Bobcats/Jazz/Wolves

[shrink]

I think you have the buisness of the nba backwards cousin. Detroit gave us Gordon + pick for Maggettie's expiring 7 mill contract. Next year if Gordon is still here we will be taking bids for Ben's 12 million dollar expiring deal not paying someone to take it from us. Expiring deals are like candy to a eight year old to luxury tax threatened owners. An owner doesn't care about productivity if he can get his hands on a 10 million dollar expiring. They care about productivity when they have to pay for that contract for years.

It's frustrating to see this myth repeated, after so many people have made posts to try to set people straight.

Expirings do not have any special value. Zero. Some owner will write a check, and the player will try to produce enough value to be worth it. I assume we have no argument that Ben Gordon will not be producing $13.2 mil worth of production?

All expirings are is a MECHANISM for a different team to take on a contract without positive value to the sender. The quality that has value is the team's willingness to take on extra years of a bad contract. CHA (or other teams) may provide that by other mechanisms (cap space, TPE's, 25-50% difference in trade matching, etc).

Ben Gordon doesn't become positive value because he's an expiring.

[theatlfan]

You're right for production of 13.5 PPG, 2.0 APG, 2.5 RPG, CHA is paying $25.6 mil for two years. Detroit had to give up a pretty good pick (lottery-protected in 2013, top-8 protected in 2014, top-1 protected in 2015 and unprotected in 2016), just to get out of Gordon's last year!

No way he suddenly has even neutral trade value, let alone enough positive trade value to be bringing back 1sts.

Gordons value is still negative, his contracted compared to production is way to high. His play in CHA is clearly better, but giving up any capspace next year for 13m of gordon is way to much when you could sign a similarly producing FA for the MLE.

CHA might be able to dangle that DET pick + gordon to a team and get out of his 13m next season which is still a huge swing in value from his previous trade value imo.

1st, this is how rehab projects work. You take someone playing poorly from one team for value, prove he's not damaged and reestablish what he can do, and then trade him for more value. Comparisons to what DET paid to lose him mean nothing. The entire point for CHA in taking Gordon was as a rehab project and CHA has done an excellent job here.

The 2nd point here is that I never said that a trading team would take on all Gordon's $$ - they could give CHA another rehab project along with the value (although CHA would definitely prefer the expiring, that would eat into the value of the trade). I know that this won't work for a variety of reasons from both sides, but an example would be to trade Gordon for Biedrins + a pick. GSW doesn't take on $13M in salary, in economic terms they're paying $4M for an elite shooter. CHA would (have to) consider Biedrins a viable rehab project and the pick is the value for taking it on. As noted, I don't see that particular deal having any legs, but the concept is there to work with.

[Kembastockton]

Apples and Oranges! The point is when he becomes an expiring his contract becomes more desirable than it is now. By your logic a bad contract is a bad contract. No one will want it unless the player is productive. That is not true. Some of the worst contracts in league history got moved once they were close to expiration. Heck players who were no longer in the league have had their contracts moved, because they were expiring.

[C.lupus]

I think Minnesota would fire everyone in the FO and start over if they agreed to this.

Hmmm, you got yourself a deal, then.

[shrink]

Apples and Oranges! The point is when he becomes an expiring his contract becomes more desirable than it is now. By your logic a bad contract is a bad contract. No one will want it unless the player is productive. That is not true. Some of the worst contracts in league history got moved once they were close to expiration. Heck players who were no longer in the league have had their contracts moved, because they were expiring.

... because the team with the bad contract was willing to trade their willingness to take on other bad contracts.

That's the incentive. It's just like including a 1st, or giving cash, or adding some other benefit. Nobody wants to pay $13 mil for $6 mil in production unless they are getting something else out of the deal.

[Saltine]

Gordon? LOL
I wouldn't want him for free.
No way we'd move JJ and Dwill for him, that's just absurd.

I don't think Kahn would move Brandon Roy's expiring deal for him straight up, seriously. Even that deal would mean the Wolves would be paying around $21 million for 1.75 seasons of not very good basketball.

[GoBobs]

I think Minnesota would fire everyone in the FO and start over if they agreed to this.

Hmmm, you got yourself a deal, then.

Lmao