Opinion on Gomes contract

[tvwolves7]

I seem to be one of the few fans that believes that our FO did the right thing with Gomes's contract when everything was said and done.

So please answer the question, Did we as fans overvalue Gomes's contract?

I put yes. I understand he is able to help a team with cap space, but there are three things I have thought about.

1) You have to terminate it before free agency starts. You truly do not know if it will become a great choice for you until after the fact.

2) If Gomes was as valuable as we thought, teams would have been pushing us harder for him and a better offer would have surfaced. Simply put, offers would have been coming in stronger then what we got if it was more valuable.

3) You will have a $1 mill hit on your cap for 3 years total. This will especially hurt if the guy you targeted with the extra space never comes to the team.

I will end stating the notion we could have gotten in the top 10 is a bit farce to me. As Ebomb stated on CanisHoopus, no team traded out of the top 10. That shows teams were not getting ANY offers worth moving and once Paul George was off the table I was fine with what we did.

[shangrila]

Maybe we did, although it's tough to know. On paper he was valuable but I think it's obvious there's more that goes into the FO then we can see or fully understand.

[Swimmer]

^I dunno, Kahn made it sound like he was a total liability, and I'm not sure why that would be true.

1 -- True, but I'm sure there would be more interest as the first day approached. Worst case scenario, you eat 1M for two years and 750,000 the year after. I don't think we have some super pressing extensions coming up that that would be a real issue.
2 -- Teams are more focused on the draft than free agency. Anyways, OKC traded cap space for the #18, and Gomes acts pretty similar. NOH traded #11 for later two later firsts and cap space. I wonder if we tried something similar with Indiana, or even, with NOH.
3 -- I assume you are talking about whoever we trade Gomes to? I guess so, but on the upside, you could get another major FA. The reward is probably enough to accept the risk of 2.75M over three years in a cap hit.

[Klomp]

2 -- Teams are more focused on the draft than free agency.

Thats why Kirk Hinrich was traded for nothing....

[Breakdown777]

I posted this in a Webster thread, but It applies to this thread more:

As for the Gomes thing......It bums me out. Listening to the press conference today, Kahn made it seem like Gomes was a cancer and moving him was the #2 priority of the draft (after the #4 pick). On KFAN they did say that Kahn had good things to say about Gomes, and let him know this was on the horizon, at leaswt that's a positive.
Kahn said that if he wasn't moved, then he was going to be MN's burden because of the Buyout. If i understood correctly, Gomes was something like 1 mil buyout before June 30th, after that he has 3 more years at roughly 4 mil. each year. So, by that logic, Kahn saved us 1 million dollars by trading him, when he could've traded him to a team looking to shed 3+ million for the next 3 years AND gotten an asset. I feel like this was either Kahn thinking with dollar signs for eyes, or Glen Taylor telling him to save some cash quickly. Something about including him as a negative asset or the "cherry on top" for us in the deal, just seems to me like there was a sense of urgency and panic in the FO, in regards to moving him before it was too late.

[Klomp]

I posted this in a Webster thread, but It applies to this thread more:

As for the Gomes thing......It bums me out. Listening to the press conference today, Kahn made it seem like Gomes was a cancer and moving him was the #2 priority of the draft (after the #4 pick). On KFAN they did say that Kahn had good things to say about Gomes, and let him know this was on the horizon, at leaswt that's a positive.
Kahn said that if he wasn't moved, then he was going to be MN's burden because of the Buyout. If i understood correctly, Gomes was something like 1 mil buyout before June 30th, after that he has 3 more years at roughly 4 mil. each year. So, by that logic, Kahn saved us 1 million dollars by trading him, when he could've traded him to a team looking to shed 3+ million for the next 3 years AND gotten an asset. I feel like this was either Kahn thinking with dollar signs for eyes, or Glen Taylor telling him to save some cash quickly. Something about including him as a negative asset or the "cherry on top" for us in the deal, just seems to me like there was a sense of urgency and panic in the FO, in regards to moving him before it was too late.

Gomes was not a cancer, his contract was.
Buyout was 1 million for each of the next 2 yrs, and 750k the third year.

