Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS

Moderators: Mamba4Goat, pacers33granger, MoneyTalks41890, HartfordWhalers, Texas Chuck, BullyKing, Andre Roberstan, loserX, Trader_Joe

Kemba for Horford: your take?

Walker, Taxes Danger: Boston wins, shedding salary (and possible luxury tax impact) on a player who didn't fit well, and getting back a player who has.
8
10%
Talk the Talk, Walk the Walker: OKC wins, doing right by Horford and getting another 1st rounder.
35
42%
Sky-Walker: both teams win. Boston saves money for a better fit, OKC just keeps on banking assets.
37
44%
Dead Man Walker: both teams lose. Boston is now down yet another asset for a short-term gain at best, and OKC now has to make *another* trade to undo the effect of this one for a middling pick they didn't even need.
4
5%
 
Total votes: 84

shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,249
And1: 19,257
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#161 » by shrink » Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:11 pm

gswhoops wrote:
shrink wrote:
gswhoops wrote:I agree with TC’s framing here. These are two separate transactions and should be seen as such.

Transaction #1 is between the player (Kemba) and their current team (OKC). If the player and team can come to a mutually beneficial arrangement where the player gives back some money and gets to hit free agency early as a result, then they can execute it. Detroit benefitted more from saving $15M than keeping Blake on the roster, so they gave him a buyout. It wasn’t an act of charity.

Transaction #2 is wherever the player chooses to sign in FA. If Kemba would rather play for the Lakers for the TPMLE than the Knicks for $20M, that’s his right and I’m not sure how you “fix” that without fundamentally breaking the free movement of players.

Other than some minor fixes around the edges (maybe you limit in-season buyouts to players in the final year of their contract?) I don’t see how you solve the “problem” of players being willing to take less to play for a better team without radically changing the way the NBA offseason is conducted.

I understand your point, but in real life, these aren’t two separate transactions. The player’s agent has already made the phone calls, and his player decides whether to negotiate a buy out knowing how much and where the next offers will be. The second transaction affects the player’s decision on the first.

The NBA head office has it’s overriding provisions for two, legal transactions to be overruled, and it’s when they block a deal for circumvention. To me, this is the loophole here for in-season buy outs. It may help the individual teams, but unless the NBA wants to start the impossible task of rewriting it’s parity rules to not be based on players’ salaries, but rather their impact, the current system is unfair to most teams in the league. Any time a player wants to sacrifice money to give a team a talent boost - that’s unfair. But in the off-season, at least they have the deterrent of losing a season’s worth of higher salary. In-season buyouts don’t even do that - they get paid market value for the majority of the season by the first team, and then only take a small nick to play for less than market.

Playing for less than your worth is the door that David West used (and thanks for reminding me of his name - I’ve been trying to remember it for a month!). And we are seeing right now that the playoffs have been impacted by Blake Griffin, who’s production has been worth far more than his vet min contract. The loophole remains for an even better player, who may have already made his fortune, to completely unbalance a championship. I think before that happens, to help maintain league parity, this loophole needs to be closed.

I'm fine, at least conceptually, with putting additional limitations on in-season buyouts because I agree that they're a different beast that offseason buyouts. I'm not sure how that looks in practice though - do you ban them completely? Limit them to players in the final year of their contract? Make them pass through waivers or some kind of bidding system before they're free agents?

I do think that this whole discussion is putting way more emphasis on the player "forcing" their way out, and ignoring that the player is giving up money, sometimes very significant money, because they want to play for a contender. Would this discussion be all that different if Blake had negotiated a buyout for the same amount last offseason and then signed with Brooklyn for the minimum?

At the end of the day I don't see a way around the fundamental "problem" (if you think it is one) that sometimes players will be willing to take less money to play for a better team. You'd have to completely up-end free agency and IMO the cure would be far worse than the disease.

Good post.

