Well, it's pretty much a wrap for the hugely anticipated summer of 2010. Sure, there's a Josh Howard here and a Lou Amundson there, but basically, all the difference-making free agents in this year's class were snapped up a long time ago. (Sorry, Shaq.)
So now it's time to look back and size it all up. Ideally we'd wait 'til a couple of these teams had played actual games with their new rosters, but where's the fun in that? Instead, it's time to jump the gun and offer one man's opinion of the good, the bad and the ugly of the 2010 offseason.
Today we're going to start with the happy stuff: the winners from this year's offseason. And after rehashing all the moves, it seems to me the big gainers are Chicago, Milwaukee, Golden State, San Antonio and Portland. Let me get into detail about how each of those teams succeeded this summer.
But first, let's double-check. Am I leaving anybody out? Trying to think here. Ah, yes …
[h3]Miami Heat[/h3]
Duh. I'd say they had a decent offseason. I think we can all agree on this without the need for detailed analysis.
While we're here, I should mention that I don't get the Joel Anthony contract -- when Miami makes a mistake, it's almost always by falling head over heels for a limited role player like Anthony. But when you walk away from the offseason with three of the four best players in the conference, you can punt $18 million on Joel Anthony and still call it a good summer. Heck, they could have given the $18 million to Billy Joel and they'd still top the list.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's talk about the summer's other winners.
[h3]Chicago Bulls[/h3]
I don't see their failure to get one or two of the Big Three as some kind of big setback. The Bulls already had a lot of young talent and ended up with a much better team than the one they had at the end of April, which I thought was the point of this whole exercise.
They basically traded John Salmons, Kirk Hinrich, a mid-first-round pick and a second-round pick for Carlos Boozer, Kyle Korver, Ronnie Brewer and C.J. Watson. You do that deal in a heartbeat. Boozer and Korver filled glaring needs for post scoring and shooting, respectively, while Watson can take over as the backup point guard and provide another shooter.
Additionally, don't sleep on Turkish import Omer Asik. A second-round pick in 2008, he signed for a mere pittance but should be a solid backup center right away. I'd still like the Bulls to come up with another shooter, but they had a very strong summer.
[h3]Milwaukee Bucks[/h3]
The Bucks were the worst team in the league at drawing fouls last year. Not any more -- human free throw machine Corey Maggette gives them the kind of shot-creating scorer that they desperately needed a year ago, and he cost them nothing. He has his faults, but fans overlook how effective a scorer he is because so many of his points come via the relatively uninteresting free throw.
Drew Gooden was another solid get, providing a massive upgrade from the likes of Kurt Thomas and Dan Gadzuric a year ago. Ideally his deal would be a year or two shorter, but given what other teams paid for frontcourt talent, the Bucks still got a good price. Meanwhile, retaining Salmons was crucial, albeit unfortunately expensive in this market. Remember, teams over the cap have an incentive to overpay their own free agents since it's impossible to replace them, so from that perspective Salmons' price makes sense.
Milwaukee's end-of-roster moves were just as strong. Jon Brockman was flat-out stolen from Sacramento for a second-round pick after leading the NBA in offensive rebound rate last year. Chris Douglas-Roberts also cost the Bucks a second-rounder, but fills a need by giving them another wing who can score. Keyon Dooling won't replace what Luke Ridnour gave them a year ago, but that was the one sacrifice they had to make to pull off the other moves.
It might seem like the Bucks spent a lot, but their cap situation going forward is still really strong and they're two deep at every spot. Fear the Deer, folks -- the Bucks could be a force this year.
[h3]Golden State Warriors[/h3]
Forget about anything that happened on the court. They've got new owners!
It doesn't even matter who the new owners are, just that the reviled Chris Cohan is now the old one. The Warriors' phenomenal history under Cohan includes 15 lottery appearances in 16 seasons and an unrivaled track record of building up and then shredding to pieces any talented young player that came through. The sooner the new guys clean house, the sooner the Warriors can start acting like a real NBA franchise again. Golden State's slavishly loyal fans still pack the arena despite all the losing; one can only imagine the local support if the team started winning consistently.
