The Dallas DUST Chip
by shrink on Nov 12, 2009 9:56 AM CST
38 comments
Money Talks with shrink
Summer 2010. Wolves fans have waited many years and seen many trades accumulating cap space looking forward to this summer. In eight months, they will finally see whether their team can use this space for a top free agent, or trade it for another valuable star. The talent pool is deep. A declining NBA economy will lower both the salary cap and the luxury threshold, making their cap space more valuable than in previous years. Wolves fans have been watching the finances of other teams more closely than ever, to see which ones are also below the cap, and can compete with them for free agents. Surprisingly, a team well over the lux may be one of the stiffest competitors.
Erick Dampier may determine an NBA Championship.
More precisely, Eric Dampier's unusual contract may set the stage for the Dallas Mavericks to bring in an elite player that could give them enough talent to be win the league. Here's how it works.
The expensive final season of Dampier's contract is only guaranteed if he meets certain performance standards, which isn't going to happen. This summer, his $13 mil contract would become a valuable trade chip for a team wishing to cut salary, and with a little incentive, it might land them an elite free agent. Dallasbasketball.com dubbed this the DUST chip, the Dampier Ultimate Sign-and-Trade. Once they play this chip, its gone like dust. Let me give you an example of how this works:
Suppose you're the Cleveland Cavaliers this summer. As he said last week, LeBron James repeats that playing for a winning team is more important than money, and he isn't going to accept your contract offer, and may check out free agency. You swallow hard. You have the most valuable basketball player on the planet, and you stand to lose him for nothing! You can sign-and-trade him, but you'd still need to find a team that would make LeBron happy. Suddenly, you get an offer from the Mavericks, of Dampier and a little incentive. Hmmm. LeBron may like the Mavericks because they are already contenders, and they can salary-match almost all of LeBron's salary with Dampier's contract and lose little talent. Hmmm. With Dampier's unguaranteed deal, your finances don't take a beating from unnecessary salary filler you'd receive from other teams trying to match LeBron's salary. Unlike expirings, you can simply let Dampier go, and get immediate salary relief for the 2010-11 season. The Mavs would need to give you some incentive, in picks, cash, etc, but this deal is clearly better than losing him for nothing. You're happy, LeBron's happy, and Mark Cuban is very very happy.
Wolves fans should understand that LeBron-to-DAL is just a scenario, and far from a done deal. All three parties, the Cavs, the trading team, and LeBron, all have to think this is the best option -- and for a player like LeBron, there will be a lot of options. Every team will make a sign-and-trade offer for LeBron, and he will make more money this way rather than simply go to free agency. Teams under the salary cap like the Wolves can even provide similar 2010-11 salary cap relief, since they aren't required to salary-match if they can do the whole deal beneath the cap. The Wolves young players and picks gives them many valuable assets to include that the Cavs might crave, and they may even be able to put together a package that would outbid other teams. I'm skeptical, but John Hollinger even thinks it might not be a bad idea. However, if LeBron (or some other free agent) would rather play elsewhere, there will be no deal. A sign-and-trade starts with a "sign."
Unguaranteed or partially guaranteed deals are uncommon, but they have value in the league. In a complicated trade before the season, Dallas was able to turn Jerry Stackhouse's partially guaranteed deal into Shawn Marion. Stackhouse's $7.25 mil deal was only guaranteed for $2 million. Technically, since teams over the salary cap like Dallas must match contracts within 125% + $100,000, Stackhouse could have been dealt for a player on a deal over $9 million. The original team could have then waived Stackhouse and saved $7 million immediately -- maybe double if they were that far over the luxury threshold. Dampier's unguaranteed contract at $13 million carries far more value. This is something to keep in mind if the Wolves decide to trade Ryan Gomes in a deal that takes on 2010 salary, or include him in a sign-and-trade package.
Mark Cuban's Mavericks have been over well over the salary cap for a long time. However, the big contract that they gave to Erick Dampier, and its unguaranteed last year, may turn them into one of the leading contenders, both to acquire an elite free agent and to win an NBA Championship.
