It used to be that when you traded for a player, you traded for his future.
It used to be that when you traded for a player, you traded for his future.
Now, it’s as if you’re bidding on years.
With Paul George, the cost of a potential one-year rental for the Oklahoma City Thunder was the budget price of Victor Oladipo and Domantas Sabonis to the Indiana Pacers.
With George Hill, the cost of a one-year rental for the Utah Jazz last season was the No. 22 pick in the 2016 NBA draft, with Hill this month moving on to the Sacramento Kings.
With Serge Ibaka, the cost for what proved to be a four-month rental for the Orlando Magic was, ironically, also Oladipo and Sabonis, as well as Ersan Ilyasova, to the Thunder, with Terrance Ross from the Toronto Raptors as the return on that short-term investment for the Magic.
Which brings us to Kyrie Irving and what now has been a week’s worth of speculation about what the Cleveland Cavaliers can get for the disgruntled All-Star guard, if he, indeed, is to be moved on per his request.
Initial reports, including the one Friday from ESPN, was a series of underwhelming proposals forwarded to the Cavaliers.
But that’s where the dynamic has changed, even with Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert going on the record about the Pacers’ limited return on George with, «I will say Indiana could have done better than they did.»
Yes, George as future asset was worth far more than the Pacers received.
Just as a similar argument could have been made with Ibaka, who ultimately wound up with a three-year, $65 million deal with the Raptors, a price that might have proven too rich for the Thunder or the Magic.
Or with Hill, who received $57 million over three seasons from the Kings, albeit with a limited guarantee in that third season.
At another time, securing a player in a trade instead of free agency was particularly valued, because you then could exceed the salary cap with Bird Rights to ensure a continued relationship.
Now there is enough money in the system, even with this summer nothing like the 2016 offseason, that players can move on and still find ample salaries without Bird Rights.
Which leads back to Irving, and whether the offers have come down to bidding on two seasons of his services.
«The X-factor is if a guy is going to leave, » an official with an Eastern Conference team said. «You’re just not going to mortgage the future or the house for a potentially disastrous situation, where the guy leaves.
«In Oklahoma City, it’s very interesting, whether an L.A. guy (George) is going to stay there for the duration. I think this is a new dynamic.»
It is not unusual for teams to seek guidance from a player or his agent about future plans. Yet Irving has been linked to suitors not necessarily on his wish list. In such cases, the only givens are the two seasons left on his contract before he can opt out in the 2019 offseason.
For the Heat, such a gambit might make sense with Goran Dragic, who can opt out in the 2019 offseason, as well. That also would be when Justise Winslow could enter free agency, depending on his intervening rookie-scale options. The Heat, of course, went public Friday that no such offer is on the table.
But there are offers. And there are teams willing to take a risk in essentially purchasing a two-year Irving timeshare, just as the Thunder have with this possible one-and-done season with George.
«It’s also about teams taking a chance, » said the Eastern Conference team official, not authorized by his team to comment publicly on such matters. «You only get so many chances to win a championship, so you say, ‘We’re going to take a chance.’ But you’re also hedging your bets.
«What you’re doing is you’re buying a short-term asset.»
Sign up today for a free 30 day free trial of unlimited digital access..