My first question would be .. Do you think Blake Griffin WOULD have negotiated a buyout if he was only paid the minimum for an entire season? I don’t know, but at least that would have truly been a very significant amount of money lost, to make that choice.

EDIT: Blake gave up $13.3 mil over two years to make this move. That is significant. But I believe he was going to get $37 mil this year, and had a player option for $39 the next year. If he had negotiated a buyout in the offseason, I would have liked to see him play for only the vet min. Maybe continuing to have one team pay a player on another team isn’t something we should be comfortable with either. How much is DET paying to subsidize Blake’s production in BRK?

Anyway, maybe that would be enough of a disincentive to allow the loophole to remain? A player can do a mutually agreed upon buyout with his team, but if he was under contract for the entire season, he is ineligible to join a new team until the off-season, so he doesn’t unbalance the playoffs? And he must sacrifice the unearned part of his remaining contract.
NYG
RealGM
Posts: 14,979
And1: 2,980
Joined: Aug 09, 2017

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#162 » by NYG » Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:46 pm

shrink wrote:
gswhoops wrote:
shrink wrote:I understand your point, but in real life, these aren’t two separate transactions. The player’s agent has already made the phone calls, and his player decides whether to negotiate a buy out knowing how much and where the next offers will be. The second transaction affects the player’s decision on the first.

The NBA head office has it’s overriding provisions for two, legal transactions to be overruled, and it’s when they block a deal for circumvention. To me, this is the loophole here for in-season buy outs. It may help the individual teams, but unless the NBA wants to start the impossible task of rewriting it’s parity rules to not be based on players’ salaries, but rather their impact, the current system is unfair to most teams in the league. Any time a player wants to sacrifice money to give a team a talent boost - that’s unfair. But in the off-season, at least they have the deterrent of losing a season’s worth of higher salary. In-season buyouts don’t even do that - they get paid market value for the majority of the season by the first team, and then only take a small nick to play for less than market.

Playing for less than your worth is the door that David West used (and thanks for reminding me of his name - I’ve been trying to remember it for a month!). And we are seeing right now that the playoffs have been impacted by Blake Griffin, who’s production has been worth far more than his vet min contract. The loophole remains for an even better player, who may have already made his fortune, to completely unbalance a championship. I think before that happens, to help maintain league parity, this loophole needs to be closed.

I'm fine, at least conceptually, with putting additional limitations on in-season buyouts because I agree that they're a different beast that offseason buyouts. I'm not sure how that looks in practice though - do you ban them completely? Limit them to players in the final year of their contract? Make them pass through waivers or some kind of bidding system before they're free agents?

I do think that this whole discussion is putting way more emphasis on the player "forcing" their way out, and ignoring that the player is giving up money, sometimes very significant money, because they want to play for a contender. Would this discussion be all that different if Blake had negotiated a buyout for the same amount last offseason and then signed with Brooklyn for the minimum?

At the end of the day I don't see a way around the fundamental "problem" (if you think it is one) that sometimes players will be willing to take less money to play for a better team. You'd have to completely up-end free agency and IMO the cure would be far worse than the disease.

Good post.

My first question would be .. Do you think Blake Griffin WOULD have negotiated a buyout if he was only paid the minimum for an entire season? I don’t know, but at least that would have truly been a very significant amount of money lost, to make that choice.

EDIT: Blake gave up $13.3 mil over two years to make this move. That is significant. But I believe he was going to get $37 mil this year, and had a player option for $39 the next year. If he had negotiated a buyout in the offseason, I would have liked to see him play for only the vet min. Maybe continuing to have one team pay a player on another team isn’t something we should be comfortable with either. How much is DET paying to subsidize Blake’s production in BRK?

Anyway, maybe that would be enough of a disincentive to allow the loophole to remain? A player can do a mutually agreed upon buyout with his team, but if he was under contract for the entire season, he is ineligible to join a new team until the off-season, so he doesn’t unbalance the playoffs? And he must sacrifice the unearned part of his remaining contract.



