Gary Trent Jr. - Fair Contract Offer?

[islandboy53]

Consistent is the last word anyone should be using to describe GTJ. He always goes on hold/cold streaks, it's the reason why we should be moving on from him.

We're not looking to win right now and no longer have a cap crunch in front of us so I don't think we should just let him walk. If you can get him for $20m-$25m AAV on a 2+1 team option type contract, it's probably the best move. Keep that salary slot filled above the cap and give yourself trade flexibility.

Trade flexibility only matter if you ever exercise that ability, we rarely do. We also rarely if ever give out contracts with team options. I would rather not have a floor raiser like GTJ costing us potential draft spots next year. Assuming we actually try and tank, and not just retool.

That ship has sailed.

[ConSarnit]

Honestly 3 years $45 million is fair. He's our only consistent shooter besides Quickley, and he's a decent defender.

MLE will be roughly ~$13m next year. With 5% raises, a 3 year MLE deal would be ~$41m. I'd be shocked if Gary Trent commits to MLE money for 3 years; IF that's his price, he probably takes a 1+1 MLE deal at any non-tax team that gives him the most options and goes from there.

We really need to start thinking about salaries as % of the cap because the numbers have changed so drastically. These cap sites should really add % of cap to their databases so we can go back and compare. For Gary, I think ~15% of the cap is fair, which would translate to a ~$20m AAV.

I just can’t see how 15% of the cap for Trent is fair. His current deal averaged out to 14% of the cap and I would have had “potential” priced into that deal. I would say he’s made little progress since he’s got here. His free throw rate is the only thing that improved (it’s pretty bad this year) and his defense and playmaking have stagnated (at best). Someone might give him 2/40 in a balloon deal as a stop gap 2 but on this team he’s not worth anywhere near 20m. If he gets supplanted by Dick (or a high draft pick) as a starter then you don’t want to pay him $20m because a) he’s not some bench microwave scorer type who can carry the offense (he needs others to get him good shots) and b) I don’t think it’s wise for any team to be paying any bench player $20m.

If Trent is willing to take MLE (or slightly above) I’d re-sign him but at $20m that’s a bridge too far. He’s done nothing to deserve a raise and has probably lost value as the “potential” shine is off.

[ForeverTFC]

Honestly 3 years $45 million is fair. He's our only consistent shooter besides Quickley, and he's a decent defender.

MLE will be roughly ~$13m next year. With 5% raises, a 3 year MLE deal would be ~$41m. I'd be shocked if Gary Trent commits to MLE money for 3 years; IF that's his price, he probably takes a 1+1 MLE deal at any non-tax team that gives him the most options and goes from there.

We really need to start thinking about salaries as % of the cap because the numbers have changed so drastically. These cap sites should really add % of cap to their databases so we can go back and compare. For Gary, I think ~15% of the cap is fair, which would translate to a ~$20m AAV.

I just can’t see how 15% of the cap for Trent is fair. His current deal averaged out to 14% of the cap and I would have had “potential” priced into that deal. I would say he’s made little progress since he’s got here. His free throw rate is the only thing that improved (it’s pretty bad this year) and his defense and playmaking have stagnated (at best). Someone might give him 2/40 in a balloon deal as a stop gap 2 but on this team he’s not worth anywhere near 20m. If he gets supplanted by Dick (or a high draft pick) as a starter then you don’t want to pay him $20m because a) he’s not some bench microwave scorer type who can carry the offense (he needs others to get him good shots) and b) I don’t think it’s wise for any team to be paying any bench player $20m.

If Trent is willing to take MLE (or slightly above) I’d re-sign him but at $20m that’s a bridge too far. He’s done nothing to deserve a raise and has probably lost value as the “potential” shine is off.

the MLE was ~$9.5m annual when he signed at ~$17.5m AAV, so he got 1.85x the MLE. ~$20m at ~$13m MLE is 1.55x, It's a pay cut.

Also, whether he deserves $20m is not the only consideration. Retaining the salary on the cap sheet is also important.

[ConSarnit]

MLE will be roughly ~$13m next year. With 5% raises, a 3 year MLE deal would be ~$41m. I'd be shocked if Gary Trent commits to MLE money for 3 years; IF that's his price, he probably takes a 1+1 MLE deal at any non-tax team that gives him the most options and goes from there.