0 recs |
38 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Dampier's contract is a great asset
but your example somewhat misses the point. The real benefit to another team is to trade a guy already under contract that they want to unload. Lebron will be an FA. If he leaves, Cleveland gets the salary relief anyway. They will only do a sign and trade if the other assets they get are worthwhile to them; there are enough teams under the cap that they shouldn’t have to take back significant salary to make a deal work.
by Eric in Madison on Nov 12, 2009 10:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
And besides Dampier,
what assets does Dallas have that a LeBronless Cleveland franchise would be interested in? The number of Dallas players under 28 years old: 3. I feel like cap space + Barea + Humphries + Beaubois isn’t going to get it done.
Still, it’s nice of you to shed some light on this. I knew there was something going on with Dampier’s contract, but I didn’t understand it until now. It’s actually a pretty crazy loophole. What’s to prevent all the elite teams to sign all their guys to long contracts with the last year unguaranteed, then flipping the “instant expirings” for Brand/Kaman/Jackson/Maggette/Davis types to instantly reload?
by John Doe on Nov 12, 2009 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
What’s to prevent all the elite teams to sign all their guys to long contracts with the last year unguaranteed
It may just be that player agents would look askance at contracts lacking guarantees. Yes?
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Nov 12, 2009 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be the obvious answer
But say you’ve got a player already agree to terms on a 4 year, 40 million dollar deal. Why not push to add a fifth year at $12 million that will likely be unguaranteed?
To the player, it seems like a no-lose situation. Either you get paid an extra year, or you become a free agent like you would have anyway.
To the team, it’s way better. Using the Dallas example, Dampier being a regular old expiring wouldn’t help them nearly as much as it does in its current state. A team looking for cap relief would covet an instantly cuttable expiring rather than the conventional kind, a player who they’d have to keep on the roster a year before his deal comes off the books. It essentially allows Dallas to be a player in the offseason as if they were $13 million under the cap, when in reality they’ll be a good $20 million over it.
I’m not saying you put it on every contract, but there are clear candidates: a vet signing, after which you will be well over the salary cap for the forseeable future. An unguaranteed 4th year on Andre Miller’s contract, for example, would give Portland an $8 million dollar trading chip in the 2012 offseason. As it stands, they could maybe get something for him at the 2012 season’s trade deadline, but otherwise he’ll just expire, they’ll still be over the cap, and they’ll get nothing.
by John Doe on Nov 12, 2009 3:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Josh Howard, equally an unguaranteed contract if the acquiring team wants to
Could happen at the deadline, e.g. for a player like Michael Redd or a center. Or later during the offseason, e.g. for a guy like Joe Johnson. Or someone of that category. I doubt it gets you LeBron, Wade, Bosh, but it will get Dallas a nice piece. And Cuban and Donnie Nelson won’t sit on it, like the Blazers (Raef LaFrentz) and Cavs (Wally World) did last year.
But slowly things happen that they cannot help and the Blazers Fellowship of the Ring begins to break apart
by Norsktroll on Nov 12, 2009 2:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Josh Howard has a Team Option, not Unguaranteed Contract
Team Options must be picked up by July 1, so they wouldn’t help like Dampier. A free agent can’t do a sign-and-trade deal until free agency period opens and a player can sign. At this point, Howard’s team option would have had to be exercised to trade him.
Of course, DAL could trade Josh Howard before the deadline, but of course, he’d have no more effect on the salaries as an expiring would.
Team Options are becoming far less common, outside of the rookie scale. For 2010-11 there are only six in the NBA.
Josh Howard: $11,835,000
Carl Landry: $3,000,000
Chuck Hayes: $2,334,125
Jose Barea: $1,815,000
Mario Chalmers: $854,389
Chris Douglas-Roberts: $854,389
by shrink on Nov 13, 2009 10:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Incentive
First, the Mavericks list of incentives include:
1. Barea
2. Beaubois
3. Expirings, to take back, Mo Wiliiams, Varejao, or Gibson, if they don’t prove to be worth their longer contracts
4. 2011 1st Rounder (this would be after the draft, so the Stepien Rule wouldn’t prevent a trade)
5. Future 1sts or 2nds
6. Anything else they get in trade by sending a different player to a third team.
Second, remember, they may not need much.
