Bad NBA Contracts for Assets Explained

[LoPo]

Some contracts are so bad that they are considered "untradable". Some bad contracts can be moved, but the team has to give up an asset in order to move it. For example, the Lakers gave up D'Angelo Russell in order to move Mozgov's ridiculous contract.

I start this thread to inform some of why a team sometimes has to give up an asset in order to dump a contract. There are some in this forum, who just don't seem to get it. They can't comprehend why the New Orleans Pelicans would have to use an asset like a 1st rounder in order to dump Omar Asik's contract.

For a list of contracts deemed "untradable", check out this article: http://hoopshype.com/2017/11/21/the-most-untradable-contract-on-each-nba-team/

So from now on, if a trade idea is thrown out there where the Jazz get an asset because we use one of our expirings to take back a bad deal, then this will help explain it.

Have a great day. Go Jazz.

 

[infection]

I think everyone gets the concept just fine. I think the problem is more thinking that just because sometimes people give up assets to clear space that people would also give up their best assets to clear space.

 

[LoPo]

I think everyone gets the concept just fine. I think the problem is more thinking that just because sometimes people give up assets to clear space that people would also give up their best assets to clear space.

I don't think people do honestly. Not everybody.

Or, which is probably more likely, they get the concept but just want to troll and whine about every idea that isn't theirs.

 

[infection]

I don't think people do honestly. Not everybody.

Or, which is probably more likely, they get the concept but just want to troll and whine about every idea that isn't theirs.

I think a perfect example is how the Lakers may trade a draft pick to dump salary, but they won't trade Kuzma to clear salary, even if they get a middling asset in return.

 

[LoPo]

I think a perfect example is how the Lakers may trade a draft pick to dump salary, but they won't trade Kuzma to clear salary, even if they get a middling asset in return.

Completely understandable.

My complaint more lies in the Mahinmi, Asik, Ryan Anderson and other examples.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Most teams can handle one bad contract. It is when they have multiple bad contracts that they get in trouble. But very few teams are willing to give up a good asset to dump a contract. They will ride out the contract until it becomes an asset that is expiring or give a meh asset that another team wants along with it. Such as what the Jazz got for GS salary dump, late firsts.

The Lakers situation is very rare and added to the fact that they did not want or like Russel for various reasons. They did not value him that high and felt he was replaceable. It was a bad trade for the Lakers, teams are not likely to repeat their mistakes. Besides most teams dont have the ability to recover from bad trades like the Lakers do. Most teams are not getting high profile FAs.

Teams are not giving up their best players or high lottery picks to dump a contract. Those are the assets they want and need to get better. Those are the trade types being suggested that no one can take serious.

 

[LoPo]

Most teams can handle one bad contract. It is when they have multiple bad contracts that they get in trouble. But very few teams are willing to give up a good asset to dump a contract. They will ride out the contract until it becomes an asset that is expiring or give a meh asset that another team wants along with it. Such as what the Jazz got for GS salary dump, late firsts.

The Lakers situation is very rare and added to the fact that they did not want or like Russel for various reasons. They did not value him that high and felt he was replaceable. It was a bad trade for the Lakers, teams are not likely to repeat their mistakes. Besides most teams dont have the ability to recover from bad trades like the Lakers do. Most teams are not getting high profile FAs.

Here are the reasons why these teams want to dump the contracts:

Washington - they are $6 million over the luxury this year and way over for next year. They are not a team that can afford to be a repeat offender of going over the luxury tax. They don't want to trade Beal, Wall, or Porter. Mahinmi is the obvious casualty for an asset or two.

Houston - they have tried to move Anderson. Why? Because his contract hurts their chance to contend. They could stomach this year because they have Paul. They can't keep Anderson this summer and beyond because Capella, Paul and Ariza have to get retained. On top of that, they might need more talent to contend. They will use an asset to dump Anderson.

New Orleans - they traded a bit for Boogie and they want to keep him. To keep him and AD for that matter, they need to pay him AND put the team around AD. Asik is a massive roadblock to adding to Holiday, Boogie and AD. Asik has to go using an asset or NO loses a chance to build around an all NBA talent. NO is probably the least needy on this list, but they have a very tiny window with AD.

The situation isn't that rare. Yes, some teams can stomach a bad contract from time to time. However, these three teams can't if they want to get near their most important goals (avoiding repeater luxury, title contention, or keeping a roster together).

 

[Ron Mexico]

Here are the reasons why these teams want to dump the contracts:

Washington - they are $6 million over the luxury this year and way over for next year. They are not a team that can afford to be a repeat offender of going over the luxury tax. They don't want to trade Beal, Wall, or Porter. Mahinmi is the obvious casualty for an asset or two.

