cap-space, you have a Chicago-signs-Ben-Wallace-with-cap-space. For every Orlando-uses-cap-space-to-trade-for-Tracy-McGrady, you have an Orlando-uses-cap-space-to-trade-for-Grant-Hill. To say nothing of the teams (Cleveland for example) who have made major transactions to gain cap space, only to end up with the likes of Larry Hughes and Donyell Marshall.
Fact is that there are more teams gunning for large amounts of cap space in 2010 than there are high-profile free agents. And that even assumes that players like James, Wade and Bosh (among others) will leave their current teams.
The potential reward is great. Donnie Walsh no doubt has James Dolan - as well as Knick fans and the NY media - drooling over the prospect of pairing LeBron James with Chris Bosh during the next decade. But the risk is even greater - can you imagine Walsh trying to spin the fact that they made all these drastic roster moves just to be able to sign Brian Scalabrine, Amir Johnson and Luis Scola?
Needless to say, although the summer of 2010 promises to make one or perhaps more General Managers a prince in the eyes of the media, fans and ownership, that same summer will probably make even more General Managers paupers. Sadly, it might even cost a few their jobs.
8 recs |
62 comments
Email
Print
Comments
The draft lottery should ameliorate some of the pain
These teams playing for cap space (rather than basketball) are gonna lose a lot of games. They hope to welcome the new stars to the NBA as well as grab LBJ.
".. is gumby an alien?" - Sophia
by staylost on Dec 16, 2008 2:15 PM PST reply actions 4 recs
You get a rec
Just for incorporating ‘ameliorate’ into your post
by Storyteller on Dec 16, 2008 2:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer "mitigate" myself...
But I’m in accounting/finance, so go figure.
MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)
by The Cactus Leaguer on Dec 16, 2008 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Law folks like Mitigate too! +1
I heart taxes.
by everett on Dec 16, 2008 5:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Go figure.
MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)
by The Cactus Leaguer on Dec 16, 2008 8:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Environmental folks make their living
Off of mitigation.
by jakoh on Dec 16, 2008 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
diversify!!!! how ya'll like that one...
(asuming I’m spelling correctly)
The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out burns out farms and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.
by faith on Dec 17, 2008 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well more or less
It has to do with the “law folks” deciding that the fed folks need to do something about their impact on the environment. Clean air. Clean water. Endangered species act. What have you. Its all going to hell in a handbasket, Obama or Nobama, if you ask me.
by jakoh on Dec 17, 2008 8:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Utah Jazz will be thankful to the Knicks for giving them their 2010 pick AND pay Stephon Marbury to go away who made that possible
Viva la Rudylucion
by Norsktroll on Dec 16, 2008 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
New York will need many miracles between now and 2010 to make it seem like a reasonable home for LBJ. Personally, I think they will be lucky to get even Bosh if all other GMs in the league are as equaly clever as Walsh.
".. is gumby an alien?" - Sophia
by staylost on Dec 16, 2008 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
don’t underestimate the economic realities… “playing for 2010” in some cases might be code for simply “slashing payroll”…
by Ben. on Dec 16, 2008 2:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ah, but that's a short-term gain
If they don’t get any big names to keep the fans coming in 2010, their payroll size will be the least of their concerns…….
by Storyteller on Dec 16, 2008 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
for NYK they will need the big name…
for other teams economic success can come a lot of different ways… and economic concerns are getting bigger and bigger by the day…
we have it really really good here in pdx…
for NYK i totally believe they are fully committed to a 2010 econorgasm… some of the other teams that are “freeing cap space” i wonder about…
by Ben. on Dec 16, 2008 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Must...fight...temptation....
to…offer…alternatives…to…econorgasm…….
by Storyteller on Dec 16, 2008 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
"It feals like there should be a Blazer game tonight"
said by my GF
by maid tu rek on Dec 16, 2008 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's funny since no town has suffered more than NY in these economic concerns...
Since their whole economy is heavily based on Wall Street they are amazingly poor right now.
