If we end up having to trade Ricky Rubio
by mutleyil on Jun 28, 2009 9:58 PM CDT
81 comments
Since the day after the draft, I’ve been contending that we will never see Ricky Rubio play in a Minnesota Timberwolves uniform. From the way he’s answered questions (saying he wants to play in the NBA while expressly avoiding saying he wants to play in Minnesota, repeatedly stating the T’Wolves hold his rights “for now,” etc…), to the words of his father, to the reported actions of his agent Dan Fegan (working on trade possibilities basically the moment after we took him)…it just seems very clear he doesn’t want to be here. And if he really doesn’t want to come here, in the end, there’s nothing we can do to make him.
It’s too bad…he’s a perfect fit for a young, building team. He’s the quintessential unselfish, “he makes everyone around him better” guy that could be great on the court AND could actually help attract other top notch players because they know he lives to get them the ball. He’d be a rock star here, and maybe…just maybe…Kahn can eventually sell him on this. It’s also possible that all this posturing is just to gain leverage against his Spanish team when it comes time to settling his buyout, and it would have happened no matter who took him. I tend to think not, simply because he went out of his way to praise OKC and Sacramento before the draft. If all this hemming and hawing is really just a cleverly orchestrated ruse by Fegan, then having Ricky speak glowingly about other cities a few days ago seems a like a bit of a faux pas.
So if we eventually accept that our best course of action is to trade Ricky Rubio, what are the options? We would need to find a landing spot he found acceptable. From what we know so far, here are the main criteria in his decision: Market size, climate, availability of minutes, and joining a good program. We don’t necessarily need to find a place that fits all 4, as he was willing to go to SAC or OKC, but a situation that meets several of these criteria should be considered good to go. In addition to these factors, we also need to consider the needs of our beloved Wolves, so I am adding in availability of good assets as a MAJOR piece of criteria for good trade partners. Anyone that doesn’t meet that requirement is out. Here is what I arrived at:
Teams that are out
Celtics - Rondo is intriguing, but we would already have Flynn. Everyone else on their roster is old and/or expensive and/or a role player.
NY Knicks - They don't have a single player we could use that would be more than a role player.
Raptors – Not a good trade fit, and RR wouldn't go anyway.
Bulls - Lots of attractive assets, but their PG need is ZERO with D Rose.
Cavs - Varejao would be OK, but no other good pieces for us in a package. Unless they want to offer up that LeBron guy…
Pistons - I don't value Stuckey that much, and the other players at our positions of need are old and expensive.
Pacers - Don't think RR would go, and don't see any package NOT involving Granger that would work (which IND wouldn't go for).
Bucks - Not even bothering…if he won't come to us, Milwaukee has no chance.
Hawks - Just traded for Jamal Crawford…drafted Jeff Teague. Don't see them parting with Joe Johnson or Al Horford as part of a deal.
Bobcats - Don't think RR would go. Already have Augustin and Felton at PG. Too bad…Wallace, Henderson, Okafor, Bell are all good to great assets.
Heat - Just don't see a match…if only Beasley could play full-time SF, but I just don't see it.
Magic - Their roster is set…going for it this year…best assets are very expensive…not a good fit.
Wizards - Think they'd trade Foye and Miller back to us? HA HA HA HA HA…you got served Flip…
Rockets - Don't see any good, young, inexpensive talent that we could build a deal around.
Grizzlies - It's Memphis…enough said…
Nuggets - Think they're commited to Lawson, and not sure if Denver would work for RR.
Thunder - Not happening…they already passed on him once in favor of Westbrook.
Jazz - Sticking with D Williams…probably less attractive city for RR than Minneapolis.
Clippers - No chance while Baron Davis is there, and I don't see him as moveable at this point.
Lakers - No chance. Nothing but Kobe, Gasol, and role-playing crap… How did they just win the damn title?!?!
Kings - Passed on him once already. Can't think much of RR if they think Evans is a better fit with Kevin Martin.
Spurs - Their roster is set…going for it this year…best assets are very expensive…not a good fit. (Yes, I copied this directly from my Orlando comments)
This leaves us with the following potential trade partners:
Hornets - No way, right? They already have CP3. However, NOLA is in serious financial trouble. Is there is anyone else that could make letting CP3 go seem palatable to the fanbase other than RR? There's something poetic about La Pistola assuming his rightful place in New Orleans 35 years after Pistol Pete was there. We have plenty of filler to balance the salaries, and I would even throw in Love if need be. CP3 and Flynn don't seem like a good match, but who cares? You go get CP3 when you can, and turn Flynn into something else later.
NJ Nets - A package involving Brook Lopez or Devin Harris/Courtney Lee is worth considering.
Suns - A very interesting possibilty. The chance for Rubio to learn with the master, Steve Nash, for one year. As of now, their best offer would be Barbosa and Robin Lopez, which doesn't quite do it for me. Both are way too one-dimensional, and Lopez has almost ZERO basketball IQ. However, if they complete the alleged Stoudemire deal with GS, they could offer some combo of Biedrins, Barbosa, Bellinelli, Curry. Would keep an eye on a Phoenix team in transition...RR would be a GOD there.
Warriors - X-Factor based on Stoudemire rumors. Would need to send Ellis or Curry back to give RR the minutes. Anthony Morrow or Andris Biedrins would also be very attractive prospects.
Blazers - Do we get Pritch-slapped or do they get Kahned? There are a lot of good fits here. Rudy Fernandez, Nicholas Batum, One of Us Pryzbilla, maybe even Oden…all very attractive assets. Potentially a good fit, but I would be extra cautious about trading RR to a division rival.
Mavericks - A package around Josh Howard and Jason Terry would be worth listening to. Not really turning me on though. Kind of redundant to some pieces we already have in Brewer and Flynn.
76ers - Andre Iguodala and Sam Dalembert would be good fits, but a lot of $$$. They also drafted Jrue Holiday. Least likely, but possible.
So after much ado, what have we arrived at? At the present time, there’s really only 7 teams that seem to be potential partners, and a few of those are reaches at best. I like a few of these options…specifically the idea of getting CP3 or a post-Stoudemire Phoenix deal. Rubio’s buyout situation may go on into OCT, so we have until then to see how things shake out. What say you, my fellow Wolves rubes, about the options in front of us? Anything you like here, any other options you see that I missed, or do we hang on to the Rube at all costs?
