dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:I hate what Houston is offering. To take on 30 mil in salary to gain 15 mil in cap space in 2015 and not come out of it with at least one good young player for the future is a horrible trade. Maybe Walsh does it but I can't imagine PJax repeating the McGrady trade. Taking on that 30 mil to steer Melo to Houston without getting proper compensation is just a bad deal. The Knicks might be better off just letting Melo walk as opposed to that deal.
In regards to still paying for the Melo deal. The Knicks couldn't trade a first round pick until 2014 because of all of the picks they had traded before including the McGrady deal. It is why many thought the Knicks didn't have the assets to get the deal done. It sucks that the one first rounder sent out in that deal ended up being a lottery pick but one future first in a deal for franchise player isn't an outrageous price in my opinion.

what franchise player are you referring to?

And a pick swap in 2016.

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

Jmpasq wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

The Bulls would be getting an All-NBA player. I'd hardly consider that to be "nothing".

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

The Bulls would be getting an All-NBA player. I'd hardly consider that to be "nothing".

Its nothing if you can sign him as a FA. Why couldnt the Bulls amnesty Boozer trade their draft picks "If they really want that cap space" for future picks or at least early 2nd rounders . Trade Hinrich or a combination of players for nothing bam cap space.

I hope you guys are right 2 2014 1st rounders for Melo and an expiring deal would be an outstanding get for Melo considering he can just walk. Trade Chandler than as well and we are getting a nice nucleus of young players to build on.

I would rather this happen then keeping Melo . I want this team to be very bad next season so we can go into 2015 flush with cap space and a top 5 pick.

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

Why couldn't they just give us the assets though? We are, after all, giving them an asset in return. Seems like a quid pro quo in this circumstance would be natural.

Yeah, sure, plus they get the Bird Rights too and can give Melo an extra year too, right? I just meant that if things go south there is a chance that CHI just signs him outright. Which would blow.

There would be no extra year but Melo would still get higher annual raises through a sign and trade. So there is still some incentive for him being traded.

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

The Bulls would be getting an All-NBA player. I'd hardly consider that to be "nothing".

Its nothing if you can sign him as a FA. Why couldnt the Bulls amnesty Boozer trade their draft picks "If they really want that cap space" for future picks or at least early 2nd rounders . Trade Hinrich or a combination of players for nothing bam cap space.

I hope you guys are right 2 2014 1st rounders for Melo and an expiring deal would be an outstanding get for Melo considering he can just walk. Trade Chandler than as well and we are getting a nice nucleus of young players to build on.

I would rather this happen then keeping Melo . I want this team to be very bad next season so we can go into 2015 flush with cap space and a top 5 pick.

I've broke down the financials at least 3 times in this thread. NO! THE BULLS CANNOT SIGN MELO OUTRIGHT UNLESS THEY AMNESTY BOOZER, MOVE THEIR PICKS AND TRADE GIBSON. But if they do all of that and get rid of Gibson, what team would they really be left with that Melo would want to join? Why do all of that when the Knicks could assume Boozer's contract, the very same draft picks they'd have to give up anyway and a player that becomes redundant with Melo on the team (Jimmy Butler)?

The official deal would need to be Carmelo Anthony, Iman Shumpert, Toure Murry, Jeremy Tyler and Cole Aldrich for Carlos Boozer, Kirk Hinrich, Jimmy Butler, Jimmer Fredette, the rights to Nikola Mirotic and the 16th and 19th picks. That not only allows the Bulls to keep Gibson but it preserves their ability to use their full MLE, instead of the $3 million one; it preserves their two trade exceptions that they could use to get additional players; AND it preserves their ability to re-sign their very own free agents without having to risk additional assets e.g. DJ Augustin, Nazr Mohammed. All the benefits I mentioned, are things they'd lose if they look to sign Melo, which would leave them with no flexibility to add other players of worth. Like I said before, the Bulls need to trade, every bit as we'd want to trade (if Melo wants to go there).

Boozer packaged with both those picks for nothing in return would be good for any team with cap space.

Gibson is a quality player for sure, and I'd like to think if he were traded, the Bulls could get a cheaper player and.or more picks.

Or they could also trade those 16, 19 picks in this draft for future picks to clear more space, or just draft overseas players and dont bring them over this season.

knickscity wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

The Bulls would be getting an All-NBA player. I'd hardly consider that to be "nothing".

Its nothing if you can sign him as a FA. Why couldnt the Bulls amnesty Boozer trade their draft picks "If they really want that cap space" for future picks or at least early 2nd rounders . Trade Hinrich or a combination of players for nothing bam cap space.

I hope you guys are right 2 2014 1st rounders for Melo and an expiring deal would be an outstanding get for Melo considering he can just walk. Trade Chandler than as well and we are getting a nice nucleus of young players to build on.

I would rather this happen then keeping Melo . I want this team to be very bad next season so we can go into 2015 flush with cap space and a top 5 pick.

I've broke down the financials at least 3 times in this thread. NO! THE BULLS CANNOT SIGN MELO OUTRIGHT UNLESS THEY AMNESTY BOOZER, MOVE THEIR PICKS AND TRADE GIBSON. But if they do all of that and get rid of Gibson, what team would they really be left with that Melo would want to join? Why do all of that when the Knicks could assume Boozer's contract, the very same draft picks they'd have to give up anyway and a player that becomes redundant with Melo on the team (Jimmy Butler)?

The official deal would need to be Carmelo Anthony, Iman Shumpert, Toure Murry, Jeremy Tyler and Cole Aldrich for Carlos Boozer, Kirk Hinrich, Jimmy Butler, Jimmer Fredette, the rights to Nikola Mirotic and the 16th and 19th picks. That not only allows the Bulls to keep Gibson but it preserves their ability to use their full MLE, instead of the $3 million one; it preserves their two trade exceptions that they could use to get additional players; AND it preserves their ability to re-sign their very own free agents without having to risk additional assets e.g. DJ Augustin, Nazr Mohammed. All the benefits I mentioned, are things they'd lose if they look to sign Melo, which would leave them with no flexibility to add other players of worth. Like I said before, the Bulls need to trade, every bit as we'd want to trade (if Melo wants to go there).

If they amnesty Boozer and trade Gibson...they'd still have all of their starters minus Boozer, but I'm not sold they'd have to do that.

Boozer packaged with both those picks for nothing in return would be good for any team with cap space.

Gibson is a quality player for sure, and I'd like to think if he were traded, the Bulls could get a cheaper player and.or more picks.

Or they could also trade those 16, 19 picks in this draft for future picks to clear more space, or just draft overseas players and dont bring them over this season.