[Shams] Harden back to CLE, 3 years $97M

[jbk1234]

Well, $37m instead of $42m is still "less", less than Harden would make if he opted in and less than what Garland would have made had the trade not occurred. We were less than $5m over the 2nd apron last year.

I also assume the Schroder plan was inevitably to offload him this offseason for any flexibility we'd need otherwise-- the Mann trade would've been enough to retain Wade (or sign Kuminga to the tax MLE or something).

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If Harden renegs on the agreement and opts in, there's a non-zero chance that the Cavs cut him and he only gets $13.3M this season (plus whatever the market will bear). That aside, there's no meaningful savings between Garland's number this summer and Harden's unguaranteed number this summer. Every option available to the Cavs if Harden opts in and they keep him for one more season is still there with with Garland on the books.

But lets use your $37M number, he only took $7M less than that in year 1 and got $35M in a fully-guaranteed year 3. That's not less. There's not a credible way to do the math and get to *less.*

$37m is less than $42m. He's taking "less" than his previous contract and less than Garland's contract which would last for two years.

So you're looking at "less" over the three-year term, and no, he's not taking "less" in that third year. But you're assuming the delivered value from Harden in the third year will be nothing. I bet the Cavs (and Harden's agent) are projecting starter-level perofrmance in the third year, which would be worth $20-25m in value. And the logic is deferral of money next year and the year after to the third year of the contract.

That's at least a rational, if difficult to agree with, explanation. I'm not sure there's another team that will agree with the Cavs judgment here.

[toooskies]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If Harden renegs on the agreement and opts in, there's a non-zero chance that the Cavs cut him and he only gets $13.3M this season (plus whatever the market will bear). That aside, there's no meaningful savings between Garland's number this summer and Harden's unguaranteed number this summer. Every option available to the Cavs if Harden opts in and they keep him for one more season is still there with with Garland on the books.

But lets use your $37M number, he only took $7M less than that in year 1 and got $35M in a fully-guaranteed year 3. That's not less. There's not a credible way to do the math and get to *less.*

$37m is less than $42m. He's taking "less" than his previous contract and less than Garland's contract which would last for two years.

So you're looking at "less" over the three-year term, and no, he's not taking "less" in that third year. But you're assuming the delivered value from Harden in the third year will be nothing. I bet the Cavs (and Harden's agent) are projecting starter-level perofrmance in the third year, which would be worth $20-25m in value. And the logic is deferral of money next year and the year after to the third year of the contract.

That's at least a rational, if difficult to agree with, explanation. I'm not sure there's another team that will agree with the Cavs judgment here.

Oh, yes. It's motivated logic that Harden won't go downhill quickly because we already decided he was worth trading our young all-star PG for. There's plenty of that here. But that happens with almost every team that trades for a guy: they're pot-committed to the decision unless it's a complete disaster, and while the ECF was a complete disaster, getting there was further than this roster had ever gone.

[jbk1234]

$37m is less than $42m. He's taking "less" than his previous contract and less than Garland's contract which would last for two years.

So you're looking at "less" over the three-year term, and no, he's not taking "less" in that third year. But you're assuming the delivered value from Harden in the third year will be nothing. I bet the Cavs (and Harden's agent) are projecting starter-level perofrmance in the third year, which would be worth $20-25m in value. And the logic is deferral of money next year and the year after to the third year of the contract.

That's at least a rational, if difficult to agree with, explanation. I'm not sure there's another team that will agree with the Cavs judgment here.

Oh, yes. It's motivated logic that Harden won't go downhill quickly because we already decided he was worth trading our young all-star PG for. There's plenty of that here. But that happens with almost every team that trades for a guy: they're pot-committed to the decision unless it's a complete disaster, and while the ECF was a complete disaster, getting there was further than this roster had ever gone.

It was also the first run, since Mitchell's first year here, where we had all of Mitchell, Allen, and Mobley healthy enough to play in every game of every series.