Per Marc Stein: Bucks plan to buyout Larry Sanders

[SHAQATTACK]

I see some people are saying that 3@$11M may not be outrageous for Sander's potential so I will throw out an idea again:

Trade Wallace for Sanders.

Milwaukee will cut Wallace anyway and save money.  Boston get Sanders but without claiming him and then can reduce the cost of the transaction by the amount of Wallace's salary that they send out.

If I am Ainge, I only do this if Sanders can convince me that he really means it when he says he wants to be an NBA player and isn't just giving this lip service to get even more money off the NBA.

TP. High risk, high reward... or bust. If the Bucks agree to give the Cs the lesser of their own 2017 first rounder/the Clippers 2017 first rounder they own, I would run that risk. The Bucks would be saving 20M and would get a veteran leader/coach in Wallace. Win-win.

Why would you want Sanders on his existing contract?  I would rather wait until after the buyout and see if you can get him cheap.

Im not the OP to your question, but a few reasons would be 1.) guarantees you get him  2.)  his contract is only 1 year longer than Wallace's  3.) he fills a need for this team while Wallace is basically a coach  4.)  if he is right then we get a steal, if not then he fills a bench spot until he becomes an expiring contract

If I knew he wanted Boston I would wait, but if not and we could do Wallace for Sanders and a pick I would do it.  I have waited for the Wallace expiring contract for a while so I would only do it for a first from the Bucks, if we have to throw in a second or 2 I would do it.

Sanders' contract is 2 years longer than Wallace's.

Didn't he sign a 4 year $44 million contract prior to the 2013-14 season?  Was that an extension onto his prior deal?  If it is 2 years longer then no way I would do it.

Yeah I think onto that deal, as in they didn't tear up his remaining year's deal. All I really know is what Hoopshype salary page says.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/milwaukee.htm

TP, that changes everything, makes no sense now

p

Wow ......no way DA signs on a head case , fruit basket .....like this with TWO huge season tacked on ..... 

Looks like the bucks will have to cough up some huge jack to be rid of him


This is the type of stupid GMs that are out there ....signing head cases to these long high priced contracts ....wow

[Evantime34]

He's signed on for 3 more seasons after this.  If they buy him out isnt that dead money staying on their cap for the next few seasons ?

I assume they would stretch him which means it would stay on the cap for the next 7 years (spreading out the remaining money over twice the years plus one).

I would be shocked if Sanders signed anywhere this season. If the Bucks are releasing him it's probably because he is not currently mentally fit to play basketball.

I'm all for talking to him in the summer to see if after an extended downtime he is ready to come back but right now isn't the time to try and sign him.

[LarBrd33]

sanders has 3 years and 33 mil left on his contract.  Bucks would be using the stretch provision which lets you stretch out the cap hit over double the length of the contract + 1 year... So for the next 7 years (until the 2021-22 season) the bucks would have 4.7mil eating into their cap.  Probably not too restrictive, but still...

[Evantime34]

sanders has 3 years and 33 mil left on his contract.  Bucks would be using the stretch provision which lets you stretch out the cap hit over double the length of the contract + 1 year... So for the next 7 years (until the 2021-22 season) the bucks would have 4.7mil eating into their cap.  Probably not too restrictive, but still...

Minus the amount that Sanders is willing to give up in a buy out. I doubt the Bucks buy him out without having Sanders give up some money.

[Nerf DPOY]

sanders has 3 years and 33 mil left on his contract.  Bucks would be using the stretch provision which lets you stretch out the cap hit over double the length of the contract + 1 year... So for the next 7 years (until the 2021-22 season) the bucks would have 4.7mil eating into their cap.  Probably not too restrictive, but still...

Yeah but just think, summer of '22 it'll be smooth sailing.

It'll be here before we know it.

[hwangjini_1]

He's signed on for 3 more seasons after this.  If they buy him out isnt that dead money staying on their cap for the next few seasons ?

on the money, the key, of course, is whether sanders plays up to his potential. the $11,000,000 per year for three more years is well worth it, IF he plays well.

plus, with the salary cap going up, $11 million will look like a bargain for a player of his talent....IF IF IF he plays well.

that really is the point, isn't it?

[D.o.s.]

sanders has 3 years and 33 mil left on his contract.  Bucks would be using the stretch provision which lets you stretch out the cap hit over double the length of the contract + 1 year... So for the next 7 years (until the 2021-22 season) the bucks would have 4.7mil eating into their cap.  Probably not too restrictive, but still...

