He is trading "cap space" but I would argue it's not cap space that holds much value. Unless they were able to deal Walt Williams for expirings, they wouldn't have any cap space to work with this offseason and would be limited to MLE/LLE, so the lost cap space is not that big of a deal.Oregon Ownage wrote:You are trading cap space hence its not free. Free would be dealing away a scrub signed to a one year deal to match salaries. Plus you are taking up roster spots on players who project as best backups? Its not like they are good young players who can develop into somethingFoxyg1396 wrote:And if they don’t get under hardcap, I get those pieces for free instead of giving up Armstrong. How is that hurting my team?Oregon Ownage wrote:Its not really free as you are giving away cap space to help a conference foe get under the cap. You are hurting your team by accepting that deal and giving away the leverageFoxyg1396 wrote:I mean yes, but then I essentially get a first and some rookies for freeCraig wrote:Thats awfully generous
Now for this commentI love trading and have been working the phones but when GMs reach out to me, I am very clear in what I value players for and wont accept anything less than what I think they are worth. Do I lose deals b/c of this? Absolutely I do, but more often than not GMs will reach back out again with an improved offer.Foxyg1396 wrote:Everyone always complains about Grizz getting deals and players but nobody wants to trade anymore. If everyone wasn’t so stingy then maybe there would be a wider spread of talent across the league.
Very few teams try to correct their deficiencies, and then get mad when teams like clippers, and grizzlies correct theirs
Also, if teams are not trading its b/c they do not want to engage with a bad deal and accepting less than ideal offers for players or overpaying for average players. That IMO is healthy for the league. Dealing players for less than their value which you did with Armstrong is not good for the league and only condenses the talent to select teams. I said this previously, why would a GM come to you with an acceptable offer when you have shown in the past to accept less than fair value for your players? You have no leverage in trades and are only doing favors for other teams while not evaluating your team properly and as a result hampering further moves.
In this trade, you dealt the best player and got back a late 1st, backup big (Miller) and wasted cap space for future seasons. How does that help your team moving forward?
It was better to hold onto Armstrong into the off-season for a better offer or continue to construct your roster with Armstrong but instead dealt one of your better assets
Armstrong is really good, and probably could be considered a top 7 PG, but:
1- offense isn't consistent
2- he is still 31 yrs old on 3yr max contract
The 2nd part is the biggest deal. Many of the competing teams don't have any cap space and so trading for a 31yr old on a max contract just wouldn't work. I mean, that's the whole reason that the Grizz structured the deal so that they could get Armstrong.
Agree with the rest of your post.