Maybe have two types of buy-outs - Player Initiated or Team Initiated

If a team initiates a buy-out, the player gets his salary in full.

If a player initiates a buy-out, it has to go through team approval first and if the team agrees then the player gives up his entire remaining salary.

So basically if a team wants to get rid of a guy, they pay him his salary in full and dump him, but if a player wants to leave, he can't unless the team agrees to it and he gives up his entire remaining salary.

That fix it?
Billl
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,179
And1: 3,295
Joined: Sep 06, 2013

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#163 » by Billl » Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:47 pm

OKC wins - stockpiling more picks and can afford the cap hit. Might even be able to flip kemba again next year. This is their plan and they have been executing it perfectly.

Boston - I wouldn't say they lost. They got to hit reset, which they needed to do. But it cost them a decent pick to do it. Now what?
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 44,677
And1: 13,904
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#164 » by Scoot McGroot » Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:55 pm

NYG wrote:
shrink wrote:
gswhoops wrote:I'm fine, at least conceptually, with putting additional limitations on in-season buyouts because I agree that they're a different beast that offseason buyouts. I'm not sure how that looks in practice though - do you ban them completely? Limit them to players in the final year of their contract? Make them pass through waivers or some kind of bidding system before they're free agents?

I do think that this whole discussion is putting way more emphasis on the player "forcing" their way out, and ignoring that the player is giving up money, sometimes very significant money, because they want to play for a contender. Would this discussion be all that different if Blake had negotiated a buyout for the same amount last offseason and then signed with Brooklyn for the minimum?

At the end of the day I don't see a way around the fundamental "problem" (if you think it is one) that sometimes players will be willing to take less money to play for a better team. You'd have to completely up-end free agency and IMO the cure would be far worse than the disease.

Good post.

My first question would be .. Do you think Blake Griffin WOULD have negotiated a buyout if he was only paid the minimum for an entire season? I don’t know, but at least that would have truly been a very significant amount of money lost, to make that choice.

EDIT: Blake gave up $13.3 mil over two years to make this move. That is significant. But I believe he was going to get $37 mil this year, and had a player option for $39 the next year. If he had negotiated a buyout in the offseason, I would have liked to see him play for only the vet min. Maybe continuing to have one team pay a player on another team isn’t something we should be comfortable with either. How much is DET paying to subsidize Blake’s production in BRK?

Anyway, maybe that would be enough of a disincentive to allow the loophole to remain? A player can do a mutually agreed upon buyout with his team, but if he was under contract for the entire season, he is ineligible to join a new team until the off-season, so he doesn’t unbalance the playoffs? And he must sacrifice the unearned part of his remaining contract.



Maybe have two types of buy-outs - Player Initiated or Team Initiated

If a team initiates a buy-out, the player gets his salary in full.

If a player initiates a buy-out, it has to go through team approval first and if the team agrees then the player gives up his entire remaining salary.

So basically if a team wants to get rid of a guy, they pay him his salary in full and dump him, but if a player wants to leave, he can't unless the team agrees to it and he gives up his entire remaining salary.

That fix it?


I mean, we already have that? A team initiated buyout is a waiving. The contract stands and the player is released, after being subject to waivers. There’s nothing new there. Generally, players don’t initiate buy-outs, as the team wants them gone and wants to save money in doing so (and generally has exhausted any avenues in doing so). If a player wants to leave, the team agrees after salary negotiations to the payout they want to let him go. All you’re proposing here seems to be punishing the players. If a team wants him gone, and is happy to get rid of them for $2m, the player can’t accept that in the new concept?
NYG
RealGM
Posts: 14,979
And1: 2,980
Joined: Aug 09, 2017

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#165 » by NYG » Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:57 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
NYG wrote:
shrink wrote:Good post.

My first question would be .. Do you think Blake Griffin WOULD have negotiated a buyout if he was only paid the minimum for an entire season? I don’t know, but at least that would have truly been a very significant amount of money lost, to make that choice.

