Steve Perrin from Clips Nation has a piece up about the lack of respect for Chris Kaman and, with one year left in his deal, the lack of perceived value. We talked about this (and more!) at the SBN Vegas Conference this past summer. When the NBA guys got together, it was, for my part, the best, most enjoyable basketball discussion I've ever had, and this Chris Kaman and Andre Iguodala trade talk came up. Here are a few snips from Steve's article:
...Levin among others even posited that Kaman's effectiveness as a player might even drive down his value as a trade chip! WHAT?
The logic, such as it is, goes something like this: an expiring contract has value in a trade for exactly what it is - money that will come off your books in short order, and nothing else. A good basketball player has value as a good basketball player. And the two are essentially at cross purposes.
If you take back a player in that situation that actually helps you win basketball games, it's a bad thing for the rebuilding process.
Does this sound right to you? I encourage you to read the whole piece because Steve, I think, approaches his writing and his Clippers without as much pessimism as we tend to here. I found it rather refreshing and I'm sure you will as well, if you're reading my Negative Nancy posts.
Let's talk about what's important. When you're trading talented players with a big contract (Iguodala, for one), should you want an expiring contract who won't help you win games?