".. is gumby an alien?" - Sophia
by staylost on Dec 16, 2008 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If only it were true...
they looted the rest of U.S. and world for what now looks like trillions of dollars. There are a lot of fantastically wealthy people in NYC.
by Blazin' on Dec 16, 2008 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
Bill Clinton first signed the bill that would allow low-income families mortgages. To do this many lenders had to lower their lending requirements. George Bush continued Clinton’s policy of trying to get homes to lower income Americans. Poor lending practices created too much easy money in the housing market. A bubble was formed. As speculation slowed people were unable/unwilling to pay their mortgages. The housing bubble is a direct result of Bill Clinton & his contemporary Republican congress.
Credit Default Swap (CDS) contracts are like insurance against the default of debt. This type of insurance was legislated to be unregulated in a sneak through side note to a bill under Clinton’s congress. Since these contracts are unregulated no one ever knew how many were out there. At the beginning of 2007 AIG report material mistatement in its financial reports due to their modified binomial expansion technique being a poor estimate of CDS value. What had been barely mentioned in their 10k notes to financial statements the year before was now mentioned over 100 times. This became a huge problem because as homeowners defaulted on their loans companies like AIG had to pay claims against a complex array of mortgage derivatives. Finally, AIG wasn’t even able to make the call on their CDS contracts because of their heavily leveraged balance sheet. Thus the gov’t steps in with $$$ to keep AIG from collapsing, thus invalidating around half a trillion dollars worth of CDS insurance they had already written.
Since CDS is entirely unregulated no one knows how much is out there, but estimates range from $35-$55 trillion in contracts have been written. (US yearly GDP has been in the mid teens of trillions in the last decade) It is traded all over the world and no one knows who hold how much of what.
Since this whole mess destroys all confindence in Wall Street because no one know how exposed anyone is (unregulated, entirely!) there is only negative income there. That means no bonuses, no tax income, no capital to invest. It sucks everywhere, but no where like NY which has been cleaning itself up quite well in the past decade.
If you are talking about that pyramid scheme that just came out, yes, that was some looting. But it wasn’t trillions of dollars. And if you think CDS contracts are looting than I hope you don’t invest/use banks AT ALL or else you are one of the looters.
".. is gumby an alien?" - Sophia
by staylost on Dec 16, 2008 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How do you guys turn "econorgasm" into politics?
Everybody hurts
by tominhawaii on Dec 16, 2008 4:31 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
No
Sorry, but this is simplistic and misleading analysis. The housing bubble was NOT caused by the bill you speak of. The bubble was caused by a variety of sources, including overzealous lenders, improper conduct by credit rating agencies, changes in regulatory systems allowing for bundling of toxic debt, individuals speculating on house prices, and IBs keeping bad debt of the books through the use of Special Purpose Vehicles, just to name a few.
The bottom line is that there was a massive abundance of capital available to the I-banks and mortgage companies, and they were extending mortgages and credit to literally anyone that wanted it, regardless of their financial standing. This went WELL BEYOND any requirements laid down by Congress. Bottom line, people who couldn’t afford mortgages were going to be given them whether that law existed or not. Afterward, companies used sophisticated ‘bundling’ techniques to reduce the apparent riskiness of these toxic mortgages, which the ratings agencies went along with, giving them AAA-status. This rating was illusory, though, because although the risk that EACH INDIVIDUAL mortgage would fail was relatively low, the chance that the whole housing market would take a downturn was actually fairly high.
This is a big meltdown, but to blame it on this cause is feeding into right-wing talking points. This fiasco would have occurred with or without the bill.
by samuelleejackson on Dec 16, 2008 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I certainly agree that the fiasco came from a ton of sources,
but I stand by my analysis that these: “overzealous lenders, improper conduct by credit rating agencies, changes in regulatory systems allowing for bundling of toxic debt, individuals speculating on house prices” were the leading causes.
