Page 1 of 1
Should we sign a noname to MLE for ballast?
Posted: Wed Aug 6, 2008 10:50 pm
by chakdaddy
Part of the genius in signing House and Tony to 2 year contracts, they combine with Scal to be a solid expiring contract bomb in 2010. Should we just sign some warm body to a 2 year MLE contract to have a huge mass of expirings to trade in 2010 for the next Gasol?
With an extension for Rondo I can't see how we'd have cap room in 2010; meanwhile everyone is trying to get under the cap to chase Wade, LeBron, etc. Maybe a clever move would be to go against the trend and help other teams get under the cap by taking their unwanted Gasol, Rasheed 2010 edition off their hands - teams going for the LeBron sweepstakes will be especially likely to foolishly dump valuable players to get cap space.
How does a 1 year MLE contract work, are there BYC issues? Could we sign someone to a 1 year full MLE next year and just flip their expiring contract in a trade at the deadline?
Re: Should we sign a noname to MLE for ballast?
Posted: Wed Aug 6, 2008 11:28 pm
by darrendaye
Not a bad idea. But I'd still want to wait to see what shakes loose this year before I commit the dollars. The primary focus still needs to be this season. Maybe you could make a run at Marbury. And I'm sure there will be a good number of veteran options available at and after the trade deadline.
I wouldn't be shocked at an Antoine version 3.0. I'd pray for Alonzo Mourning. So, I agree with your thinking, I just think it's premature to talk about options at this time. Make sure it's the right fit. Also, there are still things to figure out with the present roster.
Re: Should we sign a noname to MLE for ballast?
Posted: Thu Aug 7, 2008 12:05 am
by canman1971
Can we please have one thread about a FA signing without mentioning Fatione?
Re: Should we sign a noname to MLE for ballast?
Posted: Thu Aug 7, 2008 12:14 am
by BakersDozen
i dont even think Toine is a free agent.
Re: Should we sign a noname to MLE for ballast?
Posted: Thu Aug 7, 2008 1:56 am
by TheCelticTruth
its like a sweet nothing whispered in your ear...antoine...(shh)
Re: Should we sign a noname to MLE for ballast?
Posted: Thu Aug 7, 2008 4:17 am
by grantlongforpresident
i'd bring back walker for the LLE. why all the hate?
Re: Should we sign a noname to MLE for ballast?
Posted: Thu Aug 7, 2008 2:23 pm
by cisco
grantlongforpresident wrote:i'd bring back walker for the LLE. why all the hate?
Because he's not a good player anymore? That would be my guess.
That being said, I've always been a Walker fan. I just don't think he's good anymore and wouldn't want him on my team. No hate.
Re: Should we sign a noname to MLE for ballast?
Posted: Thu Aug 7, 2008 3:32 pm
by Dave_From_NB
I think we already have enough expiring contracts for 2010 with House, Allen, Scal, and don't forget Ray Allen. If Danny wants to play that game, he's already got enough chips.
I think that FA class is way blown out of context, because over the next 2 years a bunch of those guys are going to end up resigning with their teams, or being traded to teams who wish to sign them (and the player wants to go there). I believe the final market is going to be a lot smaller. It might be in 2010 that a bunch of teams are overbidding for scrubs, because they've drawn down their rosters only to find out no superstar is available. Or that no superstar is interested in signing for a team which has no depth.
I think the KG trade is the best recent example. KG heading to an expiring contract, his team works out a trade to a team which is able to sign him for an extension. Poof, KG is off the market, and both the Celtics and the Wolves are happy.
Re: Should we sign a noname to MLE for ballast?
Posted: Thu Aug 7, 2008 5:21 pm
by chakdaddy
I don't know that I buy Ray Allen as a useful expiring - we'll probably still want to keep and use him in 09-10, and I think his contract would be a little big to flip- the Rasheed's and Gasol's seem to be more like 10 million dollar contracts, not maximums...Allen's contract helps if we really want to chase FA's in 2010, but my idea was to add reinforcements to the big 3 at the deadline during 2010, hopefully to help try to threepeat...
Re: Should we sign a noname to MLE for ballast?
Posted: Thu Aug 7, 2008 7:40 pm
by ParticleMan
LMAO, sure what the hell, it's not my money!
OTOH I think the owners would be pretty pissed about paying many millions in salary+lux tax for "ballast". They're already paying Scal.
Re: Should we sign a noname to MLE for ballast?
Posted: Thu Aug 7, 2008 7:59 pm
by greenbeans
i like this line of thought, but i see us going more in the KVH/McKie route. maybe a s&t Olowakandi lol