Los Angeles Clippers Trade Marcus Camby for a Better Shot at LeBron James

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I fell for it. I fell for the classic "bait and switch."

When I was offered the Featured Columnist position here at B/R for the Clippers, I jumped at the chance. The Clippers were on the verge of something special. They had a great nucleus, a mixture of youth and veterans and a stud waiting in the wings. That was the bait, and I bit.

Now I'm thrashing around with my lip on the hook trying to get away.

These Clippers are not what I signed up for. Where is Blake Griffin? Mike Dunleavy?Marcus Camby? Where is that team I signed up to follow that was going to play with passion and be at .500 by now? These are not the Clippers anyone signed up to see.

I am a man of my word though and I will trudge forward. Doing the best I can to make some sense of the madness and stench that now emanates from Clipperdom.

Do I sound bitter?

The recent road trip that essentially ended the Clippers playoff dreams left me disappointed. Dunleavy's departure was no shock but it made me ponder. Their lack of passion since all of the above infuriated me. When I heard about the Camby deal, I admit it, I was bitter.

Trades in the NBA generally fall into one of three categories:

1- A swap of good players.

2- A money dump.

3- A move towards the future. 

The Clippers trading Marcus Camby yesterday has to fall into the third category—I hope.

On the surface, the trade makes no sense at all. Why trade an expiring contract for two expiring contracts? The Clippers, as lame-duck coach Kim Hughes acknowledged, are out of the playoff race so it's not like Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw are going to be difference makers. My first thought was that the Clippers were doing Camby a favor by sending him to a team with a chance to compete in the playoffs. Camby, however, didn't seem excited by the gesture.

"I know we don't have the best record," Camby said of the Clippers. "I know we're not where we want to be as a team. But my family loves the situation. My wife, my kids love the school system. But you can't control it."

So, why do it? Then I saw the details. In the NBA, you don't trade players as much as you trade contracts. The players just come with the contract. 

NBA trade basics sort of work like this. When you give up player "A" for player "B" you are obligated to pay the incoming player or players the same amount you were paying the outgoing player in the season you made the trade. Of course, player "B" (the incoming player) may have more years on his contract than player "A," which means if you trade for "B" you have to pay him the same as "A" this year, but also the next and the next until that contract expires.

This is the dilemma the Lakers are in. They seem to be interested in Kirk Hinrich of the Bulls, lets call him player "B." They need to package players with salaries in that range so they offer the Bulls Adam Morrison and Sasha Vujacic, players "A." The contract amounts line up for this year but Vujacic's contract, unlike Morrison's, does not expire this year. If the Bulls were to make that trade they would be obligated to pay "The Machine" next year as well. They feel, like many in L.A. do, that "The Machine" is broken and beyond repair. The deal appears dead.

Back to the Clippers. Camby's contract expires next year, so do both Blake's and Outlaw's. So, the Clippers are back where they started. No better, no worse as far as their contract and financial situation goes. So again, why make this deal? There seem to be $1.5 million reasons.

Portland included $1.5 million in cash as part of the deal. 

Cha-Ching.

This deal wasn't about losing Camby or giving him a chance to compete in the playoffs. It certainly wasn't about acquiring Blake and Outlaw. This deal was about gathering as much money as the team can in order make a push in the offseason for a free agent. They are now $1.5 million dollars closer to LeBron James.

Now, if the team can just play with just enough passion to make James notice.