What makes me a bit unsure about where you are coming from in your response is this; if you really look at what I said, it it slams the right wing. While even Freddy & Fanny resisted the governments loosening of credit, the Republican congress under Clinton (a moderate who was often pushed around by the Republican majorities below him) pushed it through and kept on with it during Bush’s era. Since the government was helping to sponser lower debt, instead of being on their toes to regulate dangerous lending, many of these practices were possible.
The deregulation element so strong of late from Republicans (and resistant to traditional business desires; try Kolko’s “The Triumph of Conservatism”) allowed the joke that is now the CDS market.
I politely disagree with you if you think legislation, the specific one I mentioned included, was not a part of creating this. But beyond that, I don’t want the issue to be seen as partisan. Blame politics is a losers game and I’m glad the masters of it lost this past November, however, being an Oregonian who is not from Portland I tend to have a strong resistance to listening to the refuse spewed by our two main parties’ rhetoric machines.
I entirely agree that the absurd investments financial institutions were making was a part of this, but that is a general cause that set us up for… something. My analysis is meant to trace the specific reasons as to why exactly what happened did happen.
My favorite phrase in your post is this, “This rating was illusory, though, because although the risk that EACH INDIVIDUAL mortgage would fail was relatively low, the chance that the whole housing market would take a downturn was actually fairly high.” This created the myopia that caused derivatized securities to be wrongly valued. However, it would have been easy to bail these losses out if it wasn’t for the doubling, tripling, and so on the nth power of CDS contracts and the like.
Thank you for your response.
".. is gumby an alien?" - Sophia
by staylost on Dec 16, 2008 8:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
SL and SLJ you guys are great
Thank you for this excellent discussion. My goal for 2009 is to understand our financial system and your posts provide me with a good springboard to do further research. One good thing about the meltdown is it provides an object lesson for folks like me who are not as sophisticated in our understanding as you guys are. Thanks a million.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
According to James Kunstler, who writes a well-respected if slightly profane financial blog whose title I cannot repeat here, "The Republicans must be clearly identified as the party that wrecked America... it's hard to imagine the American people giving the clean-up task to the very group that created the mess -- no matter how many cute little faces Sarah Palin can make on TV."
by vavoom on Dec 17, 2008 6:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For some basics you might want to watch the little animated film "money as debt"
Google Video. Takes about an hour. The film is biased in some regards, but the basic premises how most money is created by banks through loans is correct (see fractional-reserve banking and money multiplier process).
Regarding the sub-prime mortgage crisis, these fine British comics hit the nail pretty much on the head (a year ago) with their explanations in this sketch.
by Norsktroll on Dec 17, 2008 9:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My friend from Spain send me that second link
It’s pretty funny.
by tominhawaii on Dec 17, 2008 9:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The bill you cited
was manifestly a direct contributor and huge factor in the Fannie/Freddie mess.
As discussed above, much less so in the other things that have happened.
I think it is pretty questionable to attribute it to the Reps under Clinton — it was the Clinton administration that really pushed for it, and the only opposition to it came from the Reps.
The failure to regulate CDS pretty clearly lies at the door of the Republicans, though.
CDS, in and of themselves, aren’t a bad thing, they could certainly be a reasonable tool in a portfolio manager’s arsenal, much like a futures contract, for hedging against risk. The problem, much like futures contracts, is that they became a toy for gamblers — and the gamblers weren’t gambling with their own money, but with other people’s money, and even with the stability of the institutions for which they were working.
Do you like asparagus?
by jscot on Dec 17, 2008 7:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m too lazy to go to the trade machine, but it seems like something along the lines of Curry + Lee for Frye + RLEC…(?) The larger point being that if KP is not going to be a player in the summer of 2010 derby, then we might as well try to use that to our advantage somehow. The only problem is that we don’t have any fat contracts that expire in 2010 - those are the most valuable
MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)
by The Cactus Leaguer on Dec 16, 2008 2:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget
Portland will be one of only 3-4 teams in the 2009 sweepstakes. Less rewards available but much less risk. I don’t see Portland doing anything like Curry/Lee for Frye/LaFrentz because they can certainly turn the cap space that LaFrentz represents into something better than Curry, IMO.
by Storyteller on Dec 16, 2008 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't you mean turn it into something better than Lee?
