The risk/reward on Tyson Chandler just comes down to how much Presti really thinks Tyson can contribute at a high level. Obviously if that possibility is too low, you don’t make the deal. But to say that adding Tyson Chandler, one of the BEST defensive bigs in the league when healthy, would only take your team to 3 more wins (from 35 to 38) is borderline crazy.

And the argument that if someone’s contract expires before KD and Green’s do, then they’re of no value to us, is even more ridiculous. Have a look at our entire roster of “keepers,” (Thabo would be a great example) and see who’s contracts expire. There’s a thing called chemistry that takes YEARS to develop. You sign players for the future AND for the immediate help, hence why they signed Desmond last year, for both his defensive production but also his veteran leadership.

J.G. :
@Vince
I really don’t think going after Chandler would be spending just to spend for Presti (at least I hope he wouldn’t/doesn’t think that way)…
My issue is that the risk vs reward for Chandler dwindles the more time passes. Now obviously I’m not privy to the medical reports, so if his toe is falling off and will render him useless for the next 2 years, then clearly that’s a no go. But as it stands now, who is out there that’s a better option whose contract expires before Green and KD’s extensions?…(again, not saying he should sign someone just to sign them).

The point about using cap space is that, at this point, you’re using it just to use it. No one on here is arguing that the Thunder are going to contend for a title in the next two years. So, if you sign Chandler or Dalembert, you are going to pay them $20-25M for two years to go from winning 35 games this year and 43 next to winning 38 games and 46 next. Best case scenario. Then they’re free agents again — signing much smaller contracts — so owning their rights is basically worthless (since there’s no cap benefit to owning rights if you’re paying them less. And it’s hard to picture Chandler or Dalembert re-upping for 17M a year in 2011.)

On the other hand, if Chandler proves that his toe is sound, or Dalembert looks like a good fit in 2011, you can sign them for roughly the same amount of money you would have extended them for without having paid 20-25M, lost a roster spot, and hurt your chances at the 2010 trade deadline and in the 2010 FA market.

Long story short, if someone’s contract expires BEFORE KD/Green/Russ et al, then they’re basically of no value to us, unless they’re a future star who we can re-sign with an offer better than any other NBA team, or someone we’re developing (ie Livingston or our draft picks).

“Link: Detroit as No. 3 best offseason? Chad Ford, here’s a cup – I’d like you to pee in it please. http://tinyurl.com/l7x7s2“

For example, I don’t consider Detroit signing Gordon and Villanueva to $90M / 5Y as a good move for a myriad of reasons:

*Large, long-term salaries tied up in non-All Star players
*Shoot-first pass-maybe team play
*Defensive liabilities
*Play style out of character with the foundation of the club
*Don’t fill needs left by vacated players (post D? anyone? no?)
*One of the reasons Curry was fired was because of how he handled two star players who played the same position (Hamiliton/Iverson); Detroit then pays big $$$ for another SG
*Fires a first year head coach due to “lack of experience” then hires another first year head coach

And this is rated as 3rd best overall, I suppose simply because moves were made?

I wouldn’t place the Lakers at the top.

At the top of the list would be all the teams that made good moves. San Antonio, Boston, Clippers & Washington at the top; Golden State & Portland next assuming GS gets Amare w/o trading Curry and Portland doesn’t pay too much for Millsap (although I suspect they will); Cleveland and Atlanta next since Cleveland grabbing Carter is good (new since I posted) but they still paid way too much for Varejao, and even though Atlanta added Crawford I’m not sure how he fits into their system.

Those are the good moves IMO. Next are the non-movers, where I would put Lakers, OKC, Indiana ahead of the teams that didn’t make moves but deteriorated or remain stuck in a similar, non-ideal state as they did last year like Miami, Utah, etc.

That puts the Lakers around 9-10. 23 is ridiculous.

@Sammy
I don’t like the Magic’s moves this off-season because I think they lost more than they’ve gained.

VC is a question mark; the potential is definitely there, but he’s been a locker room cancer in the past. Hedo fit into their system, whereas it’s not a certainly that VC will mesh. But, even if we said VC = Hedo, Anderson does not equal Alston (expiring), Lee (rookie), Battie (expiring) and Gortat. Those guys played 30% of the Magic’s total minutes in the playoffs. Now they’ll have Reddick/Anderson/Johnson coming off the bench for quality minutes. That is a significant downgrade.