What is an acceptable bad contract for young assets/ picks

I wouldn't mind going for 3 years but some here think we should keep the cap space, tbh no big 3 agent is going to come here within that time so it's not like the cap space is that much of a valuable asset. Do you think it's worth taking on some bad contracts in the search for picks? And if so what ball park figure are you comfortable with salary and years.
Extreme end of the spectrum:
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=84a49kr
coming with D-Towns pick in this years draft

or
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=89apdju
with both Phoenix and Detroits pick coming to us

I know Cho believes in the value of cap space but he also believes in gaining assets

no to both, I don't want Charlie V for 3 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superb1

no to both, I don't want Charlie V for 3 years

---

tbh it's 2 1/2 years seeing as we're halfway through this year although I wouldn't want a contract lasting longer than that

it'd be easier to take a risk without having tyrus' contract already. if something came along like the cavs-clips deal last year, where the cavs ended up with a completely unprotected lottery pick for taking on salary, you'd have to think long and hard about it. obviously that trade worked out really well for the cavs.

cap space also has more benefits than signing free agents, although you correctly pointed out that we won't be signing any stars soon like miami, new york, or chicago did. with free cap space you can aid other trades and get assets that way, usually by absorbing salaries (essentially the same thing you're proposing, i think the trades are just easier when you're significantly below the cap). it's definitely a risk either way. like you noted, gaining assets is the name of the game, and hopefully cho manages to do that in whatever way works best.