Ok mind blown. You’re saying the money coming in from Houston isn’t a lot, and then you’re saying it all comes off the books in 2020 so that gives you flexibility. Which one? Veterans minimum plus a plus player in his prime add up to relatively the cost of Jimmy Butler’s money they sent away.
What good is having “flexibility” when young players still have value? In two years, you can let Nene retire and let Gordon leave the team. Or you can be stuck with a problem of “is it worth to retain this talent that is not yet dried up?” Better problem to have. The whole point is to keep talent, not get rid of it.
Sure, they might be on the hook for $30 million if they want to keep Saric. If they go Houston, they’re currently on the hook for some $15 million for a bunch of money they’re spending with the likely intent of letting it walk. So... spend less than $10 million and choose whether or not to buy in, or be on the hook for $15 million with no real long term purpose at all?
the best franchises in any sport with a cap is those who are able to stay nimble enough to have cap flexibility, so that when the right move presents itself they are able to strike, rather than be stuck in salary cap hell with a bunch of okay parts, a mediocre team, and no way out.
The Houston deal would have given them around 30 million dollars in cap space in the 2020-21 season, in addition to two first round picks (i.e. cheap labor, with the potential that one could turn into a high rotational player/starter). Enough to sign a max contract player - who, depending on who it is (and how well they draft), could potentially push them into title contention.
The deal they made means that they'll be forced to make a decision on whether or not to resign Saric. If they do, they'll be capped out ( and likely pushing the luxury tax). Wiggins, Towns, Dieng, Covington and Saric aren't title contenders in your wildest friggin dreams. In the west, where the difference between a 10 seed and a 3 seed can be 3 or 4 games, that team might not even make the playoffs. They're capped out with zero maneuverability - and are forced to take chances on shaky vets who wore out their welcome elsewhere.
I honestly don't know how else to explain this. It's the difference between Boston dumping all of their players for picks and cap space vs, oh i don't know, the Wizards doubling down and getting stuck in salary cap hell with no way out.
If the goal is a championship, you need to be nimble. So sure, apples to apples Saric and Covington might be a better direct haul than Gordon and Nene. But it's not apples to apples. You absolutely can not measure the impact of a deal without plotting out the future financial ramifications of such deal, and whether or not the players AND the money you're inheriting, both in current earnings and future potential payouts, is worth it.
The Wizards matched Otto Porter's restricted deal that he signed with the Nets, and gave John Wall a super max. Because hey! Young talent! Two years later they're regretting it. They can't get out from under it, and nobody wants either contract. They have zero flexibility, and zero hope - other than to take a flyer on known locker room cancers like Dwight Howard and Austin Rivers.
Meanwhile the teams that kept themselves nimble, and made moves to get rid of star players... Toronto, Boston, Indiana, Milwaukee... have all passed them by.