We all think that any offer for LeBron would require huge amounts of value, because he’s the most valuable player in the league. However, a team isn’t just making an offer to the Cavs, they are making an offer to LeBron. As I mentioned, MIN could offer the Cavs a better package than Dallas, with their raw cap space plus better young assets. However, the deal doesn’t get done if LeBron says “no.”
I assume each of the 29 teams will make a sign-and-trade offer to the Cavaliers. Some could offer the Cavs more value, but I imagine if LeBron is going to leave his home, he will have a very short list of teams he’d be willing to go to. Of those teams, those that need to gut their roster to make a deal that Cleveland thought was OK, would quickly become destinations LeBron would say “no,” to. LeBron’s control of his destniny means that the Cavs aren’t going to get close to full value back for him.
by shrink on Nov 12, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Incentives?
You are trading the best player in the game and you will try to convince your fans that you are going to get good value in
Barea (backup on a good team)
Beaubois (unproven)
Salary Cap space acquired by giving up your current starters(!?!?!) — “look fans, I gave up NBA playoff team starters, but hold on — I may get something back, maybe”
A very low #1
Some other very low #1s or 2s
Some pie-in-the-sky thing we can only dream of.
If Cash for Clunkers had this level of “incentives” the dealers would have never sold a new car.
by Hoops Maven on Nov 12, 2009 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Would fans be happier if he simply walked for nothing?
by shrink on Nov 12, 2009 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
?
You now seem to be arguing that LeBron can leave and screw the Cavs all he wants. I do not dispute that. You are correct.
Your original position to John Doe was that the Mavs had “incentives” that would make Cleveland want to do a deal with the Mavs. Part of wanting to do a deal is having something to show/tell your fans. Example, “We lost LeBron but at least we got….” I am suggesting that two bench guards, some cap space and a bunch of low #1s are not reasonable “incentives” to do a deal.
The Wolves got Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes and two ones (plus some garbage) for Garnett. So, a good starter, an 8th man on a good team, a low one and a high one (our own back) for a 31 year old guy. You are suggesting the Cavs should be excited about getting two bench players, cap space and some very low #1s for a guy who will be a 25 year old player. If someone told me to sell my house for $5,000 or they would take it from me and kick me in the groin, I guess I would be slightly happier with the $5,000 option, so yes, I guess Cavs fans will be dancing in the streets after the Mavs deal.
by Hoops Maven on Nov 12, 2009 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't say "they should be excited by it" or "dancing in the streets"
If I’m a Cavaliers fan, I’m depressed that LeBron wants to go elsewhere. Like Wolves fans, I’m probably bitter at the front office that they couldn’t surround him with better talent, so he’d want to stay. But besides that bitterness, if they lose him for nothing, I think they are incompetent as well.
by shrink on Nov 13, 2009 6:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They might, don't you think?
What sort of cap situation would that leave the Cavs in over the next couple of seasons? If they’re in position to do something other than filling all that potential space with mediocrities, letting him walk might easily become the preferable option.
Glancing at the HoopsHype salary page, they’d be losing Shaq’s $20 million and LeBron, which’d set them at, what, around $35 million in committed payroll for next year? Something like? Would you rather have the space between that and the eventual cap number, or a collection of Mavericks like Barea?
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Nov 16, 2009 9:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It'd be Nice if LeBron Consults the Fans ..
… but this is his career. He’s going to want to play where he wants to play — not for whatever team can give the Cavs fans the best package in return. The Cavs don’t have a lot of power either. They can refuse to sign-and-trade LeBron, but he holds the trump card because he can walk, and he has enough money from other sources that the extra S&T year is less important to him than self-determination.
by shrink on Nov 12, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Completely agree..
….he’s going to make the call on his own and the Cavs are going to have to make a tough decision. I think they’d have an open revolt on their hands if they traded him but I also think he simply walks at the end of the year.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 12, 2009 12:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know...
