matt131 wrote:bwgood77 wrote:matt131 wrote:Exactly. I mean, I love the current team we have. They were more fun to watch than any team we've had for a long time
But paul's contract is just as long as rubio's. If he can bring in free agents who, without him, would have been out of our price range, he will have added value. If he can whip Deandre into shape and get him to focus and be agrresive, he will have added value. If, at the end of his contract, he got us to two playoffs and other players notice we have a good, new culture and our young players are good, he will have added value.
I was initially against this trade and honestly still don't want to see Rubio or Oubre go. I love those guys. But even after 1 year, if it doesn't work, you have a 40 million dollar expiring contract that might actually he worth something to another team. The risk is high, but there are some contingency plans. The reward has a tremendously high ceiling, and it seems like that might over shadow the possible downside of the trade
What free agents? We don't have any money really. You mean Gallinari? He still isn't long for this league.
People keep mentioning expiring contracts. They are not worth that much anymore, except to a team looking to dump a long term $40 million contract. I don't understand why people view a huge expiring as easy to dump.
The great thing about an expiring contract if the player isn't worth it any more is that it expires the next year and is off your books...you certainly don't want to trade it and take on some salary dump from another team of a longer $40 million contract.
The only time you can probably get a good player back in the deal is if a team is deep into the tax for the future and needs to get out of it, but they would still need to send a ton of money back.
Free agents? Look at David Nash's IV point play newsletter. He does a great job of breaking down exactly what we could do with a Chris Paul trade and free agents. It seems to be more than you're thinking.
As for the expiring contract, I'm just saying, it could be, if used wisely and with the right team, deemed an asset, or at least not a terrible burden for us.
I guess my main point is that there are more outcomes than just "it will fail horribly" or "it will be a huge success" if we trade for Paul.
The second one with Bertans? Or is there a newer one? I didn't really think his Bertans for $12-13 million a year was an astute take.