We really need to start thinking about salaries as % of the cap because the numbers have changed so drastically. These cap sites should really add % of cap to their databases so we can go back and compare. For Gary, I think ~15% of the cap is fair, which would translate to a ~$20m AAV.

I just can’t see how 15% of the cap for Trent is fair. His current deal averaged out to 14% of the cap and I would have had “potential” priced into that deal. I would say he’s made little progress since he’s got here. His free throw rate is the only thing that improved (it’s pretty bad this year) and his defense and playmaking have stagnated (at best). Someone might give him 2/40 in a balloon deal as a stop gap 2 but on this team he’s not worth anywhere near 20m. If he gets supplanted by Dick (or a high draft pick) as a starter then you don’t want to pay him $20m because a) he’s not some bench microwave scorer type who can carry the offense (he needs others to get him good shots) and b) I don’t think it’s wise for any team to be paying any bench player $20m.

If Trent is willing to take MLE (or slightly above) I’d re-sign him but at $20m that’s a bridge too far. He’s done nothing to deserve a raise and has probably lost value as the “potential” shine is off.

the MLE was ~$9.5m annual when he signed at ~$17.5m AAV, so he got 1.85x the MLE. ~$20m at ~$13m MLE is 1.55x, It's a pay cut.

Also, whether he deserves $20m is not the only consideration. Retaining the salary on the cap sheet is also important.

The MLE at the time Trent signed his deal was not the same % of the cap that it stand currently and going forward. The first year of Trent's deal was 14.43% of the cap which would be equal to a salary of $20.3m next season.

Adjusting for potential (specifically lack thereof), what has Trent done to deserve the same deal he earned last time? He made no improvements and couldn't lock down a starting position. Retaining salary on the cap sheet is not valuable when that contract has the potential to be a negative one. If we need to retain salary we can just opt in Brown and not have to take the risk of paying Trent at the top of his market. If we have Trent making 3/60 as a bench player that does not help this team.

I don't get what Trent has shown to earn the same deal as last time.

[Scase]

I just know they are never paying Brown-Gary 45mil. Meaning they can S+T Gary and get a TPE/pick and overpay Brown for one year and deal him at next deadline. That's 45ish the team saves by 2026 by Brown getting his full contract value and them running from Gary at earliest opportunity.

S+Ts are generally pretty rare. Maybe there is a higher likelihood with GTJ if all he cares about is the highest bidder, in the event said team is the highest bidder. S+Ts require all 3 parties to agree and have a vested interest in making it work, that is not a common occurrence.

As for Brown, why bother? They could've dealt him at this deadline as an expiring, why get another year to pay him, just to not get anything valuable for him then? His value isn't changing at the next deadline.

As I pointed out to you in another thread, Utah were offering Olynyk and Agbaji for Brown. We also know that the Knicks were offering Fournier and a 1st. There were other offers that we don’t know the details of. He has value, but I think we’re better to move him this summer.

Neither of them hold any particular value,
and letting them walk wouldn't even register as a blip on the radar,

Even by your standards, this is nonsense.

leaves us with capspace that can be used to absorb some salary in a trade without having to send much of anything back.

Trading either of them results in a smaller return, whereas with a bunch of capspace and the ability to take on some junk, opens you up for a much bigger potential haul.

You can take back almost as much “junk” operating over the cap, under the tax utilizing the Siakam TPE and the NTMLE as you could via cap space. Those returns would be on top of your returns for Brown and Trent. A much bigger haul.

I don't for a single second believe the Fournier + 1st offer, Masai specifically wanted a 1st for Brown, and then never traded him. One or the other happened, can't be both.

Trading either of them results in a smaller return, whereas with a bunch of capspace and the ability to take on some junk, opens you up for a much bigger potential haul.

Yeah, I get that. That's why I am suggesting letting them walk for the cap space, this team doesn't need minor mediocre returns on trades any more. It needs legitimate talent, and we aren't getting that trading GTJ/Brown piecemeal.