Maybe this is a take on it from a Twins fan desperately praying that they get it together and re-sign Mauer before he has a chance to walk…but I think it’s going to be hard for LeBron to leave Cleveland. The only thing that matters in terms of making money is winning. You win, you get paid, both in the sport and outside of it.
The reason I think there’s a greater chance that Mauer leaves Minnesota than there is that LeBron leaves Cleveland is the winning factor.
Where can LeBron go that will give him the $$ he wants, but also give him the consistent chance at a championship? It seems to me that Cleveland, at least right now, gives him as much a chance as anywhere. The East is still pretty weak, (though a couple of teams are gaining ground…kind of), and Boston’s aging rapidly. As long as they can keep putting solid talent around him, this team has a nucleus that can win a championship, Shaq or no Shaq.
And the endorsement thing is a non-starter, IMO. It hasn’t hampered him in Cleveland thus far. Unless you’re desperate to start acting, why bother going to LA or NY? Besides, the guy probably has his own plane to hop on and go wherever he wants if he wants to be in a movie during the offseason.
If anything, I think Cleveland’s decision to keep Mike Brown around longer than they should will be the reason LeBron walks. I don’t think he’s a championship coach, and I wonder if LeBron would say the same.
by BLayne23 on Nov 12, 2009 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Of all the 30 teams
You really think Cleveland offers LeBron the best chance to win?
Without even considering sign and trades, there are still a good 8 teams who either have the cap space or could easily generate enough to be able to sign LeBron outright. I don’t see how Miami, New Jersey, or Minnesota could be considered worse from a talent standpoint. The Thunder and Clippers would have to make a fair amount of roster moves to make things work around LeBron, but their talent bases are both decidedly better. Heck, even New York could be considered better, because they at least don’t have a bunch of money tied up into mediocrity long term.
If he were to stay with the Cavs, he’d probably still win a title or two somewhere, but it would be a struggle every year. Danny Ferry, rather than spending a few years building up a solid base around him, has used the McHalian method of roster building, always looking for one last quick fix, taking on guys that are past their primes, signing his own mediocre players to long-term, overpriced deals. I give him credit for Mo Williams, and that’s it.
by John Doe on Nov 12, 2009 2:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Cavs could still win one this year.
Sure, Danny Ferry’s prowess as a GM has been…suspect…at best. But, I think staying in the East will almost guarantee him more trips to the Finals, which I believe gives him the best chance to win that championship. I mean, they made it to the Finals against the Spurs just a couple years back with a much less talented group than the one they have now, even if Shaq needs to be put out to pasture.
by BLayne23 on Nov 13, 2009 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed they could
But I think how close they’ve gotten already is more a testament to LeBron’s greatness and Ferry’s failure. He had a team of complete scrubs in 2007 and still took them to the Finals. It shouldn’t be that hard to put a championship-caliber team around him, but for Ferry, it has been.
by John Doe on Nov 13, 2009 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nets or should I say Nyets
Lopez as Center, Devin Harris as PG and Courtney Lee as SG. Plus they have enough money to sign another high priced guy. You know that is the Russian Billionaire’s plan.
by TheEvilProfessor on Nov 12, 2009 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Spite could also play into this
If LeBron tells the Cavs he is leaving, will they even do a sign and trade without receiving something significant in return. If they are going to do something putting an extra $20-30 million in LeBron’s pocket while also turning the other team into an instant contender, they will probably want at least a lottery pick or comparable player in return.
by Rumblebee on Nov 12, 2009 3:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't call it spite,
but I could easily see Cleveland refusing to take part in a S&T deal where they receive Dampier, Barea, Beaubois, and a late 1st in return. That is a crap package for turning Dallas into a surefire NBA Championship team.
by Biff Cooper on Nov 12, 2009 9:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, a S&T would reflect poorly on them
Even if it is their best way to cut their inevitable losses, if the Cavs agree to a sign and trade of LeBron, they look like facilitators. If he leaves on his own, at least then they can blame him and try to portray themselves as victims.