Not restrictive at all, esp. considering the lockout that's coming in 2017 anyway.

[nickagneta]

I have only read about half the thread and I think I read enough to ask this: To those advocating for the C's to claim Sanders off waivers, if it was your $33 million on the line that depending on Sanders changing his direction, would you do it? Its easy to say, "of heck $11 million a year for the next three years isn't much because...." when its not your money.

Seriously think claiming him off waivers is a non-option. But as a reclamation project on a vet min contract for about 30% of one season? Sure I think Danny might take that risk. What's that, a $300K risk. That sounds more reasonable to me.

[SHAQATTACK]

I have only read about half the thread and I think I read enough to ask this: To those advocating for the C's to claim Sanders off waivers, if it was your $33 million on the line that depending on Sanders changing his direction, would you do it? Its easy to say, "of heck $11 million a year for the next three years isn't much because...." when its not your money.

Seriously think claiming him off waivers is a non-option. But as a reclamation project on a vet min contract for about 30% of one season? Sure I think Danny might take that risk. What's that, a $300K risk. That sounds more reasonable to me.

I agree totally .....he is worth a  small risk .....I think given his history as a looney toon ......he ll walk off and disappear again.

Not sure if chemical s can fix him ......or would he sustain help.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

I have only read about half the thread and I think I read enough to ask this: To those advocating for the C's to claim Sanders off waivers, if it was your $33 million on the line that depending on Sanders changing his direction, would you do it? Its easy to say, "of heck $11 million a year for the next three years isn't much because...." when its not your money.

Seriously think claiming him off waivers is a non-option. But as a reclamation project on a vet min contract for about 30% of one season? Sure I think Danny might take that risk. What's that, a $300K risk. That sounds more reasonable to me.

it depends on how rich i am. rich people waste money on crazy things all the time, if I'm spending the money anyway, I would choose to spend it on my hobby. i would spend money like cubans on my celtics (yes, I would be an owner hehe)! i would skirt every rule I could to invest as much money as possible to build a great team. 

I wouldn't spend it on Sanders though, I would wait until he clears waivers.

[nickagneta]

I have only read about half the thread and I think I read enough to ask this: To those advocating for the C's to claim Sanders off waivers, if it was your $33 million on the line that depending on Sanders changing his direction, would you do it? Its easy to say, "of heck $11 million a year for the next three years isn't much because...." when its not your money.

Seriously think claiming him off waivers is a non-option. But as a reclamation project on a vet min contract for about 30% of one season? Sure I think Danny might take that risk. What's that, a $300K risk. That sounds more reasonable to me.

it depends on how rich i am. rich people waste money on crazy things all the time, if I'm spending the money anyway, I would choose to spend it on my hobby. i would spend money like cubans on my celtics (yes, I would be an owner hehe)! i would skirt every rule I could to invest as much money as possible to build a great team. 

I wouldn't spend it on Sanders though, I would wait until he clears waivers.

lol.    tp

[BudweiserCeltic]

I don't know if I'd do it, but I think it's intriguing to consider rolling the dice with him getting him when he's waived.

We have a lot of cap flexibility as it is, so I don't know what opportunities might be missed with the amount of cap space he'll command, if any... with a rebuilding team, what star/talented players who'd command big money and want to play here would we miss on? Particularly when you consider that to have cap space next year you have to renounce on the TPE's anyways.

Then you have tools like the stretch provision to manufacture cap space if needed (stretching Wallace's contract) for a minimal cap hit for 3 years.

Then you consider that you have only 8 million guaranteed from 2016 and on, with a climbing salary cap.

To me the most important aspect is the 2015 free-agency and the outlook you may have on drawing big talent to the Celtics.

Beyond that we have excessive cap space, and for all intents and purposes Sanders would be on a short 2 year deal by then.

So those are the things I'd be weighting.

Beyond that, what's the risk with Sanders? It's a substance abuse issue with marijuana. What's the NBA policy for a 3rd strike and on? What protections do the Celtics have if this continues?

I don't know the answers to those questions, which I think are the most pivotal. He's been playing well this year from the limited times I've seen him play.

Aside from that, sometimes is good to have a player with a weighty contract for salary matching purposes in trades, and it being allocated into a young talented center is not really too bad of a thing... when you have draft picks assets to use as well on top of it.

So in all, I really don't know what the correct course of action here is considering how pessimistic I see free-agency for us next year with no real realized talent on our roster to draw star players. And even then, I don't think that Sanders 11 million would be that much of a hindrance unless you have 2 opportunities of big money players to sign.