Assuming Curry is the price and not the end.
by pualo on Dec 16, 2008 4:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If only we still had Darius
speaking of contracts that expire in 2010.
by Royster on Dec 17, 2008 9:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Storyteller
How do you see the current economic crisis affecting free agency in 2009? Could it affect teams who are gunning for 2010 as well? I tend to think that RLEC becomes more valuable to teams wanting to dump talent and salary around the trading deadline. How do you see the economy playing out in the NBA, if at all?
BINGO, BANGO, BONGO
by blzrfan on Dec 16, 2008 2:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The current economic climate
could result in salary cap shrinkage, as the cap is based on projected basketball revenue.
by tingeyga on Dec 16, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't NBA attendance pretty close to last year's total at this time.
I heard David Stern on the BS Report talk about it. I’m not sure if this was just him spinning it or if it’s true.
Well, I could be wrong, but I believe diversity is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era.
by RoyDrexler on Dec 16, 2008 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Surprisingly NBA attendance is up this year so far.
http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2008/12/nba-attendance-up-slightly.html
Overall revenue could be down this year. That should be something to look at the end of the season.
BINGO, BANGO, BONGO
by blzrfan on Dec 16, 2008 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The revenue part is important
as it could be that the cheaper seats are selling better than the not cheap seats.
Also important is if people are buying hot dogs and jerseys too.
by tingeyga on Dec 16, 2008 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
The article also said that attendance is down for 16 of the 30. I wonder which ones it is down for. If they are the ‘big ticket price’ arenas, then that nullifies the overall attendance. If NY, Chicago and LA (Lakers) can keep attendance up, that would help the situation.
by Storyteller on Dec 16, 2008 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not suprisingly at all really
In the Great Depression escapism became a booming industry. Imagine how the Blazers will make bank in hard times with their team that you can believe in. A world where the good guys win…, its like some beautiful myth we are all watching here. In terms of the whole NBA the escapism argument still works because we all see our teams as the ‘good guys.’ It’s just for us Blazer fans that our guys really are the good guys!
".. is gumby an alien?" - Sophia
by staylost on Dec 16, 2008 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
NBA is too expensive for escapism
Taking your family to a game is just way too expensive for a family in a tenuous financial situation. Even adjusted for inflation, going to the movies in the depression was magnitudes cheaper to take your family to than an NBA game.
In 1940, the average price of a movie ticket was just 24¢, and I’m pretty sure popcorn and soda didn’t have the crazy inflated price they do now.
According to this article, the average NBA ticket price is about $50 per person. Throw in food and drink and it’s easily $60 per. Four a four person family, thats $240.
For that matter, movie theaters are probably too expensive these days as well. Here in New York its like $12-14 just for the ticket, not to mention subway ($2 each and going up) and food and drink if you don’t smuggle in your own.
Escapism in the 21st century is (somewhat depressingly to me) more likely to begin and end with the internet.
In other words expect forum use to spike over the next year or two.
by matthewcc on Dec 17, 2008 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember the economic downturn
after 9/11? The very next time that the salary cap was set, in July of 2002, it went down from $42.5 million to $40.3 million. That’s because the cap figure is set based on a formula designed to try and predict that season’s revenue. If we see lower attendance and spending figures because of the economy, you can bet that all those who predict that the salary cap will go up another $2.5 million next summer are going to be very disappointed.
That, IMO, could be the greatest impact on the Blazers specifically. They just might not have as much cap room as everyone seems to be predicting.
League-wise, the salary cap figure could be down again in 2010, which would affect a lot of teams as well as players. Less cap room for teams looking to get those big names. And less money for the players since the maximum salary amounts would also decrease if the salary cap went down.
And I agree that Raef’s contact will become very valuable to other teams once the point passes where insurance will pay most of this year’s salary. But it will also remain important to the Blazers for the cap room it represents this summer. I personally think it will take a big name for us to see Raef’s name on the trade wire.
by Storyteller on Dec 16, 2008 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
2010 cap goes down again, which is entirely possible if the economic conditions prolong....
