Three teams have gotten together and decided to swap problems and bad contracts. That should solve everything.
In a trade that borders somewhere between sad and inconsequential, the Bulls, Hornets, and Magic have agreed to a three-team trade, which was broken by Adrian Wojnarowski of ESPN.
This is a salary clearing move for the Bulls, they are not sending out Grant for Stone to play. Chicago can waive Stone so they can absorb a massive contract in a trade, one that would have a lot of other sweeteners for their rebuild. There are plenty of teams looking to dump salary, just something to watch. However, the clock is ticking on that kind of move — they matched the salary offer from the Kings for Zach LaVine, once that becomes official the Bulls’ cap space drops down to $17 million. Don’t be shocked if they make an aggressive move Sunday.
The Magic and Hornets are just swapping bad contracts. Mozgov and Biyambo are two of the poster children for the “bad contracts of 2016” NBA story that has left teams without cap space this summer.
Biyambo played 18 minutes a night for the Magic last season, giving them 5.7 points and 5.7 rebounds a game for his $17 million salary. He’s also well liked in the locker room and in the community everywhere he’s played. It’s the money that’s the biggest issue, he’s an okay reserve big man but he’s making four times what most teams want to pay someone in that role — and he makes that same $17 million this coming season and has a player option (that he will pick up) for 2019-20. However, for the Hornets, he’s an upgrade on the court at the backup center spot.
Mozgov makes $16 million a year but missed much of last season due to injury. He also is a backup center at this point in his career who gave the Nets 4.2 points and 3.2 rebounds a night last season. He also is on the books for two more seasons (he gets $16.7 million in the final season).
No player involved in this trade moves the needle on wins in any meaningful way. It’s all about the money.
MIAMI (AP) — Attorneys for NBA rookie Zion Williamson seek to block his former marketing agent’s effort to have the ex-Duke star answer questions about whether he received improper benefits before playing for the Blue Devils.
In a Florida court filing last week, Williamson’s attorneys say those questions are “nothing more than a fishing expedition aimed at tarnishing Williamson’s reputation” and designed to “maximize potential embarrassment and media coverage in an attempt to improperly gain settlement leverage.”
“Plaintiffs’ irrelevant and invasive requests are designed to harass and not calculated to lead to discovery of relevant evidence,” Friday’s filing states.
It is the latest exchange in the fight over the No. 1 overall NBA draft pick’s endorsement potential.
Prime Sports Marketing and company president Gina Ford filed her lawsuit last summer in Florida, accusing Williamson and the agency now representing him of breach of contract. Williamson filed his own lawsuit a week earlier in North Carolina to terminate a five-year contract with Prime Sports after moving to Creative Artists Agency LLC.
Ford’s attorneys had submitted questions this month asking whether the New Orleans Pelicans rookie or anyone on his behalf sought or accepted “money, benefits, favors or things of value” to sign with Duke. Those filings – offering no evidence of wrongdoing by Williamson or his family – sought answers within 30 days to establish facts under oath in the pretrial discovery process.
Williamson’s attorneys seek a stay while appealing the December denial of their motion to dismiss the Florida case based on lack of jurisdiction, or a protective order as an alternative.
At the heart of the dueling lawsuits over Williamson’s marketing rights is this: Williamson says the contract he signed with Prime Sports is illegal under North Carolina’s Uniform Athlete Agent Act (UAAA) because Ford was not registered with North Carolina to negotiate with amateur athletes (which Zion was at the time, having just played for Duke). Ford and Prime dispute that, saying this was a legal and binding negotiation.
Nothing is set in stone about an NBA return — at least not until next Thursday — but momentum seems to be building behind a plan that would bring 22 teams to the Orlando bubble.
That plan brings every team within six games of the playoffs when the season was halted into the competition, a total of 22 teams (13 from the West and nine from the East, the playoff teams plus Portland, New Orleans, Sacramento, San Antonio, Phoenix, and Washington). There would be some regular-season games played, likely five to eight, followed by a play-in tournament for the final playoff seeds, then the playoffs with full seven-game series each round. Exactly what that play-in tournament would look and if the NBA would stick with the conference playoff alignment or seed 1-16 is up in the air (although the conference alignment seems to have more backing).
Why that plan? For one, it gets more cities and more fan bases involved — and it happens to bring Zion Williamson and the Pelicans into the mix, a big television draw. It also could help a few teams reach a 70-game broadcast threshold with local broadcasters.
Mostly, however, the players want it because they get some games under them before the playoffs start, something Adrian Wojnarowski and Ramona Shelburne reported on at ESPN.
Regardless of how many teams are ultimately included in the playoffs, the National Basketball Players Association has consistently stressed that it wants several regular-season games to be played prior to the start of the playoffs, sources said. That has been a prevailing sentiment among several contending teams that prefer a tuneup before beginning the postseason, sources said.
A lot of players — influential players — have pushed for some regular season or meaningful games before the playoffs start. It’s about health, as trainers told us at NBC Sports, go from zero to 100 jumping straight into the playoffs and teams are asking for injuries. Players understand that.
Maybe only 20 teams end up in Orlando, that plan is on the table as well, but either way expect some regular-season games before the playoffs start. If the powerful players want it to happen, it will.
We’re back at it… and not just drinking beer during a podcast. Although we do that, too.
For the third consecutive season, Rob Dauster of College Basketball Talk and I collaborated for a first-round mock draft. Rob knows the prospects better than anyone; I provide some knowledge about what the teams might be looking for. The result is a unique listening experience breaking down who will be picked where based on fit.
The first ten picks can be found over on the College Basketball Talk feed.
Here we finish off the lottery and run through the entire rest of the first round.
As always, you can check out the podcast below, listen and subscribe via iTunes at ApplePodcasts.com/PBTonNBC, subscribe via the fantastic Stitcher app, check us out on Google play, or check out the NBC Sports Podcast homepage and archive at Art19.
We want your questions for future podcasts, and your comments, so please email us at PBTpodcast@gmail.com.
LeBron James, Stephen Curry, and Kevin Durant make more money off the court in endorsements than they do in salary from their teams. Which is not a surprise.
It’s enough money to vault them into the top 10 of FORBES Magazine’s list of highest-paid athletes for the last year.
LeBron is fifth at $88.2 million, of which $37.4 million is salary (although Forbes lists it as much less). Stephen Curry is sixth at $74.4 million, and Durant is seventh at $69.3 million.
Rounding out basketball players in the top 20 are Russell Westbrook at 12th ($56 million), James Harden at 17th $47.8 million, and Giannis Antetokounmpo at $47.6 million. Overall, 34 NBA players are in the top 100, including rookie Zion Williamson at 57th ($27.3 million).
Tennis legend Roger Federer topped the list at $106.3 million, and he was followed by soccer stars Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, and Neymar, before we got to LeBron.
Despite all the work that goes into them, these Forbes estimates have a reputation for being off the mark. That said, it makes for a fun debate and ranking, and we could all use that right now.