2 recs |
81 comments
Email
Print
Comments
We hang on to him at all costs
I literally do not care what he says this summer. I don’t care how many times Fegan tells Kahn he’s never going to play in Minny. (Not that we know what’s been said so far).
My response privately: as nicely as I can, I say: we wish you all the best in your career in Europe.
The only thing you talked about above that would interest me is CP3, but there’s no way that’s happening. I suppose I might give some thought to Devin Harris. Maybe.
I appreciate the work you did in putting this together. Well done. But ultimately, I’m not interested. I won’t even entertain trading him until the summer of 2011.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 28, 2009 10:36 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I'm with you...
Which is a change of tune for me. After running down the logistics, there’s really only 2 or 3 palatable options out there. And each of them would be pretty difficult to pull off. At some point, Rubio’s desire to play in the NBA will kick in, and he’ll realize the sooner he reports here, the sooner he gains Free Agency. Hopefully, in the 3-4 years he is here, we can make him appreciate us.
"I'm gonna make you cry...I'm gonna make you cry and dip my cookie in your tears!!!"
by mutleyil on Jun 28, 2009 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd just like to clarify something about rookie contracts
Because I’ve seen a bunch of people throw around 3 years or 4 years. The fact is that the Wolves can have Rubio for 5 years on his rookie deal.
2 guaranteed years
2 team option years
1 year where he’s an RFA and the Wolves can either match any offer he gets OR he can play for the qualifying offer for one year if he’s set on becoming an URFA.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 28, 2009 11:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep..
…do not trade the kid. If he’s really as transcendent as Kahn thinks he is, you’re probably not getting another shot at a player like that.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Jun 28, 2009 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wolves not trading Rubio
Simple reason…If they trade Rubio and he is an All-Star in three years while Flynn struggles the franchise will be destroyed and Kahn will be fired. They cannot suffer another Foye/Roy disaster.
If they keep both players and one works out while the other busts, people will have 20/20 hindsight and complain the bust wasn’t traded, but right now the trades are 50% trade Flynn, 50% trade Rubio…which is the right move. The team will still be moving in the right direction.
If they did make a deal, about the only one they could justify is putting CP3 on the team. Then even if Rubio is great the Wolves have something to show for the trade. Can’t do the trade until well into next season because they must be a bottom 10 team so they don’t lose their 1st rounder until at least 2011.
by Rumblebee on Jun 28, 2009 10:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If push comes to shove and the Wolves decide to trade Rubio, they basically have to consider what it cost to get him: 1 year of Miller and Foye. How else would you do it, I’m not sure. Potentially, he’ll be an off-the-charts PG, but it’s tough to ask for the moon based on potential.
In other words, would I trade 1 year of Miller and Foye for Devin Harris? Seven days a week and twice on Tuesdays I would. The Al Jeff/Rubio for Harris/Lopez swap (proposes elsewhere here) would, at the very least, be fascinating to watch develop over the years (as opposed to most trades these days, dumping cap space for a veteran). Not saying I’d do it or no (I’m still not sold on Lopez), but it’d be interesting. Would I trade Foye/Miller for Andres Biedrins? Yup. Would I trade Foye/Miller for Nate Robinson? Um, no.
I don’t think he’s getting traded, though. Not anytime soon (“soon” meaning within the next 12 months), at least.
by jianfu on Jun 28, 2009 11:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I entirely disagree
that Miller/Foy has anything to do with the Wolves setting the value for Rubio. In fact, I have no idea what the logic of that is. Who cares? We wound up with Rubio at that pick, the world has moved on.
You are correct that it’s tough to ask for the moon based on potential, which is exactly why I wouldn’t trade him. He’s way more valuable to us than anyone else, because of his potential. That potential is very valuable to us.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 28, 2009 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I worded that cloudy, but if the Wolves found themselves in a situation where either they decided to trade Rubio or it was forced upon them somehow to do so (which is next to impossible, barring a mysterious $8 million endorsement deal followed up by Rubio quitting pro basketball for a year), they would have a tangible value that would, bare minimum, need to be beat. I agree with you that Rubio falling to them increased the value of that #5 pick over what it was (put it this way, I’m not sure if Washington does that deal again knowing Rubio would have been available). That’s all. So in this scenario, say you are offered a good player like Harris. How do you evaluate that deal? Rubio’s potential vs. Harris’ production? You can’t do it. But Harris easily beats Miller/Foye. So you could consider that offer.
But like I said, he’s not going anywhere for at least a year. They have nothing to gain at all dealing him this summer.
by jianfu on Jun 28, 2009 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's bad thinking.
If bought a stock for ten dollars, then it increases in value to a hundred dollars, then somebody offers me fifteen dollars for the stock, I would be a fool to take it. Sure, I’ll make five dollars total on the transaction, but I’m leaving eighty-five dollars in value out there that I’m not taking advantage of.
Miller and Foye for the pick seemed like a fairly even deal. However, since Rubio fell that pick, it turns out it was a steal. Rubio is worth more than Miller and Foye. Rubio is worth more than the 5th pick.
by princelyfrank on Jun 29, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we have no tangible value for Rubio. This isn’t like stocks.
For instance, there’s a poll over at Bullets Forever that’s basically asking Miller/Foye v. Rubio, and Miller/Foye is winning. Granted, part of that is due to fans nature to talk themselves into their team’s decisions (hell, I think Flynn was a bonehead pick, but I’m trying to talk myself into thinking it could work out), but still, as much as we may think that result is ludicrous, it’s possible we’re also deluding ourselves if we think Rubio falling to #5 upped the value of the pick ten fold.
Here are basically 3 scenarios where the Wolves would try to trade Rubio, say, within the next year:
1) Rubio threatens to sit out of pro basketball for a year.
2) Jonny Flynn’s the next CP3 and trading Rubio makes sense from a basketball standpoint.
3) David Stern engineers some new rule change limiting the rights of teams over foreign players.
That’s about it. The odds of any of these 3 things happening is miniscule. So in all likelihood this is a moot point. However, if push ever does come to shove on this matter, I just think we have to step back and at least get some idea of value in our minds. Obviously as Wolves fans we’re going to want Derrick Rose straight up. But that’s not going to happen.
by jianfu on Jun 29, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good perspective...
