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!

     

What is the plan at Center?


Eazy-E

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Eazy-E said:

With MKG back on the court i'm not that worried about losing Marvin. We need a rim protector in the middle. Starting Frank at the 4 with Dwight at the 5 is better than Marvin and Cody imo, or really Marvin and any other Big we could afford after signing Mavin.

I could buy that I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MountainHeel66 said:

With his "bird rights" couldn't we sign Marvin to any contract we wanted to as long as we signed him AFTER signing Howard? I don't know a ton about it but I was under the impression you could use that exception to go over the salary cap.

Not any contract. You can go over the cap with the Bird Rights exception but under the provision we can offer contract that is 175% of his previous salary. His starting salary under this provision would by $12.25 million.

If it gets any higher than that the Bird Rights don't apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HeatCheck said:

Not any contract. You can go over the cap but his Bird Rights but under the provision we can offer contract that is 175% of his previous salary. His starting salary under this provision would by $12.25 million.

If it gets any higher than that the Bird Rights don't apply.

Well.. that's still something. If he is amenable to something in that range to stay with us that would be the way to go about doing things. That would allow us to throw everything we have left in cap space at a center, possibly a backup pg if Aaron Harrison isn't ready for the big time yet, and/or whomever else we may want to round out the roster. Then just sign Marvin using his Bird rights and call it a day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Cody's not a bad defender at all

Against centers, he is, or anyone with power.  He's weak and can't bang down low.   To be fair, who expected him to, but that's why he's a tweener and a bench player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, El Dandy said:

I'd rather let Frank Kaminsky do what he was hired to do than bring back Marvin. What's the point in drafting players if you're going to have them ride the bench while you overpay for vets.

 

We plan to trade Frank in a year or two.  That's the Cho way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i honestly cant see us being able to tempt any of the top centers in free agency to come to charlotte (unless we overpay to the extreme), so presume we need to decide whether to trust the guys we have (in my eyes it would be zeller as starting center), make some sort of trade for an affordable talent with upside (WCS seems like a perfect choice if possible) or go for a perceived lower level center on a 2-3 year contract and take a punt and see how it works. i think the third option seems most feasible and realistic.the amount of cash being thrown around on day one of FA surely means that some guys are going to fall through the cracks and give us a chance of picking up a center at a decent price ($6-8m a year in the climate?). the guys that i would be relatively satisfied with Miles Plumlee, Jordan Hill or dare i say it Roy Hibbert. 

Im guessing Ezeli, biyombo and Mahinmi will go for something close to mozgov's $16m a year (which of course is insane - for mozgov, not so much for the others!).

if we do go with Zeller as starting center, then i think we should also consider Terrence Jones or Motiejunas from the Rockets as front court depth - both looked great 2 years ago and despite injury concerns, its surely worth at least doing due diligence and looking into them?

On another note, i dont think we should go beyond $24m/2 years for Marvin Williams (preferably with the second year a team option, so that we can keep Williams keen to carry on impressing) otherwise think that James Johnson would be a handy (and cheaper) alternative to bring in to fill a small ball 4 role. btw anyone have any idea what Luol Deng will likely fetch? i think he would be great as a replacement and upgrade to Williams, again as a small ball 4, but guess he will command a bit more than $12m a year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...