RealGM

$13.5 mn/year if my math is correct. I wonder if it is a descending contract.

No complaints with that deal. Quite tradeable down the line.

Even better! But is it also descending?

?s=46&t=GWeuz7j_sc5cBYZzdD92Tw

Agree. Good for both parties.

Congratulations, Corey: invest your $$ wisely young man!

So essentially he got the Moses Moody contract.

If it’s declining he’ll start at more than the MLE, which may mean we keep him for another year or two

Hopefully they start him and increase his role to maximize his counting stats. Make him a baby Beal and maybe a team will bite in the next two years

Another good contract signed by our new mgt team. So glad that they aren't chumps in negotiations like their predecessors.

Grunfeld would have given him $30 million per year months ago.

tontoz wrote:Another good contract signed by our new mgt team. So glad that they aren't chumps in negotiations like their predecessors.

Grunfeld would have given him $30 million per year months ago.

And then used a first to dump him 2 years later

gesa2 wrote:

tontoz wrote:Another good contract signed by our new mgt team. So glad that they aren't chumps in negotiations like their predecessors.

Grunfeld would have given him $30 million per year months ago.

And then used a first to dump him 2 years later

So true! What a clown he was

I posted this in the Kispert thread when Sam Hauser was resigned:

nate33 wrote:

Read on Twitter

This should pretty much establish the market for Kispert.

Kispert is a more dynamic offensive player than Hauser, but Hauser is a better defender. In terms of playing a specific role for a playoff team, Hauser is arguably the more useful player.

Hopefully, we can lock Kispert up to a $12M per year deal that declines. So it would be: $13.7M/$12.6M/$11.4M/$10.3M

and then a little later:

nate33 wrote:I'm guessing Hauser took a slight discount to play on a title contender, and, as you pointed out, Kispert has the first-round-pick pedigree. With those two factors in mind, I think it is likely that Kispert will command a salary roughly equivalent to Hauser, and maybe slightly more. There's also the possibility that Kispert hasn't quite peaked whereas Hauser almost surely has.

Turned out to be pretty accurate.

Since the fourth year is a team option, that year cannot be declining salary apparently.

Kispert carries a poison pill restriction until July 1st, 2025, so expect him to be traded at that time on a deal announced day of draft. Will Dawkins not doing Grunfeldian deals thank goodness.

trast66 wrote:Kispert carries a poison pill restriction until July 1st, 2025, so expect him to be traded at that time on a deal announced day of draft. Will Dawkins not doing Grunfeldian deals thank goodness.

Can’t see Corey netting us much in a trade, but who knows

Two days ago I wrote this in the Deni trade thread:
"The strategy mentioned when Deni was traded will only make sense if Kuzma and Kispert are also traded, maybe along with Jonas, Poole, and Brogdon. If that doesn't happen, saying Deni was traded due to his contract timeline not syncing with the younger players is all BS."

Am I delusional? Wasn't Deni's trade the result of his contract/age not lining up with the younger players' timeline? If so, someone please help me make sense of this deal?

lastemp3ror wrote:Two days ago I wrote this in the Deni trade thread:
"The strategy mentioned when Deni was traded will only make sense if Kuzma and Kispert are also traded, maybe along with Jonas, Poole, and Brogdon. If that doesn't happen, saying Deni was traded due to his contract timeline not syncing with the younger players is all BS."

Am I delusional? Wasn't Deni's trade the result of his contract/age not lining up with the younger players' timeline? If so, someone please help me make sense of this deal?

Simple. Kispert has more trade value with a long term deal locked in. They will probably trade him sooner or later, but there was no deal out there at the moment.

lastemp3ror wrote:Two days ago I wrote this in the Deni trade thread:
"The strategy mentioned when Deni was traded will only make sense if Kuzma and Kispert are also traded, maybe along with Jonas, Poole, and Brogdon. If that doesn't happen, saying Deni was traded due to his contract timeline not syncing with the younger players is all BS."

Am I delusional? Wasn't Deni's trade the result of his contract/age not lining up with the younger players' timeline? If so, someone please help me make sense of this deal?

With Deni it was not simply about contract/age. It was also about the assets they could get in return for trading him.

Exactly. We got a R1 pick, a pair of R2 picks, & Malcolm Brogdon (or, one might prefer to say, the trade value of Malcolm Brogdon).

nate33 wrote:

lastemp3ror wrote:...someone please help me make sense of this deal?

Simple. Kispert has more trade value with a long term deal locked in. They will probably trade him sooner or later, but there was no deal out there at the moment.

In fact, if we'd allowed Kispert to go unsigned now, his trade value would have declined -- immediately.

I.e., to your point, not as good a deal as they feel they'll be able to get with him locked up for 4 years at reasonable cost.