We do get caught up in thinking of getting equal value for Ricky Rubio, Superstar. If we translate that into value for Foye and Miller, it makes more of the above options seem acceptable. I think it illustrates how much value we gained by doing do that deal with Washington, but I also would hate to undermine that gain by accepting less for thinking in those terms.
"I'm gonna make you cry...I'm gonna make you cry and dip my cookie in your tears!!!"
by mutleyil on Jun 28, 2009 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like
the Jefferson/Rubio for Harris/Lopez deal :)
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
by Wim (Belgium) on Jun 29, 2009 4:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I gave this excellent post a hearty recommendation
but I don’t think they should trade him. Ever. Period. He needs the NBA more than the Wolves need him. The team will still play the games, and who knows, might even win a couple. But without the Wolves, he’ll never get to realize his dream of playing against the very best, on the biggest stage, for the most money. If Rubio’s upside is Jason Kidd, well, Jason Kidd and I own the exact same number of championship rings. If his downside is White Chocolate, that skill level can be obtained by signing some whiz kid off the And 1 tour to a ten-day contract.
If Rubio doesn’t come to the Wolves, I don’t think any of us will be on our deathbeds ruing the day we ever gave hope of him being on the team. But if he never plays in the NBA, it will haunt him for the rest of his life.
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
by PoorDick on Jun 28, 2009 11:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That said,
I’d gladly peddle his rights and Love or AlJeff to the Hornets for CP3 and some burdonsome contracts. Besides, shouldn’t a player of Chris Paul’s magnitude play in a bigger market like the Twin Cities?
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
by PoorDick on Jun 28, 2009 11:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love and Rubio's rights for Lopez and Lee -- works for me
Remember, this is a “have to trade Rubio” scenario…
NJ’s Lopez and Lee are promising players that fit the Wolves’ long term plans and fill gaps in their roster. Dumping Love and Rubio would also solve both of the Wolves’ problems with duplicate players at the PF and PG spots that they’re in now.
I think it’s a close argument between Lopez and Love (but I would have drafted Lopez in the first place for the Wolves). but the Wolves need a center. I liked what I saw of Courtney Lee, even when overmatched against Kobe, and a rookie that went to the Finals gets my nod over the #28 draft pick Ellington, for at least one season.
I honestly have no idea why the Nets would want Kevin Love, so let’s hope they think Rubio’s issues are worth the potential. Plus they’d have to figure out their own “duplication” problems, with Devin Harris vs Rubio.
by levi_mn on Jun 28, 2009 11:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow
I think that’s horrendous. I suppose you could make an argument for Lopez over Love, but I wouldn’t. If those guys are roughly equivelent, then it’s Rubio for Courtney Lee? Um, no. I think Wayne Ellington is probably roughly Courtney Lee. I mean that as a good thing. Lee is useful, but, really?
by Eric in Madison on Jun 29, 2009 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Think again
In a “have to trade Ricky” scenario, basically the alternative is zero value OR whatever you can get from one of the six teams that mutleyil identified.
The value for the Wolves is young players who fit and who have proven that they can play, and play well, in the league. And centers are especially hard to find — and expensive too. This deal gives the Wolves one on the “cheap”.
Now, admittedly, Courtney Lee was a bit of “filler”. You could trade Love for Lopez straight up — but what do you get for Ricky (whose rights = $0 in a trade)? The Nets could offer Jarvis Hayes, Sean Williams, Josh Boone, or Courtney Lee in the space between Lopez and Love’s salary. I chose Courtney.
by levi_mn on Jun 29, 2009 9:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd disagree
If Rubio’s rights are the asset that is coveted, then it can be Rubio and filler for Harris and Lopez. Why further compound the misery by losing Love as well?
by Auswolf on Jun 29, 2009 1:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rubio for Harris is already a stretch.
The only way Lopez is thrown into the deal into the mix is if Love’s involved. Although I think Lopez and Harris for Rubio, Love, filler is a pretty good deal for the Wolves. A known commodity in Harris and a center who might fit better with Big Al. You might also be able to get Chris Douglas-Roberts as a throw-in and he would be a viable SF option.
The Other Shoe: Ricky and "RuPaul" @ www.soulhonky.com
by SoulHonky on Jun 29, 2009 1:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and "filller" for Harris...
…is actually pretty big contract $$$. Like Cardinal and Brewer. I’m sure the Nets could find much better value for Harris than that. And they shouldn’t give up Harris at least until Rubio is on board.
But the Wolves don’t need Harris (with Telfair/Flynn) as much as they need Lopez.
Money-wise, the rights to Rubio are virtually worthless in a trade. They’re worth $3 million in cash right now. The value of Ricky’s rights are perceived future value.
by levi_mn on Jun 29, 2009 8:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
All value is perceived value
Any asset you own is worth exactly what you can get somebody else to pay you for it.
by princelyfrank on Jun 30, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be a TERRIBLE trade.
I really, really hope that you are not Kahn in disguise, levi_mn. You’re basically suggesting trading the fifth overall pick in this year’s draft for the 22nd in last year’s, straight up? Ill-conceived.
by princelyfrank on Jun 29, 2009 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but so would be getting ZERO
which is what “forced to trade” the #5 pick basically means.
As some of us have been saying, at the moment the cash value of the #5 pick is maxed at $3million. It’s accounted value in a trade is $0. $ZERO. If and when Rubio signs, the value of his contract is the rookie scale, i.e. peanuts. All the Wolves have to trade on is perception of Ricky’s perceived future value — and hopefully entice a team to do a trade that otherwise isn’t really to their advantage, i.e. the other team would be on the “short” end of the 25% difference between total contract values in a trade.
If you can find players, like Lopez and Lee, who fit the Wolves, that’s what Kahn is looking for. Both Lopez and Lee have shown that they can play in the league. And if I compare Courtney Lee to Randy Foye…I’ll take Lee. Once guys get into the league and show they can play (which Foye did not) their draft position is irrelevant.
But I’m all ears if you’ve got a better trade idea.
by levi_mn on Jun 29, 2009 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only situation where we're "forced to trade"
would be if somebody held a gun to Kahn’s head and said “Trade Rubio or I’ll set off my nuclear weapon.”
We don’t have to trade Rubio. We especially don’t have to throw in additional sweeteners, like one of our two best players, to get rid of him. If he won’t play for us, we hold onto his rights, and his value will likely increase.
