OKC/Jazz Trade

[NUMBERICA]

So what's the point then?

They get something* for basically nothing. The $10 million in cap space that Perkins eats up costs nothing and might not even cost a roster spot if it comes to that. The downside? Something magical might happen with $30 million in cap space than just $20 million for a team that won't get a superstar in free agency? Iron-clad.

*If nothing else, 1st round picks almost always go for $3 million a piece in actual money and you can sell them. Teams are starting to wise up that picks have value and you shouldn't just piss them away because you can get rotational or better players for extremely cheap and building through outspending everyone else is harder to justify with the new CBA. Picks are the closest thing to liquid capital on the market (besides actual money, I guess).

 

[Darkwing Duck]

They get something for basically nothing. The $10 million in cap space that Perkins eats up costs nothing and might not even cost a roster spot if it comes to that. The downside? Something magical might happen with $30 million in cap space than just $20 million for a team that won't get a superstar in free agency? Iron-clad.

The formula, then, is 0 given by the Jazz and +2 and -2 by the Thunder. Net neutral. Thus, pointless. (Jazz wouldn't cut Perkins and pay him 10 million. Look at how long it took a malcontented 3.6 to get bought out.)

 

[NUMBERICA]

The formula, then, is 0 given by the Jazz and +2 and -2 by the Thunder. Net neutral. Thus, pointless. (Jazz wouldn't cut Perkins and pay him 10 million. Look at how long it took a malcontented 3.6 to get bought out.)

The Jazz are giving a guy that is an offensive presence in the paint that the Thunder have never had and could really use (certainly more than Perkins). Some people are saying we're not giving anything and some are saying we're not getting enough back which tells me this isn't bad.

And that 3.6 was for a team over the minimum salary threshold. They're paying that $10 million regardless of where it goes. The situations are not terribly comparable. This is more Tom Gugliotta.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

3.6 for a team over the minimum salary threshold. They're paying that $10 million regardless of where it goes. The situations are not terribly comparable. This is more Tom Gugliotta.

So why Perkins? So the Jazz can get bench players? Can do the same paying some other guy 10 million in free agency that he doesn't deserve, and only do it for one year. I don't see OKC willing to give up draft picks, especially lotto picks. Just screams pointless to me. Wouldn't hate the deal, since I don't really see it as a negative, but it's pointless and a waste of time.

 

[NUMBERICA]

So why Perkins? So the Jazz can get bench players? Can do the same paying some other guy 10 million in free agency that he doesn't deserve, and only do it for one year.

Again, the point is not to reach the minimum, it's to turn nothing into something. Overpaying players that you don't have agency rights over is not the same thing as getting more chances to draft guys that might be on the team for most or all of their careers (and on dirt-cheap deals for their first four years). And yes, they do happen outside of the top-3.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Value in the late 1st doesn't always transpire BUT IT DOES EXIST. Like I've said many times, if nothing else, picks are capital and easy to sweeten deals with. One example, #6 + #27 + future 1st to get the 3rd pick (Deron Williams).

Also Jimmy Butler, Greivis Vasquez, Kevin Martin, almost everyone on the Deron/Boozer Jazz, and many more (and better) examples.