I love this offseason as a Celtics fan. It's about as good as one could expect unless you have been on the "But but but the Celtics haven't had cap room before just you wait and see!" train.nattysez said:
NBA offseason thread
- Thread starter Devizier
- Start date
I think Dallas was probably already good enough to stay out of the top 7. There's enough talentless teams in the NBA that Dirk, Parsons, and Wes Mathews were going to be enough to stay out of there.nattysez said:
This moves Dallas to 43 wins and Brooklyn to 26 in my numbers.
It's really an incredible set of circumstances. Typically when teams trade away multiple future first round pick they have no incentive to tank in the near future. But somehow Brooklyn ends up with ownership issues and is in the position to tank without their own picks. Amazing.
bowiac said:
Exactly, with the knock on benefit of making a material reduction in their massive tax bill. This can only make them more attractive for a new owner.
Well even at the time everyone wondered if they were going to be in the situation of having overpaid aging players with no picks. Once they traded the picks I actually think what they are doing this offseason is fairly smart. They are trying to keep the younger guys who will still be good in 2-3 years and sign a bunch of former high picks who might break out while dumping the long terrible contracts. Get out from under the threat of the repeater tax and carve out cap room without totally gutting the roster LAL style.Vegas Sox Fan said:
Buyout is usually 70% or less. Then they can stretch it, spreading it over 5 years. Probably brings it down to 5.5-6M a year. That alone might get them out of the tax this year, avoiding the massive penalties of the repeater tax, and getting 17M or so off the cap next year too. Only real cost is under 6M in cap space in 2017-19.moondog80 said:
bowiac said:
I think people here were significantly overestimating both the threat of, and the potentially efficacy of the Mavs tanking after the Jordan fiasco based mainly on what seems to be a dramatic off-the-cuff remark by Cuban to a radio station.
I think the NBPA is fine with it because the player usually initiates it. If a team tried to force a player into taking a buyout the Union would get involved, but for the most part they don't care if you voluntarily give up money to become a Free agent, since they see it as you giving up some money to get what you want.moondog80 said:
Well a trade is different to me at least, in the NBA you can't give back money in a trade either.moondog80 said:
I wonder what the MLB union would say if a guy asked to be allowed to be bought out in return for skipping waivers and being free to negotiate with whoever they want. So for example a pitcher in his last year who wanted to go to a particular WS contender, normally he'd never make it through waivers, but the team buys him out and he becomes a FA.
Looks like Embiid is out for this season as well.
https://twitter.com/pompeyonsixers/status/619917395159748608
https://twitter.com/pompeyonsixers/status/619917395159748608
link to tweet
https://twitter.com/pompeyonsixers/status/619917395159748608
https://twitter.com/pompeyonsixers/status/619917395159748608
link to tweet
I didn't see this anywhere else. Paul Pierce is just the best.
http://www.theplayerstribune.com/paul-pierce-deandre-jordan-clippers/
http://www.theplayerstribune.com/paul-pierce-deandre-jordan-clippers/
It's a bit surprising to listen to Nets fans who think they will be a playoff lock next year now that their "locker room cancer" is gone.
1) Deron was a huge disappointment for $20 mil per season, but I never got the sense that he was actually torpedoing their team behind the scenes.
2) He was actually in better shape in Brooklyn than he was in Utah. His career has been hammered by injuries, not laziness.
1) Deron was a huge disappointment for $20 mil per season, but I never got the sense that he was actually torpedoing their team behind the scenes.
2) He was actually in better shape in Brooklyn than he was in Utah. His career has been hammered by injuries, not laziness.
3) The Nets PG depth chart is now Jack, Blake, and Larkin.
Williams was a disappointment to be sure, but hard to imagine the Nets improving by splitting his minutes amongst those 3.
This team in general is pretty terrible. Look at those guards! A Brook Lopez injury and they are one of the 3 worst teams in the league.
http://espn.go.com/nba/team/depth/_/name/bkn/brooklyn-nets
Williams was a disappointment to be sure, but hard to imagine the Nets improving by splitting his minutes amongst those 3.