The new owners (Joe Lacob and Peter Guber) did receive some lovely parting gifts from the Cohan gang. I don't like the David Lee deal, but he'll be a heck of a pick-and-roll partner with Stephen Curry. If the Warriors can find some defensive players to put around those two, especially a tough center, and convince a dumb franchise that Monta Ellis is really good (look at his scoring average!), the rebuilding period may be brief.
[h3]San Antonio Spurs[/h3]
I put the Spurs here because they got under the luxury tax while signing the best free-agent contract of the summer, Brazilian big man Tiago Splitter's three-year, $10 million deal. Splitter could start at center for a good chunk of the league's teams right now, but in a summer in which Brendan Haywood got $55 million, San Antonio got Splitter to cross the pond for relative chump change.
On the other hand, they got under the tax solely because Richard Jefferson opted out of a final year on his deal that would have paid him $15 million. This one raised eyebrows in front offices around the league, many of which suspected that there was a prearranged deal between the two parties.
This isn't an outlandish premise, given that:
• Jefferson told reporters in April that it might be worth it to opt out if he could get a four-year, $40 million deal (he said it right here on April 11).
• That's almost to the dollar the deal he received in July.
• Doing so got the Spurs out of the luxury tax and allowed them to sign Splitter at a discount.
• There didn't appear to be any kind of serious bid from another team to drive up Jefferson's price.
That said, we have no smoking gun that there was any kind of prearranged deal between the Spurs and Jefferson. We don't even have a smokeless gun. All we have is the circumstantial evidence above, as well as two other pieces of information:
1. The Spurs don't sign bad contracts.
2. This is the worst contract of the summer.
Seriously, four years and $39 million for Richard Jefferson? Did Isiah Thomas take over the franchise and not tell anybody? Wings who depend on athleticism have a rough time in their late 20s and early 30s; Jefferson just turned 30. He wasn't a $10 million per year player two years ago, and sure as heck isn't going to be one two years down the road.
Follow the money, however. Jefferson's opt-out and lower-salaried return means the Spurs will save about $17 million in salary, luxury tax and tax distributions this year (if one presumes Splitter was coming regardless). Jefferson's new deal cost $31 million after this season, which is all we care about since the Spurs were paying him in 2010-11 either way. Subtract $17 million from $31 million and you end up with Jefferson's deal as a three-year, $14 million extension, which seems eminently reasonable … if you were going to prearrange such a thing.
So the Spurs ended up with both the best and worst contracts of this offseason. But on balance, they're paying $13 million a year for the next three years for a Splitter-Jefferson combination. I'd take that deal any day, and between it and drafting James Anderson, I think the Spurs are in much better shape for next season than many people realize.
[h3]Portland Trail Blazers[/h3]
As crazy as this sounds with all the mayhem in the front office, the Blazers actually came out of this offseason better than when they started. Since Kevin Pritchard was allowed to operate the draft before being unceremoniously dumped as general manger, Portland ditched Martell Webster's contract and got three promising rookies out of draft day -- most notably high-scoring forward Luke Babbitt, who is exactly the kind of floor-spacing 4 who Nate McMillan loves.
During the interminable delay before hiring Pritchard's successor (note to Blazers honchos Paul Allen and Larry Miller -- if you know several months ahead of time that you're firing the GM, it might be wise to have some kind of succession plan in place), what was left of Portland's front office managed to lure Wesley Matthews from Utah. They overpaid, sure, but they overpaid for a piece that really fits. Matthews will help them with his defense and 3-point shooting -- every team is looking for players like this -- and since I don't imagine Paul Allen will have major objections to the Blazers' being a luxury tax team, the dollars aren't going to hurt them.
Finally, the Blazers made a strong hire by bringing in Oklahoma City's Rich Cho to take over. He adds the cap expertise that the team lost with the firing of Tom Penn earlier in the spring. The Blazers lose Pritchard's scouting eye and deal-making skill, but the organization was already very strong in the former department with NBA scouting director Michael Born and college scouting director Chad Buchanan. Given what a mess this seemed like two months ago, they've ended up in fantastic shape.
* Offiical NBA Off-Season Thread: I'll give one of my damn kidney's for these Melo rumors to stop *
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by jpzx,
- Start date
- Jan 29, 2007
- 7,084
- 45
I might be a little bias, but i think the Knicks deserve to be up there too.
