2009 cap space redux
Ten days ago, storyteller threw down a well-read post on our cap space prospects , with which you are all probably well acquainted by now.
In it, he threw down details about who will be absolutely on the payroll for 2009-2010 (Roy, Oden, LaMardridge, Sergio, Rudy, Przybilla); what our cap space would be before retaining any players not under contract beyond next season ($33mil); and who those players we might keep are (MarWeb, Trout, Frye, Blake, JJ, JaJo, McBob).
He then put out the invitation: "So, feel free to create your own scenarios for cap room!" He gave us all the info necessary to find out that, if we had specific players in mind to keep and let go, we could name them, approximate their cost, and formulate what our cap would REALLY BE, if we just picked who to keep, and at what price.
A hundred comments later, and not one person replied with a scenario.
So I finally did, but it's involved enough that I felt I should post it fresh. Any numbers in this post not fully explained are taken from the original post, so you might wanna hit that up for reference in case you question my unexplained numbers. Here:
_____________________________________________________
Okay; let’s go wild and keep everyone but the JJ’s (Jack AND Jones). We know the costs of the team options on Blake & Trout, but for the rest, I’m going to have to guess an extension amount; I’ll explain my prices for each, but in each case I’m pricing them high, the max we’d need to keep them. They should be very keepable for less, but I wanna go worst-case-scenario for keeping these players, show the absolute lowest cap we should be left with for keeping THIS PARTICULAR BUNCH.
The group (and their prices) would be:
- Trout: $4mil (team option being picked up)
- Blake: $4.93mil (team option being picked up)
- MarWeb: $5.5 $4.4mil (the cost of the mid-level exception, the most he’d get on the open market. He might not get that, but he sure wouldn’t get more.)
- Frye: I say . . . $3mil. Simply being about a mil less than Outlaw. Also, he likes Portland (the team AND the town) and wouldn’t push for more if this was thrown down as the not-a-penny-more offer. Might be high. But it's NOT low, which is the aim.
- McRoberts: $1mil (the mentioned cap hold on a qualifying offer)
That’s it.
But remember! – the $33mil cap space figure assumes we pick at #13 and sign the dude.
As I’ve said repeatedly, I’d trade all our picks this year (the #13 and 3 second rounders)
for future draft considerations: BANK THOSE PICKS, so to speak.
So return that pick’s $1.93mil to the cap, dagnabbit!
That adds up to the original $33mil cap, minus $18.43 $17.43mil to keep Trout, Blake, Frye, MarWeb, and McBob,
plus $1.93 in payroll savings from banking our draft picks: $16,500,000 $17,500,000
Oddly enough, that’s the total cost of keeping those players. I just cut the cap exactly in half.
Anyway: $16.5 $17.5mil. And that’s a HIGH figure.
(I bet Frye and MarWeb actually cost a bit less, but I wanted guarantee in this exercise.)
So if we re-up that group, renounce the JJ’s, bank our picks, and don’t make any deal before the 2009 offseason,
we’d have at least $16.5 $17.5mil (maybe more) in 2009 to add to a group that includes (in order of positions, point-to-center):
Sergio, Blake, Rudy, Roy, Marweb, Trout, McBob, Frye, LaMardridge, Przybilla, and Oden.
(If you notice, that divides neatly into two starter/white-unit squads: Blake/Roy/MarWeb/LaMardridge/Oden, and Sergio/Rudy/Trout/Frye/Joel. Feel free to make a case for Rudy trading spots with MarWeb if you're high on Rudy.)
Plus the rights to Petteri and Freeland, and our future draft picks (including the banked ones,
what we trade the #13 and three second-rounders for. I say two picks, in deals with two different teams:
- #13 and a second-rounder for a 2010 first-round pick, protected no better than top 3, and
- the two other second-rounders for a second-rounder and the right to switch first-round spots in 2011.)
