Someone please read that to see if Shams is still reporting this is a list of three teams Butler would sign an extension (which means 5% raises over his current $18.5m contract). Or did he mean "resign" with in the summer....allowing 5yr, $30m max.
Well, I was wondering about having three such players and affording them, all while having a bench. So maybe we do need to either develop Chriss or acquire young talent that another team might not want to pay (Winslow?) and go from there. Maybe Morey will still throw his hat in the ring, but if Butler is actually determined to go to one of those teams (with an eye on having a second star alongside him in a year), then hopefully Plan B or C or whatever is in play.
The “list” doesn’t change much from the Rockets perspective. The Rockets would deal for a rental with the hope of resigning later, especially if it maximizes the window. Oddly “the list” may help the Rockets.
It is funny to me, the people with young assets(like the Wolves want) are hesitant to trade for him because of the risk of not resigning him. Does anyone want anything from the Clippers.....maybe prolly not. Nets, nope. Knicks, arent gonna trade assets for him. Toronto and Philly could offer him the best package. I dont think Philly does it cause of risk but Toronto could. But they are not trading OG, but they could trade Fred Van Fleet(also I have no idea how cap works, feel free to correct me haha).
Not going to read 38 pages but this makes a ton of sense for Morey to jump on. Adding Butler at the price of Gordon and picks and pieces would maximize our shot at the Warriors. Make the trade for a rental the best window is this season with Melo and Paul getting older.
So, if we acquired Butler and he really wanted to be a Net - could we sign and trade him for a higher max than a team signing him outright next offseason? Which would be great for him and us, since we would get a ginormous trade exception (and possibly players) plus he would make more than he would make if he signed with them outright. That would make me less worried about losing him for nothing.
FWIW: Albert corrects himself, (per my explanation to TheCat and here), that an extend-in-trade is possible now. That's the earliers extension, and hence why Shams being accurate with terminology is very important. An Extend-and-Trade can happen but requires Opting in, then he gets one more yr added. fwiw: that places him at 10yr tenure the moment it ends...for the super max while he's the youngest. I agree with Bobby Marks ... this isn't about an extension at all. Shams probably used wrong terminology.
Toronto could get him if they really wanted it, but I'm done with this pretty much. I doubt they take EG and Tucker and I'm cool with that. There will be other moves to make later.