Wade, Bosh, and Lebron all have player options on 2010 and if they decide to not opt out, a few teams would be screwed. I think it could happen if the max salary if less than what they originally desired. It’ll be interesting to watch.
BINGO, BANGO, BONGO
by blzrfan on Dec 16, 2008 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely possible
Wow, if Luis Scola becomes the big FA acquistion of 2010……
by Storyteller on Dec 16, 2008 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I will laugh so hard at the Knicks
BINGO, BANGO, BONGO
by blzrfan on Dec 16, 2008 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It has been fun laughing at them this past decade, hasn't it?
(note: Yankee’s hate spreads to all teams in the town except the GIANTS for rolling the pathetic pats in the superbowl)
".. is gumby an alien?" - Sophia
by staylost on Dec 16, 2008 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the point though
For the Knicks (unlike situations like the Blazers in 2009), they can just wait and spend the money in 2011.
They don’t have any big RFA’s taking up their space with cap holds in 2011, so them coming under the cap makes them a threat as long as they keep the space.
by dprodigy19 on Dec 16, 2008 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember the economic downturn of 2002
brought on by the events of 9/11? That next season, the salary cap figure went down
by Storyteller on Dec 16, 2008 2:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ooops, sorry about the duplicate
Move along people, move along…..Nothing to see here…..
by Storyteller on Dec 16, 2008 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
reminiscing the Ben Wallace sweepstakes
Chicago signs Wallace and then the house of cards falls:
Detroit and San Antonio try to lure Pryzbilla but loyatly wins out in PDX.
Nazr Mohammed and Rasho Nesterovic are the consolation prizes.
Things will get real ugly for GM’s when the big names don’t move in 2010.
by NWfan on Dec 16, 2008 3:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
"When the big names don't move in 2010"
Do you know something that the rest of us don’t?
:)
by Storyteller on Dec 16, 2008 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I smell a Pritchslap coming
Desperate GMs who think they’re landing a franchise guy in 2010 + A need to clear cap space to do so = The opportunity for KP to make someone look very, very bad before the deadline
Bayless has been testing the fences for weaknesses
by blazeraddict on Dec 16, 2008 3:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I like that we will have a little less competition in 2009. But the crop of free agents looks to be better in 2010 unless Kobe & Co all go ETO in 09
Sure, a large percentage of those will simply sign with their former teams, and ironically LeBron is not the most unrealistic of those since Cleveland will have a lot of cap space (Ben Wallace and Big Z expiring) to attract two max. free agents (LeBron being one of them).
Just a few names that could be in the sweepstakes:
Rondo®, Pierce, T. Thomas®, LeBron, Nowitzki (ETO), McGrady, Scola®, Yao (ETO), Kobe (or 09), Livingston, Wade, Haslem, Jefferson (ETO), Redd (ETO), Gay®, M. Miller, Chandler (ETO), Nash, Amare (ETO), our own Roy®, LMA®, Sergio®, Blake, Outlaw, Joel (ETO), B. Miller, Ginobili, Bosh, Kapono.
Looking at that list, I start to feel bad for some powers in the West, incl. Houston and Phoenix. Their roster could be pretty thin if things go wrong. And also, a lot of these players have player options or ETOs, so 2011 could also become interesting.
Viva la Rudylucion
by Norsktroll on Dec 16, 2008 4:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Too bad all those restricted free agents
became registered trademarks…..
That’s what happens when machines try to do the thinking for humans….
by Storyteller on Dec 16, 2008 4:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In a way, they are ;-)
Well, just shows that those with an® will be harder to get. And with all those player options and early termination options, it’s still a bit unpredictable who will opt out when (or extend) and thus influence the class in 2009, 2010 or 2011. This year it looked very very boring, and suddenly Davis, Brand and Maggette were on the market.
Viva la Rudylucion
by Norsktroll on Dec 16, 2008 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone getting worried
that Joel might opt out for more money? He’s been playing so very well….