As for a better trade idea, just about anything would qualify. There’ve been reports the Wolves turned down Battier and Brooks from the Rockets. And, if true, we were right to turn that down. Rubio is worth more than any trade chip we’ve had since KG.
by princelyfrank on Jun 29, 2009 7:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hey, it's mutleyil's question
about what the Wolves could do if they are “forced to trade” Rubio.
I’m just looking for trades that put players onto the roster that fit the Wolves program.
In point of fact, Rubio is not worth very much in trade when it comes to the salary matching aspect. Rubio “worth more than any trade chip we’ve had since KG” is completely unrealistic at the moment — and for a couple of years, even in the best case. Now, if Ricky’s perceived future value can convince someone to make what would otherwise be a bad deal for them, well, hooray, pull the trigger, cancel my paella order. But the Collective Bargaining Agreement will always limit the possibilities.
In the case of Houston offering Battier/Brooks — those two are not significant upgrades over what the Wolves have (Gomes/Telfair) at the positions they play. And that’s without knowing who the Wolves would send on top of Ricky’s rights (Songaila/Madsen?).
by levi_mn on Jun 30, 2009 7:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A great player who gets paid very little is worth more than a great player who makes a lot.
And a big part of Rubio’s value is his international appeal, flashy style, etc., things that don’t necessarily correlate directly to on-court value (his on-court value being somewhat up in the air right now, since we haven’t seen him play). Nevertheless, the rights to Rubio are now worth more than what we paid for them (Foye and Miller), even with all the confusion.
Rights to Rubio = (roughly) Second overall pick in the draft.
As for your idea that a player is only worth what his salary can be traded for, it’s just silliness. Every team in the NBA would rather trade for Rubio (gets paid diddly shit) than KG (paid huge amount, you’ll have to blow up your team to get him, bad knee) right now.
Specifically, think for a moment about the word “value.” You go to grocery store and say “Wow, four ears of corn for one dollar! What value!” If you saw an equal ear of corn for one dollar apiece, that’s not great value. It’s crap. Because of the guaranteed contracts in the NBA, I think most players’ trade value actually goes down as they hit that second contract and get a big raise. Everybody wants a good player on a rookie contract, but nobody wants a player who is only good who makes seven million a year. Look what just happened to Marquis Daniels.
by princelyfrank on Jun 30, 2009 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
If salary matching is a problem, you can add other players to the trade. This can be very nice, especially if you want to get rid of some people.
The only reason the lack of a signed contract hurts right now is Rubio’s possible reluctance to play for us. Right now, teams are lowballing us, hoping that Kahn feels pressured to fix the Rubio problem. If the wolves stand pat long enough, the offers should get better when teams realize they can’t have Rubio unless they trade back something about 80% of his value. That is, if other teams want Rubio, several teams are competing to get him, Rubio doesn’t suffer an injury or sign an enormous contract in Europe, and Rubio doesn’t start to show signs of regressing. Chances are, all of those conditions will be met, so the Wolves can get something good for his rights.
It’s true that if he refuses to play for us, and the wolves don’t trade him, the wolves get nothing. But, if the wolves refuse to trade him, he won’t have his dream of playing in the nba, and the teams that want him won’t have him. Hopefully he either wants to play in the nba just as much as the wolves want to get more than nothing for drafting him or other teams want his services just as much as the wolves want to get more than nothing for drafting him. The most widely held perception seems to be that this is not the case and that the wolves want to get something from the 5th draft pick more desperately than he wants to play or other teams want him. This is probably what’s causing the lowball offers. I think Kahn is currently on a mission to change this perception.
by oblivionspocket on Jun 30, 2009 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, guys, but...
…it seems clear that you do not understand the requirements and ramifications of salary matching in trades.
Contract or not, the actual value of Rubio is relative peanuts. The only way the Wolves can extract any of his perceived value, is by finding a trading partner who can offer a favorable spread in contract dollars. The Wolves contracts to be traded in a such deal need to be on the low side (but by no more than 25% + $100K) of the deal.
Yes, the Wolves have a bunch of relatively uncompetitive players with expiring contracts — those contracts have value in their own right, amplified by next year’s passel of free agents. That also is a perceived value, and only teams that are looking for contract space under the salary cap next year are interested.
The other part of extracting perceived value will be the Wolves trying to hold out for players coming in that fit the team, in terms of youth, and position played.
Low ball offers? I’m afraid any offers for Rubio are inherently limited by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. If other GMs think they’re smelling blood and that the Wolves are being “forced” to trade Rubio — well, they’ll go lower still.
That’s life in the NBA.
by levi_mn on Jun 30, 2009 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
levi
I think everyone understands the salary matching requirements. I’m not clear why you think otherwise. Obviously, if you just trade Rubio, you can only match his salary hold (roughly $3 million). But there are other contracts that can be moved if necessary.
I think you said above that his accounted trade value is $0. I believe this is incorrect. Before the draft, that is true. After the draft, the amount is 100% of the rookie scale salary for the 5th pick, which is slightly less than $3 million.
Once (if) he signs a contract, then the actual amount of his salary (probably 120% of the rookie scale) is what counts.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2009 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yo, Eric!
Sorry to bore you. I was specifically floored by statements like:
princelyfrank: Rubio is worth more than any trade chip we’ve had since KG.
oblivionspocket : If salary matching is a problem, you can add other players to the trade.
Maybe it’s their semantics and I’m missing their point(s).
I was planning to go read the CBA FAQ to see if initial rookie contracts are subject to the “Base Compensation Year” clause — which would mean that the value of a signed Rubio contract to the Wolves is approximately half of what he’s getting paid. Either way, it’s still relative peanuts.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
I will also check on your points on accounted trade values after the draft – - but as evidence against, look at the Eurostashed Pekovic. He shows $ZERO effect on salary cap.
by levi_mn on Jun 30, 2009 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll back up Eric on this. As for Pekovic, 2nd round picks have no cap holds and don’t count against the cap until they sign, so that is the difference between Rubio and Pekovic.
I do not believe rookie deals have BYC issues, but I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before.
by Ebomb on Jun 30, 2009 8:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
See number 43...
An unsigned 1st round draft pick’s rookie scale salary is added to a team’s salary cap — but has a value of $0 in trade calculations.
