Buying a decent pick

[shrink]

MIN currently has about $8 mil in space under the 2009-10 luxury threshold. We have the ability to create TPE's by exchanging expirings, and by taking back more salary, lower some teams under the lux. Right now, there are 14 teams over, but only six that are within $8 mil.

HOU $3,377,450 (currently #20)
NOH $3,374,049 (currently #12)
MIA $3,947,172 (currently #18) (TOR #21 .. lotto-protected)
UTA $4,446,757 (currently #14 - we have protected) (NYK #8)
DEN $5,320,687 (currently #22-23)
PHO $5,375,868 (currently #22-23) (going to OKC)

With our expirings, it looks like we could do this twice, in two seperate trades, with most combinations of the first four. To spell it out, we'd be buying a pick at a bit over the price, and the other team would be selling the pick for $11-13 million, and in most cases, it'd be a good deal for both.

To create these big TPE's, larger contracts need to be moved, but fortunately, UTA, NOH, and HOU have some very big contracts that are often rumored to be available. UTA needs to do a deal by tomorrow to meet roster minimums. McGrady is actively being shopped, and the Hornets definitely need to move some big contract.

Hopefully, these are the types of financial deals that Glen Taylor is willing to finance -- buying assets at a discounted rate by taking advantage of our financial position.

[Krapinsky]

I don't see it happening, at least not with any of the team you mentioned.

Houston -- This is the only team that presents a possibility, but it would have to be part of a large McGrady deal

New Orleans -- No big expiring contracts. We would have to cut into our cap space next year by taking on Mo Pete. We can't take Songalia back until the summer (and imagine the PR hit there). Maybe that's something we consider for the #10-14 pick if we know Pekovic is going to be using a big chunk of our cap space and we want to keep Gomes.

Miami -- Richardson can't be traded back to us until the summer. J.O and Haslem have too much value to dump for lesser players also on expiring contracts, save a season ending injury.

Utah -- No large expiring contracts that would send an asset in return. Korver, Boozer and Brewer all should have positive value to other playoff teams.

Denver -- No large expiring contracts.

Phoenix -- No large expiring contracts.

Ironically, it looks like you listed them from most realistic scenario to least. Even so, outside of some sort of T-Mac deal, I don't see it happening. I also think Houston can get contributing players for their large expiring.

[the_bruce]

Shrink just wants a TPE to play with next year?

[shrink]

I could easily see us as a third team in a New Orlean or Utah deal.

If the Bulls made a play for West or Boozer, they have plenty of expirings, but they're just barely under the lux themselves, so they can't offer the cap space that the two teams would want.

[Narf]

I could easily see us as a third team in a New Orlean or Utah deal.

If the Bulls made a play for West or Boozer, they have plenty of expirings, but they're just barely under the lux themselves, so they can't offer the cap space that the two teams would want.

I think that if we trade with New Orleans, it'll be for talent. We want to use our financial leverage to upgrade our roster, not buy a pick. Kahn is a business man, this isn't about Taylor paying for a pick it's about making the business money. We're going into the season with probably 3 1st round picks already and a couple of 2nds. So we get the top talent at #1-5, we fill a hole at whatever pick Charlotte ends up being, and we take BPA for Utah's pick (assuming we get that one).

I think the better basketball move on our part is to leverage that money for talent instead and then draft 3 picks next year on top of it. But that's just me. I certainly wouldn't be unhappy walking away with an extra pick for trading Mark Blount's expiring for a semi-useful player like T-Mac.

[shangrila]

Why don't we just pull a Portland and buy a pick outright? Seems a lot easier then messing around with trades.

[shrink]

Why don't we just pull a Portland and buy a pick outright? Seems a lot easier then messing around with trades.

That's true, but if we send POR $3 mil in cash for their pick, and rich Paul Allen agreed, its because he believes the pick isn't worth $3 mil.

If we offer one of these other teams $3.3 mil (or whatever), and their owner agrees, its because he believes the pick isn't worth $11 million. That extra buying power probably means we can get a "yes" on a far higher pick.

I think the better basketball move on our part is to leverage that money for talent instead and then draft 3 picks next year on top of it. But that's just me. I certainly wouldn't be unhappy walking away with an extra pick for trading Mark Blount's expiring for a semi-useful player like T-Mac.

I used picks for simplicity sake, but I'd be fine with any asset that's worth more than the cash. I see adding a pick as another bag in the treasure trove to trade for talent, or to move up in the draft. NOH really doesn't have any talent I'm enamored with except for a certain superstar PG, although we're a very handy third team to NOH in a three-way deal for a player like West.

The bottom line for me is that we have an asset that is more valuable to 14 other teams, and far more valuable to 4-6, and I'd like to see us take advantage of that fact,

[shangrila]

Why don't we just pull a Portland and buy a pick outright? Seems a lot easier then messing around with trades.

That's true, but if we send POR $3 mil in cash for their pick, and rich Paul Allen agreed, its because he believes the pick isn't worth $3 mil.

If we offer one of these other teams $3.3 mil (or whatever), and their owner agrees, its because he believes the pick isn't worth $11 million. That extra buying power probably means we can get a "yes" on a far higher pick.

That's fair enough. I guess it depends on what prospects the team is looking at.