Trading Cardinal not just about 2009 Free Agency

[shrink]

I think I addressed that in my first two posts in this thread.

Not really, that's why I asked. To take on mediocre overpaid guys from teams looking to get under the luxury tax?

There are four obvious uses I see for the cap space, not just for teams looking to get under the lux.

1. Trade parts of the cap space to teams trying to clear more cap space to make bigger deal for a free agent (like the 2008 PHI deal)
2. Trade parts of the cap space to teams trying to get under the lux (like the 2007 SA trade)
3. Select a 2009 Free Agent for ourselves.
4. Select a 2009 Free Agent we can trade after Dec. 15th to a team that needs them.

The key to all four of these is that our financial situation gives us a different position than other teams. Why should we just trade for a "mediocre overpaid player?" Suppose a team has a good player attached to a $4 mil deal, that gives them $6 mil in production. If he's the guy that puts them over the lux, he's costing them perhaps $10 mil. Trading him for cap space saves them more than he's worth, while we gain a guy who's paid less than he's worth.

Its the same situation for cap space trades to help a team offer a max deal in free agency. In the Philly trade, we certainly got more value than our cap space justified in the Booth/Carney/1st trade. However, PHI also won, since they shouldn't let Carney and the 1st keep them from getting Elton Brand. That little extra cap space was more valuable to them than us, and it made for a good trade for both teams. It wasn't just trading cap space for only a "mediocre and overpaid" Calvin Booth.

The two free agent signing options, to keep or to trade, come into play because only teams under the salary cap can make offers to free agents other than their own in excess of the exceptions. (I know you're aware of this -- I'm just including it for completeness for others that may not know it and are reading the thread). The 2009 MLE may be around $6 mil, so if we can offer $7, we may have access to some players other teams can't get. In 2010, many teams will also be able to make offers in excess of the MLE, and they may be more attractive choices for free agents, and making it jarder to profit on any of the four methods with so much competition driving the value of our commodity (cap space) down.

The bottom-line here is that clearing as much cap space as possible under the salary cap in 2009 gives us the financial flexibility to take advantage of opportunities that may not be available to us if our final salary total leaves us sitting on the cap. I think its too risky to think that we can just wait until 2010 for help. Creating this cap space by moving Brian Cardinal's last year could turn out to be a key way to improve the talent on this team.

[shrink]

I'll throw out some ideas that could save some teams some money at the end of the year

1. Atlanta: if they want more cap space maybe Law, Claxton, 3 mill cash for cap space.
2. Boston: scalabrine or house + 3 million cash + some incentive (it would save boston some money from the luxury tax
3. Indiana: maybe Deiner + draft pick for cap space (more cap space for indiana)
4. Orlando: Brian Cook, cash, draft pick for cap space (keep orlando out of luxury tax)
5. San Antonio: a deal like we did with udrih for one of their players making around 3 million to keep them out of luxury tax
6. Utah for Korver to keep them out of luxury tax
7. Washington for Thomas to keep them out of luxury tax.

GREAT post! This is the type of stuff I love to read.

Just to point out what good ideas these are, notice that skorff's identified other teams who may have needs, and is using players that are expirings in 2010. If we get the cap space, we can trade it for a player PLUS an incentive, and still not affect the 2010 plan.

While you might not be thrilled with the players, because they are expirings they would all also have additional trade value, if we decided we were willing to take on longer deals for even more compensation. However, with these players, we could stop wherever we wanted. I could see a team in a good FA locale trading an expensive star player for expirings and a little incentive, thinking they could make their dollars work better on a new guy.

And BTW, his Boozer 2009 FA signing plan was excellent too. In that, we use our cap space to sign Boozer, than trade him to LAC for Mobely and Tim Thomas (now both expirings) plus Eric Gordon and the return of our 1st.

[casey]

I think I addressed that in my first two posts in this thread.

Not really, that's why I asked. To take on mediocre overpaid guys from teams looking to get under the luxury tax?

There are four obvious uses I see for the cap space, not just for teams looking to get under the lux.

1. Trade parts of the cap space to teams trying to clear more cap space to make bigger deal for a free agent (like the 2008 PHI deal)
2. Trade parts of the cap space to teams trying to get under the lux (like the 2007 SA trade)
3. Select a 2009 Free Agent for ourselves.
4. Select a 2009 Free Agent we can trade after Dec. 15th to a team that needs them.

The key to all four of these is that our financial situation gives us a different position than other teams. Why should we just trade for a "mediocre overpaid player?" Suppose a team has a good player attached to a $4 mil deal, that gives them $6 mil in production. If he's the guy that puts them over the lux, he's costing them perhaps $10 mil. Trading him for cap space saves them more than he's worth, while we gain a guy who's paid less than he's worth.

Its the same situation for cap space trades to help a team offer a max deal in free agency. In the Philly trade, we certainly got more value than our cap space justified in the Booth/Carney/1st trade. However, PHI also won, since they shouldn't let Carney and the 1st keep them from getting Elton Brand. That little extra cap space was more valuable to them than us, and it made for a good trade for both teams. It wasn't just trading cap space for only a "mediocre and overpaid" Calvin Booth.