Unsigned 2nd rounders do not count against the cap — and are also valued at $0.
BYC is only invoked when a player gets a raise greater than 20%. So, initial rookie contracts trade at contract value.
by levi_mn on Jun 30, 2009 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you mean exactly by favorable spread in contract dollars?
Do you mean the other team needs to have players signed to contracts similar to the contracts held by players the Wolves will trade along with Rubio? (similar in salary of course, so they’re within the 25% + 100k range) Would you also include contract length in determining favorable spread? It’s understood that It’s nice to have mediocre players with short contracts and good players with long contracts, since we’d like room to maneuver as far as the salary cap goes but also would like to keep the good players we might get back in a trade.
Maybe we’re arguing about what value means. To me, all value is perceived. Nothing has value unless someone wants it or knows how to use it.(to show this would take more time and effort than I’d like to expend. I guess there might things with value that aren’t perceived as valuable but this wouldn’t impact trading behavior. Anyway, because I refuse to go into depth, I could be very wrong or using language incorrectly. Most language is rather imprecise anyhow. Maybe I’m thinking “worth” when I say “value”. ) I guess I would probably call “actual value” something else. Maybe I would call it a salary figure for cba purposes or something awkward like that. Considering the awkwardness in that sort of label, I guess calling it value makes sense.
If you mean to say his value is peanuts in terms of other teams wanting to have him and being willing to give up something to get him, I would disagree with you.
Still, I don’t know if his salary figure being 0$ makes trading him more or less difficult. If I understand what you’re saying about the cba, he could be traded for other unsigned rookies. If the wolves want to trade a lesser player for a better player with a similar contract, they could add Rubio’s rights to even the “perceived value” coming and going from each side. If the wolves want to trade two players for a single player with the salary figures approximately matching, they can add Rubio’s rights. Maybe it would be a problem of the other team not wanting to take on the eventual additional salary required for signing Rubio? Could a sign and trade be worked out in such conditions?
If Rubio had signed a contract with us, we’d have more leverage in negotiations, but I don’t know if it’s make salary matching any easier because then we’d have to find a player with a contract matching Rubio’s or in a more complicated trade, we’d have to add Rubio’s salary figure into calculating outgoing salary and the allowable incoming salary. I understand that needing to add in other players to trade Rubio complicates a trade, but I imagine a lot of the trades involving a signed RIcky Rubio might also require the inclusion of other wolves players anyway.
by oblivionspocket on Jun 30, 2009 11:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cashing in
Of course, I agree that the perceived value of Ricky is fairly high. My basic point has been that extracting that value (converting into a tangible asset) in a trade is complicated at best. Downright difficult.
By referring to Ricky’s contract value as “peanuts”, I meant that the amount is small compared to the total of what other contracts would presumably would be included in a deal. It is also small compared to his perceived value (based on what he might bring to a club — like fan interest and games won).
By a favorable spread, I meant that the Wolves would (presumably) want to receive up to the “legal limit” of 25% more incoming actual contract value than they give up.
The other aspects of a trade — who the players are, how large and long their contracts are , how well do they fit the team, etc., all go into “perceived value” calculation. Does somebody trade a dollar bill for three quarters? Maybe — if he’s thirsty and the soda machine only takes coins.
Agreed that actually having Ricky signed is better for the Wolves in negotiations with other teams, as it removes some, but not nearly all, of the uncertainty surrounding his actual arrival in the NBA.
by levi_mn on Jul 1, 2009 8:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Levi, you are making a mistake.
Perceived value is EQUAL to actual value. What is the value of my car? Whatever I can get someone to pay me for it. In economics, we represent the value of an item in a unit called Dollars. How can you tell how much something is worth? Try to sell it and see how much someone will pay. That is that item’s exact value.
What if my car is a piece of junk, worth $100, but then some crazy millionaire offers me ten grand for it? Congratulations to me, my car is worth ten grand now. It’s like magic.
by princelyfrank on Jul 2, 2009 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope that someday you will take the time to read the Collective Bargaining Agreement FAQ.
by levi_mn on Jul 3, 2009 2:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
because NBA economics is not free market economics.
by levi_mn on Jul 3, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True.
My post was a little stupid. But in any case, I am of the opinion we must not trade Ricky unless it’s for a ridiculous package. We’re not gonna get that right now, so we should hold him, if he comes over right away or not. All of the proposed trades have been dreadful for the Wolves.
by princelyfrank on Jul 3, 2009 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alrighty, then...
In fact, I do agree that a trade for Ricky should be for a “ridiculous” package". The reality is that any trade for him has to work within the CBA. That’s all.
by levi_mn on Jul 4, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Perceived value is EQUAL to actual value."
If you have to sell it now. That asset may have more value to you by holding it. In the news, this is a point of discussion with “distressed” assets held by banks and other investors. By holding a number of the assets, financial institutions get long-term cash flow that greatly exceeds the dollars they would receive if they sold today. This is why no participation in the Fed distressed asset program.
If the Wolves traded Jonny Flynn now, chances are they get much less value than the benefit of having him on the court. The argument against this is if you believe that (A) Flynn is the only thing keeping Rubio from coming and (B) Rubio is good enough that getting him here is worth dumping Flynn for whatever you can get. I am skeptical on Part A.
by Punisher#8 on Jul 3, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is a disgustingly terrible trade.
Jennings: F*** the Knicks, them n***** is always going to be weak.
by Xand1 on Jun 30, 2009 7:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hahahahahahaahahahahahhaahhahahahahahaha
typical timberwolves fans….
“im not trading the #5 pick in a weak draft (who will be in europe for the next 3 years) unless we get ATLEAST CP3… then i’d consider it”
hahahahahahahah nice draft strategy
by PippenAintEasy on Jun 29, 2009 12:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
"i may also consider Devin Harris"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahha
by PippenAintEasy on Jun 29, 2009 12:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me guess...
