**The Official NBA Trade Deadline Thread**

[phunwin]

Next offseason only Duncan, Gino, Parker and Bowen are under contract. You know what that means don't you?

Hint:

Big money is available

Wrong. The Spurs have $53.8M in salary committed for next season. The cap for this year was $55.63M. Figure that will go up to about $57M or thereabouts. That would actually be a worst case scenario for the Spurs, since they would be just under the cap, which means it's not enough to sign anyone significant, but they also lose their mid-level exception.

 

[phunwin]

Dixon was traded to Detroit for Primos Brezec

Not a bad move for the Pistons, but hardly an earth-shattering one. They could use a little more backcourt scoring off the bench, so I guess Dixon helps there. But their big beef with Stuckey and Afflalo is inconsistency, and Dixon's not exactly a big help there.

 

[phunwin]

I think Beasley is the best player in the country. Regardless of who has the 1st pick I think he's a no-brainer. Really depends upon where they end up picking. Brook Lopez is a guy who has seen his stock soar since coming back.

I agree. Beasley's going to be awesome. I don't see any reason to pass on him with the #1 pick.

 

[DuderinoN703]

You obviously dont watch anything but Spurs basketball. BTW the present is the Spurs are old.

Toughest SOS so far at .520, highest point diff in the West at +6.7, all with a bunch of injuries. We've played 29 on the road and only 25 at home. That means they have one of the easiest schedule after the allstar break with more home games. Our injured players comming back. No more long road east coast trips. We also have the deepest bench in the league.

How is that obvious really? You're a Laker fan so of course you say you're number 1. There's no surprise here.

Yet you're a game back of New Orleans for #1 and only 1/2 a game in front of SA and only b/c you've played 1 more game.

As you claim though the best team in the league doesn't always win the title (which is fine by me, who the **** said you needed to be the best, besides what the hell does best mean anyway).

So what are we arguing about?

I love ya either way Amars :hi5:

 

[DuderinoN703]

Wrong. The Spurs have $53.8M in salary committed for next season. The cap for this year was $55.63M. Figure that will go up to about $57M or thereabouts. That would actually be a worst case scenario for the Spurs, since they would be just under the cap, which means it's not enough to sign anyone significant, but they also lose their mid-level exception.

Ok ok, I meant the year after. Spurstalk.com deems it the "2010 plan"

 

[Amars]

How is that obvious really? You're a Laker fan so of course you say you're number 1. There's no surprise here.

Yet you're a game back of New Orleans for #1 and only 1/2 a game in front of SA and only b/c you've played 1 more game.

As you claim though the best team in the league doesn't always win the title (which is fine by me, who the **** said you needed to be the best, besides what the hell does best mean anyway).

So what are we arguing about?

I love ya either way Amars :hi5:

its a failure to me if the Lakers are not Western Conference Champion. Top to bottom I think no team can match with the Lakers.

:hi5:

 

[DuderinoN703]

its a failure to me if the Lakers are not Western Conference Champion. Top to bottom I think no team can match with the Lakers.

:hi5:

That's good though, confidence is nice. Wish I could say the same for our Phins

:shakeno:

 

[phunwin]

Ok ok, I meant the year after. Spurstalk.com deems it the "2010 plan"

Hang on, let me don my Jamie Hyneman beret and bust this myth.

First, your pals at Spurstalk need to check their math. It's a "2011" plan.

Here are the Spurs' committed cap figures for the next few years...
2008-9: $53.8 million
2009-10: $52.7 million
2010-11: $32.2 million

Figure the cap for 2010-11 will be around $62 million or so, and you're thinking, "hey, $30 million in cap room. AWESOME!" Well, here's the thing about that: everyone has tons of cap room for 2010-11. Every single team is at least $15M under my projected cap right now. A few teams have $0 in contracts for 2010-11, and many have less than $10M.

As a matter of fact, only 8 teams have more committed salary for 2010-11 than the Spurs do, and one of those (NJ) is only ahead by a hundred thousand bucks. Even the chuckleheads in Madison Square Garden are looking at about $34 million in cap room that offseason, at present. (Admittedly, that doesn't account for a couple player options that are likely to be exercised, which push that number down to about $16 million, but you get the idea.)

Now, my point is not that the Spurs are doomed. Far from it; I'd much rather spend $32.2 million on Duncan and Parker, as the Spurs have, and build around that than have Richard Jefferson and Vince Carter for the same price, or Michael Redd, Charlie Bell, Dan Gadzuric and Andrew Bogut for $38.7 million, or Zach Randolph and Jamal Crawford for $28.2 million. Rather, it's that you can't seriously have a "2011 Plan", because there are: a. too many things that can change in the meantime, and b. right now, there's way too many dollars chasing the top players in 2011.

It's difficult to seriously consider the impact of large amounts of cap space more than a few months in advance of free agency and all but impossible to seriously consider it more than a year and a half in advance. When you get out to a full 3 years, making any sort of coherent plan for how you want to spend that cap space is pointless.

 

[DuderinoN703]

Thanks for the insight friend. I guess those fellas do need to get their math in order.

 

[Amars]

NBA salary is complicated.

 

[djfresh47]

I just saw that the Sonics waived Brent Barry. Now if Stern was going to block Stackhouse going back to the Mavs if he were to be waived wouldn't he be obligated to block Barry going back to San Antonio? It is a matter of making the rules up as he goes along but...

 

[Vertical Limit]

I just saw that the Sonics waived Brent Barry. Now if Stern was going to block Stackhouse going back to the Mavs if he were to be waived wouldn't he be obligated to block Barry going back to San Antonio? It is a matter of making the rules up as he goes along but...

Didn't really expect Barry to get bought out or anything. Not the same as "I'm going to get my dough, take a vacation, and come back to my team, yo. I ain't going nowhere", though.

 

[phunwin]

Thanks for the insight friend. I guess those fellas do need to get their math in order.

No problem at all, Dude. NBA salary cap stuff can be complex, but hoopshype.com has, in my opinion, the most comprehensive, easiest-to-understand salary database, and I use it liberally.

 

[phunwin]

I just saw that the Sonics waived Brent Barry. Now if Stern was going to block Stackhouse going back to the Mavs if he were to be waived wouldn't he be obligated to block Barry going back to San Antonio? It is a matter of making the rules up as he goes along but...

No. He would only be obligated to block it if there was evidence of a pre-arranged deal. Stackhouse running his big fat mouth was just such evidence. Barry hasn't said anything to indicate that, upon being waived, he intends to resign with the Spurs. The Spurs have to wait 30 days to resign him, as well, so if some other team thinks they can use him, they'll have 30 days to work something out before the Spurs can get involved.

 

[DuderinoN703]

No. He would only be obligated to block it if there was evidence of a pre-arranged deal. Stackhouse running his big fat mouth was just such evidence. Barry hasn't said anything to indicate that, upon being waived, he intends to resign with the Spurs. The Spurs have to wait 30 days to resign him, as well, so if some other team thinks they can use him, they'll have 30 days to work something out before the Spurs can get involved.

I'd love for Brent to come back to the team. It's true that Stackhouse shouldn't have said what he said. In the end though, he got what he wanted considering he's still a Mav.

Come home Brent! :D