UPDATE! [4:45 Pacific time] - After some thinking, there's no WAY MarWeb's gonna cost $5.5mil to re-up. If things get anywhere near that compete-against-other-teams'-mid-level-exception stage, it'd be because extension talks broke down, and we let him go to free agency, and we competed THERE. I'm talking pure before-the-offseason EXTENSION here, the sort of signing that would AVOID competing with other teams, not WIN that competition!
My Martell price hereby drops a million smackers, from $5.5mil to $4.5mil: a just-above-Trout level. Because that's what Martell IS: About as good as Trout, maybe a bit better. And so I'm changing all numbers by a million, as well, and the cap space I figure is $17,500,000.
Apologies to those who voted in the Poll, and whose vote would be different for the new numbers than it was for the old numbers. Also, I can't edit the $16.5 mil figure in that poll, so for those of you voting now, read it as $17.5mil.
I like that picture.
And I repeat storyteller's invitation to create specific kept-players/cap-space-result scenarios of your very own.
(If it helps, here's the short-version form:
Players to keep:
[ list here, with prices ]
Total cost of retained free agents:
Cap space after retaining that group of players:
See how easy it is?)
4 recs |
38
comments
Comments
I vote for trading the 13th pick .......
....just for no other reason than trying to figure out who Danilo Gallinari is.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/lottery2008/mockdraft
"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein
by 92wastheyear on Apr 30, 2008 5:01 PM PDT 0 recs
dont trade the pick
The PTB have done a great job in the last few years evaluating and obtaining the players needed to compete for a championship down the trail. I dont see why at 13 (or perhaps higher) that KP couldnt land a quality player. The only real sacrifice would be Von Wafer which is a so what anyways. The draft is deeper than is given credit and I dont see the need to roll the dice on future ?s Kopponen, Freeland, etc. when a talented college player is waiting to make a contribution.
If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?
by bow4meow on
Apr 30, 2008 6:17 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Trade it!
I am at the point where it just doesn’t make sense to me to draft some guy and sit him on the pine for 2 years. The team is at the point where a 3rd rookie will just not get any PT. What we need at this point is someone who can play…now.
"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein
by 92wastheyear on
Apr 30, 2008 6:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
We don't have room for a contributor.
We have room for someone to shuttle between the bench and D-League with McBob.
Unless, of course, we DON’T keep one of the guys I would keep.
And I seriously doubt we’ll get someone at #13 worth ditching even Frye or Blake over, much less MarWeb or Trout.
Again, let’s see more scenarios: who do you keep, along with that #13 pick?
Are you ditching an existing Blazer prospect for him, or are you stuffing the roster?
The draft looks deeper than it will actually be because of how many players have declared, but NOT hired an agent.
Some of them will drop out. How many? I don’t know – but I bet it’s a lot of them.
Don’t be fooled by the list of declarees as it stands now.
The stud who WOULD go at #13 if they all stayed in, THAT’S the kind of guy who’s staying in
so he can be top 5 next year, instead of measly #13 this year.
I just think all my keepers are more valuable to the Blazers than anyone who could be at thirteen,
and I’m not in the mood to get a mid-round steal, only to have him wither on the bench.
Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.
by QualityPie on
Apr 30, 2008 6:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Exactly .....That was what I was trying to say
but friendly not words to me.
"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein
by 92wastheyear on
Apr 30, 2008 6:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
No, no; you nailed it.
Your reply kicked up while I was in the middle of typing mine.
So both of us posted with the other one not being up yet.
Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.
by QualityPie on
May 1, 2008 8:26 AM PDT
up
0 recs
respectfully
I disagree. Maybe someone needs to run a mock draft diary to see who people think might end up at 13? I definitely think there is a player out there Nate can put to use. By the way, isnt it PTB tradition to make the rookies ride the pine anyways? Well, maybe less so with KP in charge, but if Nate had has way… Im also sorta convinced Jarrett Jack is gone, and wouldnt Wafer’s departure also be a roster spot? Rookies dont whither… veterans like Raef do tho.