You’ll give us Pryzbilla and Blake, because every other Blazer is a future All-Star….
by Auswolf on Jun 29, 2009 1:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Glad you back your claims up with something
like stats or at least some logical arguements …
If not; go bother random people somewhere else .. thank you
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
by Wim (Belgium) on Jun 29, 2009 3:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
does saying that ricky rubio is not worth CP3
really need to be backed up with stats?
this is the second time ive visited this site and so far this is what I have heard:
“Kevin Love > Lamarcus Aldridge”
“I wouldnt trade our #5 pick in this weak draft unless we got CP3”
………………
I will never need to pull stats when making an argument here, it should just be common basketball sense.
by PippenAintEasy on Jun 29, 2009 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Rubio thing is tough, because emotionally he is the best player the Wolves have drafted, or at least the one with the most potential, since KG, so I think you can allow the fans to be irrational. I think this stance of not trading RR is more out of hope of what he can become, not because CP3 is the only equal value for RR in the NBA, so get a grip.
Second, using every statistical analysis, and even the eye test, Kevin Love at 19 years old was a better player than LMA. LMA has gotten marginally better each year and has remained healthy, and is older the Love. LMA may also fit the needs of Portland’s roster better. But I think there is no doubt in mind, and I drive to Portland to see plenty of NBA games, that Kevin Love is better than LaMarcus Aldridge.
by Ebomb on Jun 29, 2009 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pfft, Aldridge has multiple all-nba appearances in his future……………………………..
The fact that I can’t keep a straight face while typing this is hard to convey.
Jennings: F*** the Knicks, them n***** is always going to be weak.
by Xand1 on Jun 30, 2009 7:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're not talking about the #5 pick.
We’re talking about a player. A player we don’t want to trade. His name is Ricky Rubio.
by princelyfrank on Jun 29, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you propose NOLA do?
They are deep in the shit financially and need to clear a ton of salary. They can do one of two things:
1. They can get rid of just about everyone except CP3. This leaves them with Paul and a bunch of cheap crap, which means they start losing, and in a year or two Paul demands a trade anyway.
2. They can trade Paul and keep the rest of their core.
If they elect to trade Paul, tell me where they could do better than RR and Kevin Love? Keep in mind before you answer that they can’t take anyone back making a ton of money long term (or someone that’s about to make a ton of money) or else they’re just back in the same old shit in the next year or two. This means no Durant, no Roy, etc… Hell, this is why I didn’t say Al Jefferson instead of Kevin Love since Big Al is owed over $40 mil + in the next 4 years.
Look at the cost – Four to five years of Rubio on a rookie contract and three to four of Love at the same rate. As far as return of talent – Most basketball people think Rubio will be a special player and Love is one of the best, young bigs in the game that rebound, pass, and score (and led one of the best rookie classes in years in PER). Pretty damn good return for a guy everyone knows you can’t afford to keep.
"I'm gonna make you cry...I'm gonna make you cry and dip my cookie in your tears!!!"
by mutleyil on Jun 29, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then by all acounts, feel free not to come back a 3rd time :).
Off course Rubio isn’t as good as CP3 yet … but Rubio is so special, the medal game thing at age 17 … off course it’s hard to compare potential to established … that said, yes, getting CP3 in a trade for Rubio would be great but there’s an arguement that they are in major cost cutting mode … I don’t think there’s a better chance for them to get possibly equal talent back (Rubio might eventually be the next CP3, only he’s a lot cheaper at the moment and they’re not going for a championship now anyway).
ALSO, did you not see what they were asking for Tyson Chandler .. that was cheap too.
BUT If you had read the guy’s post you’d already know the cost cutting argument. If you don’t agree, than just say so instead of just acting like you know everything…
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
by Wim (Belgium) on Jun 29, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If, and only IF we have to trade him … and I do think that if he really doesn’t wanna play here our hands are tied … If he isn’t motivated and just looking to get traded, he’s really of no use to us. That said, off course we have to do everything we can to make him see that there’s a real chance for him here to be the face of a franchise…
That said; I like some of the things you put out. Really like the research you’ve done:
CP3 would off course be nice; can’t really argue with that.
I also really like Devin Harris. Problem is I think he’s an even worse fit next to Flynn… If we could do some kind of 3 way thingy that gets us Harris, CDR and Lopez for Rubio, Flynn and 2nd rounder I’d do it .. but I don’t think that’s possible straight up because we’d give them the Flynn, Rubio back court
So like, but not very plausiable
If Phoenix does the deal; you’re right that sounds very enticing. I don’t think they’d go with Barbose so I’ll just take Bellinelli: Biedrins, Bellinelli, Curry. That sounds like a good deal; fixes our front court + we got a nice back court:
Rotation at 1,2,3
Flynn (30), Curry (10), Bassy (8)
Curry(20), Bellinelli (18), Brewer (10)
Brewer(20), Gomes (20), Carney (8)
If Flynn gets injured it goes to:
Curry (30), Bassy (18)
Brewer (30), Bellinelli (18)
Gomes (25), Carney (23)
If Curry gets injuried it goes to:
Flynn (30), Bassy (18)
Brewer (30), Bellinelli (18)
Gomes (25), Carney (23)
I like that versatility .. though our perimeter defense still looks like crap… (the rotation at 4,5 is obvious I think)
Ellis + Andris Biedriens also looks like a nice deal, though I’m not on fire for it, would like next year’s 1st rounder for it … Rubio is just so special .. I’d feel bad giving him up for 2, although very good fitting, “good” players.
The Blazers players also look good but I’d want Petteri Koponen in there since I so like the kid, I’m sure that wouldn’t be a problem for the Blazers…
The other 2 deals I don’t like :)
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
by Wim (Belgium) on Jun 29, 2009 4:03 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
the Lakers are the dark horse
1. Los Angeles is probably an appealing destination for Rubio, w/r/t marketing opportunities.
2. Expectations are the Lakers will soon have their core players locked up for at least 2 or 3 years. They can then afford to deal their draft picks, because it is unlikely any draftees could crack the rotation.
3a. The Lakers can offer Morrison’s expiring contract for Songaila’s 2yr deal
3b. They can sign and trade Shannon Brown(3 yr deal, but only 1yr guaranteed) for Telfair’s 2yr deal.
3c. They can offer J. Farmar(1yr remaining, with team option for 2yr)
4. Having traded 2 draftpicks for $4.5M and a couple of 2nd round picks, the Lakers might offer cash and their extra picks.
Is it an offer the Wolves can’t refuse? Certainly not. Minny will have cap space to play even if they keep Songaila and Telfair; Brown isn’t a proven commodity; and they already have a better pg prospect than Farmar.
Anyway, if I’m Minnesota, that’s the framework of any deal for Rubio: Two #1s, about $5M in expiring contracts, a young prospect, $3M cashmoney, and extra picks.
