Brk/Por: Jacked for Cash

[HartfordWhalers]

Brooklyn out: Jack, 2m,
Brooklyn in: Frasier, 6.6m TPE

Portland out: Frasier
Portland in: Jack, 2m

Why?

Portland gains 5,454,941 towards the salary floor. To do so, they will have to pay 3,208,789 more salary, meaning they would save 2,246,152 by doing this trade. Add in the 2m cash, and you are looking at 4.25m in financial motivation.

But thats not all! Jack should be insured, and Portland should get 80% of his salary after 41 games from insurance which if I am doing this right would net the team an additional 326,118 (I'm using 11/170 of the season is left by the time insurance kicks in). All of which doesn't come off the minimum salary so, the team is then looking at a 4.6m gain from the trade.

Jack does have a 500k guarantee for next year, but given Portland's cap situation that shouldn't be an issue at all. And he would be tradable at the draft time in case anyone wants him or to use him to clear cap space.

Might just be my bias, but i think its going to be tough getting fairly compensated and adding salary at this trade deadline so I don't see a lot better offers for the cap space later.

For the Nets, they get a stop gap backup pg, and get off Jacks guarantee.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm okay with it. Doing it early certainly gives the Nets more time to make use of the TPE if they want and they might could even get a team like OKC to send them an expiring player and help compensate Portland. Seems like a perfect place for Waiters to go and get tons of minutes and play on ball and OKC saves a ton of money and gains a TPE in case they want to add something by the deadline themselves.

[tester551]

That might not be a bad idea for everyone.

Portland out: Frasier
Portland in: Jack, 2m, OKC 2nd

Brooklyn out: Jack, 2m,
Brooklyn in: Waiters

OKC out: Waiters, OKC 2nd
OKC in: Frasier, TPE

[Andre Roberstan]

That might not be a bad idea for everyone.

Portland out: Frasier
Portland in: Jack, 2m, OKC 2nd

Brooklyn out: Jack, 2m,
Brooklyn in: Waiters

OKC out: Waiters, OKC 2nd
OKC in: Frasier, TPE

I'd live with it, but I'd rather add a marginal wing at this point than a marginal guard.

[basketballwacko2]

Brooklyn out: Jack, 2m,
Brooklyn in: Frasier, 6.6m TPE

Portland out: Frasier
Portland in: Jack, 2m

Why?

Portland gains 5,454,941 towards the salary floor. To do so, they will have to pay 3,208,789 more salary, meaning they would save 2,246,152 by doing this trade. Add in the 2m cash, and you are looking at 4.25m in financial motivation.

But thats not all! Jack should be insured, and Portland should get 80% of his salary after 41 games from insurance which if I am doing this right would net the team an additional 326,118 (I'm using 11/170 of the season is left by the time insurance kicks in). All of which doesn't come off the minimum salary so, the team is then looking at a 4.6m gain from the trade.

Jack does have a 500k guarantee for next year, but given Portland's cap situation that shouldn't be an issue at all. And he would be tradable at the draft time in case anyone wants him or to use him to clear cap space.

Might just be my bias, but i think its going to be tough getting fairly compensated and adding salary at this trade deadline so I don't see a lot better offers for the cap space later.

For the Nets, they get a stop gap backup pg, and get off Jacks guarantee.

I'm too tired to look up the CBA on the injury Insurance but doesn't the injury have to be career ending? And I believe that he has to miss a certain number of games before the insurance can be used? OK here it is I let you guys interpret it.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q63

63. What are the rules for retired players? What if the player suffers a career-ending injury?

There's nothing binding about a player announcing his retirement. The player can still sign a new contract and continue playing (if he's not under contract), or return to his team (if he is still under contract) and resume his career.

The only exception to this is when a player is still under contract, wants to quit, and his team doesn't want to let him out of his contract. Under these circumstances the player can file for retirement with the league. The player is placed on the league's Voluntarily Retired list (see question number 79), forgoes his remaining salary, and cannot return to the league for one year. The latter requirement prevents players from using retirement as an underhanded way to change teams, and can be overridden with unanimous approval from all 30 teams. For example, guard Jason Williams signed with the LA Clippers in August 2008, then changed his mind the following month, announcing his retirement. He applied for reinstatement in early 2009, but his request was denied by a vote of 24-6. Williams later signed with the Orlando Magic once the one-year anniversary of his retirement announcement had passed.

