Author | Thread |
AUTOADVERT |
NardDogNation
Posts: 27405 Alba Posts: 4 Joined: 5/7/2013 Member: #5555 |
![]() Personally, I think the latter option (2 years/$22 million) is the better option because it still allows them the opportunity to maintain their cap space this offseason (at $20 million as opposed to $7 million), which will allow them to acquire additional assets from other teams looking to dump contracts. I don't think they'd be averse to acquiring long-termed contracts (capped at 2 years) because they did so for Jason Richardson, who they chose not to buyout. If that's the case, why wouldn't something like this work....
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=mm9owdo Boston effectively gets out from under Gerald Wallace's 2 year deal, and aggregates that salary into an expirer that could be flipped in a deal for Kevin Love and $6 million worth of bad contracts from the Wolves (in 60 days). If the deal involves just picks (of which, the Celtics have 13 of in 5 years), they could make the deal immediately although I suspect that the Wolves will want some combination of prospects (e.g. Sullinger, Smart, Young, Olynk) involved. Meanwhile the Knicks could create $10 million in cap flexibility in the immediate future AND an additional $5 million from waiving Keith Bogans unguaranteed contract. Things would fair better if we could include Larkin in the deal to Philly but he can't be traded until 6 weeks from now. Maybe we could substitute Hardaway for Shumpert and that would suffice. |