didn’t trading for a big expiring contract used to be a thing?

[Ugalde]

back in the day didn’t teams see big expiring contracts as assets?

forgive me if i’m completely off on this because i was never one to pay attention to the cap but i could of swore when i was younger teams loved trading for big expiring contracts so the next year sien cap would be freed up.

for instance Westbrook is in his last year and takes like 40m cap space. back when i was younger teams would want that contract so the next year they would have space. so a team like the Lakers could get a decent deal for him.

is this not a thing anymore? did something change? or am i misremembering? i know it used to happen but maybe not as much as i’m remembering?

[ChaseDown]

Would you trade for Russell Westbrook?

[DaGawd]

back in the day didn’t teams see big expiring contracts as assets?

forgive me if i’m completely off on this because i was never one to pay attention to the cap but i could of swore when i was younger teams loved trading for big expiring contracts so the next year sien cap would be freed up.

for instance Westbrook is in his last year and takes like 40m cap space. back when i was younger teams would want that contract so the next year they would have space. so a team like the Lakers could get a decent deal for him.

is this not a thing anymore? did something change? or am i misremembering? i know it used to happen but maybe not as much as i’m remembering?

thing is the fa class isn’t particularly enticing enough to wanna clear large amounts of cap in a hurry

[Colbinii]

back in the day didn’t teams see big expiring contracts as assets?

forgive me if i’m completely off on this because i was never one to pay attention to the cap but i could of swore when i was younger teams loved trading for big expiring contracts so the next year sien cap would be freed up.

for instance Westbrook is in his last year and takes like 40m cap space. back when i was younger teams would want that contract so the next year they would have space. so a team like the Lakers could get a decent deal for him.

is this not a thing anymore? did something change? or am i misremembering? i know it used to happen but maybe not as much as i’m remembering?

The Lakers don't want to take on contracts beyond this year if they don't need to.
The Lakers don't want to pay 2 1sts for players who don't meaningfully increase their championship odds.

That's the issue.

[whatisacenter]

It’s true, when there was a potential free agent hitting the market that a team wanted to clear cap space to sign then a big expiring had value. Now star players sign max extensions and then demand a trade when they aren’t good enough to lead their own team.

[Buckeye-NBAFan]

Contract lengths have been shortened by two years since 2004

[Jadoogar]

Cap space is less important now. Free agents rarely actually change teams via free agency. Players either sign extensions before hitting free agency or teams trade them earlier to ensure they don't lose them from nothing. Plus now you can just do sign and trades for the guys you want even if you don't have the space. Heat just did this for Kyle Lowry.

[Roger Murdock]

There are way less horrible contracts

Yeah Russ’s deal might look bad but at least he was a star and can still contribute. We had Allen Houston as the highest paid player in the league for like 3 straight injured seasons. Reaf Lefrentz on a max, Marbury, Francis’s drunk ass, Theo Ratliff, etc

So many scrubs on crazy deals

[granger05]

back in the day didn’t teams see big expiring contracts as assets?

I see you're a Knicks fan so I actually have one I'm curious about from "back in the day" for the Knicks. I just looked it up on bball ref to refresh my memory. The Knicks got Jalen Rose in a deal back in early 2006 (around the 05/06 trade deadline) where they basically got a pick to take his contract from Toronto. I remember thinking that next offseason that the Knicks had a valuable expiring contract they could use because Rose's last year on that contract was 06/07. However, they ended up just waiving him right before the season started and I always thought that was so stupid. They still owed him the money, but they didn't turn him into anything.

Was I missing something at the time that any Knicks fans remember? Rose was at least absorbing 20+ minutes for Toronto and the Knicks the previous season and he then signed with Phoenix and barely played. He wasn't necessarily a useful player anymore, but I remember at the time thinking that they'd be able to send his contract out in a deal and instead they just trashed it. Looking at the 06/07 season's transactions, the only big name I see changing teams was Allen Iverson (FYI, Iverson made 17 mil that year vs Rose's 14.6 mil). That was a time I recall thinking an expiring would be useful and having a team just pass before they even seemed to try.

I went looking and here's a NYTimes article from the time (LINK) that talks about it. I also see from other places that the numbers on bball reference list the salary the Knicks paid at 14.6 though his contract was 16.9 so he did take a buyout and they were over the cap and paying luxury tax at the time. His contract number was even higher for trade purposes.

In his three years as the team president, Isiah Thomas has routinely used large, expiring contracts — like those of Taylor and Rose — to acquire players with even larger, longer-term deals. The perpetual churn pushed the Knicks’ payroll from about $84 million (when Thomas arrived in December 2003) to about $120 million last season.

Had the Knicks held onto Taylor and Rose, they could have dangled them as trading pawns in February, probably in a deal for another set of big contracts. In the past few years, the Knicks traded expiring contracts to acquire Stephon Marbury, Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry, Steve Francis and, curiously enough, Rose, along with a handful of first-round draft picks.

“In previous years, we had to use the expiring contracts to make sure that we were able to get players,” Thomas said. “We did a good job in getting players. Now we don’t necessarily have the same focus. We don’t necessarily look at having an expiring contract as an asset anymore.”