The two free agent signing options, to keep or to trade, come into play because only teams under the salary cap can make offers to free agents other than their own in excess of the exceptions. (I know you're aware of this -- I'm just including it for completeness for others that may not know it and are reading the thread). The 2009 MLE may be around $6 mil, so if we can offer $7, we may have access to some players other teams can't get. In 2010, many teams will also be able to make offers in excess of the MLE, and they may be more attractive choices for free agents, and making it jarder to profit on any of the four methods with so much competition driving the value of our commodity (cap space) down.

The bottom-line here is that clearing as much cap space as possible under the salary cap in 2009 gives us the financial flexibility to take advantage of opportunities that may not be available to us if our final salary total leaves us sitting on the cap. I think its too risky to think that we can just wait until 2010 for help. Creating this cap space by moving Brian Cardinal's last year could turn out to be a key way to improve the talent on this team.

I was thinking you were suggesting more meaningful moves than a Carney-esque trade. The point of 2010 is to get a great player. Not another Rodney Carney and a late 1st. Obviously having options is always a good thing, I was just expecting something bigger when I opened this thread.

[shrink]

I was thinking you were suggesting more meaningful moves than a Carney-esque trade. The point of 2010 is to get a great player. Not another Rodney Carney and a late 1st. Obviously having options is always a good thing, I was just expecting something bigger when I opened this thread.

I am suggesting more meaningful moves, but the first step, moving Cardinal, isn't going to be much more than this. In fact, I posted a similar trade on the NJN board that has received unanimous support from them:

Stromile Swift (exp) + Maurice Ager (exp) for Cardinal (2 yr) + Carney + UTA 1st.

In fact, I'm starting to think we could offer less. If we like Carney, we could replace him with $3 mil in cash and still get expirings from someone, simply because next season Cardinal would be a tradable expiring.

Anyway, getting back to the point, moving Cardinal is necessary, but it shouldn't cost a lot. The important part is the flexibility we can gain from being under the salary cap, and the trades or free agent moves we can make with it. That's where bigger moves can arise.

[casey]

I'm not sure it's necessary at all though. What kind of deals are we going to make, without sacrificing 2010 free agency, to be worth giving up a 1st rounder (or whatever) to get rid of Cardinal? If the right move comes along you do it, but I'm still not seeing many great things that would come from this.

[shrink]

Dang, I lost my last post, so this one will try to get to the point faster.

I mentioned earlier that if MIN had cap space in 2009, our only sure compeition for offers over the MLE would most likely be MEM and OKC, and I'd argue that MIN would be the most desirable free agent location, since its cosmopolitan and has Al Jefferson. Three other teams could potentially by in play, but since they are all contenders, they may trade their expirings away to compete this year.

MIA: Chad Ford just listed Marion as #1 on his list of "Top Ten Most Likely to Be Traded" players. Riley won't wait.

ATL: They'd not only have to resist trading Bibby .. they'd have to waive Marvin Williams. Even if they are involved, they aren't a terrific FA site.

POR: I mentioned earlier that expectations are high in POR, and they may trade Raef LaFrentz's expiring to fill needs (most likely SF with Webster out a few months), but there is another big possibility. Darius Miles is still on the Celtics, and if he makes the team and plays ten games, $9 mil plops back on the Blazers books. The Celtics roster is at 16 right now, and Miles is the only unguaranteed contract, but most Celtic fans think it will be Cassell who's bought out. supposedly he'd be more valuable as a coach than a 4th PG.

Again, cap space is valuable in free agency or in trade, but the lack of other exciting competitors strengthens our 2009 dollars even more.

[Winter Wonder]

Interesting to see the article about LA's difficulties with extending Bynum.

This would be a reason to have cap space, though I definitely have a hard time seeing this as a realistic target. If, though, things sour enough with LA and he goes to the free agent market, even as a RFA, it would be nice to have the cap space to offer a contract that only a few teams could match. Maybe he would choose OKC, or MEMPH ahead of MIN, but maybe not. LA would likely match regardless, but you never know.

Still, it may be difficult to justify paying Bynum more than Jefferson though. Would be interesting to see who else would try and free up space if Bynum were on the market.

[shrink]

POR: I mentioned earlier that expectations are high in POR, and they may trade Raef LaFrentz's expiring to fill needs (most likely SF with Webster out a few months), but there is another big possibility. Darius Miles is still on the Celtics, and if he makes the team and plays ten games, $9 mil plops back on the Blazers books. The Celtics roster is at 16 right now, and Miles is the only unguaranteed contract, but most Celtic fans think it will be Cassell who's bought out. supposedly he'd be more valuable as a coach than a 4th PG.

Unfortunately, POR waived Darius Miles today. They could still trade LaFrentz though, because no team has higher expectations for success.