Any money paid to a player is included in team salary, even if the player is no longer playing or has retired.

There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is excluded from team salary. This is when a player suffers a career-ending injury or illness. The team must waive the player, and can apply for this salary exclusion following a waiting period. Only the player's team at the time the injury or illness was discovered (or reasonably should have been discovered) can apply for this salary exclusion.

The waiting period depends on the number games in which the player played in the season:1

If the player played 10 or more games in a season, the team can apply on the one-year anniversary of the player's last game.

If the player played fewer than 10 in a season, the team can apply 60 days after his last game, or the one-year anniversary of his last game in the previous season, whichever is later.

The determination as to whether an injury or illness is career ending is made by a physician jointly selected by the league and players association. The determination is based on whether the injury or illness will prevent the player from playing for the remainder of his career, or if it is severe enough that continuing to play constitutes a medically unacceptable risk.

If the injury exclusion is granted, the player's salary is removed from the team salary immediately.

[HartfordWhalers]

I'm too tired to look up the CBA on the injury Insurance but doesn't the injury have to be career ending? And I believe that he has to miss a certain number of games before the insurance can be used? OK here it is I let you guys interpret it.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q63

63. What are the rules for retired players? What if the player suffers a career-ending injury?

There's nothing binding about a player announcing his retirement. The player can still sign a new contract and continue playing (if he's not under contract), or return to his team (if he is still under contract) and resume his career.

The only exception to this is when a player is still under contract, wants to quit, and his team doesn't want to let him out of his contract. Under these circumstances the player can file for retirement with the league. The player is placed on the league's Voluntarily Retired list (see question number 79), forgoes his remaining salary, and cannot return to the league for one year. The latter requirement prevents players from using retirement as an underhanded way to change teams, and can be overridden with unanimous approval from all 30 teams. For example, guard Jason Williams signed with the LA Clippers in August 2008, then changed his mind the following month, announcing his retirement. He applied for reinstatement in early 2009, but his request was denied by a vote of 24-6. Williams later signed with the Orlando Magic once the one-year anniversary of his retirement announcement had passed.

Any money paid to a player is included in team salary, even if the player is no longer playing or has retired.

There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is excluded from team salary. This is when a player suffers a career-ending injury or illness. The team must waive the player, and can apply for this salary exclusion following a waiting period. Only the player's team at the time the injury or illness was discovered (or reasonably should have been discovered) can apply for this salary exclusion.

The waiting period depends on the number games in which the player played in the season:1

If the player played 10 or more games in a season, the team can apply on the one-year anniversary of the player's last game.

If the player played fewer than 10 in a season, the team can apply 60 days after his last game, or the one-year anniversary of his last game in the previous season, whichever is later.

The determination as to whether an injury or illness is career ending is made by a physician jointly selected by the league and players association. The determination is based on whether the injury or illness will prevent the player from playing for the remainder of his career, or if it is severe enough that continuing to play constitutes a medically unacceptable risk.

If the injury exclusion is granted, the player's salary is removed from the team salary immediately.

Regular insurance is here --
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q73

Short and sweet of it:
-- Must miss 41 games after injury
-- Pays 80% of salary
-- Has a maximum it tops out at
-- Some players are excluded from coverage entirely

-- Whether pre-existing conditions are excluded for more than the entirely excluded players has had some long debates on here, but imo is very clearly

I showed Portland getting paid for 11 days equal (6 games).

[basketballwacko2]

Yeah I was just about to add the Q73 info. But doesn't the injury have to be career ending or is that only when attempting to exclude his salary from the salary cap?

If it was Portland they are well under the cap, so that wouldn't really matter. Just the money savings.

[Wizenheimer]

maybe my thinker isn't functioning properly yet, but I'm failing to see how this "saves" Portland any money. They are about 21 million below the floor. Shuffling the deck chairs on the minus side of the floor doesn't save money

[HartfordWhalers]

maybe my thinker isn't functioning properly yet, but I'm failing to see how this "saves" Portland any money. They are about 21 million below the floor. Shuffling the deck chairs on the minus side of the floor doesn't save money

Anyone Portland trades for has their full season count towards the floor, but only their remaining season paid for by Portland.