EDIT: Blake gave up $13.3 mil over two years to make this move. That is significant. But I believe he was going to get $37 mil this year, and had a player option for $39 the next year. If he had negotiated a buyout in the offseason, I would have liked to see him play for only the vet min. Maybe continuing to have one team pay a player on another team isn’t something we should be comfortable with either. How much is DET paying to subsidize Blake’s production in BRK?

Anyway, maybe that would be enough of a disincentive to allow the loophole to remain? A player can do a mutually agreed upon buyout with his team, but if he was under contract for the entire season, he is ineligible to join a new team until the off-season, so he doesn’t unbalance the playoffs? And he must sacrifice the unearned part of his remaining contract.



Maybe have two types of buy-outs - Player Initiated or Team Initiated

If a team initiates a buy-out, the player gets his salary in full.

If a player initiates a buy-out, it has to go through team approval first and if the team agrees then the player gives up his entire remaining salary.

So basically if a team wants to get rid of a guy, they pay him his salary in full and dump him, but if a player wants to leave, he can't unless the team agrees to it and he gives up his entire remaining salary.

That fix it?


I mean, we already have that? A team initiated buyout is a waiving. The contract stands and the player is released, after being subject to waivers. There’s nothing new there. Generally, players don’t initiate buy-outs, as the team wants them gone and wants to save money in doing so (and generally has exhausted any avenues in doing so). If a player wants to leave, the team agrees after salary negotiations to the payout they want to let him go. All you’re proposing here seems to be punishing the players. If a team wants him gone, and is happy to get rid of them for $2m, the player can’t accept that in the new concept?


I think the all or nothing solves guys going to a contender while getting paid elsewhere. Also it holds team's accountable for what they're signing.
Buzzard
RealGM
Posts: 12,853
And1: 7,524
Joined: May 16, 2018
     

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#166 » by Buzzard » Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:58 pm

I think this clearly shows a rift between Ainge and Stevens. I think Stevens liked his team a lot until the player losses started piling up. I like it for both teams; and I'd not be surprised one bit if Kemba is not flipped for another asset/pick in the next year.
BAF Pacers: Unleash Trae!

PG Ice Trae
SG Buddy Hield/Luke Kennard/Brandin Podziemski
SF OG Anunoby/Terrence Ross/Kris Murray
PF Richaun Holmes/JaMychal Green/Chris Livingston
C KAT/Mark Williams
gswhoops
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 34,339
And1: 5,949
Joined: Apr 27, 2005
   

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#167 » by gswhoops » Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:12 pm

NYG wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
NYG wrote:

Maybe have two types of buy-outs - Player Initiated or Team Initiated

If a team initiates a buy-out, the player gets his salary in full.

If a player initiates a buy-out, it has to go through team approval first and if the team agrees then the player gives up his entire remaining salary.

So basically if a team wants to get rid of a guy, they pay him his salary in full and dump him, but if a player wants to leave, he can't unless the team agrees to it and he gives up his entire remaining salary.

That fix it?


I mean, we already have that? A team initiated buyout is a waiving. The contract stands and the player is released, after being subject to waivers. There’s nothing new there. Generally, players don’t initiate buy-outs, as the team wants them gone and wants to save money in doing so (and generally has exhausted any avenues in doing so). If a player wants to leave, the team agrees after salary negotiations to the payout they want to let him go. All you’re proposing here seems to be punishing the players. If a team wants him gone, and is happy to get rid of them for $2m, the player can’t accept that in the new concept?


I think the all or nothing solves guys going to a contender while getting paid elsewhere. Also it holds team's accountable for what they're signing.

Yeah, if your concern is that players/agents are going to strong-arm teams into giving overly player-friendly buyouts so they can have their cake and eat it too, this mechanism removes that possibility.

