Araujo for Humphries? … You make the call
In the NBA, things are not always as straight-forward as they appear to be at-first.
During the 2006-2007 season, yours truly was thoroughly lambasted by other Raptors fans for suggesting that the Dinos were actually getting the poor end of this specific deal.
Well … almost 2 full years later … other NBA observers who this corner respects - and who are more knowledgeable concerning the League’s Salary Cap & Luxury Tax Threshold Rules - are now beginning to examine the possible pitfalls associated with having a serviceable NBA player like Kris Humphries on the books for a team, to the tune of $3.something Million per season, as a Salary Cap hit, heading toward the anticipated 2010 Free Agent bonanza.
To wit:
Here’s a piece from Dave [nabroundtable] … which you might enjoy.
——————————–
Raptors’ 2010 Salary Situation
A couple of notes:
- One can see quite clearly how damaging Kapono’s + Humphries’ contracts are. Getting those two contracts off the books could save $10mil and open up all types of possibilities for the Raptors.
- The Bargnani figure is only a cap hold. That figure is only relevant until they either sign him to a contract extension or waive his bird rights (making him unrestricted in the process). Once they sign him to a contract extension that number will take it’s place there - for example, if Bargnani signs for $10mil, then the Raps have another $5.5mil to play with.
[NOTE: Be sure to read the comments section, as well.]
——————————–
Then, again … perhaps not, if you’re a die-hard fan of this team. 
Tags: Andrea Bargnani, Chris Bosh, Jason Kapono, Jermaine O'Neal, Jose Calderon, Kris Humphries, Raffael Araujo, Roko Ukic
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
You are arguing whether Hump should have been signed for so long not who got the better of the deal
The Raptors got the better of the deal hand down.
As for whether Hump should have got extended well Hump’s PER of 16.92 is better than the league average and he make’s half the league average salary.
I think it would be hard to find a big man in the 2010 market with that type of production at that type of money. Remember you still need a bench.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
person,
Thanks for your comment and welcome aboard!
The rationale works like this.
In a sense … the deal itself led to the extension, because Hump is a better basketball player than Araujo to begin with, and was always going to show this if given the chance, in the NBA.
If the Raptors were going to extend Hump, though … then they NEEDED to play him, as a highly serviceable Big whose annual salary cost is reasonable, if he’s used in THAT specific role, i.e. either as a quasi-Starter or a 1st Big off the bench.
In THAT sense, Hump would/should not be viewed as a Salary Albatross, heading towards 2010.
However, we also know now that Jermaine O’Neal was acquired this past summer BECAUSE the Raptors had no intention of developing a role like THAT for Hump this season [or next, for that matter]. JO was supposed to be the 2nd wheel in the Raptors’ Big-Man Troika with Bargnani in the 3rd position. Bargnani & Hump were thought not to be good enough to function as the legit No. 2 & No. 3 Bigs, respectively, in supoort of Chris Bosh.
Yet, as you’ve properly pointed out, Hump’s PER stats indicate that he is indeed a valuable player who simple cannot be released outright by a team that purports to be a first-class operation which is trying to win a NBA championship one day in the not-too-distant future.
This is now a quandry for the Raptors … which would not have been the case if they had simply just retained Araujo and then allowed his contract to expire, like the Utah Jazz did.
Fact is … the Jazz’s GM has shown the ability to successfully manipulate their player roster through the dictates of the Salary Cap/Luxury Tax Threshold, in a way that Bryan Colangelo HAS NOT done to this point, in Phoenix and Toronto [recall the Joe Johnson situation!], when it comes to keeping certain players long term, trading others, and allowing certain ones to walk away, when they have outlived their usefulness.
Utah also had a turn-around season in 2006-2007 with a non shot-happy Big like Araujo at the end of their bench waving a towel. Then the Jazz correctly cut him … and, instead, ended up with:
i. Both Fesenko and Koufus;
ii. Consecutive playoff berths; and,
iii. Their first trip back to the WC Finals, in a number of years.
In my jugment, that’s called winning THAT specific deal, on a long term basis.
This season … while the Jazz have endured the absence of their Starting PG [Deron Williams] and their other Redeem Team Member [Carlos Boozer], due to injuries, largely without skipping a beat … there has been no such “luck” in place for the Raptors.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
[...] Araujo for Humphries? … You make the call - [...]
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I like the analysis of this trade - certainly gives a broader perspective than might be immediately apparent.
However, I think you’ve qualified your analysis of that particular trade with so many subsequent events that it detracts from the independent validity of the title of this post.
Viewed in isolation, if one team gives of Hoffa and gets Hump in return, I think it’s hard to argue that the team receiving Hump got the short end of the stick. On the other hand, as you note, that same profiting team can just as easily negate this gain by a series of ill-advised subsequent moves. However, while the trade bringing Hump here may have brought about his resigning, it most certainly did not bring about the JO trade. Although I think the title of your post is not entirely accurate, it may be that the broader perspective is the only one that matters, since no personnel move is ever made inside a bubble.
Either way, the bottom line is that we can all agree as follows:
i) Hump is terribly underused; and
ii) O’Connor has done a much better job with the Jazz than has Colangelo with the Raps.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Scott G,
I agree …
1. The Hoffa for Hump trade did NOT directly bring about the J-O’Neal trade. Bryan Colangelo pulled THAT one off all by himself.
2. We can all be on the same page re: i & ii.
———-
IMO …
[in general]
If a team has a player with Hump’s specific attitude [questionable, re: willingness to play within a system and not shot hunt] and skill set [solid but not spectular in any way] that it does not think is good enough to justify significant PT then it should look to remove him from its roster, just like the Jazz did.
He is not the type of player you should be keeping bottled up on the bench.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I completely agree. Sometimes I wonder why Hump doesn’t play more… but then I see him in the game for 5 minutes, and he’s already taken 2 jumpers. If he were content being a glue guy, he could help our team immensely. Instead, he hurts himself and the squad by refusing to embrace that role. I guess when you’ve been a big-time scorer your entire career prior to the NBA, it’s hard to completely abandon that role for an opposite one. Sigh…
I do see your point regarding the Jazz’s superior ability to recognize this fact fairly quickly; it seems that this trade was probably a win-win in that sense.
January 25th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
i second that notion. i like a lot of things he does, but when he forces things on the offensive end, it aggravates me.