[Breakdown777]

^^^^^^^^^^
I thought that was implied. Everyone knows that Gomes is the best of the best as a person and professional. His contract situation after June 30th (if not bought out) was our "cancer", (bad word choice, my apologies).

And thanks for clearing that 2nd part up, it does make him a bit less appealing unless a team was desperate to move under the lux or something, and with so many more options with bigger talent, higher saving, and more important pieces possibly moving, it makes sense that no teams were clamoring for Gomes' contract. Waiting until the 11th hour was not something the FO was willing to do, just for a future late 1st or 2nd or whatever.

[JMillott]

I think Kahn was working the phones very hard leading up to the draft and has a fairly accurate read on the trade value of every asset the Wolves had from around the league. By all the media leaks it seems fairly obvious that this much is certain.

I think it's a combo-nation of both the Wolves not wanting too combine to many of their assets in one deal like say using Gomes contract, Sessions or Flynn and the 16th and 23rd selections to go after say a Paul George while having to swallow a TJ Ford in the process.

Doing so while having a ready made starting SF fall in their laps at #4 in Wesley Johnson makes even less sense. Why throw all those eggs into a Paul George basket when you can use half of them to deal for a player with proven floor as a rotation player for a playoff team and still has a similar ceiling to George?

Basically I think fans are pissed because the ping pong balls largely tied Kahn's hands and because this summers free agent class made the teams that might've coveted Al Jefferson or Kevin Love during the draft were in many cases gun shy about pulling out of the free agent class.

[tvwolves7]

2 -- Teams are more focused on the draft than free agency. Anyways, OKC traded cap space for the #18, and Gomes acts pretty similar. NOH traded #11 for later two later firsts and cap space. I wonder if we tried something similar with Indiana, or even, with NOH.

I am guessing we tried with Indiana but it entailed Flynn as what was stated a week ago. Once Paul George was off the table, I personally believe this is was there next plan.

The OKC and Hinrich deals involved raw cap space and not players that would impact your salary cap for three seasons.

Lastly, I just looked up the Blazers Salary situation. Getting Gomes will do nothing for them this year if they cut him and would only be a liability in the next year where they currently have salary space.

[Dewey]

Gomes was a nice guy, but certainly did not have the ambition or ability (not sure which one) to raise his level of play ... he had to go and I will miss his great nature, but not his severe lack of itensity.

[Foye]

Gomes was not a cancer, his contract was.
Buyout was 1 million for each of the next 2 yrs, and 750k the third year.

How's that a cancer?

I imagine some teams over the lux would love to acquire his contract for cap relief.
If anything the Wolves FO overrated Webster's value.
The consensus around the league was that Webster has a bad contract. I don't think it would've been necessary to include #16. #23 + Gomes would've been still good value for Portland.

[tvwolves7]

Gomes was not a cancer, his contract was.
Buyout was 1 million for each of the next 2 yrs, and 750k the third year.

How's that a cancer?

I imagine some teams over the lux would love to acquire his contract for cap relief.
If anything the Wolves FO overrated Webster's value.
The consensus around the league was that Webster has a bad contract. I don't think it would've been necessary to include #16. #23 + Gomes would've been still good value for Portland.

Not too many teams left over the cap that have owners that are hard for cash.

[shrink]

Gomes savings to a team over the lux was $6 mil. His next two years would cost $1.75 mil. Trading him to a team over the lux for an asset and an expiring makes sense for both teams, because an extra $3 mil is being thorwn in by the NBA in lux savings.

[shrink]

Maybe this post fits here better:

So Kahn wasn't lying when he said we made them take his contract.

How can he think that? All we needed to do was trade him to a team over the lux for a POSITIVE asset and an expiring. For example:

MIN GETS: Songalia $4.8 mil exp + future protected 1st (or #11)
NOH GETS: Gomes

2010-11 Savings
$0.8 mil salary difference
$3.0 mil saved by Gomes waive
$2.0 mil saved by no guaranteed salary for the #11
$5.8 mil saved in lux penalties
-0.9 mil min salary players
$10.5 MIL SAVINGS in 2010-11
-1.0 mil 2011-12 guaranted gomes
-0.75 mil 2012-13 gomes
$8.75 mil savings

NOH saves plenty of money, and may save even more as they get close to their goal of being under the lux and getting back an additional $3 mil lux share

........................................

