Ah thanks a lot. I had an idea like that but was unable to pin it down
Expiring contracts are contracts on their last year, where the player would not longer be under contract with the team after the season is over. Teams trade for expiring contracts (particularly large expiring contracts) because they can clear cap space. So, for example, if the NBA set the salary cap at $60 million. And, the Spurs had committed contracts for next season valued at about $58 million. They wouldn't have much cap space at all. Richard Jefferson is still owed $15 million next season and that $15 million is part of that $58 million. So, if the Spurs could find a team willing to trade an expiring contract worth about $13 million, the Spurs could get more cap space. Then next season, their payroll would only be at about $43 million. Then they would have about $17 million in cap space to sign a free agent or multiple free agents.
Yes, the Spurs are paying Richard Jefferson's $14 million salary. When a team trades for a player, they take on that player's salary. And, to my knowledge, the NBA isn't like the MLB where a team trading a player can agree to pay part of the salary. However, cash considerations (up to $3 million I believe) can be included in a trade. So, hypothetically, if the Spurs were reluctant to trade for RJ and the Bucks really wanted to make the deal go down, they could have included cash considerations. But, that would not affect the amount of RJ's contract in regards to the Spurs payroll/cap space. It would still be $14 million.
Okay so first of all I have no idea how contracts work or the kinds there are. I hear richard jefferson was gotten for 14 mil but are the spurs actually paying him 14 mil? Also, what are expiring contracts and why do teams trade for em to relieve cap space?
sure
Mr Jam, can I ask you something about salaries and contracts?
Did you watch the spurs boston game tonight?
Health will definitely play a factor, for both teams. But I do think the Lakers are the superior team to the Spurs right now. I'd still take Duncan over Gasol, but it has definitely gotten closer because age and injuries have caught up to Timmy a little bit. The problem is that Bynum and Odom are better than Dice, Blair, Bonner, and Ratliff. So even if Duncan is the best front court player, the others still drop the Spurs down in the front court. And, yeah, they still have Kobe. Parker will get his. What I think the Spurs need is not only Duncan playing as well as he did in 2003 and 2005, but they need a fully healthy Ginobili playing like it was 2004-05 as well. If Ginobili can play that well again, then I think the Spurs would have a very good chance against the Lakers. Time will tell if that's asking too much from Duncan and Ginobili.
Sorry to bother again. I need your opinion on something This is how I feel about the spurs this season. If they manage to get 100% healthy and they reach to a western conference finals with the lakers. I feel a 100% spurs < 100% Lakers For the spurs to beat the lakers, I think they have to give more than 100% and duncan has to be the best bigman on the floor to contend with gasol (since they are about even right now both offensively and defensively), bynum and odom to some extent. The lakers are simply superior due to the kobe factor. Home court helps but chasing it in the western conference is too tiring a task for the spurs and they have proved before they can be equally good on the road. With that being said, I think the spurs this season will get out of 1st round and succumb in the 2nd round. I know the season is still far from over but that is how I feel. What do you think?
Perhaps. I don't really know. Two years ago, I think it would have overwhelming been in favor of Iverson. He's the better player. Better winner, leader, teammate? No, he's not. But, he was the better player, in my opinion.