[islandboy53]

S+Ts are generally pretty rare. Maybe there is a higher likelihood with GTJ if all he cares about is the highest bidder, in the event said team is the highest bidder. S+Ts require all 3 parties to agree and have a vested interest in making it work, that is not a common occurrence.

As for Brown, why bother? They could've dealt him at this deadline as an expiring, why get another year to pay him, just to not get anything valuable for him then? His value isn't changing at the next deadline.

As I pointed out to you in another thread, Utah were offering Olynyk and Agbaji for Brown. We also know that the Knicks were offering Fournier and a 1st. There were other offers that we don’t know the details of. He has value, but I think we’re better to move him this summer.

Neither of them hold any particular value,
and letting them walk wouldn't even register as a blip on the radar,

Even by your standards, this is nonsense.

leaves us with capspace that can be used to absorb some salary in a trade without having to send much of anything back.

Trading either of them results in a smaller return, whereas with a bunch of capspace and the ability to take on some junk, opens you up for a much bigger potential haul.

You can take back almost as much “junk” operating over the cap, under the tax utilizing the Siakam TPE and the NTMLE as you could via cap space. Those returns would be on top of your returns for Brown and Trent. A much bigger haul.

I don't for a single second believe the Fournier + 1st offer, Masai specifically wanted a 1st for Brown, and then never traded him. One or the other happened, can't be both.

“The Knicks have spoken with the Toronto Raptors about Bruce Brown, league sources have said, but [Quentin] Grimes hasn’t been part of those conversations. Instead, discussions have centered around Evan Fournier and draft compensation for Brown,” Katz reported on February 6.“Toronto … would probably want a first from 2025 or beyond for Brown. The Knicks, meanwhile, are trying to keep as many future picks as they can for “the star trade,” Katz posted on X." Toronto clearly didn't want a 24 FRP, as they already had 2, potentially 3, plus the Detroit 2nd, while NY were presumably only offering 24's. As a result, no deal happened.

Trading either of them results in a smaller return, whereas with a bunch of capspace and the ability to take on some junk, opens you up for a much bigger potential haul.

Yeah, I get that. That's why I am suggesting letting them walk for the cap space, this team doesn't need minor mediocre returns on trades any more. It needs legitimate talent, and we aren't getting that trading GTJ/Brown piecemeal.

The bolded section here is actually YOUR comment from an earlier post. Why are you trying to make it look like I said it? My response to your comment, which you've taken out, was as follows: "You can take back almost as much “junk” operating over the cap, under the tax utilizing the Siakam TPE and the NTMLE as you could via cap space. Those returns would be on top of your returns for Brown and Trent. A much bigger haul." Let me break it down for you.

You trade Brown and get some assets back, whether it's rotation players as Utah was offering, or expiring and a pick or picks. Maybe you create a useful TPE in the process. You do the same with Trent. No massive hauls, but useful returns in each case. Trent and Brown only get you to about $30 million in space. There's about that much room to operate between the cap and the tax line, so really, ANY return for Brown and Trent puts you ahead of the game. Finally, neither strategy is getting us "legitimate talent", except to the extent we luck out on draft picks or prospects we might obtain, whether for Trent, or Brown, or for taking on unwanted salary.

[Landomar]

If Trent was a UFA from some other team, I wouldn't sign him to play here. I don't want to re-sign him just because he's already on the team. It's not even about the money, I'm just not a big believer in Trent, and would rather give his minutes and rotation spot to somebody else.

[artsncrafts]

No more than whatever they paid Schroeder. Also dont extend contract to Bruce Brown.

[OAKLEY_2]

S+Ts are generally pretty rare. Maybe there is a higher likelihood with GTJ if all he cares about is the highest bidder, in the event said team is the highest bidder. S+Ts require all 3 parties to agree and have a vested interest in making it work, that is not a common occurrence.

As for Brown, why bother? They could've dealt him at this deadline as an expiring, why get another year to pay him, just to not get anything valuable for him then? His value isn't changing at the next deadline.

As I pointed out to you in another thread, Utah were offering Olynyk and Agbaji for Brown. We also know that the Knicks were offering Fournier and a 1st. There were other offers that we don’t know the details of. He has value, but I think we’re better to move him this summer.

