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!

     

Hornets Acquire Ridnour for Barnes


nctarheel0619

Recommended Posts

I'm so lost on all these transactions. I hope we're not keeping Riddnour, who was just traded to Memphis yesterday for fugs sake.

We made this trade because the Barnes deal is guaranteed, Luke isn't, so he'll be released unless he gets moved to OKC for Lamb and cut there.

Remember the report was that we would acquire Lamb via Barnes but Barnes would not be going to OKC. That could mean OKC is moving Lamb for Ridnour since Lamb is a salary dump and they can cut Luke instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We made this trade because the Barnes deal is guaranteed, Luke isn't, so he'll be released unless he gets moved to OKC for Lamb and cut there.

Remember the report was that we would acquire Lamb via Barnes but Barnes would not be going to OKC. That could mean OKC is moving Lamb for Ridnour since Lamb is a salary dump and they can cut Luke instead.

I think reading that just made my brain hurt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think reading that just made my brain hurt

Not that difficult.

NBA has guaranteed and unguaranteed contracts. Guaranteed means if you cut them it costs you. I believe Barnes hit was about a million dollars. He was guaranteed. Ridnour deal is not so you can cut him for free.

In this scenario, we were never going to keep Barnes but we didn't want to pay to cut him. So we found an unguaranteed contract in Ridnour and swapped with Memphis, who wants to keep Barnes.

Now in OKC the same scenario with Lamb. They need money to pay other guys and don't want to pay to release Lamb. So they will probably get the Ridnour contract and we will swap picks with them because we get the far better player in the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Miller being less raw and more pro ready makes sense of why they picked him. With us having a capable starter in Walker the lower floor higher ceiling player makes sense for us as well. I agree with that. 
    • I'm from Michigan and have had this discussion with my Lions friends, and they all agree with me, they were never going to take Freeling over Miller.  As, yes, you are correct, they could have left Sewell at RT and taken Freeling, but they are in a SB contention window right now. An OL with Freeling at LT and Sewell at RT is not as strong as Sewell at LT and Miller at RT would be for this upcoming season and likely at least next year as well. 5 years it could be looked back upon as a long term "mistake" to take Miller over Freeling, but for a franchise like the Lions, you can't worry about the long term when you have current SB aspirations.  It's all about maximizing their current SB window over the next 1-3 years. And it's not about style, it's about day 1 readiness, and a lot of "experts" aren't even sure if Freeling is ready to play Week 1 yet at the position he's used to, let alone switching to a side he hasn't played before, but a career starting RT is going to be more than ready to fill that role for them Week 1. I'm 100% convinced that if our draft positioning was swapped, we'd have still taken Freeling, they'd have still taken Miller, and both teams would have got the OT that they preferred due to what each team needs right now and what their current realistic aspirations are for the 2026 season. We're in a position where we can let our drafted OT sit and learn for a bit, they needed a week 1 starter, for me that's where this discussion becomes very easy to understand why each team took the player they did.
×
×
  • Create New...