I cant take portland serious for giving Matthews that deal.
I cant take portland serious for giving Matthews that deal.
do be doo
Banned
- Mar 13, 2009
- 6,589
- 547
Jefferson worst contract of the summer tho? JJ or Darko can take that place.
jpzx
Supporter
- Feb 7, 2008
- 58,679
- 28,000
Darko is the worst move of the off-season? Really? Some of you dumb %*!*! that same lame !@%* after lame !@%* make me laugh
So let me get this straight...
Darko averages 10 PPG and 6 RPG in the two months we had him (when he finally got consistent playing time), dude gets 4 year, 20 million.
Amir freaking Johnson averages 6 PPG and 4 RPG and gets 5 year, 34 million.
Yet, Darko is the worst move of the off-season right?
So let me get this straight...
Darko averages 10 PPG and 6 RPG in the two months we had him (when he finally got consistent playing time), dude gets 4 year, 20 million.
Amir freaking Johnson averages 6 PPG and 4 RPG and gets 5 year, 34 million.
Yet, Darko is the worst move of the off-season right?
- Dec 27, 2002
- 16,335
- 13
"They have a nice group of guys, but will have a couple more losing seasons," Jefferson said of the Timberwolves.
"Minneapolis is my home away from home. I respect the fans that havesupported me through the good and the bad ... but when I told people Iplayed for Minnesota, some people didn't even know they had a team.Everybody knows about Utah. Everyone knows the Utah Jazz.
"I go from being in a Toyota to a Bentley. It's a beautiful thing."
- Aug 12, 2008
- 5,456
- 11
The Wolves can only dream to be as successful as Toyota tho.
- Nov 14, 2007
- 8,956
- 39
Originally Posted by CP1708
The Utah Jazz are a Bently?
Compared to the Wolves.
Yes.
jpzx
Supporter
- Feb 7, 2008
- 58,679
- 28,000
Outside of one season the Wolves have pretty much been irrelevant what did he say wrong?
However, if the Jazz are a Bentley what are the Lakers?
However, if the Jazz are a Bentley what are the Lakers?
dontsteponmyshoes
Supporter
- Mar 12, 2004
- 13,266
- 16,418
Originally Posted by CP1708
The Utah Jazz are a Bently?
More like an old church bus
- Dec 27, 2002
- 16,335
- 13
clevelandsprince23
Banned
- Jul 10, 2007
- 3,581
- 11
Those new Toyota camrys are pretty nice.....not a bentley but still solid
- Apr 9, 2004
- 3,995
- 44
Yeah and then he explains why it is reasonable since it helped get them under the luxury cap. It really isn't as ridiculous a write-up as you are making it out to be.Originally Posted by CP1708
What a shock that Hollinger rates the Spurs moves so high, then goes on to say that RJ's deal is the worst of the offseason.
I think I found out who Doo is in real life.
Jefferson isn't going to be a big help, but if no other quality free agent was going to come there, then I'll buy the rationale behind that signing. It isn't going to turn them into contenders, but it'll make their fans believe that they are actually doing something.
- May 11, 2004
- 4,524
- 218
I guess a team like the knicks would be like a rolls royce and LA and Boston are buggati veyrons
- May 11, 2004
- 4,524
- 218
I guess a team like the knicks would be like a rolls royce and LA and Boston are buggati veyrons
Originally Posted by koolbarbone
Yeah and then he explains why it is reasonable since it helped get them under the luxury cap. It really isn't as ridiculous a write-up as you are making it out to be.Originally Posted by CP1708
What a shock that Hollinger rates the Spurs moves so high, then goes on to say that RJ's deal is the worst of the offseason.
I think I found out who Doo is in real life.
Jefferson isn't going to be a big help, but if no other quality free agent was going to come there, then I'll buy the rationale behind that signing. It isn't going to turn them into contenders, but it'll make their fans believe that they are actually doing something.