Sounds stupid, but that franchise is so screwed if he leaves that it might be worth more to them than the players they get back in the sign and trade.
by John Doe on Nov 13, 2009 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Cavs...
…will go down to the wire and make LeBron be the one to walk away. I don’t think they want to be “The Team That Traded LeBron.” I know they’ll get nothing, but it’s better than taking something like that proposed Dallas turd sandwich. Make LeBron be the bad guy and the one to ditch his team and hometown.
If the Twins make some more legit moves this offseason and offer Mauer a fair deal and he turns them down and walks, he looks like the asshole for spurning the Twins and his state when they were trying to build around him. Better for the Twins from a PR standpoint than trading him for jack like they did with Santana.
by saudagg on Nov 12, 2009 11:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Unless Lebron
flat out says he isn’t resigning and the cavs can claim that they were just trying to get something anything. So long as they get to maintain the fan support and make Lebron be the one to sour the relationship, they will make a deal like this. My money is Lebron leaves free and clear to the Nets or a sign and trade with Dallas. Knicks have no chance IMO. I don’t think Miami has enough space.
by TheEvilProfessor on Nov 13, 2009 9:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Au contraire
The Heat have so much space that there’s talk of them signing two max guys (LeBron and Dwyane). Almost nobody on that team is on contract after this year. Those two together on one team, including if Beasley reaches his potential, would be nutso.
by nja700 on Nov 13, 2009 1:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's all on LeBron
If LeBron leaves, the front office is going to make sure that every fan knows they did absolutely everything they could to keep him, and it was completely LeBron’s decision.
I don’t think the front office is worried they’d be seen as " The Team that Traded LeBron"
I think the front office would be worried they’d be seen as " The Team that Lost LeBron for Nothing"
by shrink on Nov 13, 2009 6:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But remember
The team signing Lebron can’t give away too much if LeBron really wants to play for a contender. This is why the Wolves have some hope, because with all their assets they can make Cleveland happy while still having a contending team, if LeBron wanted to play for the Wolves.
by Rumblebee on Nov 12, 2009 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree J.D.
Its surprising that more teams don’t put options like this on their contracts.
I also agree with E in M that the real trade target for Dampier would be somebody trying to clear cap space for a free agent signing rather than a team like Cleveland.
Interesting article shrink – I didn’t know about this situation with Dampier. Are there any others besides Dampier and Gomes that you’re keeping your eye on?
by Biff Cooper on Nov 12, 2009 11:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
2010-11 Partially Guaranteed Contracts
Besides prospects making under $1 million, I can find only a half-dozen players on partially guaranteed contracts. I’ll list their salaries this year, next year, and the conditions listed by the storyteller site:
Erick Dampier $12,115,500 $13,078,000 2010-11 is not guaranteed
Ryan Gomes $3,867,500 $4,235,000 $4,602,500 $4,970,000 2010-11 is partially guaranteed for $1,000,000, 2011-12 for $1,000,000, 2012-13 for $750,000, all becoming fully guaranteed if not waived before 6/30/10
James Jones $4,330,000 $4,650,000 $4,970,000 $5,290,000 2010-11 partially guaranteed for $1,856,000, 2011-12 for $1,984,000 and 2012-13 for $2,112,000 all if not waived before 6/30/10
Delonte West $4,254,250 $4,500,000 2010-11 is only partially guaranteed for $500,000 if waived before 8/3/10
Keyon Dooling $3,564,000 $3,828,000 2010-11 is partially guaranteed for $500,000
Eduardo Najera $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,750,000 2010-11 is partially guaranteed for $2,500,000, 2011-12 for $2,250,000 and both become fully guaranteed if not waived by 6/30/10
by shrink on Nov 12, 2009 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
could we have done something similar with adkins? I doubt it has that much value unless you want to take back a bad contract.
we could do a similar trade with gomes and his contract?