If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?
by bow4meow on
Apr 30, 2008 6:49 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I just don't think there will be mins
for a 3rd rookie…..good or bad. We will be playing GO and Rudy extensive mins even with Jack gone. No sense getting to forcing PT to develope another guy …..hence he rides the pine
"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein
by 92wastheyear on
Apr 30, 2008 6:56 PM PDT
up
0 recs
agreed
theres so many variables, sometimes I get lost trying to figure out everybodies theories. My thinking is being the roster is stacked, and a solid core of guys have emerged, there is still room left for a talented rookie, who fits a particular niche, can earn some PT, this assuming Jarrett is gone. We could get a draft pick for Jarrett couldnt we?
I also dont have much faith in Freeland, Kopponen, Sergio, McRoberts or Wafer. What was the question?
If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?
by bow4meow on
Apr 30, 2008 8:47 PM PDT
up
0 recs
lol I just re-read my post
I really shouldn’t have a cocktail before posting…sorry. I am basically saying that with Rudy and Greg developing and getting extensive PT, we shouldn’t draft another rookie player (who I don’t think will get any mins) and stash him at the end of the bench. I am more in favor of just trading the picks as part of a package for a vet player for more picks in a later draft (two years from now maybe). I hope that made more sense but I wouldn’t count on it. lol
"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein
by 92wastheyear on
Apr 30, 2008 9:09 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I hear you and feel as confused
I fear we could split this hair to our wits ends. Im not sure what wily veteran is out there worth trading Jarrett/Web/Sergio/Wafe/Raef/Et al for? When I get disoriented by the possibilities and what-if’s I just remind myself “in Pritchard we trust”
If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?
by bow4meow on
Apr 30, 2008 10:44 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Two points:
1) You’re right; a mock draft would be really great.
It’ll have to wait until the June 19 pull-out deadline, for those who have declared but not hired an agent.
It continues to annoy the living Kemp outta me that so many underclassmen have declared but not hired an agent.
It’s like the April 27 deadline to declare means nothing; all we know is who definitely ISNT in the draft.
2) And Wafer’s gone this year, of course. I’m just kinda assuming that.
So I’m just looking at the 2009 picture of who we’d have from the 08-09 season to keep or not.
But, yeah: This year, for roster spots, Darius and probably Wafer are gone, and Rudy’s probably coming in.
So if you look at Rudy and Oden taking Von Wafer’s playing time AND THEN SOME,
there’s even less minutes for another new arrival than there would have been THIS year.
Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.
by QualityPie on
May 1, 2008 8:33 AM PDT
up
0 recs
mock draft
I searched for a mock 2008 nba draft and draftnet.com (I think) was what came up first. According to their mock draft at this point in time, has Love being drafted by the PTB at 13. Wouldnt that be amazing? Tell me he would ride the pine.
I know its fantasy and undeniably unrealistic expectation, but not outside the realm of possibility.
If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?
by bow4meow on
May 1, 2008 5:54 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Actually pull-outs will have no effect
on #13 in the draft. The guys in the lottery are going to stay. Many will stay if projected to be picked in the 1st round. I cannot see anyone we would want at 13 not being in the draft. Ok – I do see that a Euro might pull out because they can twice and just want to become a Rudy name in the USA.
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on
May 1, 2008 11:13 PM PDT
up
0 recs
What Pie & 92 said.
I don’t have issue with KP keeping it and using it, but I think it could be flipped for something more valuable in a future draft. Think about adding a top 6 pick to the team in 3 or 4 years.
I might keep a couple of the second rounders to use on foreign players. I like Nathan Jawili, for example.
by timg56 on
May 1, 2008 9:24 AM PDT
up
0 recs
no trade
if we draft a point guard they could get some valuable minutes, especially if they beat out segio for the number two spot in the summer
by blackandwite323 on
Apr 30, 2008 7:11 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I just have to say ...
I love your stream of consciousness style. I really do. I love to see the thought process worked out right before my very eyes.