No, it is ridiculous. If you follow Hollinger at all, he is the biggest Spurs homer this side of Doo. He's like Peter Gammons bringing up the damn Red Sox in every single report he gives, or article he writes. He's the same guy that had the Spurs # 2 or 3 in his rankings going into the playoffs last year, while they sat in the 7th seed in the west, he had them 2-3 for the entire league.
This is the same team with the 20th pick coming in, and Splitter. RJ's deal don't mean squat, he was on the team last year, he's on the team this year, so how are they an offseason "winner" That's my point. They could have not gotten a pick at 20, not brought in Splitter, they were still gonna end up on his winners list regardless is my point. Make more sense now?
- Apr 9, 2004
- 3,995
- 44
I get that you think that Hollinger is a Spurs homer and that you don't like him, but that still doesn't change the fact that he makes a lot of sense in this article. Getting under the luxury cap is a big deal for small market teams and the Jefferson deal helped to do that. He also explained why it is not the bad contract that it is perceived to be. Add the discounted price on Splitter and that leaves them in good financial shape. I don't think that the moves are going to turn them into championship contenders, but considering that no free agent was going to go there, re-signing Jefferson, adding Splitter, and getting under the luxury cap is a good off-season. If you want to argue that Hollinger was going to throw them on the list regardless of what they did this off-season, then all you are doing is ignoring a rationale article by constructing your criticism around hypotheticals.Originally Posted by CP1708
Originally Posted by koolbarbone
Yeah and then he explains why it is reasonable since it helped get them under the luxury cap. It really isn't as ridiculous a write-up as you are making it out to be.Originally Posted by CP1708
What a shock that Hollinger rates the Spurs moves so high, then goes on to say that RJ's deal is the worst of the offseason.
I think I found out who Doo is in real life.
Jefferson isn't going to be a big help, but if no other quality free agent was going to come there, then I'll buy the rationale behind that signing. It isn't going to turn them into contenders, but it'll make their fans believe that they are actually doing something.
No, it is ridiculous. If you follow Hollinger at all, he is the biggest Spurs homer this side of Doo. He's like Peter Gammons bringing up the damn Red Sox in every single report he gives, or article he writes. He's the same guy that had the Spurs # 2 or 3 in his rankings going into the playoffs last year, while they sat in the 7th seed in the west, he had them 2-3 for the entire league.
This is the same team with the 20th pick coming in, and Splitter. RJ's deal don't mean squat, he was on the team last year, he's on the team this year, so how are they an offseason "winner" That's my point. They could have not gotten a pick at 20, not brought in Splitter, they were still gonna end up on his winners list regardless is my point. Make more sense now?
big j 33
Supporter
- May 31, 2006
- 36,041
- 16,799
I think it's great right now. Obviously this is home, but when we have to evacuate due to Yuku bugging, it fills the need... good idea.
- Jan 29, 2007
- 7,084
- 45
Hes right CP. Getting under the luxury tax, is HUGE for any team, big market or not. Even Mitch would love to be under the LT, and considering that Spurs are still a playoff team, (IMO), that just shows good management, not to mention they ALWAYS have a successful draft.
and can you really blame DBD for being a homer? Every teams got one, and can make any deal seem reasonable (JPZ and BHZ come to mind first)
and can you really blame DBD for being a homer? Every teams got one, and can make any deal seem reasonable (JPZ and BHZ come to mind first)
Originally Posted by koolbarbone
I get that you think that Hollinger is a Spurs homer and that you don't like him, but that still doesn't change the fact that he makes a lot of sense in this article. Getting under the luxury cap is a big deal for small market teams and the Jefferson deal helped to do that. He also explained why it is not the bad contract that it is perceived to be. Add the discounted price on Splitter and that leaves them in good financial shape. I don't think that the moves are going to turn them into championship contenders, but considering that no free agent was going to go there, re-signing Jefferson, adding Splitter, and getting under the luxury cap is a good off-season. If you want to argue that Hollinger was going to throw them on the list regardless of what they did this off-season, then all you are doing is ignoring a rationale article by constructing your criticism around hypotheticals.Originally Posted by CP1708
Originally Posted by koolbarbone
Yeah and then he explains why it is reasonable since it helped get them under the luxury cap. It really isn't as ridiculous a write-up as you are making it out to be.Originally Posted by CP1708
What a shock that Hollinger rates the Spurs moves so high, then goes on to say that RJ's deal is the worst of the offseason.
