Kahnxoneration?-Dooling waived

PHTown · Post #1 » by **PHTown** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:53 pm

The Nets are waiving Dooling. There was alot of talk from the nets about Dooling's contract having value as an instant expiring similar to Gomes'.

Does this exonerate Kahn a little bit, and provide further evidence for a lack of market for the "instant" expiring? I'm not up on the specifics of Doolings deal. Anyone know?

LordBaldric · Post #2 » by **LordBaldric** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:03 pm

The Nets are one of the teams going after the big free agents so of course they waived him to clear more cap space. Not like our situation at all.

Breakdown777 · Post #3 » by **Breakdown777** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:13 pm

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/67527/20100628/portland_could_trade_gomes/

Figures. If Portland manages to do what Kahn couldn't, and get an asset for his expiring deal, then I will be very disappointed.

Esohny · Post #4 » by **Esohny** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:25 pm

Breakdown777 wrote:http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/67527/20100628/portland_could_trade_gomes/

Figures. If Portland manages to do what Kahn couldn't, and get an asset for his expiring deal, then I will be very disappointed.

Didn't Portland already announce that they were waiving him?

PHTown · Post #5 » by **PHTown** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:39 pm

I just saw that Portland was looking. We shall see. It would not surprise me at all if they were able to trade him.

Foye · Post #6 » by **Foye** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:41 pm

PHTown wrote:I just saw that Portland was looking. We shall see. It would not surprise me at all if they were able to trade him.

+1

Krapinsky · Post #7 » by **Krapinsky** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:44 pm

Whatever Portland gets back for Gomes does not take cap space. It's a different situation for them.

john2jer · Post #8 » by **john2jer** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:58 pm

Breakdown777 wrote:http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/67527/20100628/portland_could_trade_gomes/

Figures. If Portland manages to do what Kahn couldn't, and get an asset for his expiring deal, then I will be very disappointed.

Wait, isn't Martell Webster an asset? I think Kahn definitely thinks he is.

Saltine · Post #9 » by **Saltine** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:55 pm

I think he is, much more than Babbit and Gomes.

Breakdown777 · Post #10 » by **Breakdown777** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:05 am

Kahn refered to Portland taking Gomes as the "cherry on top" in the deal, and said that getting rid of Gomes was a plus. Ergo, he didn't need to be included. If we could've done Babbit for Martell, how does Babbitt plus Gomes for Martell make Gomes an asset?

Krapinsky wrote:Whatever Portland gets back for Gomes does not take cap space. It's a different situation for them.

That is correct, but it still would've been nice to get a 2nd rounder or something for Gomes - marginally taking up some future cap space (I am aware that we don't know what the offers for Gomes were, but if Portland gets a draft pick I'll be annoyed). I think we are out of extra picks now, and we seem to really like stashing foriegn guys. How are we going to do that without multiple 2nd rounders?

the_bruce · Post #11 » by **the_bruce** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:27 am

can was more focused on the hit from gomes next year to the cap

TrentTuckerForever · Post #12 » by **TrentTuckerForever** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:57 pm

There was a interesting tidbit thrown out in Chris Sheridan's chat on ESPN yesterday:

Chris: (Miami)

Do you believe Pat Riley when he says he's not looking to trade Beasley?

Chris Sheridan (3:19 PM)

He's not looking to trade him because he's been trying to trade him for a year, and he can't. So technically, I believe him. But the truth of the matter is they discussed moving him to the Wizards several times, and the Nets, too, and neither team wanted any part of him. The Wolves were willing to give them Ryan Gomes, but Miami did not want to do that deal.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/33167

I think that indicates something about Gomes' value... Beasley is the one obstacle to the Heat offering three max slots. I think we as RealGMers overrated the value of the Gomes contract.

Post #13 » by **Worm Guts** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:06 pm

At the very least, Gomes contract gave us potentially 3 million more in cap space. The potential cap space had more value the contract did as a tradeable asset though.

Krapinsky · Post #14 » by **Krapinsky** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:47 pm

Looks like the Nets got a better deal than the Ryan Gomes contract just for Yi. Quentin Ross is owed about half of what Gomes was if bought out. Yi is seriously terrible too.

Kurosawa · Post #15 » by **Kurosawa** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:59 pm

One thing we seem to have forgotten about the so-called "value" of Gomes' contract is that it had value ONLY if we were willing to take back a comparable contract with one or more years remaining. Otherwise, what would be the motivation of a team to acquire Gomes? Put another way, what team in its right mind would trade a future draft pick--even a low second--for Gomes with the intention of waiving him? A team doing that would have a total of $2.75 million added to its cap over the next three years without having shed any salary of its own.

Will Portland, a team that's over the cap, be willing to take on the salary of the player they would acquire in a Gomes trade for whatever additional asset (a pick) they would also receive? I doubt it.

Portland painted itself into a corner with this trade. To see how vexing this situation is for Blazers fans, go here:

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1025133

The only valuable asset they think they could obtain Gomes for is...Michael Beasley. The very same Michael Beasley that David Kahn tried to acquire for Gomes a week or two ago and was turned down by Pat Riley.

The Blazers will cut Ryan Gomes today and eat the $2.75 million cap hit.

Great trade by Kahn.