"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."
by ignign*kt on Jun 29, 2009 12:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Taking
1st round draft picks from a team with as much talent as the Lakers is not a valuable trade asset. I can’t see a deal that would work, Kahn wants to build around young talent, and besides Bynum along with his injury history, they don’t have the parts.
Shannon Brown? Farmar? Morrison? Plus the 29th Pick in the 2010 and 2011 NBA Drafts?
Horrible.
by Ebomb on Jun 29, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since the Lakers dealt Memphis their 2008 and 2010 1st rounders
and the League forbids teams from dealing consecutive 1st rounders, the Lakers would only be able to offer the 2012 and 2014 picks. I agree, not the most attractive first rounders, but the probability of the picks being late 1st rounders dips a little bit.
Now, teams that are struggling or mediocre will be reluctant to trade their picks. So, I don’t know that you’ll get 1st rounders from those teams.
"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."
by ignign*kt on Jun 29, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why unpredictable first round picks should not be the main assets in a trade for Rubio
by Ebomb on Jun 29, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There aren't a lot of teams with a need for PG
willing to fork over their 1st rounders. The only team I can think of is NY; and since they’re rebuilding, those draft picks are very valuable. Who else is there? Indiana? Would Rubio play there?
I think a better option would be a trade with Miami(Beasley > Farmar).
"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."
by ignign*kt on Jun 29, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those picks could be conditional, too.
Kobe’s probably going to retire in 5 or 6 yrs. Minny could conceivably pass on protected late picks; by the time the picks are unprotected, the Lakers may be picking in the lottery. It’s a gamble.
"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."
by ignign*kt on Jun 29, 2009 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Add a Trevor Ariza to that and we might have a complete (or close to) starting lineup
BetterLaettner
by BetterLaettnerThanRider on Jun 30, 2009 9:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Lakers might want Gomes then, to replace Ariza
and make the salaries match. Gomes still has a lot of potential and a reasonable contract, plus the Wolves don’t have much depth at that position; so, I’m sure the Wolves would be reluctant to sign off on it. Maybe if Brewer comes back strong from his injury, that’d be the deciding factor. If that is the case, maybe Brewer could be substituted for Gomes.
"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."
by ignign*kt on Jun 30, 2009 8:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perspective from a Blazer fan
First off, I think what Rubio and his camp are doing is shameful. As soon as his agent started making demands about who he will or will not play for, I wish the GMs had signed a league-wide pact not to draft the little snot. You play for the team that wants you, and you pretend to like it. Griffin was convincing enough that he was excited to play for the Clips. That’s all you need to do off the court.
Let’s assume Rubio lives up to his potential/hype. I hope he does, because he’ll be fun to watch, wherever he lands.
If Rubio decides to go back to Europe for a year or two, why would the Wolves trade him? They would get at least slightly less than he’d otherwise be worth, because he’s not an immediate help. Are the Wolves looking at a championship window sometime in the next two years? Of course not. With or without Rubio, they’ll probably still suck this year, likely the next (sorry). Why not suck hard and rack up some more lottery picks? It is assumed that Rubio will leave Min as soon as possible. So if you’re only going to have him for a total of 5 years, why not have him after a couple more years of Euro development, when he’ll be a little better, and when the team may have a better chance to move up in the playoffs? Letting Ricky start with the Wolves in 2 years seems like it would actually be better than having him now.
From Rubio’s perspective, I think he needs to start in the NBA asap. While a couple more years in Europe will help his game, he’d develop faster in the NBA against top level talent. For a guy who seems concerned with money, he’s killing himself financially by staying in Europe. As soon as he moves here, he gets better endorsement deals. By waiting 2 years, there’s a good chance he’s looking at one less NBA contract in his career. It’s those mid to late career contracts that bring in the bucks.
To recap, there doesn’t seem to be a reason for the Wolves to trade Rubio, and I think they benefit from him staying in Europe for 2 more years, but if he really wants to maximize his career, he needs to get here as fast as he can.
Rex is a starter by the 2010 trade deadline. Watch.
by dan_the_man on Jun 29, 2009 3:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
The sure fire way to only get cents on the dollar for Rubio is to trade him now.
And Minnesota has absolutely no reason or incentive to do it.
by Auswolf on Jun 29, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, but don't get me wrong
Under the right circumstances, I’d love to see Rubio traded away for cents on the dollar. I’m thinking a 3-way trade with Blazers, Nets and Wolves that sends Rubio to Jersey, Devin Harris to Portland, and garbage to the Twin Cities.
Don’t hate me for my dreams.
Rex is a starter by the 2010 trade deadline. Watch.
by dan_the_man on Jun 29, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was agreeing with you.
As for your dreams……..
by Auswolf on Jun 30, 2009 1:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Few Thoughts-
There isn’t a whole lot to say about these threads that hasn’t been said.
1. I think Rubio playing in Turkey or Spain are really pretty ideal threats. The worldwide marketing opportunities would be so much greater playing in the US. Does he think the ACB league gets serious pub in China? If Ricky says he’ll play in Ankara for the next 20 years- More power to him. He won’t so why bother.
2. He’ll get his endorsements probably even if he’s only a slightly above average PG. He’s a human highlight reel that’s probably going to be on the Sportscenter Top 10 everyone night. For example- if Rubio turns into a Devin Harris type player (Good but not great)- he’s still due for mucho dinero on account of his highlights.
3. You don’t trade him unless your blown away by the offer. You don’t trade him for 3 fringe starters. This kid had the type of game that could get the Target Center sold out again- receiving Travis Outlaw and Jerryd Bayless would have no such potential. If he stays in Europe fine- if he comes to the NBA- he’s going to be a Timberwolf.
4. This is kind of unrelated to the rest of his post. I do think his shooting will come around. People that have followed him for quite a while not that he’s improved in this area since his breakthrough at the U-16 Championships. I’m not projecting him as an elite shooter- but I think he’ll be capable enough to go with his other strengths.
by Jose Cordoba on Jun 29, 2009 5:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with
A lot of the post, and a lot of these comments.
Rubio will not be in MN.
He’ll be just fine going back to Europe for 2 years. He’ll make over 300k per year, then be 20 with no buyout. That’s not a likely scenario I don’t think, but that’s the “worst case” and it isn’t all that bad in his eyes.