Then even if they do the same bad deal:

POR GETS: Songalia (exp) + #16
MIN GETS: Martell Webster

POR can keep Songalia, or buy him out for a price similar to Gomes in a one-year buy-out. Songalia can catch on elsewhere, so he won't be out money.

MIN still gets Martell Webster, but instead of simply losing the #16, they gain the #11.

..................................................

The fact that Kahn didn't see the Gomes contract (or Atkins before him), as an asset represents a dangerous lack of sophistication to the financial aspects of the NBA and the luxury tax.

[Krapinsky]

Maybe this post fits here better:

So Kahn wasn't lying when he said we made them take his contract.

How can he think that? All we needed to do was trade him to a team over the lux for a POSITIVE asset and an expiring. For example:

MIN GETS: Songalia $4.8 mil exp + future protected 1st (or #11)
NOH GETS: Gomes

2010-11 Savings
$0.8 mil salary difference
$3.0 mil saved by Gomes waive
$2.0 mil saved by no guaranteed salary for the #11
$5.8 mil saved in lux penalties
-0.9 mil min salary players
$10.5 MIL SAVINGS in 2010-11
-1.0 mil 2011-12 guaranted gomes
-0.75 mil 2012-13 gomes
$8.75 mil savings

NOH saves plenty of money, and may save even more as they get close to their goal of being under the lux and getting back an additional $3 mil lux share

........................................

Then even if they do the same bad deal:

POR GETS: Songalia (exp) + #16
MIN GETS: Martell Webster

POR can keep Songalia, or buy him out for a price similar to Gomes in a one-year buy-out. Songalia can catch on elsewhere, so he won't be out money.

MIN still gets Martell Webster, but instead of simply losing the #16, they gain the #11.

..................................................

The fact that Kahn didn't see the Gomes contract (or Atkins before him), as an asset represents a dangerous lack of sophistication to the financial aspects of the NBA and the luxury tax.

Aren't you forgetting the two additional firsts New Orleans got for trading the #11? And that was with Mo Pete who is owed more than Songalia and NO not having to take on Gomes' buyout. Thus, that hypothetical isn't realistic at all.

You're trade:
MIN GETS: Songalia $4.8 mil exp + future protected 1st (or #11)
NOH GETS: Gomes

Actual Trade:
OKC GETS: Peterson $6.2 mil exp + #11
NOH GETS: #21 + #26

THAT'S NOT CLOSE AT ALL.

[shrink]

Whatever. I don't care what the OKC trade was, my point is that Gomes is not some negative asset that Kahn needs to force on a team.

Simple math shows that he has positive value ... you fill in the appropriate asset for that.

[Krapinsky]

Whatever. I don't care what the OKC trade was, my point is that Gomes is not some negative asset that Kahn needs to force on a team.

Simple math shows that he has positive value ... you fill in the appropriate asset for that.

I find it hard to believe he did not do his due diligence on that. Realistically, here's what Gomes could have netted:

a $4-5 expiring and a late first.

A late first does not have very much value. Especially to a team with so much youth. That equates to buying a late first for $4-5M. However, that also eats at our cap space and prevents us from signing another player, say someone of Webster's ilk.

Consider -- Washington took on Hinrich's deal and all they got was the #17 pick.
Consider -- OKC had to give up TWO first and take on $6.2M to get the #11 pick.

[Krapinsky]

The fact that the Blazers -- a team that doesn't give two shoots about $ -- is preparing to waive Gomes further suggests there is no value to be had.

[shrink]

To me, you're argueing $6 mil = $3 mil .. the difference between a lux team and non-lux team waiving Gomes.

So what if all you get back is just a late 1st? Sell it for $3 mil. Getting nothing, or worse, seeing it as a negative asset you have to force on someone, is just silly.

[Krapinsky]

To me, you're argueing $6 mil = $3 mil .. the difference between a lux team and non-lux team waiving Gomes.

So what if all you get back is just a late 1st? Sell it for $3 mil. Getting nothing, or worse, seeing it as a negative asset you have to force on someone, is just silly.

Say you sell if for $3M. You just paid Songalia $4.2M to sit on the bench for the year. That is a loss of $1.2M.