Comments on: Joe Dumars has own section in Bill Simmons’ worst-NBA-contracts list

By: hodia supplements

hodia supplements — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 04:07:25 +0000

I really like what you guys tend to be up too. This type of clever work and reporting! Keep up the very good works guys I’ve you guys to my personal blogroll.

By: tarsier

tarsier — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:59:20 +0000

Yes, a player who can reasonably expect a multiyear contract in that range won’t take a one year deal at that level. But there are at least dozens of FAs I’d rather have than CV who can’t expect to get much over $5M/yr if over that at all. You think they’d hesitate to give up the security of more years if it comes with a big time one-season pay boost?

And, I suppose I don’t really know the minds of the Memphis brass. But there were a lot of reports out that Memphis and Toronto were near a deal but that Memphis didn’t like it because they didn’t want Calderon. Not because they were worried about the hole at SF. You can always find someone to fill such a hole. But because they had no use for Calderon and for paying him the severely bloated salary he has this season.

But, ok, let’s get away from that use of cap space. How about the signing bonus use? Let’s say the Pistons want to sign someone (be it Calderon, Martin, Redick, Brewer, I don’t really care who) who is not getting anywhere close to a max deal. If the Pistons take CV off the books, then they can use that $8.58M as a signing bonus for someone, and, in so doing, take that $8.58M out of the lifetime of the contract. Then amnestying Villanueva will lesser their cap hits for the next 2-5 years.

And, if Detroit needs an expiring contract to trade, they still have Stuckey.

By: Huddy

Huddy — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:19:43 +0000

I find it hard to believe Memphis wanted to trade Rudy Gay for Ed Davis and a 2nd round pick. Clearly they needed Tayshaun (or a starting caliber SF) from the Pistons and he is a huge part of why the trade works for all teams involved.

If we amnesty him and sign another one year deal we will be double paying at that roster position just to not have CV on the team. I wouldn’t say there is no one worth 8.5 mil, but a lot of guys in that range want longer contracts for security and this years FA class is slim. So would you say there is definitely someone we will utilize for one year that is worth paying on top of paying CV to leave?

Teams value expiring contracts and you can say that other teams like pure space even more for a trade exception, but in the end if they need space they take on expiring players. A lot of teams looking for cap space will be doing so in anticipation of the 2014 FA class, so plenty of teams would not care about having CV on their team with his large expiring contract for the FA possibilities.
Langlois keeps saying he thinks a trade with a team looking to free up space is likely this summer as opposed to next season. Keeping this in mind I just don’t think it is obvious that we will need that mid season cap space to facilitate a trade, CV’s expiring deal isn’t valueless the way you are describing, and there is value in testing his production in his contract year.

By: tarsier

tarsier — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:19:42 +0000

But he’s only a viable trade piece if someone really wants him. If you are trading him as an expiring contract, you can just as easily make that trade without including Charlie by using his open space instead of his expiring deal.

Kinda like the Grizzlies’ trade this season. They wanted to move Gay for Ed Davis and a second round pick. But the Raptors couldn’t do that because it doesn’t work under the CBA. So they had to include Calderon. But the Grizz didn’t want to pay Calderon even for the rest of the season so they eventually found a way to flip him in a three-teamer. If the Raptors had cap space, Memphi would have been even more eager to trade with them because they could have just moved Gay for Davis or whatever.

That is the superior position the Pistons could put themselves in by removing Villanueva. Having an expiring deal can be worthwhile when you’re capped out anyway because removing that player doesn’t give yo money to work with. But that is not the Pistons’ situation.

Nobody is going to trade for CV to get CV. They would only trade for him to get financial relief. And they could get even more (which ups Detroit’s bargaining power) if they could have a big, fat trade exception instead of a big, fat piece of roster deadweight.

But since people seem unclear on that, let’s look at it in the simplest way imaginable. If Detroit amnesties CV, that opens up $8.58M of cap space. Do you honestly believe that there is nobody out there more valuable than CV who could be signed to a one-year $8.58M contract? So if the Pistons want a potential contributor on an expiring deal instead of having open cap room, they can go that route and have an even more appealing asset. And that player would also be in a contract year.

The ONLY basketball reason to not amnesty CV is if you think he will perform at a level justifying his salary. And if you think he would improve that much in a contract year, you and I should really be making some bets with each other. I could use some more cash.

By: Huddy

Huddy — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:49:01 +0000

We get that cap space either way @tarsier you are making a point that we for some reason need it mid season. I definitely agree that space is key mid season but for certain types of teams it is more important. It is less likely the pistons will need to make a mid season move for a play off push than a contender would, but it is possible. Is that flexibility worth giving up the option of trading that expiring contract for an asset (player or pick(s))? We could end up getting the expiring space and a draft pick or a useful player to make a play off push anyway. I understand that trading him is not a sure thing but even if we don’t he expires. It is all about what you give up and amnestying him means we are paying him without having him play (with possible increased production because of contract year) and not having him as a trade piece for the sole purpose of a mid season trade. Not amnestying him still leaves us mid season trade options because of the attractiveness of an expiring contract, but with the chance to actually get something of value for CV. At the VERY least it is not obvious we should amnesty him because in both scenarios if we don’t either use the cap space from the amnesty mid season or get something in a trade we end up in the same position come next summer so it is not obviously better but I would argue we have more options not amnestying him.

To the point of him taking minutes from other players, that deserves zero consideration in the argument for amnestying him. That is an issue with coaching. The coach is not required to play anyone regardless of their contract so if we keep CV for a trade and he is taking minutes from people that is on Frank and no one else. Look at Maggette, we solely got him for the free cap space and maybe to mentor young players and he does not play. He isn’t stealing minutes he is sitting and waiting to expire just as CV could. I understand that amnestying him would make it impossible for Frank to make the mistake of giving him too many minutes but I would not advocate paying him 9 million dollars to walk and play for someone else because our head coach needs someone to force him to make the right decisions, I would rather see Frank go than to hold him hand like that.

By: MrCarter

MrCarter — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:06:15 +0000

By: tarsier

tarsier — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:02:30 +0000

“Note that plenty of other teams around the NBA are going to find a $9M expiring deal pretty attractive heading into that FA period.”

That is possible, but no sure thing. But we definitely know that they will find $9M of empty cap space more attractive.

By: tarsier

tarsier — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 03:59:43 +0000

“If we’re not going to use it, why not have the extra warm body and still have the option of axing him at any moment or waiting for him to come off the books.”

This would be right on if the team maintained the ability to use the amnesty clause at any time. But there is a limited window during the summer when they are allowed to do so.

By: City of Klompton

City of Klompton — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 03:37:08 +0000

Simply put, by keeping CV, we still have plenty of options regarding what to do with CV (and his contract). By amnestying CV, we either use the money or don’t. If we’re not going to use it, why not have the extra warm body and still have the option of axing him at any moment or waiting for him to come off the books. I don’t think we really lose a whole lot by keeping him around at this point.

By: City of Klompton

City of Klompton — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 03:34:15 +0000

I just can’t agree with this logic because this logic assumes that we find a replacement that is worth it as well. We can find a CV upgrade with the cap space we already have AND enjoy the cap space we will have after his contract drops off next off-season (if we don’t unload him for something else between now and then) with the highly-touted 2014 FA class. Note that plenty of other teams around the NBA are going to find a $9M expiring deal pretty attractive heading into that FA period.