- Thread starter
- #381
IDK. Both of these deals have now been revealed to have no team options and both players will be on the downsides of their careers in 4 years. This means that if they cut either player because of whatever, they eat the rest of the contract. First they overpaid for both IMO. Then they have to continue to pay if they get rid of either player. Seems to me, this is just not being judicious and efficient and wasting money. IMO, they could have done a bit better but I get that they are now no longer elite and are gambling a bit again.
It really doesn't matter about options on those contracts. If they need to move them after year 3, there will be teams looking to trade for expiring contracts. That can actually a better option than a team option anyway because they'll at lest get a draft pick in return for letting them go.