I guess I just don't see that as big enough, or common enough, of an issue to abolish all of the mutually-beneficial buyouts where a player gets some, but not all, of what they're owed in exchange for early release from their contract
ejftw
RealGM
Posts: 11,609
And1: 5,661
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Contact:
         

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#168 » by ejftw » Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:17 pm

My take, and man, do I love this for OKC. Adding a mid teens pick and erasing the third year of Horford, even if it's just a partial. Excited to see what Presti will follow up with, if anything.
User avatar
Spin Move
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 10,103
And1: 2,051
Joined: Sep 22, 2004
     

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#169 » by Spin Move » Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:17 pm

This is what I posted on the celtis board

I hate this, Kemba would have been easy to trade as an expiring in the offseason. Yes it saves 30 million if we cut horford next year but we paid to move a contract of a guy who put up 20 5 and 4 after the all star break last year.

Oklahoma City will let him score a ton and absolutly trade him for positive value when he is an expiring. This is such a short cited move to save a little luxary tax money and leaves us with fewer assest to attract a real third star.

I HATE this trade. Brad Stevens just got taken advantage of by Same Presti.

Brown is solid he is worth a late 1st but we couldnt even get OKC to send back one of the later low ist round picks? Bad deal


....
Danny would have known better then to sell low like this on a player who was clearly on the upswing the 2nd half of last year.
jbk1234
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 58,666
And1: 35,730
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
 

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#170 » by jbk1234 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:20 pm

ejftw wrote:My take, and man, do I love this for OKC. Adding a mid teens pick and erasing the third year of Horford, even if it's just a partial. Excited to see what Presti will follow up with, if anything.
Kemba is guaranteed like $20M more than Horford in that last year.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app
cbosh4mvp wrote:
Jarret Allen isn’t winning you anything. Garland won’t show up in the playoffs. Mobley is a glorified dunk man. Mitchell has some experience but is a liability on defense. To me, the Cavs are a treadmill team.
ejftw
RealGM
Posts: 11,609
And1: 5,661
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Contact:
         

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#171 » by ejftw » Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:24 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
ejftw wrote:My take, and man, do I love this for OKC. Adding a mid teens pick and erasing the third year of Horford, even if it's just a partial. Excited to see what Presti will follow up with, if anything.
Kemba is guaranteed like $20M more than Horford in that last year.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app


Welp misread on the years :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

What I get for reading while at work
pipfan
RealGM
Posts: 12,253
And1: 4,216
Joined: Aug 07, 2010

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#172 » by pipfan » Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:28 pm

For Boston, they can use Horford just as much as Walker-maybe more.

The pick is for the $ difference-plus Brown

Good deal for both
User avatar
tiderulz
RealGM
Posts: 36,903
And1: 14,835
Joined: Jun 16, 2010
Location: Atlanta
 

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#173 » by tiderulz » Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:31 pm

JediMasterRevan wrote:
tiderulz wrote:
JediMasterRevan wrote:I love the celtics getting Brown in this deal. Didnt think there was any way OKC would trade him

HIgh energy, defensive, long winged players are not common.


really? i think there are a lot of energy, defensive players out there, especially ones that are bad shooters (not calling Brown this, i know zero about him). look around the league and you see plenty of offensively challenged players that can only play defense. Orlando has Isaac and traded Gordon, 2 examples.

plus, Brown isnt a wing player is he? 7'2?



Longe winged, by that i mean long arms.

And there is afew of those guys out there, but not available.

Allen is a good comp for brown imo. Brown will get alot of dumps and lobs here woth brown amd tatum commanding defenses. And brown actually has a bit of a low post game too.

And he is only 21.

ok, i can see that
Dadouv47
Forum Mod - Thunder
Forum Mod - Thunder
Posts: 13,385
And1: 7,517
Joined: Mar 22, 2015
   

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#174 » by Dadouv47 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:53 pm

I think Brown was our prospect with the lowest ceiling (maybe Roby?) but somehow he's worth a late FRP right now...crazy!

