Quote:
Originally Posted by futuristxen
So at the very least you'd agree that this trade doesn't subtract financial flexibility? That's the main thing we're addressing here, because a lot of people think the Cavs did sacrifice financial flexibility. You're just arguing that the flexibility they have won't be used, which is your prediction, but who is to really know besides Danny Ferry and Dan Gilbert.
I think they will make a run at a guy like Michael Redd this summer. And the more cap relief they can offer the Bucks the better.
|
The trade doesn't affect their financial flexiblity at all. By the numbers, they already had enough expirings to trade for Redd AND Mike Miller if they wanted to.
I keep seeing people trying to throw added justification into the trade by saying they got all these players AND improved their financial flexiblity. They didn't. This trade is strictly about players. If the players all suck, Cleveland gets worse, and Gooden and Hughes explode (i know, unlikely): it's a bad trade. There's no silver lining coming from the extra couple million they got in expiring money and this deal really doesn't give them any flexibility to make further deals that they didn't already have.