So, Portland gets over 5m credit towards the floor that they need to hit, but pays only 3m (2m+)
Also cash* (2m)
Also insurance cash* (300k)

* Doesn't effect the floor calculations

[basketballwacko2]

Isn't it the case that the "Floor" is just a mechanism? If Portland ends the season under the "Floor" they have to pay whatever amount they are under to the players on the team in equal shares. Let's say they are $15 million under and they have 15 players, each player gets a million dollar bonus, in effect.

[HartfordWhalers]

Isn't it the case that the "Floor" is just a mechanism? If Portland ends the season under the "Floor" they have to pay whatever amount they are under to the players on the team in equal shares. Let's say they are $15 million under and they have 15 players, each player gets a million dollar bonus, in effect.

It normally prorates is my understanding, so Lillard would get a ton and Frasier almost none.

But lets say Portland is 15m under the floor.

Option 1) Stay below the floor, pay 15m to players. Cost: 15m
Option 2) Trade for 15m in players. Pay them there remaining salary only. Be above the floor so pay nothing else out: Cost: 5-8m depending on how close to the trade deadline.

So, trading for guys would save Portland anywhere up to 10m if they push it all the way till the trade deadline. (More if they get cash, or injured guys and insurance pays them money).

[basketballwacko2]

Isn't it the case that the "Floor" is just a mechanism? If Portland ends the season under the "Floor" they have to pay whatever amount they are under to the players on the team in equal shares. Let's say they are $15 million under and they have 15 players, each player gets a million dollar bonus, in effect.

It normally prorates is my understanding, so Lillard would get a ton and Frasier almost none.

But lets say Portland is 15m under the floor.

Option 1) Stay below the floor, pay 15m to players. Cost: 15m
Option 2) Trade for 15m in players. Pay them there remaining salary only. Be above the floor so pay nothing else out: Cost: 5-8m depending on how close to the trade deadline.

So, trading for guys would save Portland anywhere up to 10m if they push it all the way till the trade deadline. (More if they get cash, or injured guys and insurance pays them money).

If I was the GM of Portland I'd be making phone calls to all the teams that are in the tax and offer to take players off their hands and get paid off in the process.

[HartfordWhalers]

Isn't it the case that the "Floor" is just a mechanism? If Portland ends the season under the "Floor" they have to pay whatever amount they are under to the players on the team in equal shares. Let's say they are $15 million under and they have 15 players, each player gets a million dollar bonus, in effect.

It normally prorates is my understanding, so Lillard would get a ton and Frasier almost none.

But lets say Portland is 15m under the floor.

Option 1) Stay below the floor, pay 15m to players. Cost: 15m
Option 2) Trade for 15m in players. Pay them there remaining salary only. Be above the floor so pay nothing else out: Cost: 5-8m depending on how close to the trade deadline.

So, trading for guys would save Portland anywhere up to 10m if they push it all the way till the trade deadline. (More if they get cash, or injured guys and insurance pays them money).

If I was the GM of Portland I'd be making phone calls to all the teams that are in the tax and offer to take players off their hands and get paid off in the process.

That was why Philly did the Granger Turner trade (probably best known as the Lavoy Allen trade now?) They took on Granger's 14m (iirc) and got over the floor saving 4-6m. The McGee trade saved 8m last year (which helps explain it as otherwise Philly took on an uncharacteristic cheap deal). Funnily enough, the McGee trade ended up resulting in Denver paying the penalty for being below the floor despite having paid more on the year than the floor is.

Philly will need to pick up some salary, but Portland needs to pick up a ton. I'm going to start trying to come with any other idea besides Novak.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

If savings is really all we get, Portland is probably going to wait for the deadline. I think you would have to pony something up in terms of a basketball asset to make us jump now. It just doesn't make sense to potentially preclude yourself from a deal at the deadline because you are avoiding paying the minimum team salary.