Anyway, I think you’re a little low on Frye. That’s fair backup money from us-and to us Frye IS just a backup-but I think he would garner much more on the open market with his flashes of solid play, and his agent knows this. Just based on the fact that Jones and Outlaw BOTH have contracts for around 4 million per, I think Frye starts in the 4-to-5 range simply because he’s a power forward … and that’s STILL a decent deal for a backup player with skills in this market …
by bfan on Apr 30, 2008 6:42 PM PDT 0 recs
With all the cap space, 2009 free agent class is looking terrible for Portland
http://www.stopmikelupica.com/2007/12/nba_salary_cap_analysis_part_1.php
2009 Free Agents:The Big Dawgs:
Drew Gooden
Allen Iverson (almost certain to re-sign with Denver)
Rasheed Wallace
Baron Davis (if he does not exercise the opt out in 2008)
Elton Brand
Lamar Odom
Kobe Bryant (option)
Jason Kidd
Stephon Marbury
Jamal Crawford (player option for 09/10 and 10/11 – 50/50)
Eddy Curry (player option for 09/10, 10/11 – 50/50)
Hedo Turkoglu (player option for 09/10, unlikely)
Andre Miller
Steve Nash (player option, unlikely)
Grant Hill
Steve Francis
Ron Artest (can opt out in ‘08)
Mike Bibby
Carlos Boozer (player option for 09/10 unlikely)
Mehmet Okur (player option for 09/10 unlikely)The Rookie Contracts:
Marvin Williams (restricted)
Raymond Felton (restricted)
Jason Maxiell (restricted)
Luther Head (restricted)
Danny Granger (restricted)
Andrew Bynum (restricted)
Hakim Warrick (restricted)
Andrew Bogut (restricted)
Charlie Villanueva (restricted)
Rashard McCants (restricted)
Chris Paul (restricted)
Nate Robinson (restricted)
David Lee (restricted)
Channing Frye (restricted)
Jarrett Jack (restricted)
Francisco “Paco” Garcia (restricted)
Deron Williams (restricted)
It’ll be better for Portland to use the cap space and straight up trade for a player without regard to matching salaries. Chris Paul is pure pipe dream.
BINGO, BANGO, BONGO
by blzrfan on Apr 30, 2008 7:57 PM PDT 0 recs
maybe thats why KP is amassing so much talent
i find it harder and harder to believe KP is not going to thin the roster via trading for a legit position player, of which concensus seems to be PG
If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?
by bow4meow on
Apr 30, 2008 8:52 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Oh, yeah - I agree!
That’s, I guess, kinda the consequence of my hypothetical keepers list:
If we retained THAT many impending free agents, our cap space of over $17 million
would leave us more than enough to sign ANYONE available.
With this mock run, I think it’s obvious there’s no need to let players go that we’d rather keep
for the sake of having enough cap space: We’ll have enough no matter WHO we keep!
At least for THIS mediocre free-agent lot, that is.
And on the Paul thingy . . . and your call for a trade . . . Here’s where it gets interesting.
See, the trade thingy works best if we include Raef’s expiring contract, use it as a cap-space chip.
You know, like Penny Hardaway. And when do those kinda trades happen?
Maybe you’d like to see one now, in the off-season, but face it: THAT, my friend is a trade-deadline deal.
A huge expiring contract is worth what you want it to be worth not when there’s a full year left on it, but a mere 2 1/2 months!
And who would you want to do that trade with? Of course, a team with a highly-paid player who is worth it (at least to us),
but that team has to cut that worth-it player loose for cap space, why? Because that team is FAILING.
And that team needs to cut loose a real live asset for cap space, in order to rebuild.
Well, save for the rare KG-type exception, those teams reach that conclusion not in the off-season,
but midway through a failed season that started out promising.
And so yeah: The deadline for doing the sort of trade you want is the late February trade deadline.
