Nope, it's all part of Pritchard's even bigger plan. Look for the Blazers to make the surprise free agent signing of the summer - they will re-sign Raef to a 1-year max. contract. Why not? They hold his Bird rights. Then in Febrary 2010, they have an even bigger expiring contract to offer at the trade deadline. And, we all know, summer 2010 is THE summer of big name free agents. By this time next year, some teams (NOH, MEM, etc.) will be even more starpped for cash and willing to give up talent in exchange for a max. expiring contract. Other teams will be looking to shed salary to partake in the summer 2010 free agent seepstakes. Teams that know they dont' stand a chance of re-signing their own big name free agents will be looking to move them rather than loose them for nothing. The stakes will be much higher next February at the deadline than they were this year. More big names will be available and more teams will be desparate to make deals. The offers will be much more plentiful and much better than anything Pritchard was offered this February. Pritchard was smart to pass on everyone's flotsam and jetsom, over-the-hill, overpaid cast-offs this time around and hold out for a real prize next February. The guy's a genius. BNM
If it is true - that the Blazers could re-sign Raef and wind up with an even larger expiring for 2010 - then bring on LeBron! Bring on Paul! Very interesting. Nice post!
I like that a lot. It would be huge if it happened (resigning raef) because it would be a very clear signal that Paul was planning to spend as much as it takes to win a title. At this point, though, we don't really have any definite indication of which direction he's going. He might cut costs just as hard as any of the other owners. barfo
Why not? Keith Van Horn was re-signed just to make the salaries match in a trade long after he'd stopped playing. I think he was even traded a second time afterwards. It's not like the Blazers have requested a medical retirement for Raef. They hold his Bird Rights. So, when his current contract expires, they can offer him a max. deal for 1 year. BNM
I actually thought of this before the deadline passed - that if the Blazers didn't make a deal, why not just resign Raef to a 1-year max. contract this summer and see how much better the offers are next February. I was just waiting for the right moment to post it. BNM
Better yet - they sign him to a 1 year non-guaranteed contract. Then trade him before January 10th, and the receiving team waives him and doesn't have to pay him the rest of the year. An immediately expiring contract. barfo
I think it's true. There were so many reports of how valuable RLEC was... why would these rumors be so hard to believe?
I think it's true, too. Jefferson has a huge contract and he's not even really a borderline all-star. I can see why the Bucks would be willing to give value to get rid of him. Ed O.
what exactly is there put in place for a team to just resign their own players to huge 1 year deals so they can always have trade chips? i thought about that awhile ago as well.
The luxury tax. Most owners are extremely reluctant to go over the luxury tax threshold (61% of BRI). So, they don't go around handing out max. contracts to guys who can't contribute and earn their salary. Paul Allen has the deep pockets to take such a hit - if he thinks it will help him add the missing piece to win a championship. BNM