[PDX MM]

I honestly don't understand any of this salary floor stuff so I should (and will in future threads) not even bother posting but I don't see why we would do this for the Nets. This just seems like a shady bookkeeping move of moving from one column to the other yet there isn't any real savings and all for a broken player and a 2nd round pick. I would say hell no but again I have no idea what is going on.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

I honestly don't understand any of this salary floor stuff so I should (and will in future threads) not even bother posting but I don't see why we would do this for the Nets. This just seems like a shady bookkeeping move of moving from one column to the other yet there isn't any real savings and all for a broken player and a 2nd round pick. I would say hell no but again I have no idea what is going on.

Of course an understanding of the minimum salary will help explain why this makes sense.

Lets say that the minimum is 50 million, but the Blazers only have contracts equal to 40 million. At the end of the year, the Blazers owe the players on their team a bonus payment of 10 million.

However, since players are paid by the game, if we take on 10 million in salary at the trade deadline, then the other team has already paid 5 million of that players salary.

The Blazers are then at 50 million in "salary" and don't owe any bonus at the end of the year, but 5 million of that has already been paid by another team.

[tester551]

I honestly don't understand any of this salary floor stuff so I should (and will in future threads) not even bother posting but I don't see why we would do this for the Nets. This just seems like a shady bookkeeping move of moving from one column to the other yet there isn't any real savings and all for a broken player and a 2nd round pick. I would say hell no but again I have no idea what is going on.

No shady bookkeeping. Everything proposed is above board & completely legal.

Short version is that they are taking on contracts to be able to meet the league rules, but don't have to pay the full cost -> meaning more cash in the organization's pocket.

[jayjaysee]

I like the Waiters three team idea..

Adding in Augustin going to Brooklyn would make sense IMO, Payne has taken Augustin's spot and Donald Sloan could be thrown in as a third point guard. Augustin would help Brooklyn and Brooklyn stays under the tax, gives Portland a 2nd, and saves OKC more money..


And if OKC would rather add talent vs trim salary, they could add another 2nd or if Brooklyn can trade one maybe OKC could end up with Henderson and Sloan instead of Sloan and a min salary from Portland.. Two 2nds, some cash, and a salary-cap-floor game for Henderson seems like a decent deal.

[Andre Roberstan]

I like the Waiters three team idea..

Adding in Augustin going to Brooklyn would make sense IMO, Payne has taken Augustin's spot and Donald Sloan could be thrown in as a third point guard. Augustin would help Brooklyn and Brooklyn stays under the tax, gives Portland a 2nd, and saves OKC more money..


And if OKC would rather add talent vs trim salary, they could add another 2nd or if Brooklyn can trade one maybe OKC could end up with Henderson and Sloan instead of Sloan and a min salary from Portland.. Two 2nds, some cash, and a salary-cap-floor game for Henderson seems like a decent deal.

Hendo has been worse than Waiters by RPM this year per Bondom. I was on board with it, but not so much once I saw how he was playing.

[jayjaysee]

I like the Waiters three team idea..

Adding in Augustin going to Brooklyn would make sense IMO, Payne has taken Augustin's spot and Donald Sloan could be thrown in as a third point guard. Augustin would help Brooklyn and Brooklyn stays under the tax, gives Portland a 2nd, and saves OKC more money..


And if OKC would rather add talent vs trim salary, they could add another 2nd or if Brooklyn can trade one maybe OKC could end up with Henderson and Sloan instead of Sloan and a min salary from Portland.. Two 2nds, some cash, and a salary-cap-floor game for Henderson seems like a decent deal.

Hendo has been worse than Waiters by RPM this year per Bondom. I was on board with it, but not so much once I saw how he was playing.

Two answers to this..

Usually I agree with pretty much everything Bondom posts, and I'm not sure if he ever said he'd take Henderson over Waiters.. But despite RPM or other stat, I'd say Henderson does more for OKC this year than Waiters. I don't think Waiters is a long term thing, I think Henderson can play the three, I think he plays better defense, and think Waiters not running the offense for OKC is addition by sub.

But the other answer is.. Then just keep it simpler

OKC - Waiters, Augustin, some 2nd
OKC - Sloan and one of Montero/Frazier/Connaughton
Portland - Someone
Portland - Jack, 2nd, and cash
Brooklyn - Jack, Sloan
Brooklyn - Waiters and Augustin

Trims more salary than orig suggestion and Sloan can play third PG role.

I personally think OKC would prefer to get Henderson. And I think Brooklyn could add a 2nd, if they actually own one.