Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Is it possible for us to get Jimmy Butler?

MichaelNewtonII

By MichaelNewtonII,
in Charlotte Hornets

Recommended Posts

Omega Atrocity Newbie

Omega Atrocity

Posted
Posted

The only way we'll have max space (aside from doing something idiotic like attaching a first to lance) is if Jefferson and Henderson both opt out.

I don't see any way Jefferson opts out after that season, and even if he did Chicago will match anything for Butler. It's not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cbarrier90 Newbie

cbarrier90

Posted
Posted

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Nnnnnnnoooooooo

We don't have the cap room to sign a max deal like Hayward last season, and even if the Bulls, who have a history of being sticklers about contracts, let him walk, he'll have too many suitors throwing max money at him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cbarrier90 Newbie

cbarrier90

Posted
Posted

The only way we'll have max space (aside from doing something idiotic like attaching a first to lance) is if Jefferson and Henderson both opt out.

I don't see any way Jefferson opts out after that season, and even if he did Chicago will match anything for Butler. It's not going to happen.

I'd attach 9 to Lance in a heartbeat. This is not a good draft at all, and the improvement via Lance being out vs. another rookie project would be worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Omega Atrocity Newbie

Omega Atrocity

Posted
Posted

I'd attach 9 to Lance in a heartbeat. This is not a good draft at all, and the improvement via Lance being out vs. another rookie project would be worth it.

No way. We can just cut him and eat 9 million on our cap for one season if we just have to get rid of him. Attaching a first to him just doesn't make sense when he expires this season.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JJman Returns Rookie

JJman Returns

Posted
Posted

I'd attach 9 to Lance in a heartbeat. This is not a good draft at all, and the improvement via Lance being out vs. another rookie project would be worth it.

Why? It's moronic to attach a top 10 pick to get rid of a one year contract. Expecially one that isn't even in double figures. Lance is arguably the key to the 2015-16 season. If he can get back to shooting over 30% and can cut down his T/O rate, we are back in the playoffs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cbarrier90 Newbie

cbarrier90

Posted
Posted

Why? It's moronic to attach a top 10 pick to get rid of a one year contract. Expecially one that isn't even in double figures. Lance is arguably the key to the 2015-16 season. If he can get back to shooting over 30% and can cut down his T/O rate, we are back in the playoffs.

It depends on what we get back. You act like the best we could get would be a second rounder in 2050.

If we have an opportunity to upgrade the roster past another underwhelming rookie project we should do it.

I think you take lance off the team this year completely and we still sneak in as an 8 seed. He really was that bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JJman Returns Rookie

JJman Returns

Posted
Posted

It depends on what we get back. You act like the best we could get would be a second rounder in 2050.

If we have an opportunity to upgrade the roster past another underwhelming rookie project we should do it.

I think you take lance off the team this year completely and we still sneak in as an 8 seed. He really was that bad.

We wouldn't get much for the ninth pick alone, so what makes you think attaching Lance too it would bring us anything that significant back? Your odds are much better in hoping you land a stud in the draft.

Yes Lance sucks, but if he plays like his 2013 self next year, we are back in the playoffs. If he sucks again, then we are out of his contract and attitude forever after the season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...