This team in general is pretty terrible. Look at those guards! A Brook Lopez injury and they are one of the 3 worst teams in the league.
http://espn.go.com/nba/team/depth/_/name/bkn/brooklyn-nets
People underestimate what happens when you lose a 30 minute player and replace those minutes by trying to stretch bench guys beyond their abilities. So the Nets might look like they "play harder" this season but I would be shocked if they aren't a worse team for it.moly99 said:
Pierce never planned on the DC stop. Doc offered him a deal using the Clippers MLE but Pierce was waiting to see what Brooklyn was doing and he didn't want to leave KG there alone. By the time he realized what Brooklyn was doing Doc had already gone on to Plan B. The Clippers always was the natural landing spot for Pierce.....it's home, his coach is there, and they have needed a 3 for three seasons now. Unfortunately aside from some playoff heroics Pierce is pretty much toast at this point. No first step, zero lift, lost his quickness and speed.worm0082 said:
Sac-town closing in on signing Andrea Bargnani. I suppose they could use a shooter, but yikes.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/13241470/sacramento-kings-close-signing-free-agent-forward-andrea-bargnani
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/13241470/sacramento-kings-close-signing-free-agent-forward-andrea-bargnani
Bargnani signed with the Nets. Why would the Kings need another big man anyways?
http://www.netsdaily.com/2015/7/12/8939583/nets-agree-to-sign-andrea-bargnani-to-vets-minimum-contract
http://www.netsdaily.com/2015/7/12/8939583/nets-agree-to-sign-andrea-bargnani-to-vets-minimum-contract
OKC matched for Kanter. $70 million dollars for Enes Kanter. Puts the Thunder over the lux tax threshold as well.
So they go to the max for Kanter but didn't for Harden? No I don't want the Rib Eye but I would love the Spam for the same price.ifmanis5 said:
This is a bit paradoxical, but some of the question about how smart this signing is has to do with how smart they are. I think Kanter is worse than each of Adams/McGary (pretty much regardless of matchup), but he's also not totally hopeless. If they're going to be smart enough to bench Kanter if he's not improving, then it's a fine chance to take given the cap situation they're in. If on the other hand, they're going to "go down with the ship" behind him (because they're paying him so much and because they traded assets for him), then this isn't a great move.BigSoxFan said:
They could have maneuvered to avoid the repeater with Harden, especially with the cap rising. The problem mainly was that they didn't know the cap was going to explode like it will - most owners thought the new TV revenue would get phased in more gradually.
Celtics and Denver may or may not be talking about Gallinari:
https://twitter.com/SteveBHoop/status/620674032430505984
https://twitter.com/SteveBHoop/status/620674032430505984
If we do get Gallinari, I think it would be fair to say that we ve transformed ourselves into an Eastern version of the post-Carmelo Nuggets.
There's been some scuttle about that for a bit - I keep wondering if Denver would bite on Bradley as a centerpiece. I don't have a good sense of Gallinari's value around the league these days. Would something like Bradley, the Celtics first rounder this year, and James Young be enough, or is that obviously too little?
bowiac said:
I suspect that's probably about right. Injury history coupled with pending free agency and I think that makes sense.
Given my loathing of Avery Bradley, and the team's need for someone other than Jae Crowder to play SF, I think that would be a great move for the Celtics.
In my delusion (see this post), the Celtics are picking around ~22nd right now. I don't think their first rounder is worth that much.BigSoxFan said:
Either way it's a safe bet that they are picking past the 12th spot, which Gallinari is certainly an upgrade from. Those teen picks are mostly garbage filler, and when they do pan out it's often not even on the team that drafted them.
I'd for sure give it up.BigSoxFan said:
Ainge wouldn't give it up without protection, and the Celtics will very likely have a better pick from Brooklyn, and possibly another from Dallas.
If they could get Gallinari for their pick and Bradley as the main components of a deal, I'd do it in a second.
That's fair. As I've said elsewhere, I believe in the talent a fair amount, so I don't think that kind of regression is in the cards barring a lot of injuries, but holding out for some kind of top-10 protection would be sensible (even if it risks Denver passing on the totally made-up-deal).BigSoxFan said: