HartfordWhalers wrote:ckchen wrote:HartfordWhalers wrote:
Johnson has an under 1m unguaranteed option for next year, so that cheap 2m option is more expensive (and needs to be picked up by October 31st, while Johnson's can run until next season. Contract wise, Johnson is clearly better.
However, the amounts are small enough you take the better player/prospect.
Agreed. That said, roster depth/breakdown, projected playing time, and the financial commitment will always come into play. I've said it over and over, but these are finance guys who own the team now. They're not going to throw away $1.5M unless someone really separates themselves. If all things are equal (or close to equal) - they will go with player with a guaranteed deal. We're talking about a team that sold a pick in the draft (admittedly, #60) for cash. If you're thinking about pure basketball, you take the pick and draft a potential player, since this is a team that needs all of the players they can get. If you examine a lot of moves the team has made since the new ownership group have come in, there are often financial bases behind them as well.
Wait. Throw away 1.5m? Moultrie gets his 1.5m either way, so that isn;t the cost. If you want, Johnson's 915k would be the cost. However, with the floor, it probably isn't and there is zero cost to switch the players on the team. I would be more inclined to see Moultire's extra 1m over Johnson next year as a real cost.
Okay, if you want to put it that way I guess, the ultimate cost would be the extra 915k. It's still money they wouldn't have to spend. I've seen this salary floor argument before, but frankly, money is money. We have no idea how or if the Sixers will find a way to reach the floor before the end of the season, through trade deadline deals or whatever. In the larger scheme of things, even though it's not relatively a ton of money, my point was simply to say that contracts and finances are a factor.
