 Tax Payers, Trade Kickers, And Other Deadline Day Bookkeeping
|
| 2011-02-26 |
Oklahoma City shone this week, shoring up their weakest position and picking up a quality backup guard in the process, all for spare parts. D.J. White (a power forward who was never going to crack the rotation), Jeff Green (a talented sixth man type caught on entirely the wrong team), Nenad Krstic (who was a good candidate to leave this summer anyway) and Mo Peterson (who was definitely going to leave this summer anyway), combined with a future protected first round pick from the Clippers, saw them land two starting calibre centres in Kenny Perkins and Nazr Mohammed who should greatly improve their defense, along with Nathan Robinson, who won't.
|
| [read full post] |
|
The Finances Of The Trade Deadline Deals
|
| 2010-02-21 |
On top of that, they traded Nate Robinson and Marcus Landry to the Celtics in exchange for the three expiring/unguaranteed deals of Eddie House, J.R. Giddens and Bill Walker. That deal saves the Knicks a little money, but will cost quite a bit for the Celtics who will have to pay Nate's $1 million playoff bonus (previously listed as unlikely), and then pay it again for tax. It's worth it, however, for the significant upgrade from House to he. (For that reason, it's kind of baffling why the Knicks did it. But none of it will matter anyway.)
|
| [read full post] |
|
Chicago's Meticulously Crafted 2011 Offseason Plan That Relies An Awful Lot Upon Guesswork
|
| 2011-06-09 |
[T]he amnesty clause (that we're having to pretend will exist here, but which almost certainly will exist in some form) will further expand the range of available talents. A lot of decent players are going to become available, not because they can't play the game, but because they can't justify their contract. A lot of the candidates are obvious and inevitable, some perhaps less so. Here's a potential list:
- Oklahoma City: Nate Robinson - Warts and all, Nate is not a bad player. But he's in the wrong situation now, an Oklahoma City team that does not need him. Robinson sits behind Eric Maynor for the simple reason that Maynor is better, and while it may behoove OKC to keep Nate around as a third stringer and trade asset (due to his talent and his expiring contract), they may see fit to work the cap angle instead.
|
| [read full post] |
|
Bulls might waive Nate Robinson to save money (and possibly for another reason, one for which I have no evidence)
|
| 2012-12-19 |
K.C. Johnson reports that the Bulls, despite being a number four seed without having their MVP on the court, are sorely tempted to waive Nate Robinson.
In one of the most unheralded high quality moves of the summer - unheralded because the dominant Bullsean narrative of the summer was rightly one of cost-cutting and player-dumping - the Bulls were able to sign Robinson to not only a minimum salary contract, but a partially guaranteed one at that. Of the $1,146,337 Nate is owed - an amount which, if he's kept for the full season, the Bulls will owe only $854,389 of - only $400,000 is guaranteed, becoming fully guaranteed if not waived on or before January 1st [not the 10th, as reported elsewhere]. In an industry where the permanent goal is to sign as good as quality of player as is possible for as cheap of a price as is possible, this is an incredibly good contract. The institutional maligning of Nate as a player that dates back years cannot (or should not) ignore the fact that he's a hugely talented player who can single handedly turn the outcome of NBA games. And the Bulls should know this, because he's done that more than once for them this season.
The move would be, of course, patently ridiculous. Even if the season was a wash, you don't waive a most vital contributor to save on what, by NBA standards, is a nominal fee, and by no standard is the season proving to be a wash in the first place. Nate is third on the Bulls in PER, the only man who can consistently create a shot off the dribble in Rose's absence, arguably the team's best ball handler, its only creative backcourt player, and one of its best shooters. He's even being masked defensively by the Bulls's meticulous defensive system, and is thus a hugely important player to a team whose season is still important. There are absolutely no basketball reasons why Nate should be cut on the basis of his performance thus far, and the justification offered - that Marquis Teague is showing "signs" - is an unbelievably tepid excuse. Teague has not yet even had the Bulls career of Acie Law, who at least managed three good games to Teague's two. Excited by his future as the may be, there is absolutely no reason why Teague should play ahead of Nate if the Bulls want to win games.
[...] As this is the same team that squeezed Teague of of $170,000 for no justifiable reason, it is entirely possible that this supposedly negligible amount is nevertheless deemed sufficient to merit losing one of their best players. That, however, would be unpalatable. So would be the grim but plausible reality that Bulls brass have sullied on Nate simply because they don't like his style of play, a reality which would involve prioritising aesthetics and perceived importance of fundamentals over actual positive impact. Flawed as Nate is, he's still incredibly useful. It would be depressing for that to be overlooked in deference to stylistic reasons.
|
| [read full post] |
|
|
Note: Non-US teams that the player
has played for are, unless stated otherwise, from the top division in
that nation. If league or division name is expressly stated, it's not
the top division. The only exceptions to this are the rare occasions where
no one league is said to be above the other, such as with the JBL/BJ League
split inJapan.
In the event where more than one agent is listed, this is because the
player has more than one agent. This is rather commonplace - a lot of
times, a player will sign with a big agency, and they will have both primary
and secondary agents from within that agency to handle their affairs.
(Where that happens, the primary agent is listed first.) Also, foreign
players tend to have both American and domestic agents. Where the details
of such are known, they are listed.
|
