Posted by s3231:

Definitely a good idea.

The only thing is it would be very risky on Curry's end to opt out. While it could be a *wink wink* deal where Walsh promises to give him the 1 year 17 million, Curry can't know for sure that Walsh will follow through on that.

After Curry opted out, Walsh could basically say "Screw you, I'm not going to give you the money." Walsh would probably never do that, but it is risky on Curry's part and I'm not sure if his agent would let him take that risk.

If you guys remember the Boozer case a few years ago, he opted out with the promise of signing a new deal with the Cavs. As we all know, he betrayed them and signed with the Jazz instead. This would obviously be a different scenario but if you are Curry, you are probably scared that Walsh might do the same thing and screw you over because it might be in his best interests to do so.

Posted by EwingsGlass:

Posted by earthmansurfer:

Posted by EwingsGlass:

Posted by earthmansurfer:


That is a really interesting idea. Technically we are not breaking any rules. It's clear that we are doing it to get under the cap in 2010. That benefits us and Curry. (We save and he gets another year of salary if he can play in 2010). The NBA though, didn't give us the Mobley DPE cause they see it as connected to 2010. So, I'm wondering if they would give us a hard time on it.

IMO your idea is a very very very big loophole to getting under the cap in time. Not sure how other teams or Stern would respond. But, it's a technicality!

EMS

[Edited by - earthmansurfer on 02-10-2009 05:05 AM]

EMS--questions--- where did you see that the NBA didn't give the Mobley DPE because of 2010? Not sure I understand that, his contract expired before 2010. Also, there would be a penalty from the league on that move. It is too obvious a manipulation of the system... why would anyone with good business sense double Curry's salary after he opted out... there is no other motivativation other than to avoid the salary cap rules. I would think we would at least lose our draft pick on that...

[Edited by - ewingsglass on 02-10-2009 08:17 AM]

EwingGlass,

I don't have a link but remember reading an article on the front page here (ok, perhaps it was a blog) but it mentioned that the league is paying particular attention to these types of trades (where you know you are getting damaged goods). But Mobley had a two year contract (this and next year), not one (would have been off our cap for the 2010 spending) and so (the reasoning goes) that the league didn't want this to become commonplace - You know, teams trading for injured guys and hoping to get a relatively powerful DPE for half the salary.

We gave up Zach's long contract for Tim Thomas (expires for 2010) and Mobley (Same). Further I think the league was trying to prevent "mandatory retirements" (The whole argument with Mobley supposedly knowing beforehand that in a sense he had to retire, which is pretty clear to have been B.S.) With that last statement I mean, doctors often say you need to retire but do you really (like the recent Portland scenario with Miles)? So, the league doesn't want teams with money (e.g. Knicks) to trade for players who might need a medical retirement (e.g. Mobley) to benefit from them retiring (under the table type deals of course). That was long winded, hope that made some sense.

(I agree with you regarding the penalty, as follows)
Anyway, after giving it some more thought, doing that with Curry only circumvents the cap, clearly it's not related to his talent, so it would be ugly and not worth pursuing. Joe Smith all over again.

I think that analysis is correct without getting into 2010-nomics. We tried to bump up the severity of his condition and got rejected.

Now the question regarding Cuttino is-- what are they waiting for? Is it possible that they think his contract can be filler on another trade? I would say that is the only logical reason for holding onto that contract at this point.

Posted by djsunyc:

i don't think anybody can get more than a 12.5% raise on their next contract.

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by djsunyc:

i don't think anybody can get more than a 12.5% raise on their next contract.

its not a raise, Eddy opts out and we sign him to a one year max deal as we have his bird rights

i understand that but i don't think you can re-sign a guy on a deal like that for a max amount. i think there's a limit in how much you can give someone a raise based on their previous contract.

What if he opts out, and we sign him to a two year contract, and heavily frontload it. Is it at all possible to say give him 13 million the first year and then 4 million the second year? That would give us 6 or 7 million in capspace by 2010.

Posted by SupremeCommander:

Interesting idea as always, gary.... nice to seer you posting here