Houston - they have tried to move Anderson. Why? Because his contract hurts their chance to contend. They could stomach this year because they have Paul. They can't keep Anderson this summer and beyond because Capella, Paul and Ariza have to get retained. On top of that, they might need more talent to contend. They will use an asset to dump Anderson.

New Orleans - they traded a bit for Boogie and they want to keep him. To keep him and AD for that matter, they need to pay him AND put the team around AD. Asik is a massive roadblock to adding to Holiday, Boogie and AD. Asik has to go using an asset or NO loses a chance to build around an all NBA talent. NO is probably the least needy on this list, but they have a very tiny window with AD.

The situation isn't that rare. Yes, some teams can stomach a bad contract from time to time. However, these three teams can't if they want to get near their most important goals (avoiding repeater luxury, title contention, or keeping a roster together).

Those are all situations that they want to create cap space. But many of them can afford the luxury tax. They also can make trades that include those players without giving up big assets. Those teams are not giving up a big asset to dump a contract.

There are also teams below the min salary line next year that are okay taking some salary and getting a small asset, such as what the Jazz did in the past.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

 

[radiohegel]

I think people understand this fine. People can understand an argument perfectly well and still think it's a bad one. Not trying to be a jackass, but it's not a great look to just assume people are stupid because they aren't agreeing.

 

[LoPo]

Those are all situations that they want to create cap space. But many of them can afford the luxury tax. They also can make trades that include those players without giving up big assets. Those teams are not giving up a big asset to dump a contract.

There are also teams below the min salary line next year that are okay taking some salary and getting a small asset, such as what the Jazz did in the past.

All 3 of those teams would love to dump those contracts if they could. That's the point.

 

[Ron Mexico]

All 3 of those teams would love to dump those contracts if they could. That's the point.

Yes, but not for a good asset. Houston for example is going to compromise winning it all this year to dump one bad contract that fits their team and helps them win.

 

[LoPo]

I think people understand this fine. People can understand an argument perfectly well and still think it's a bad one. Not trying to be a jackass, but it's not a great look to just assume people are stupid because they aren't agreeing.

I apologize if I was insinuating stupidity. I wanted to make some aware of possibilities while also sharing the opinions of a writer on certain contracts.

I'm perfectly fine if someone disagrees with an idea. Most ideas are food for thought and just serve as starting points of hypothetical discussions. I do find an issue when someone calls an idea idiotic when, for example, any logic at all will tell you that Washington would give a ton if some team would actually take Mahinmi's pathetic contract. Same with others.

 

[LoPo]

Yes, but not for a good asset. Houston for example is going to compromise winning it all this year to dump one bad

But they have to give a good asset to dump the contract. C'mon man. Nobody was taking Mozgov without Russell (a #2 pick). And Mozgov can freaking play. Nobody is taking Mahinmi without a big asset.

Houston would compromise it all by picking up Joe Johnson and Favors for Anderson and picks? Really? Compromise it all?

 

[gomretat]

There are probably some folks who don't get it but most do. The real issue is that folks simply disagree with what is being proposed as potential trades.

 

[LoPo]

How about this - I'm not even a betting man, but I'll make some kind of avatar bet if I'm wrong. If Houston, Washington, Lakers or New Orleans don't do a salary dump deal before the deadline in February, I'll let you set my avatar for the rest of the season.

Who wants to bet?

 

[infection]

But they have to give a good asset to dump the contract. C'mon man. Nobody was taking Mozgov without Russell (a #2 pick). And Mozgov can freaking play. Nobody is taking Mahinmi without a big asset.

Get a hold of the Washington GM and work a deal where we get Porter for taking Mihinmi and the rest of us will work on finding out how you can get in touch with DL.

 

[Archie Moses]

Quantify how much you fantasize about being in the front office, please.

 

[silesian]

I think everyone gets the concept just fine. I think the problem is more thinking that just because sometimes people give up assets to clear space that people would also give up their best assets to clear space.

The D'angelo trade would not have gone down if he had not (to some degree) fallen out of favor in LA. Lakers would not have moved Ball or even Kuzma to clear a bad contract.

 

[LoPo]

Get a hold of the Washington GM and work a deal where we get Porter for taking Mihinmi and the rest of us will work on finding out how you can get in touch with DL.

That's the thing, they want to keep Porter. They want Porter, Beal, and Wall to grow and add to that. Mahinmi screws that up. I think Washington would ship out one or two 1st round picks if they could get rid of Mahinmi, get under the luxury and get back anybody who assists their playoff run this year.