Sorry for bringing up the Isiah Thomas era.

[Bornstellar]

Westbrook is a bit of a unique situation.

For one, his expiring deal is HUGE since it's the last year of a supermax deal, and thus he can only be traded to a team who can absorb his salary (like SA, who has no need for extra expirings) or to a team that wants to get off another bad deal or actually values the player aside from the contract. Problem is, not only is Russ massively overpaid at this point in his career making a suitable trade partner very difficult, he also comes with baggage and most teams do not want someone like him disrupting them on the court. He just makes too much money for him to be a valuable asset, especially since no one is touching him without picks attached an LAL refuses to attach any

It’s true, when there was a potential free agent hitting the market that a team wanted to clear cap space to sign then a big expiring had value. Now star players sign max extensions and then demand a trade when they aren’t good enough to lead their own team.

For two, what this guy said

[Pointgod]

back in the day didn’t teams see big expiring contracts as assets?

forgive me if i’m completely off on this because i was never one to pay attention to the cap but i could of swore when i was younger teams loved trading for big expiring contracts so the next year sien cap would be freed up.

for instance Westbrook is in his last year and takes like 40m cap space. back when i was younger teams would want that contract so the next year they would have space. so a team like the Lakers could get a decent deal for him.

is this not a thing anymore? did something change? or am i misremembering? i know it used to happen but maybe not as much as i’m remembering?

Yes you’re remembering correctly. NBA trades used to be about allstar for allstar or starter for role players etc.

Around sometime in the 2000s the NBA media and front offices convinced fans that capspace was king. The problem with that theory is that there are only so many attractive destinations and the CBA has been continuously changed to make it more profitable for superstars to resign with their teams and asked for trades after.

Now it’s all about getting draft picks and swaps. Most of the best players are spread out over a few teams, even non 1st team all NBA players like Lillard and Beal are extending despite limited team upside. Fans have been fooled into thinking a team should just blow everything up if they hit a 1-2 season rough patch.

[threethehardway]

What happened was, players like Lebron and KD, who make a bunch of money off the court, decided to team hop and not sign long-term deals in order to maximize winning rings. And I think these are the first of the guys that are pretty much decided to be businessmen more than basketball players.

Then you have the second class of NBA player that is elite but mostly make their money from basketball and being basketball players. The NBA rigged it so these guys have to sign extensions to get the most money.

Nobody is going to turn down 100 plus million just so they can go to a winning situation. Teams aren't going to turn down signing a top 50 player just so they can tank and hope to draft a top 50 player. So they are stuck together.

Then you have everyone else, making 20 million a year to two-way contracts that move around the league.

[Lenneth]

If franchise players are on FA market this offseason, people would jump to get those expiring contracts to clear their caprooms. This season? Not so much. Would you trade draft picks to clear caps to sign Middleton, Russell, Turner, D. Green, etc.?

[dhsilv2]

Contracts are shorter...so teams are address cap issues much easier than in the past. Not sure what else there is to talk about.

[Harry Garris]

Yeah to clear up cap space. But we’ve entered the age where star players never hit free agency anymore so why would you need to clear up cap space?

Besides if you need to clear cap super badly you can always make a move in the offseason, there isn’t a present need to do it during the year.

[ConSarnit]

I'd also say the "grease" for these types of trade is at an all-time low. Something like only 7 teams control their own draft going forward. Many teams are hampered because they owe future pick obligations.

[hoosierdaddy34]

An expiring contract is valuable when you are willing to take back longer term deals.

The Lakers are splitting hairs here by trying to make a trade that doesn’t include draft picks, that doesn’t disrupt 2023 or future cap space AND improves the team.

If it was just moving Westbrook and taking back longer term deals, a traditional trade. I think something would be done by now.

[madmaxmedia]

An expiring contract is valuable when you are willing to take back longer term deals.

The Lakers are splitting hairs here by trying to make a trade that doesn’t include draft picks, that doesn’t disrupt 2023 or future cap space AND improves the team.

If it was just moving Westbrook and taking back longer term deals, a traditional trade. I think something would be done by now.

Right- an expiring contract is a very useful tool to facilitate trades, but is not a positive value asset in and of itself.

1. An expiring contract can be traded for a longer term contract that another team wants to unload.
2. An expiring contract can be combined with positive value assets (such as draft picks) to help match salaries in a trade.

[giberish]

Overpaid EC's never had positive value, they just had less negative value than longer term overpaid deals.

This used to be a much bigger deal as contracts used to be longer. As much as 6 years (or 7 with Bird rights), so if things went bad a year or two after signing a guy there could be 4+ years left to deal with. Now with 4 year contracts, if things go bad 2 years after signing a guy there's only 2 years left, barely more than an EC.

Of course, even in the past EC's only brought back famous players with issues and big, long-term contracts, generally not guys seen as actual elite players.

[Billl]

Expiring contracts still have some value. It's just that there aren't a whole lot of "dead weight" contracts to dump in the NBA anymore. With the shorter contract lengths, unless someone has instant buyers remorse, the "overpaid" guys usually just have a year or 2 left on their deal. Teams paid a lot to get out of 4 more years of a bad deal, but when it's only 2? You may as just wait that out.