View Full Version : A question of strategy. Crazy, crazy strategy.

08-05-2004, 11:02 AM
Ok, how does this sound. All the time we hear two trueisms:

1) Teams give mediocre players contracts that are way too long, hamstringing themselves for the future.

2) One of the most valuable trading pieces that a team can have is a large expiring contract.

So that said, why don't teams with some cap space sign half-decent free agents to HUGE 1 year contracts. For example (and admittedly, this is a little extreme -- not totally realistic), the Clippers sign Derek Fisher for a $12million 1 year deal. He obviously isn't worth that much, so he jumps at the chance. But now they might be able to trade for someone like Kidd. The Nets know they wouldn't be getting equal value, of course, but they would be opening up cap space for after the season.

Altogether crazy?

Pig Nash
08-05-2004, 11:04 AM
That makes too much sense to work. Also players want security.

08-05-2004, 11:18 AM
I would feel very secure with $12MIL in my bank account!

08-05-2004, 11:32 AM
There's a little thing called the base-year exception, to stop exactly this sort of thing. After a certain threshold, salaries only count for 50% in the first year of the contract. So Fisher's contract would only count as $6M in a trade.

08-05-2004, 12:40 PM
And you can't trade a player you just signed for x number of days.

I think the media over-exaggerates the value of expiring contracts, they are only useful to losing teams trying to get under the cap. The Pacers wouldn't help themselves at all by trading a decent player for an expiring contract because they still wouldn't get under the cap. (This discussion intentionally excludes luxury tax ramifications).

08-05-2004, 05:00 PM
That's pretty much what the Nuggets did with K-Mart's deal, I believe. Starts out big, goes down for a few years, then slowly increases again for the last 2-3 seasons.

08-05-2004, 05:03 PM
Still limited to a maximum decrease of 12% (Bird rights) or 10%, as far as I know.

Pig Nash
08-05-2004, 05:04 PM
yeah, that's what signing bonuses are for, recap.

08-05-2004, 05:04 PM
I think the media over-exaggerates the value of expiring contracts, they are only useful to losing teams trying to get under the cap.

The Spurs traded for 2 expiring salaries last year in the Miller trade. This allowed them to open up money for free agents as well as see if either guy was worth keeping. That was obviously an unusual situation, but good teams can make use of them.

08-05-2004, 05:15 PM
True, I should not have said "only" - I know better. Contending teams are *rarely* in position to get under the cap and stay in contention. It was a very unusual situation related to David Robinson retiring and coming off the books. Also, the Spurs gave up an expiring, non-guaranteed contract (Ferry) to be part of that trade.

08-05-2004, 05:22 PM
Which the Pacers used to stay under the luxary limit if I am not mistaken. It is rare a winning team can do what the Spurs did though.

08-05-2004, 06:04 PM
True. But the Pacers also could have stayed below the luxury tax by just letting Brad walk to Denver, instead of talking Pollard's salary in return. And gotten ever farther below the luxury tax by trading Mercer's expiring contract to one of several teams, including SA, below the cap.

08-05-2004, 06:36 PM
OK OK - then I would be secure with $6MIL in my bank account! Sheesh.

08-05-2004, 06:40 PM
OK OK - then I would be secure with $6MIL in my back account! Sheesh.

Hey man, don't let them play you like that! $9 mil. Stand firm. :cool:

I expect 15%.

08-05-2004, 10:28 PM
You da man Snickers. You're hired!