22 Sep 2015 01:26:33
76ers
Looks like Anthony Bennett will be bought out by Twolves and become a FA. Sixers and Portland are the only two teams with enough cap room to sign Bennett. Hinkie was a big fan of Bennett. Sixers give Bennett a chance for playing time and save his career at only 22 years old. Sixers should cut Wallace and Landry immediately and give Bennett and recently signed Christian Wood a chance to make the roster. Bennett has played with stauskas on team Canada, and played well. Seems like a good fit.
22 Sep 2015 02:08:08
Sixers and the blazer are the two teams that have enough cap space to claim him off the waivers for his 5.8 mill. After he clears a team could use its 2.8 mle exception to sign him. I'd love to see him on the Spurs. Pop would make good use of him. He is usually the type of player kupcheack has signed these past year like Wes Johnson Ed Davis Kendall Marshall etc. and gives him a chance but he ont see time at PF there either because of Randle nance and bass. I'm shaky on the idea of him playing SF.
22 Sep 2015 02:22:36
Grizzles and raptors are some other teams to look at. Raptors want a Canadian born player. Grizzles could use a backup PF. Still think Spurs are the best fit.
22 Sep 2015 07:34:43
There has to be a way to make a trade here
If Bennett and Rudez are bought out, it costs MIN $5.8 + $1.2 = $7.0 (a little less if Bennett will lave money on the table), for guaranteed zero production.
If PHI makes an offer (let's say, $3 mil to step,in front of teams with a room exception, then $3 mil for the next two years, team options), that costs them $3, and they still pay Gerald Wallace $10 for no production, so that's $13 mil.
Suppose the two trade Bennett and Rudez for Wallace and some incentive.
MIN pays $3 mil more for the incentive.
PHI pays $3 mil less, but that money is additional cap space. They'd get Bennett either way, but instead of losing $3 mil in cap space, they gain $3 mil in cap space to continue to have the dominant position. The question though is whether there is some incentive here that would be acceptable for both teams?
22 Sep 2015 13:20:34
Shrink: the problem is the Bennett contract.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. If you trade for him or claim him on waivers, you inherit his contract. There's an option for next year that needs to be picked up pretty soon- before this season.
The way to get Bennett is to let him clear waivers then be free of his current contract. Then you can sign him to a new contract that has the appropriate options and incentives given his play.
If I'm Bennett, I'm looking at a young team where he can play and not be in the heat of national scrutiny. OR, I'm going home to Canada where I believe he played well for the National Team this summer.
If that team's the Sixers, he can try to be the first forward off the bench either at the 3 or the 4. The Sixers have always been enamored with Bennett (they were willing to move Jrue Holliday to NOP if he, Noel or Oladipo were there at 6) and also want a stretch 4.
22 Sep 2015 15:06:59
Yes, Bennett is overpaid, but he's not as overpaid as Gerald Wallace, and that difference costs PHI cap space. In the trade above, PHI could sign Bennett and pay $15 mil for Wallace and Bennett, or trade Wallace and incentive for him, and pay $7 mil for Bennett and Rudez (waived), but have $8 mil difference in cap space.
Regarding the rules for a player on a rookie scale contract, a team has until October 31 to decide whether to accept the team option for the following year (Bennett's is $7.3).
For many teams, I agree the way to get Bennett and wait for him to clear waivers and get rid of his bad contract. However, the Sixers are a team that have an even worse contract, and a trade guarantees he goes to you.
22 Sep 2015 17:04:53
Edit to last post. Bennett + Wallace make $12 mil, so it's $6 mil in net cap space.
22 Sep 2015 17:29:39
If the Sixers trade for him and don't pick up the option, then what's the upside? They get one year out of him. If he plays great, he's going to want big $ that the Sixers probably won't offer since they have Saric on the way and (maybe) Embiid too. If he plays lousy, then he's lousy.
The only way this works for the Sixers is if they get him cheap, he signs a reasonable contract, and he plays well. Its time he bet on himself.
Isn't he Thomas Robinson? Their stats are very comparable. Robinson just signed for 2 years for $1 mil/year. If Robinson performs, he cashes in. If not, he doesn't deserve to cash in.
Sixers pick Bennett after he clears waivers, offer him a chance to play and prove himself as a stretch 4, sign him to 2 years at $2.5m per year. Everybody wins.
22 Sep 2015 18:42:16
The benefit is that PHi would get a chance to kick the tires on Bennett, to see if he improves and how he fits with the team, on and off the court. If he fails, then no harm done. If he succeeds, it's true he's not locked into a new contract, but PHI certainly has the inside track on bringing him back on a reasonable deal. He also has had one year to learn the system, get comfortable with his teammates, the team and the city.
The buy out just got done a few minutes ago, so I guess it's a moot point.
ps - I never should have used the term "kick the tires," because now I envision the Micheline Man with Bennett's head on top.
22 Sep 2015 21:24:02
Yeah, makes no sense for the sixers to do this. None. At. All. They can potentially snag Bennett for much less. And they also have a very large, expiring contract in Wallace. Why in the world would they, of all teams, get rid of that huge trade chip for nothing. While i'm sure minnesota would love to get rid of those players AND gain a trade chip. won't happen. I knock Heinke a lot, but he would have to be a fool to give up that expiring contract for no reason what so ever.
23 Sep 2015 05:50:29
@Pizza- There is a common misperception out there that once a contract becomes an expiring, it becomes a " huge trade chip," and that is clearly not true.
The value of an expiring is not in the contract, but as a salary-match mechanism to facilitate a team's willingness to take on future salary that another team does not want.
The contract still means somebody has to pay Wallace $10 mil in real money for what will undoubtedly be far less than $10 mil In production.
And in this case, Wallace isn't even a necessary mechanism! PHI is under the cap and does not need an expiring to match salaries anyway.
23 Sep 2015 05:52:07
Oh, and even I if expirings had trade value, every piece they would get back here was an expiring too - plus additional cap space.
23 Sep 2015 14:37:05
There is no common misperception. You can try and spin it how you want. heres the actual reason as to why a team, so far under the salary cap, would want the expiring salary. And it is ESPECIALLY true for the sixers, as is evident with recent moves.
Are they under the cap? Of course. Are most teams in the NBA? No. So basically, the sixers, by having this contract can trade with a team over the cap, take on a decent sized contract AND gain additional future assets. For the sake of your argument, you ignore that fact. You then followed it up by trying to claim they get expirings.
Fact is this, a team will make a move to part with a draft pick for sizeable cap relief. Something like 10 mill or so(wallaces value). Now, in what you are saying, 2 expiring contracts for much less money. it actually works negatively for the sixers. Not only are they unable to give a team nearly as much cap relief in a trade and thus receive far worse assets. but on top of which, they would have to trade TWO players and then more as opposed to just 1 player.
And heres an even crazier reason as to why they clearly want an expiring as opposed to just giving it to your team as some form of relief for the wolves. what if they decide they want to snag someone like Bledsoe. I don't know the exact numbers, but he's at 15mil give or take. Suns are over the cap. If the sixers wanted to trade for him, instead of the 2 players you suggest at 6-7 mill, 4 other players at 2 mill and multiple draft picks. it is far easier to facilitate with an expiring contract.
Thus, if they want to gain future assets, hold on to expiring. If they want to trade for a larger contract, hold on to expiring. If they feel like doing a good service which only benefits the wolves and completely unbeneficial to themselves. take the advice of a homer.
Come up with whatever other reasons you want. You are just wrong. It isn't a misperception. it's a truth to help facilitate large trade which will undoubtedly include many draft picks. Because remember. that's what the sixers have.
23 Sep 2015 15:20:30
Stop and think about what you are writing. You are completely wrong here.
The value of an expiring comes from a team's willingness to take on future negative salary - not the contract itself.
----------
In this particular case, you are even more wrong.
For PHI, the deal changes a $10 mil expiring into a $5.8 mil expiring, a $1.2 mil expiring, and $3 mil more in additional cap space.
All of these assets can do the same function - absorb bad future salary. However, the cap space is a better asset than an expiring because it is more flexible in matching, and also better because it doesn't force the owner to pay extra money this year.
23 Sep 2015 15:23:59
Speaking of the rules, I read elsewhere a rule from the Collective Bargaining Agreement about rookie scale that killed Bennett's trade value, that I wanted to share. I did not realize that if a team declines an option on a rookie scale player, the next season when they are a free agent, the maximum they can offer is the same amount that he could have gotten from rookie scale. The rule is in place to stop a team from being able to offer a star rookie a big free agent contract early, by declining his rookie scale option and then offering a giant deal the next season.
Right now, it's hard to imagine any team would pick up Bennett's $7.3 option for 2016-17 season, especially since they'd have to make that decision by October 31. So trading for his one year deal becomes a lose-lose situation. If he's bad next year, he was a waste of money. In the slim chance he blows up next year, his new team can only offer the free agent $7.3 mil, while the 29 other teams can offer him more and his new team loses him anyway. The timing stunk, because next year, many teams have lots of cap space, plus right now the cap is rising so fast that $7.3 won't seem that bad if Bennett could show he could make good on some of his potential and become a 5-7th player.
23 Sep 2015 15:33:55
@Pizza - I thought about it, and I think I have a way to demonstrate this to you.
If I am right, any deal you could do with Wallace's expiring, you could also do better with Bennett's $5.8 expiring, Rudez $1.2 expiring, and $3 mil cap space. I say it can do the exact same function, and more cheaply. If you are right, the Wallace expiring is far better at absorbing future salary, and matching for PHI.
I say, prove you are right. Show me a deal that you can financially do with Wallace that you couldn't simply insert the new package instead, and get a better player and more savings for the other team?
I think if you do the math, you will see the points I made are true, and nothing is being ignored.
23 Sep 2015 16:25:06
Shrink, you are clearly not reading what I am writing.
If you are clearly the one that knows all on basketball. let's say Bledose becomes available. The sixers love him. Proposed trade is basically, Bledsoe/Morris for Embiid and picks(hypothetical), but what then? Trade fails.
What they do is package Wallace and his expiring to get these deals done. The sixers clearly have a habit of taking on contracts along with picks, and Wallaces contract would become a HUGE asset and those 3 mill more important depending on how large the deal becomes.
You are wrong, and clearly just can't let it go. It doesn't matter either way, because everyone in the league knew that they would be giving away value in helping the wolves trade bennett for an expiring. Everyone knew he would be bought out. And everyone knew that besides the wolves, not a single team in the top ten had a desire of picking him.
I guess the nice thing is that instead of just blasting everyone's team and comments as wrong, you at least finally acknowledged you have a team. However bad as the wolves are, it at least explains how somehow ALL your comments are skewed strongly in favor of the wolves.
23 Sep 2015 18:16:04
It's sad at you have to send insults to accompany your ignorance. Knowing the CBA does not make you a "homer," but since you keep repeating your error in knowledge, I will spell it out to you.
You continue to point out and say that since PHX is over the salary cap, PHI needs Wallace's contract to salary match. This is not true. Since PHI is UNDER the salary cap, they can take on additional salary, and do not need to send out Wallace's contract to match.
if you don't want to look it up, you can verify it by using the ESPN trade checker.
23 Sep 2015 18:34:30
since your two previous examples in your previous posts, listing the extra contracts you'd need to add to match Bledsoe are wrong, you amended it to add a Morris for Wallace swap. Still your example is not better. Comparing apples to apples (as I challenged you to do, but you seemed to fear), we have:
PHX GETS: Wallace (exp) + Embid + $7 mil savings
PHI GETS: Bledsoe + Morris
Or
PHX GETS: Bennett (exp) + Rudez (exp) + Embid + $10 mil savings
PHI GETS: Bledsoe + Morris
Clearly the second option is better for PHX, because they get a better player AND $3 mil more. They may even toss in an asset over your deal.
And I should point out, both the expirings of Wallace, Bennett, and Rudez all work to eat future Salary. Wallace's deal is not better because it costs PHX more.
23 Sep 2015 18:35:31
since your two previous examples in your previous posts, listing the extra contracts you'd need to add to match Bledsoe are wrong, you amended it to add a Morris for Wallace swap. Still your example is not better. Comparing apples to apples (as I challenged you to do, but you seemed to fear), we have:
PHX GETS: Wallace (exp) + Embid + $7 mil savings
PHI GETS: Bledsoe + Morris
Or
PHX GETS: Bennett (exp) + Rudez (exp) + Embid + $10 mil savings
PHI GETS: Bledsoe + Morris
Clearly the second option is better for PHX, because they get a better player AND $3 mil more. They may even toss in an asset over your deal.
And I should point out, both the expirings of Wallace, Bennett, and Rudez all work to eat future Salary. Wallace is not better because his contract is bigger, and makes PHX pay more for his bad deal this year.
23 Sep 2015 19:40:14
All the math and rules gave me a headache so I couldn't read all the comments. But I agree with Shrink.
24 Sep 2015 06:08:22
UH. just one problem. PHX is not wanting to move Bledsoe. especailly for Oden. I mean Embiid.My bad there. Suns would hang up.