Re: Olowkandi

[JB <jimmetz@xxxxxxx>]

On Sunday, June 23, 2002, at 03:09 PM, Georgek27@AOL.com wrote:

If Anderson could be traded for Kandiman, or Anderson & Battie for
Kandi and
#12 it opens things up significantly payroll/luxury taxwise and there
would
be money to resign Rogers, Strickland, Walter and also to bring in a
point
guard like McGinnis or Vaughn. Kandi's higher salary wouldn't kick in
until
next year when the TV monies are supposed to raise the salary cap
substantially. With the luxury tax pressure off there wouldn't be the
fear of
having to sign a first round pick to a 3 year contract.

Having said all that I don't think the Clippers would make that trade.

George
****************
Sun Jun 23, 2002  03:56:40 PM US/Eastern
> 	No matter who we trade for Olowakandi , the salaries have to match,
> within 115%, or 100,000.  If it's Anderson and Battie, it has to be a
> sign and trade, so  Kandi (and hopefully McGinnis, we'd never get the
> 12) is making enough salary to make the trade work. I love the trade for
> what it does for our team, but I don't see any way it could help the cap
> situation by much.
> 	Do I have it right this time "Musty"?
> 		JB
> 		***********
	It seems that I did not have it right. George and others, who 
stated that a team under the cap (like the Clippers) can absorb salaries 
up to their cap level, without the trading partner taking any back, are 
deemed correct, by a panel of experts on "CelticsStuff." So, you could 
have a trade of a salaried player for a draft pick, or even rights to a 
pick, if one of the teams was under the cap.
	Sorry!

		JB

	
			Unchain My Heart!