After that, we couldn’t include Raef’s expiring contract, and we’d be stuck with the cap space instead, like it or not.
Now about CP3: YOU know he’s staying in N.O., I know he’s staying in N.O.
BUT! . . . That being the case, he’s gotta get an extension, right? If he wants to stay and they want to keep him,
then both sides would act on that by coming to an agreement on a long term-extension.
And the deadline for that extension is . . . October 31 of this year, near the start of the season.
(Side-note: Yes, that’s our deadline for locking up MarWeb, Frye, and JJ.)
So yeah: I expect CP3 will stay with the Hornies, and will do so by way of a max-deal extension this fall.
Here’s the conundrum: What if he doesn’t? What if November starts and CP3 hasn’t been locked up?
Do we take that as a sign that maybe he’s available? We’d have to spend the following 4 months (while playing!),
between the October 31 rookie-extension deadline and the late-February trade deadline,
trying to read the tea leaves on where Chris Paul and New Orleans stand with each other.
Through that, they won’t be able to actually DO anything, so it’d all be guesswork and inference.
If we do that trade deadline deal, we give up on Chris Paul.
If we hold out for Chris Paul, we’d miss the opportunity to trade for a big player instead.
Meanwhile, the whole season would be unfolding; contenders would be emerging,
the fire-sale teams would start becoming obvious, and the Blazers and Hornies would be playing . . . however they are.
THAT’S where I’m glad we have Pritchard. Getting an accurate read on that shifting, temporary situation is crucial.
And while a trade-instead-of-cap-space thing sounds great, Dallas and Phoenix just made it look rreeeeaaaalll BAD.
Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.
by QualityPie on
May 1, 2008 9:03 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Cap Space will create a trade exception
In the NBA, you can trade anybody to anyone as long as you are under the salary cap after the trade. We can trade McBob to the Heat for Wade as long we are under the cap after the trade. The Heat will receive immediate cap relief and a giant trade exception.
Even if we don’t pull a trade deadline deal using Raef’s expiring contract, we can still use the cap space in the summer to trade players of different salaries.
I think Paul will get a Max Extension this summer, no doubt.
BINGO, BANGO, BONGO
by blzrfan on
May 1, 2008 9:56 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Right. Me, too.
“I think Paul will get a Max Extension this summer, no doubt.”: Yes.
Luckily, our time to act on a trade scenario would be months after the deadline for that.
So we probably don’t have to guess: Paul gets extended this summer or fall,
and we get to approach the 08-09 trade deadline and the 2009 off-season without holding out false hope for him.
The only way we’d even have to THINK about him is if New Orleans is foolish enough not to lock him up.
IN THAT IMPROBABLE EVENT (which, no, I don’t think will happen), what do we do?
I guess the right thing is, until November 1, forget all about Chris Paul entirely.
When November 1 comes around, he should be extended, in which case we can continue forgetting him.
But if he’s not extended . . . well, I guess we can start thinking about him then, on November 1, if he wasn’t locked up.
But not a day earlier, huh? Okay.
Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.
by QualityPie on
May 1, 2008 10:40 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Long as you are on the Paul thing
(which is impossible except for KP for whom all things are possible in the NBA).
Paul will follow the lead of LeBron and Wade and extend for 5 years with an opt-out after three. When they opt out (and they all will if healthy) they are eligible for 30% of the cap as 7-year players and can sign a 7 year deal then either with their own team or a team with the cap space.
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on
May 1, 2008 11:24 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Deron Williams
Is he a happy camper at Utah? Last season he was very critical of some of his teammates, saying they were not playing to win.
Yeah it’s a pipe dream…. teams tend to keep who they want to keep.
by LMA on Apr 30, 2008 8:12 PM PDT 0 recs
I dont remember
one time this year that any of our guys criticized a teammate. its a testament to the quality guys the PTB have, and why trading any of them seem so difficult to make. Nobody wants to go back to talent over character formula do they?