I think I found out who Doo is in real life.
Jefferson isn't going to be a big help, but if no other quality free agent was going to come there, then I'll buy the rationale behind that signing. It isn't going to turn them into contenders, but it'll make their fans believe that they are actually doing something.
No, it is ridiculous. If you follow Hollinger at all, he is the biggest Spurs homer this side of Doo. He's like Peter Gammons bringing up the damn Red Sox in every single report he gives, or article he writes. He's the same guy that had the Spurs # 2 or 3 in his rankings going into the playoffs last year, while they sat in the 7th seed in the west, he had them 2-3 for the entire league.
This is the same team with the 20th pick coming in, and Splitter. RJ's deal don't mean squat, he was on the team last year, he's on the team this year, so how are they an offseason "winner" That's my point. They could have not gotten a pick at 20, not brought in Splitter, they were still gonna end up on his winners list regardless is my point. Make more sense now?
I guess I was wrong, maybe Doo isn't Hollinger then.
Defend him all you want, San Antonio Spurs have not had the 5th best offseason. If you wanna go along with that because Hollinger says Jefferson's deal is the worst of the offseason, but then gives rationale as to why it's ok to be the worst contract, fine, have a great time with that. But these guys didn't have a better offseason then the Jazz, or the Celtics, or the Lakers or even the Knicks. All of those teams added just as much if not more. Knicks got an offensive weapon who does little else, Felton on the cheap, Anthony Randolph as well as some role guys giving them more flexibilty then they have had in years and you wanna talk about cap space, they have a ton of it still, the Jazz while losing Boozer, already signed his successor last year in Milsap, add Raja for low money instead of overpaying Wes Mathews, and then add Al Jefferson just because oh and they add the 9th pick in the draft as well. The Celts keep their core from this past year, add JO for cheap to stop gap until Perk gets back, and LA just re-vamped their whole bench for about 7 mil a season while adding 2 rookies that actually could play a little this year, oh, and they bring back Fish and Phil Jackson. LA, Boston, and Utah will all be better then the Spurs this year and all made moves that are just as impactful. The Knicks also got rid of Chris Duhon, that's another win.
But yeah, the Spurs added Splitter and the worst contract (in his own words) but he gave some rationale, so it's ok. Love your work Mr Hollinger.
Come on, if you buy that garbage then I don't know what to tell you, if I knew this list was coming out ahead of time and had time to predict he would have put the Spurs on it, I would have done so. While we're here, I promise you the team he desperately wanted to put next was the Suns, but he knew he would look foolish with Amare leaving them, but I promise you he wanted to list them. Nash and Duncan are his favorite players like no other, he's been riding them and their teams for years. If you want to be blind too it, fine, no sweat off my back.
- Jul 6, 2008
- 9,063
- 57
thanks as always proshares
- Apr 9, 2004
- 3,995
- 44
I'm with you on the rankings part - there were definitely other teams who had good off-seasons - but as far as the Spurs go, I don't have any problems with what he wrote. Whatever. They still aren't getting past the second round.Originally Posted by CP1708
Originally Posted by koolbarbone
I get that you think that Hollinger is a Spurs homer and that you don't like him, but that still doesn't change the fact that he makes a lot of sense in this article. Getting under the luxury cap is a big deal for small market teams and the Jefferson deal helped to do that. He also explained why it is not the bad contract that it is perceived to be. Add the discounted price on Splitter and that leaves them in good financial shape. I don't think that the moves are going to turn them into championship contenders, but considering that no free agent was going to go there, re-signing Jefferson, adding Splitter, and getting under the luxury cap is a good off-season. If you want to argue that Hollinger was going to throw them on the list regardless of what they did this off-season, then all you are doing is ignoring a rationale article by constructing your criticism around hypotheticals.Originally Posted by CP1708
Originally Posted by koolbarbone
Yeah and then he explains why it is reasonable since it helped get them under the luxury cap. It really isn't as ridiculous a write-up as you are making it out to be.Originally Posted by CP1708
What a shock that Hollinger rates the Spurs moves so high, then goes on to say that RJ's deal is the worst of the offseason.
