C.lupus wrote:mandurugo wrote:The Dr.'s system seems pretty good to me as well. Though it does seem odd that the wolves with the 2nd worst record in the NBA doesn't have any negative assets. It might be interesting to add this to game threads and compare the wolves to the opposing team. I'll leave that for a more ambitious poster however.
Well this is the Wolves board. :wink:
But seriously, the only reason, at least in my mind, that this is true is because all (or at least most) of the sucking talent are on expiring contracts and the rest of the team is young and on reasonable contracts. If Sasha were a long-term piece, he'd be a -5.
If our goal was to win now, we'd have some bad assets. Paying Mark Blount $8 mil for no production = bad. If our goal is to win later, we're doing fine. Paying Mark Blount $8 mil so he expires this summer and we have raw cap space = good.
Moreover, let me point out that Mark Blount isn't really a trade asset if we aren't willing to trade him to add salary running past 2010. So he's more of a tool than an asset, and what we are trading is a willingness to spend money in the future, which I believe we have for the right player. We're far enough under the lux and cap to not pay double, and we have a rich owner who has demonstrated a willingness to spend for talent in the past.