Do you like asparagus?
by jscot on Dec 17, 2008 8:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I too see that
logically it makes sense to move SuperRLEC this season and specifically before Jan 16th, the last day the new team gets relief. It just seems that:
1. ) Incoming player salaries all go up 5-10% if we wait until next year/draft day and we lose that value in a trade
2.) The whole miles thing will may or not be resolved by Jan as Mem may play him for a few games but who knows if he is let go or if another team will pick him up before S-RLEC converts back into RLEC and then is just cap space after the trade deadline
3.) FA is not looking too good save for the 2010 class and with the new salary/cap holds on Roy and LMA will deplete most if not all not even including Miles’ salary if that cancer is on our payroll.
I understand not wanting to screw with team chemistry or sacrificing our long term success for the short term gain, but opportunity only knocks once and we will probably get max value for RLEC if we trade him and do not let him expire.
I think we need to make one consolidation move to battle against what may be one of the most influential offseasons in NBA history. Whomever comes out the winner in the 2010 bonanza will be our #1 rival in the coming decade.
Part of me fears a little bit like a deja vu from the late 80’s early 90’s, a deep talented team that plays together and really likes each other competing against another best player in the game from a midwest team that wears the #23. We need to hope for a dilution of talent so that Wade stays in Mia, Bosh in Tor, LBJ in Cle and Amare in Phx. At least so that there is not a big 3 that can rival our big 3 in age and skill.
"Damn the Blazers. Damn them to hell. They are working the rest of the league like a speed bag." - Bill Simmons 6/26/08
by SpyderRyder on Dec 16, 2008 4:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you should worry about that
cuz #7 is the new #23.
(Strangely enough, I’m being both sarcastic and hopeful…)
by premthegrem on Dec 16, 2008 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We will know something about Miles
before January 15th, because Memphis has to decide whether or not to guarantee him.
He has now served one game of his suspension, BTW.
Do you like asparagus?
by jscot on Dec 17, 2008 8:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There are two tiers of 2010 teams
1. The free agent contenders- Basically, these are cities/teams that high level players would want to go to without much coercion. Places like LA and New York can actually make arguments to top guys. It’s why New York teams (Knicks and possibly the Nets down the line) are so dangerous- players want to live and play in NYC.
2. Teams that want the space for other purposes. We can doubt that Lebron and Wade will go somewhere like Minnesota, but teams like that can use their space to pull talent, much like the Sonics did with Kurt Thomas and the Clippers did with Camby.
The problems will occur when teams think they are in one category when they are really in the other. Some teams (*cough*Oklahoma City*cough*) would be better served to tack on longer salaries now for 2010-ish guys to get a premium value on the contracts that those teams do not want.
Also worth mentioning is that there are a TON of good guys in that class that aren’t Class of 2003 guys, most notably Joe Johnson, T-Mac, Rudy Gay (RFA), Marcus Camby, and Mike Miller. Those guys are undoubtedly in the class and hold value.
by dprodigy19 on Dec 16, 2008 6:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
or move the team
to somewhere other then OKC. Dont conflate minnesota with LA, at least in the case of Canby
by jakoh on Dec 16, 2008 9:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Moving the team would be a-OK with me
But king douche Clay (let’s just say I wasn’t a fan of the sale as a fan of the NBA) will never move the team from there. The Nonics will be in OKC until he is no longer in charge.
The other part that is going to be hard for smaller market teams in 2010 is that both the Knicks and the Nets (and the Blazers, if they want) are desirable teams for a few different reasons: All should have good cores, are in good places to live (for different reasons), and play systems that are more enjoyable. Why the Knicks are so dangerous is that they essentially bring the total package for a guy like Lebron. Cleveland can compete because it’s close to home for him, but anywhere else doesn’t stand a chance unless he wants to win titles with Brandon and Gregory for the next 10 years.
by dprodigy19 on Dec 16, 2008 10:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just miss the SUPERSONICS is all
not that I ever got on board wit that franchise. I just like potential rivals in the vicinity.
by jakoh on Dec 17, 2008 9:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
