GOD

The following are all large expiring contracts:

Mike Bibby - 15.8mil Atlanta
Wally Szczerbiak - 13mil Cleveland
Jason Kidd - 21.3mil - Dallas
Allen Iverson - 20.8mil - Denver (player option)
Rasheed Wallace - 13.9mil - Detroit
Baron Davis - 17.8mil - Golden St. (player option)
Elton Brand - 16.4mil - Clippers (player option)
Lamar Odom - 14.2mil - Lakers
Shawn Marion - 17.8mil - Miami (player option)
Stephon Marbury - 20.8mil - New York (player option)
Andre Miller - 10.3mil - Philly
Raef LaFrentz - 12.7mil - portland (player option)
Gilbert Arenas - 12.8mil - Washongton (player option)

Any trade we find for the expiring LaFrentz will be met by a lot of other teams trying to also make expiring trade deals. Sure, we have more "other" assets than most teams, but that would mean parting with some of our youth/picks. Not saying a trade won't happen, just that an expiring contract may hold less value this year than most.

__________________

Sonny-Canzano

How many of those teams would be willing to trade those huge expiring deals?

There is only one Paul Allen. It wont be hard at all. We have a lot of young talent and draft picks we can package with Raef's contract.

__________________
When your winning, fight like your losing.

GOD

I would say at least half of the teams would trade.
Cleveland - needs to use every asset to make Bron happy
Dallas - Cuban, i.e. Allen lite, wants to win now. If he can trade Kidd for the right piece, he does.
Denver - I think they would trade AI, but not sure. I know they don't like the combo, but would they be willing to take on 21mil
Detroit - If they get the right offer I think they trade, but they will hold onto sheed otherwise since he is still good
Golden St - wants to keep Davis but if he demands to be traded they will, they need talent and will spend.
Clippers- Not sure on this one, I think that Brand stays with them and they hope he makes a full comeback.
Lakers - they will keep Odom most likely but would certainly have no problem trading him if return was good - not a money issue
Miami - More than any team, they are willing to spend right now to get decent talent
New York - This might be the only team that will not take back a non expiring contract. They are already 2.8% of the national debt.
Philly - I have no idea what they want to do. My guess is they keep Miller.
Washington - they will spend, but they would rather keep their man. May not be their choice.
Atlanta - I think they don't trade Bibby. They want to use him for one year while their players develop and then have savings.

__________________

<-=*PdX*=->

Who knows, this should be an interesting off-season!

__________________

Oregon State Beavers

Balian

Its not like we need to trade Raef away. At worst, Raef's contract comes off the book after next season.

e_blazer1

The major difference between Raef's expiring contract and most of the ones you list is that the others (with the exception of Marbury) are all keepers, while Raef and Marbury are discards. The main use of an expiring contract is to dump salary for the next season. If you trade Raef with a young player or two, throw in a draft pick or two, and you have a very attractive package for a team where they can gain talent and dump salary in the following season. The other guys are all stars and you'd expect the team acquiring them is going to want to keep them and will have to pony up big bucks in order to do so. I'm not saying that some of them won't get traded, but it's not for the same purposes as a team would trade for Raef's contract.

__________________
Blazermania is BACK!!!

GOD

I don't agree, I think that aside from Marbury, Szczerbiak, Kidd and Iverson will all see their contracts expire and will have to forge a new much smaller contract, likely for a vet min with a contender once they expire. I don't think that any team trading for the players I just listed will be signing them to be big factors in their game. More likely, they will be used for a year and discarded, which is better than Raef who will not be used for a year and then discarded.

__________________

darkhelmit54

I think it would make sense to go after Miller somehow. I know he's old and doesn't fit our championship window, but I think that he would get us temporary vet help that wouldn't get in the way of development. In Philly this last year he was giving a lot of the offensive direction to Iggy willingly, so I think he'd play fine with Brandon in the half-court, and it could be a nice transition year while everyone learns to play together before taking a drastic step of Btandon at point full time. If we were willing to move up in the draft by trading Jack to get Love, then flip him, Raef, and Blake to Philly I think they'd do well in a deal like that. Blake is also cheap for them, Love fits an up-tempo team with an athletic C perfectly, and they don't take on too much money. We might have to take a player back to make salaries work, but they could dump off some filler anyways. I just like the tought of Miller on a one year deal directing our team and helping our fastbreak and defense a lot while players like Oden, Fernandez, are integrating and others are trying to develop, than a cluster of Blake and Jack. Then we can evaluate after a year, no strings attached and decide what we want to do with Roy, and Miller would play hard because he'd be in a contract year.

Miller/Rodriguez/Koponen
Roy/Fernandez/Jones
Webster/Outlaw/Jones
Aldridge/Frye/Mcroberts
Oden/Pryzbilla

I still think we should flip Outlaw while his value is hot, but I like this lineup a lot, and it's a little condensed, very flexible, and a good mix of vets (Miller, Jones, Pryzbilla), major players (Roy, Aldridge), developing young players (Webster, Outlaw, Frye), tremendous potential rookies (Oden, Fernandez), and potential players (Sergio, Koponen, Mcroberts).

GOD

I think something like that only makes sense if we have a great PG prospect because I dont think that Roy will ever be a full time PG. But this has been discussed to death, so ...

__________________

darkhelmit54

it would basically buy us another year to

A) Evaluate Roy next to a "real PG"

B) Evaluate Roy as a PG

C) develop and further evaluate Sergio and Koponen w/o a big commitment to them w/ minutes (between Miller and Roy)

D) evaluate Andre Miller

E) play with more of a sense of urgency and competitiveness, this is what helps teams with lots of young players but steady vets, it's not "throw-away" years for them that don't count

alext42083

Wally Szczerbiak makes 13 mil PER YEAR? Who's the scrub GM that organized that deal? WOW...

__________________

GOD

If we have a real PG to use after the year is up, I agree, but otherwise we end the year in a worse situation than we began because Roy will have to learn to play next to his 4th PG in 4 years.

That can be done with any PG, since the PG will be on the bench when evaluating Roy as a PG. (I think Roy can play some minutes at PG, but don't think he should be THE PG.

I don't see how that would be different with Blake or another PG, either way there is no big commitment to Sergio and Kop.

I think he could be good for a couple more years but he will be 33 next year, I think it's better to use our assets to get a PG that fits with the championship window a little better, between 19 and 27 years old. If we evaluate Miller for a year than he would be 34 at the start of his new contract. Does that make sense for what we are trying to do?

This i see as the only legit reason to get Miller. He is good and steady and would mesh with our team. But, the only question I have is, is that worth it for a year or two?

__________________

darkhelmit54