I think s/t deals will involve assets not just expirings.
by revprodeji on Nov 12, 2009 12:02 PM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Last off-season, there were about a dozen partial/non-guaranteed contracts
..and some of the names should be familiar. Besides Stackhouse $7.25/$2.0 mil guaranteed,
Steve Nash $13.125/$6.5 mil guaranteed .. stayed in PHO, since he’s worth more than $6.5 mil
Steve Blake $4.0/$0
Travis Outlaw $3.6/$0 .. POR kept them. they’re worth the contracts, plus the waive date was 6/30
Matt Harpring $6.5 mil/$2.5 .. Utah’s over the lux, but Harpring’s 80% insurance is worth more
Sasha Pavlovic $4.75 mil/$1.5 .. traded to PHO then waived (they were over the lux)
Greg Buckner $4.08, $4.28/$1.06,$1.06 .. traded to DAL then waived (over the lux)
Bruce Bowen $4.1/$2.0 .. traded to SAS, then waived (over the lux)
Rafer Alston $5.25/$2.5 .. traded to Nets …?
several prospects under $1 mil
Chucky Atkins $3.48/$0.76 .. waived by MIN
As you can see, in many cases, players on partially guaranteed deals are sought by teams over the lux, where their waive helps a team save double. For example, if the Wolves waive Atkins, they save $2.72 mil. If the Wolves trade him to a team over the lux for an identical contract they’d waive, waiving Atkins saves them $5.44 mil .. and maybe more if it allows them to slide under the lux and reclaim their lux share. I don’t know what deals were available to the Timberwolves front office, but I was surprised they didn’t offer something like:
Atkins for Scalabrine ($3.4) plus some incentive (let’s use $3 mil)
If BOS wants a roster spot, they can waive Scalabrine, and pay the same salary .. or …
If BOS wants a roster spot, trades for Atkins and waives him, they save $5.28 mil, half with the cheaper buy-out, and half with the reduced lux taxes. Less $3 mil cash to the Wolves, they still clear over $2 mil in profit, easily enough to fill that roster spot with a vet min player.
MIN obviously profits. Waiving Atkins leaves them with $760,000. Waiving Scalabrine – $3 mil only costs them $400,000. MIN could probably have asked for a prospect as well. Both teams are better off financially.
by shrink on Nov 12, 2009 12:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The Hornets could be rather active this season...
Now that they’ve canned Byron Scott…
by BLayne23 on Nov 12, 2009 2:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
don't get me wrong, I really hope we get someone really good out of this
but, ugh, I just have this feeling we’re going to end up with nothing
From the only TRUE North division
by thewild_viking_twins on Nov 12, 2009 10:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I disagree that Dallas has anything of value
to offer for a top FA, but I like the post, as you obviously know your shizzle.
One unique thing that the Wolves have to offer for another team’s Max player is the Rights to Rubio. I don’t know if the kid will be any good in the NBA, but combining his extremes in youth, experience, and a low-priced contract give both the fans and the owners something to get excited about as compensation for losing their star. If Rubio can be coerced to come over to the new team, his potential will be the base the new team will use to launch their rebuilding campaign.
Meanwhile, if he’s still in Europe when he gets traded, losing him won’t make the Wolves any worse on the court .
by PoorDick on Nov 12, 2009 11:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Pekovic too!
He and Rubio do add a fun wrinkle to trade speculation.
When a team is forced to trade its star player to save money, they’d usually want cap space and young guys with potential. Trouble is, every non-expiring asset they get back cuts into the savings. But we can offer a package of expirings + Rubio + Pekovic, in which the other team gets two stud prospects but still gets the full value of their traded contract in savings. (This is how I would approach a Chris Paul trade scenario, by the way.)
by John Doe on Nov 13, 2009 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Savings -- but not cap space for the purposes of free agency, in Rubio's case
Pekovic is the purer gimme, in that sense. Minor distinction, but Ricky Blonde takes up his rookie deal’s cap space even when he’s working for a living in Iberia.
I totally agree, though, that they’re interesting trade chips for all sorts of speculation. Maybe the Cavs just really, really want to have a Euro-center successor for Zydrunas.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Nov 16, 2009 9:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
Related FanShots on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
