Can't see Boston doing this. Way too much salary tied up in role players. Now if Bass was moved in the trade it would make a lot more sense, since if you acquire Asik, Bass gets booted almost entirely out of the rotation.
I think if you do this, Humphries clearly doesn't get re-signed, but I don't know that it should have an impact on Bass next year unless we also draft a power forward or center with our first pick.
Sure, we have a lot of salary tied up in role players, but we're not signing free agents next year, so what does it matter? The following year some of those role players come off the books, and then we can hopefully replace them with a star, but for 2014-2015, I don't see that as an exceptional hurdle. The bigger issue in my mind is that Asik might not be worth a one-year rental if we don't think we're re-signing him, and if we don't think we're going to be legitimate contenders. But I think Rondo walks if we aren't improved next year, and Asik fills one of our two biggest gaps -- defensive anchor and elite scorer. I think it's going to be very difficult to get the latter, but the former is available.
Sure you don't re-sign Hump, but I'd rather have Hump than Bass, especially if they are similar money. I just don't see the point in having all of this wasted money, especially since it means the team will be very close to luxury tax and thus limits moves going forward. Also by moving Bass, Boston has a greater percentage of the trade exception to use right at the start of free agency to absorb players that other teams want to move to acquire cap space. I just don't see the point in utilizing the trade exception and giving up a 1st rounder for Asik. Just not enough financial gain or incentive from Boston in my opinion.
It won't put them that close to the luxury tax to be a real problem for next year. Suppose we pick 4th, get Asik, re-sign Bradley for $6.5 million in year 1 (don't get hung up on that number -- it's just a ballpark figure above where Danny offered last spring and below where AB wanted), keep Pressey and Johnson, and bring in Colton Iverson from Turkey, you're looking at 14 players on the roster costing about $69.7 million. That's $2 million below this year's line, and will probably be $5-6 million below next year's line. Is it the best team? Goodness no. Is it a better team than this year's? I'd say yes. It also doesn't limit financial flexibility in 2015-2016, which is a goal for Danny. If Green opts out, you could have over $30 million coming off the books, not including Rondo.
I'd prefer to trade the lesser of out 2015 picks for Asik than I would our 2014 pick, and I wouldn't make the trade at all if Cauley-Stein is on the board with our second pick. But an Asik trade wouldn't hurt our financial flexibility next season (since we're over the cap without him and under the luxury tax with him), wouldn't hurt our flexibility in 2015 (like signing Hump to a long-term deal would), and would make us a more competitive team next year, which is probably important in terms of keeping Rondo. And if Asik turns out to be a worthwhile component, then hooray, maybe we can re-sign him to a deal that makes sense.
The downside is that pick you traded turns into someone special. The upside is you win more, keep Rondo from running away to winninger pastures, and find a center for the long haul. You can debate how wonderful that upside is, and the relative likelihood of achieving either, but the downside isn't the loss of financial flexibility.
Topic: Asik using the trade exception? (Read 13527 times)