WallyWorld wrote:I see. A good suggesstion. But the way things are going, arent teams putting tremdous value on the lux factor? Take Denver, who just traded their first round pick to get under the lux?
I feel we can get another pick without giving up as much. Dont Booth and Ollie make close to the same anyways?
You're right that teams are working hard to get under the lux, because they can clear that extra $2-$3 mil by retaining their lux share, plus whatever salary is doubled over the lux. Those $700,00 could cost you $3-$4 mil, and late 1sts sell for a max of $3 mil. Getting under these boundaries, like the lux threshhold or the salary cap are big deals, as we showed by clearing a 1st in addition to Carney and having most of the contracts paid so PHI could have a little more money to be able to sign Brand. DEN actually got a good deal, because they got a prospect, and that OKC second rounder DEN received might only be 5-10 spots lower in the draft, and an unguaranteed contract to boot.
You might be right about TOR if we could compensate them elsewhere. Everyone likes 1sts, but CLE is at $64 mil with just 7 players on 2009-10. They might be interested in the UTA pick if it looks like it will be deferred a year, because they wouldn't have to add guaranteed salary next year that might make it hard for them to get under the lux when they fill their roster. McCants might not be a bad addition either, if they send back more salary than they take in.
Maybe something like
Joey Graham (exp) + Vozkuhl (exp) + prot 1st for McCants (exp) + Ollie + 2nd, or maybe UTA pick
... and I think the Bargnani experiment is back on in TOR, but if they'd rather have the pick
Bargnani + Vozkuhl (exp) for McCants + Craig Smith + Ollie + UTA pick