 |
| When Andrew Bynum's healthy, he's one of the top-three centers in the game. (Credits: Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE via Getty Images) |
The National Basketball Association has been plagued over the years with horrendous, mind-bending contracts. Seattle gave 7 yrs/$86 million for a drunk in Vin Baker. The Cavaliers handed out 5 yrs/$70 million for a mediocre Larry Hughes. Downey soft (and Pillsbury fat) Eddy Curry robbed the Knicks of $56 million over six years (not to mention Amar'e Stoudemire and Stephon Marbury's deals). Those just tab a couple of the disastrous NBA deals constructed over the years.
With the way the NBA's salary cap operates, it often leads to brutal markets. A weak market can force a team with a lot of free cap into signing a franchise-strangling contract. But within both strong and weak free agent classes, there are guys who scream "DISASTER." Usually they're players who only had one big year (coincidentally it was their walk year) or players who have weight issues or the worst of all injury issues. Injuries are totally unpredictable and yet every team thinks they can solve the problem. The latest disaster candidate was the potentially aloof and completely disinterested Andrew Bynum, who didn't even play a game for the Sixers (and enjoyed every minute of collecting his fully guaranteed contract). There had to be a team out there that would bite on him with an ugly deal, right? Think again.
When healthy, Andrew Bynum is one of the top three centers in the game (Dwight and Marc Gasol are the other guys in my book). In 2011-'12 (the last season he played) he averaged a little less than 19 points and 12 rebounds earning him his first All-Star appearance and second team All-NBA honors. That season he showed that he was the most versatile offensive post playing center in the league and that he was quite serviceable on the defensive end. However knowing Bynum's knee problems, the Lakers shipped him to Philadelphia in a four-team deal which brought in Dwight Howard. Albeit a complete failure for Philly, at least Howard played for the Lakers. On the other hand, Bynum goofed around, hurt his knee bowling and simply wasn't interested in playing basketball.
To the outsider, Bynum's '12-'13 proved that he played basketball solely to earn a paycheck. It proved that he didn't care about winning, scoring, rebounding, improving or anything related to the sport. Instead it was his money maker fueling his other hobbies like collecting cars or whatever else the seven-footer feels like doing. That's one of the biggest issue in sports, but most of the time when a player plays simply for a paycheck, they do a better job at hiding it. Bynum just did not care and it cost him.
As the season wore on and Dwight whined and Bynum sat, I called the trade a wash. Howard and Bynum are both sketchy contracts to me because of health and Iguodala, who was the other big part of the deal, just didn't fit in as the number one guy in Philly. All the parties lost and all the parties won. Fair. However, I never thought that the words "shrewd deal" and "Andrew Bynum" would muttered in the same sentence. I thought some desperate team with loads of cap space would drop a max (not a "mega-max" contract as Bill Simmons likes to call it) contract on him. Couldn't you just see a team like Suns, Wizards or Bobcats throwing 4 yrs/$60 million at him? Couldn't you? It's the freakin' NBA. An ounce of hope is somehow worth $12-18 million dollars a year in this league. But I guess Bynum remained untouchable. Until the Cavs called.
I will always mock the Cavs front office and not because they let LeBron walk, that guy was gone after the 2008 Olympics. I mock them because of the reports that in 2009, when they were trying to acquire Amar'e Stoudemire to get LeBron that second superstar, they wouldn't trade J.J. Hickson. JJ HICKSON? I mean the guy's created a nice little niche for himself in the league as a banger, but he was the ROADBLOCK to LeBron maybe, sort of, kind of, hopefully staying? Absolute mockery of sports right there. But anyways, maybe the Cavs have made up for it.
Well I don't know how you could ever make up for LeBron's departure, but let's not compare it that way. The Cavs went to Bynum and offered a heavily incentive-based deal over two years. Actually, only one year. At first glance its a 2 yr/$24.5 million deal. Not a great one, but not a horrendous one. However, when you read the fine lines it's a brilliant deal. There's only $6 million guaranteed, all of which is in the first year. The rest of that year, which could be as much as $12 million, is based on incentives. The second year? It's a team option. If he shows that sort of disinterest that he did in Philly, then see yah later buddy. It's like betting $6 million dollars on what could win you a whole heck of a lot more than that.
So let's say that Bynum plays to his absolute potential, which is around 20 and 13, then he is worth way more than $12 million annually. Guys (cough...cough...Dwight) that play to those numbers are considered mega-max guys and they'd only be paying $12 million next year and $12.5 million the year after that. If he's injured or an absolute bust, then he's only going to make $6 million. A team like the Cavs, so starved for success after getting it's heart ripped out, wouldn't be faulted for taking a massive chance on someone. The Cavs only took a small one. This is low-risk, high-reward at it's finest.
With the budding franchise point guard Kyrie Irving, emerging Dion Waiters, and big-time upside in Anthony Bennett (not to mention the solid pickup of sixth man Jarrett Jack) the Cavs could be a playoff team even without Bynum. If you add a healthy and thriving Bynum, this team has the potentially to be really good. Either way, anytime a desperate team makes a low-risk, high-reward deal you have to applaud them for it.
I don't like Bynum, and I don't know who could after last year's debacle, but I'm going to be rooting for the Cavs this season; shrewd moves always should be complimented. This could (and it's a big could) be an enormous move for the franchise, especially if they have their sights set on reeling in that man, who-shall-remain-namless in those parts.
0 comments:
Post a Comment