i mean, livingston’s looking like he will probably be able to be pretty productive (and he was a steal), weaver played a bit of point in vegas, so how many point guards do we need? i’d rather take a chance on a younger back-up for russell than an old one.

You’ve got a guy who takes half of his next year deal (including whatever he’ll make here) to go play elsewhere and turn heads, hopefully for a good deal next summer. If he stays in OKC, he makes his full $6.6 mil, but his offers next year are going to be limited if he’s spending a lot of time riding pine.

While I do have concerns over Watson’s season last year, at the very least, we should expect to get the very best Earl Watson can be, which can’t hurt us at all.

It’s really a win-win move for us as long as the money isn’t outrageous. It doesn’t threaten T.J. Ford as the starter outside of himself, so he’s going to be happy, and then you’ve got Earl Watson, an already capable backup, playing the best ball he can as a back-up to prove he’s still got it in him for another decent deal.

Note that Jarrett Jack is being wooed to Toronto, and the Pacers may figure that it’s cheaper to pay somewhere around Watson’s $6.6 mil than it is to match the Raptors’ offer.

“presti doesn’t seem like the kind of guy to sit around and play the ‘what-if?’ game.”

Then this move was completely out of character because it seems he sacrificed a valuable trade asset because “what-if?” Earl Watson’s a cancer next aseson. Teams are going to be busting down doors for cap space next season, especially if the league continues to project ~5% cap drop for 2010. Expirings are the commodity to have, and to just let one go because he’s unhappy in his situation is kind of screwy. Can’t imagine any other GM doing this.

but i digress… DM, you refer to watson as a “potential locker room cancer.” what makes you think that? i don’t necessarily disagree, i’m just curious.

“There was no way the Thunder was going to trade Watson and take somebody with another two, three or even four years on his contract. It would have messed up the cap flexibility that’s been built. They only logical instance would have been if it were a darn good player, which Watson alone doesn’t warrant.”

Watson alone, maybe, but combined with other expirings such as Damien Wilkins and Chucky Atkins (who should have been waived instead, his deal is partially guaranteed) and you could get something. What happens if New Orleans approaches the trade deadline and wants to unload David West to the highest bidder? Or even Chris Paul? Or how about Utah and Carlos Boozer? You just never know what might come available. Although he was waived, almost all of Watson’s salary will still count against the cap, and OKC will still be responsible for paying him. So instead of having an asset of positive value (expiring contract), you now have an asset of negative value (a player playing for another team, that you are still paying).

Brilliant Move!