parson wrote:PetroNet wrote:They signed him for the purpose of being able to trade him and take back 15 million in salary. the choices are either:
a) dont sign humphries, and not be able to trade for someone like millsap or josh smith.
b) sign humphries, and then have the available salary to send out for a millsap or smith
the nets were over the salary cap and luxury tax by a large margin before signing humphries. the only reason they could bring him back is because they owned his rights. it was a no brainer to not only bring him back, but to bring him back on the highest salary/shortest length possible
Could you honestly ever believe that Humphries could get Milsap or Smith?
It's as if the Nets found a paintbrush, walked over to a corner and started painting themselves into it.
Whether or not they can land Milsap or Smith is irrelevant. At the very least, signing hump to the contract they did allows them a chance to even be in the running for those types of players. it was a great signing for the nets, as it gives them flexibility they would otherwise not have.
If you want to criticize trading for Johson and his contract, giving lopez the Max, or overpaying Wallace you can make very legit arguments for that. But to say giving humphries that contract AFTER the team was already committed to being over the luxury tax for the next 4 seasons was a bad signing just shows a lack of understand of the Nets situation.
your options are either:
A) Be over the cap/tax for the next 4 years AND have the ability to take back 15M in a trade
B) be over the cap/tax for the next 4 years and NOT have the ability to take back hard any salary in a trade
they sionged humphries as a trade asset. worst case they deal him as an expiring next year for a pick or young asset