If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?
by bow4meow on
Apr 30, 2008 8:56 PM PDT
up
0 recs
He's very tight (and happy) with the coach and ownership.
So if he’s unhappy with any particular teammates, it’s THEM that’s gonna be available, not him.
Basically, he’s flirting with the “Star Player = GM” mentality.
Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.
by QualityPie on
May 1, 2008 9:07 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Trade Rudy and the # 13 to Seattle for the # 2
Use the # 2 to draft Rose. Brilliant draft. Successful offseason. Jettison Wafer to make room for Rose.
Where have all the flowers gone?
by bilingual octopus on Apr 30, 2008 8:14 PM PDT 0 recs
I like....
...this idea.
this has been a message from: "The People's Alliance to Keep Comment Boards Sucka Free"
by bforsythe on
Apr 30, 2008 8:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Hmmmm.
Obviously, any move-up-in-the-draft-to-target-a-player trades can’t happen
until after the lottery, when we know who has what pick.
I think posts on ideas like this are gonna get a lot more interesting after the lottery.
(I mean, last year, who do you trade with to get the #2 pick? Boston, right?)
Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.
by QualityPie on
May 1, 2008 9:09 AM PDT
up
0 recs
i dunno
seattle has last seasons rookie of the year, and at #2 could select another stellar building block. Thats worth more then acclimatizing Rudy to the nba inside a really inexperienced squad, and whoevers left at 13. Besides, there’s so much hype about drafting or trading for thee PG that everyone overlooks whats likely to happen, which is Steve Blake is going to be next years starting PG.
If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?
by bow4meow on
May 1, 2008 6:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Do you think Seattle would have traded #2
last year for the #13 and an unproven Euro? They would have had to pull a Baltimore Colts move-out-of-town-in-the -middle-of-the-night to avoid being lynched!
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on
May 1, 2008 11:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Someone might really like a $17.5 million trade exception.
Which Portland can give out fairly easily. With the league seeing what Portland and Seattle did with them this last year, I’ll bet that they’re the new Wii of the NBA – everyone wants one, but supplies are under demand. The next question is: Who wants one badly enough to away what we want? “H” “E” “Double-Hockey-Sticks” if I know.
One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season
"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus
by T Darkstar on Apr 30, 2008 8:59 PM PDT 0 recs
Ooooooooh.
The trade exception.
I forgot about that.
Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.
by QualityPie on
May 1, 2008 9:10 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Can't we just trade the pick for LeBron?
Mahna mahna, (ba dee bedebe), mahna mahna, (ba debe dee), mahna mahna, (ba dee bedebe badebe badebe dee dee de-de de-de-de)
by tominhawaii on Apr 30, 2008 10:02 PM PDT 0 recs
That would be awesome
Because Cleveland would suck without LeBron, so those would be high draft picks.
Mahna mahna, (ba dee bedebe), mahna mahna, (ba debe dee), mahna mahna, (ba dee bedebe badebe badebe dee dee de-de de-de-de)
by tominhawaii on
May 1, 2008 5:19 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Thought provoking
Your assumption of keeping only 11 players in 2009 would be two short of the CBA minimum roster so another $0.6M for two 2nd rounders or undrafted free agents would have to be considered. Of course those final two spots can be assigned to D-league for the year as San Antonio has done with Mahinmi.
The biggest interest I have is the pattern KP may establish for the future in player acquisition. We all hope we will become contenders in two more years (or sooner for the total optimists) and the question of new talent or veterans signed for the minimum is the question that now has Phoenix panicked and San Antonio likely on their last hurrah or two and Denver and Golden State on life support (I don’t care what the leastern conference does so long as they take our Bassys and our Zachs!). Will KP continue to bring in young legs who can practice hard and play little? Or are we destined to be rebuilt in 12-15 years?
I think the above options are less imaginable than KP’s might be. In other words I would vote for none of the above. And my own imagination is insufficient as well to add to your list.
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on May 1, 2008 11:40 PM PDT 0 recs










