fishmike wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:Some would simply call this low risk, high reward. As many posted on the trade reaction threads, worst case scenario, this blows up and we get a pick. We are offering less money than anybody for FAs, so it's not a great sell. We had to gamble a bit but we have our pick and have to assume the system will be rectified in 2017. We should be in an advantageous position either way.

If it was low risk, high reward, why doesnt everybody sign lots of injured players? Its high risk high reward. Only hedge is the lotto pick.

I guess the real question is how many players have to remain healthy for them to be competitive and how many have to be injured for them to get a good lotto pick?

They do. Mosgov had tons of injuries... big money. Beal is a ticking timebomb, huge contract. Chandler Parsons had the Houston/STAT surgery... just got offered a massive deal. We could go on an on with this... teams 100% do sign tons of injured players and the reason is simple, impact talent is the hardest thing to acquire and keep. If Noah only plays 50 games but is reasonably healthy come playoff time (assuming the KNicks are in) he is a huge player for us.

Every signing carries risk, but teams would rather have to manage injured talent than fail to attract it at all.

Good point. Not many low mileage Mercedes Benz out there at wholesale prices. Hopefully they are signed with some team options.