Don't get me wrong I still think it's a win/win trade (mostly because the pick #16 is a lot more valuable to us than for Boston) but Brown isn't going to make any difference IMO.
User avatar
MoneyTalks41890
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 32,712
And1: 24,923
Joined: Oct 13, 2009
 

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#175 » by MoneyTalks41890 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:33 pm

Read on Twitter
?s=21
ejftw
RealGM
Posts: 11,609
And1: 5,661
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Contact:
         

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#176 » by ejftw » Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:39 pm

Dadouv47 wrote:I think Brown was our prospect with the lowest ceiling (maybe Roby?) but somehow he's worth a late FRP right now...crazy!

Don't get me wrong I still think it's a win/win trade (mostly because the pick #16 is a lot more valuable to us than for Boston) but Brown isn't going to make any difference IMO.


Brown's ceiling is around what Jordan (DeAndre, not Michael for you picky individuals) was for the Clips, which I wouldn't say is very low. Whether he will reach it or not, is another story but having seen him play HS and so forth, with the proper coaching, I could see him being a very solid Oop and Block C.
User avatar
zimpy27
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 45,241
And1: 43,205
Joined: Jul 13, 2014

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#177 » by zimpy27 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:06 pm

One amusing component to the deal:

I recall Horford left to go to Philly but was reported to have said that if he knew that Boston would bring in Kemba then he would have stayed.

Now he's going back to Boston and Kemba is being shipped out to get him there.
"Let's play some basketball!" - Fergie
pacers33granger
Forum Mod - Pacers
Forum Mod - Pacers
Posts: 15,079
And1: 6,586
Joined: Sep 26, 2006
 

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#178 » by pacers33granger » Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:46 pm

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:
Read on Twitter
?s=21


I'm not sure that's really a positive based on what he's looking for. If the end result is paying assets to turn $36 mil of Kemba into $40-$45 mil of Horford/Fournier, did you really come ahead at all? Fournier is an ok player, but letting him walk isn't a big deal.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,277
And1: 98,031
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#179 » by Texas Chuck » Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:53 pm

pacers33granger wrote:I'm not sure that's really a positive based on what he's looking for. If the end result is paying assets to turn $36 mil of Kemba into $40-$45 mil of Horford/Fournier, did you really come ahead at all? Fournier is an ok player, but letting him walk isn't a big deal.


I think the latter is better, but agree its pretty marginal and it cost you a pick to achieve. Not a home run, just an attempt to salvage something from a bad situation.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
pacers33granger
Forum Mod - Pacers
Forum Mod - Pacers
Posts: 15,079
And1: 6,586
Joined: Sep 26, 2006
 

Re: Woj: Kemba to OKC, Horford to BOS 

Post#180 » by pacers33granger » Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:00 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
pacers33granger wrote:I'm not sure that's really a positive based on what he's looking for. If the end result is paying assets to turn $36 mil of Kemba into $40-$45 mil of Horford/Fournier, did you really come ahead at all? Fournier is an ok player, but letting him walk isn't a big deal.


I think the latter is better, but agree its pretty marginal and it cost you a pick to achieve. Not a home run, just an attempt to salvage something from a bad situation.


Yeah I can see it both ways, but I just don't have overpaying a mediocre guard as a big incentive to do a deal. So you've effectively used a mid first to turn one bad contract into two. You get two players, so there's that.

I know it wasn't a primary motivating factor. I just hate when anyone pays a premium to get space like this to turn around and use it like they may (they haven't yet to be fair). I'd have told Fournier we're offering the MLE and take it or leave it. If he walks, who cares. I know they now may have the MLE otherwise to add someone, though I have no clue who they could get that would change things. Last year it was TT. And they should have enough alright guys on their bench that an MLE level guy would either sit or block them.

I guess I'm not sold the flexibility will be used in a good way based on that tweet.

Return to Trades and Transactions