I think I found out who Doo is in real life.
Jefferson isn't going to be a big help, but if no other quality free agent was going to come there, then I'll buy the rationale behind that signing. It isn't going to turn them into contenders, but it'll make their fans believe that they are actually doing something.
No, it is ridiculous. If you follow Hollinger at all, he is the biggest Spurs homer this side of Doo. He's like Peter Gammons bringing up the damn Red Sox in every single report he gives, or article he writes. He's the same guy that had the Spurs # 2 or 3 in his rankings going into the playoffs last year, while they sat in the 7th seed in the west, he had them 2-3 for the entire league.
This is the same team with the 20th pick coming in, and Splitter. RJ's deal don't mean squat, he was on the team last year, he's on the team this year, so how are they an offseason "winner" That's my point. They could have not gotten a pick at 20, not brought in Splitter, they were still gonna end up on his winners list regardless is my point. Make more sense now?
I guess I was wrong, maybe Doo isn't Hollinger then.
Defend him all you want, San Antonio Spurs have not had the 5th best offseason. If you wanna go along with that because Hollinger says Jefferson's deal is the worst of the offseason, but then gives rationale as to why it's ok to be the worst contract, fine, have a great time with that. But these guys didn't have a better offseason then the Jazz, or the Celtics, or the Lakers or even the Knicks. All of those teams added just as much if not more. Knicks got an offensive weapon who does little else, Felton on the cheap, Anthony Randolph as well as some role guys giving them more flexibilty then they have had in years and you wanna talk about cap space, they have a ton of it still, the Jazz while losing Boozer, already signed his successor last year in Milsap, add Raja for low money instead of overpaying Wes Mathews, and then add Al Jefferson just because oh and they add the 9th pick in the draft as well. The Celts keep their core from this past year, add JO for cheap to stop gap until Perk gets back, and LA just re-vamped their whole bench for about 7 mil a season while adding 2 rookies that actually could play a little this year, oh, and they bring back Fish and Phil Jackson. LA, Boston, and Utah will all be better then the Spurs this year and all made moves that are just as impactful. The Knicks also got rid of Chris Duhon, that's another win.
But yeah, the Spurs added Splitter and the worst contract (in his own words) but he gave some rationale, so it's ok. Love your work Mr Hollinger.
Come on, if you buy that garbage then I don't know what to tell you, if I knew this list was coming out ahead of time and had time to predict he would have put the Spurs on it, I would have done so. While we're here, I promise you the team he desperately wanted to put next was the Suns, but he knew he would look foolish with Amare leaving them, but I promise you he wanted to list them. Nash and Duncan are his favorite players like no other, he's been riding them and their teams for years. If you want to be blind too it, fine, no sweat off my back.
- Sep 1, 2004
- 25,508
- 667
Jamal Crawford, the league's reigning Sixth Man of the Year, has requested a contract extension from the Atlanta Hawks, according to league sources.
Crawford
The 30-year-old Crawford made his request three weeks ago, but with the Hawks focused on re-signing All-Star Joe Johnson and other free agents, talks have not progressed to the serious stage.
The 6-foot-5 shooting guard is in the final year of a contract that will pay him $10 million next season.
If he doesn't sign an extension, he'll become one of the league's top free agents next summer. Crawford is happy in Atlanta and hopes to stay there for the remainder of his career.
The 10-year veteran is coming off his finest season, averaging 18 points on career-best 45 percent shooting in being named the NBA's top reserve. In helping the Hawks to a 53-29 record, their best mark in 13 years, Crawford reached the playoffs for the first time in his career.
Crawford was the Hawks' second-leading scorer behind Johnson during both the regular season and the playoffs.
During their disappointing second-round series with Orlando, in which they were swept in four games, Crawford led Atlanta with 17 points per game.
Like many potential free agents, Crawford would like to sign an extension before the league's current collective bargaining agreement expires after next season.
There is widespread belief around the league that there will be a lockout next summer, and many executives agree the next collective bargaining agreement will not be as favorable toward players.
- Jun 24, 2002
- 9,655
- 123
After breaking the bank for JJ, these dudes aren't going to give into JC