I do not think Rubio alone would sell out the Target Center. Winning would sell out the Target Center. KG alone didn’t see out the Target Center, as I found myself going on some sparse nights with him there.
Also, I do not understand why you could not see a Knicks trade. Kahn is buddies with Walsh. Next year’s draft should be pretty deep; I’d trade Rubio if a first round pick next year is part of the package; especially since the Knicks will still suck next year. Maybe take an expiring contract, or a cheap player. Rubio has stated it’s a team he’d want to go to.
IMO there are a lot of options. The Wolves aren’t going to be a factor for several years. Rebuilding from the ground up takes patience. This is like managing an expansion team: there’s no coach, no system, and 1.5 good players.
by Mark Kieffer on Jun 29, 2009 9:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes
and if he goes back to Europe for 2 years, his NBA rights still belong to the Twolves. As you say, rebuilding takes patience. Why not wait for Rubio? He’s clearly better than any player you are going to get for him. Or at least has more potential for stardom.
As for filling Target, maybe not, but he’s gonna help sell tickets. The winning will have to come, but he is very appealing.
As for a first round pick, well, that would be nice, if the Knicks had a first round pick next year. They already traded it.
And the time to trade Rubio for a high pick is probably never, but if it’s ever, it’s after the lottery, when you know where that pick is, not take some flyer on a pick you can’t identify next year.
Finally, Rubio, to my knowledge, has stated nothing about wanting to play in New York.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 29, 2009 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, I do not understand why you could not see a Knicks trade. Kahn is buddies with Walsh. Next year’s draft should be pretty deep; I’d trade Rubio if a first round pick next year is part of the package; especially since the Knicks will still suck next year. Maybe take an expiring contract, or a cheap player. Rubio has stated it’s a team he’d want to go to.
With what? The Knicks are an awful trade partner.
IMO there are a lot of options. The Wolves aren’t going to be a factor for several years. Rebuilding from the ground up takes patience. This is like managing an expansion team: there’s no coach, no system, and 1.5 good players.
I take it you count Love as “0.5”. Cute.
There’ll be a coach shortly. Then there will be a system evolve. And if we can have Rubio, why not have 3 good players.
by Auswolf on Jun 30, 2009 1:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think NY's unprotected draft pick next year
already belongs to Utah.
"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."
by ignign*kt on Jun 30, 2009 3:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ridiculous, what the heck is New York doing giving away an unprotected pick. They are likely going to lose both Lee and Robinson, still be over the cap with the following lineup
Darko/Curry/Sene
Hill
Chandler/Harrington/Jeffries/Galinari
Hughes
Duhon
That team is going to be horrible, especially if they don’t make in moves in preparation for 2010 Free Agency.
by Ebomb on Jun 30, 2009 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, they have a pretty good cap situation
for next year. If I were them, I wouldn’t match big offers for either Lee or Robinson, who are both RFAs this summer.
They are really only committed to roughly 23 million for 2010-11, including the team options for Chandler and Gallinari. That’s Curry’s and Jeffries player options. Other than that, everyone expires after this season.
Walsh has done a very good job at creating that cap room for next year, but of course the roster is completely devoid. We’ll see if they are able to put a roster together with that cap room. Using it is as hard as creating it.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2009 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No ones questioing the cap space creation
But how much easier would it be to recruit free agents if they could actually use their own high lottery pick before free agency versus trying to sell LeBron or Wade on joining Curry Hill, Chandler, and Galinari
by Ebomb on Jun 30, 2009 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No doubt
What was the deal that cost them next year’s pick? I can’t remember. The Scott Layden-Zeke Thomas back to back GMs…just terrible.
By the way, don’t be surprised if Galinari becomes a real player this year. That guy has a lot of game. Of course, back surgery isn’t good, but if healthy, that guy can play.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2009 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Phoenix received it when they traded Marbury to NY
Then Utah acquired it in 2004 as a part of a trade with ex-Wolf Tom Gugliotta as the centerpiece.
"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."
by ignign*kt on Jun 30, 2009 7:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A trade with the Knicks would be terrible.
Since the Knicks don’t have any actual players worth a damn, I would only consider such a thing if they included upwards of three first round picks, like in the C-Webb trade. Even then I wouldn’t actually WANT to do such a thing.
by princelyfrank on Jun 30, 2009 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Say we don’t sign Rubio this year + we traded away our 18 and also won’t be signing any 2nd rounders.
What does this mean for our cap sitatution. Does this mean we’ll be getting our SG/SF through FA? What are the possibilities in this hypothetical situation, sign and trades and stuff like that (I’m not very good with the financial thingys)….
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
by Wim (Belgium) on Jun 30, 2009 10:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, it's not established what the cap is going to be for this year
Right now, including Flynn and Ellington, they have roughly $54 million in committed salaries for this season. Last season the cap was between 58-59 million, and I assume it isn’t going up.
A lot salary is expiring after this year. Roughly $24 million in contracts that simply end after this season, with no options. Another $6 million in team options that I could imagine them not exercising (Brewer, Pecherov, though Brewer is unlikely). Assuming they keep Brewer, let Pecherov go, keep Flynn and Ellington, and all player options are exercised, you are looking at roughly $33 million in salary committments for 2010-11. Not including Rubio.
Sign and trades are real rarities. They will have a few million under the cap, but not a ton, Most likely is trading some of those expiring deals between now and the trade deadline for longer-term pieces, though it’s difficult to get young players that way.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
More than likely...
More guys will be moved during the summer, and they’ll fill in the roster holes with 1-year deals. These would likely still be guys who can play, so even if they’re not part of the long-term future, they won’t be a detriment to the team when they’re on the court.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 30, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Knicks Trade?
See my perspective would be if the Knicks want to give up Jordan Hill and Wilson Chandler who is a slasher and defender or a 1st rounder next year…let’s face it they will still be bad so it should be a lottery pick. Now Hill is a PF however no one knows 4 sure Big Al will be the same…and the same for Brewer. Why not get solid backups or guys who can step in if their injuries return? Anyone have thoughts on that?
by DJ1980 on Jun 30, 2009 2:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts are that I have no interest
in trading Rubio for the Knicks parts. How does that push the Wolves toward championship contention?
And they don’t have a first rounder next year.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2009 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
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.