Neither of them hold any particular value,
and letting them walk wouldn't even register as a blip on the radar,

Even by your standards, this is nonsense.

leaves us with capspace that can be used to absorb some salary in a trade without having to send much of anything back.

Trading either of them results in a smaller return, whereas with a bunch of capspace and the ability to take on some junk, opens you up for a much bigger potential haul.

You can take back almost as much “junk” operating over the cap, under the tax utilizing the Siakam TPE and the NTMLE as you could via cap space. Those returns would be on top of your returns for Brown and Trent. A much bigger haul.

I don't for a single second believe the Fournier + 1st offer, Masai specifically wanted a 1st for Brown, and then never traded him. One or the other happened, can't be both.

Trading either of them results in a smaller return, whereas with a bunch of capspace and the ability to take on some junk, opens you up for a much bigger potential haul.

Yeah, I get that. That's why I am suggesting letting them walk for the cap space, this team doesn't need minor mediocre returns on trades any more. It needs legitimate talent, and we aren't getting that trading GTJ/Brown piecemeal.

In the NBA needs and gets are not always related. That is why somebody coined the phrase "best player available".

[Scase]

As I pointed out to you in another thread, Utah were offering Olynyk and Agbaji for Brown. We also know that the Knicks were offering Fournier and a 1st. There were other offers that we don’t know the details of. He has value, but I think we’re better to move him this summer.



Even by your standards, this is nonsense.



You can take back almost as much “junk” operating over the cap, under the tax utilizing the Siakam TPE and the NTMLE as you could via cap space. Those returns would be on top of your returns for Brown and Trent. A much bigger haul.

I don't for a single second believe the Fournier + 1st offer, Masai specifically wanted a 1st for Brown, and then never traded him. One or the other happened, can't be both.

“The Knicks have spoken with the Toronto Raptors about Bruce Brown, league sources have said, but [Quentin] Grimes hasn’t been part of those conversations. Instead, discussions have centered around Evan Fournier and draft compensation for Brown,” Katz reported on February 6.“Toronto … would probably want a first from 2025 or beyond for Brown. The Knicks, meanwhile, are trying to keep as many future picks as they can for “the star trade,” Katz posted on X." Toronto clearly didn't want a 24 FRP, as they already had 2, potentially 3, plus the Detroit 2nd, while NY were presumably only offering 24's. As a result, no deal happened.

Trading either of them results in a smaller return, whereas with a bunch of capspace and the ability to take on some junk, opens you up for a much bigger potential haul.

Yeah, I get that. That's why I am suggesting letting them walk for the cap space, this team doesn't need minor mediocre returns on trades any more. It needs legitimate talent, and we aren't getting that trading GTJ/Brown piecemeal.

The bolded section here is actually YOUR comment from an earlier post. Why are you trying to make it look like I said it? My response to your comment, which you've taken out, was as follows: "You can take back almost as much “junk” operating over the cap, under the tax utilizing the Siakam TPE and the NTMLE as you could via cap space. Those returns would be on top of your returns for Brown and Trent. A much bigger haul." Let me break it down for you.

You trade Brown and get some assets back, whether it's rotation players as Utah was offering, or expiring and a pick or picks. Maybe you create a useful TPE in the process. You do the same with Trent. No massive hauls, but useful returns in each case. Trent and Brown only get you to about $30 million in space. There's about that much room to operate between the cap and the tax line, so really, ANY return for Brown and Trent puts you ahead of the game. Finally, neither strategy is getting us "legitimate talent", except to the extent we luck out on draft picks or prospects we might obtain, whether for Trent, or Brown, or for taking on unwanted salary.

My bad, the quotes being broke up made it hard to read.

I get what you are saying, what I am trying to say is that if you have a singular player, on a bad contract that isn't small, you can absorb the entire contract and get compensation otherwise, and not need to send anything back. Trading them piecemeal just flat out limits the returns you can get due to salary matching. Brown is 23mil, and GTJ is 18.5mil, if a trade to pick up some terrible contract is made, it still needs to match within those parameters. Plain cap space doesn't, meaning overall the trades become potentially bigger and less complex.

And when you look at a player like Brown, we must pick up his option, and considering he can't be traded before June 29th, which is after the draft, you risk signing him to a contract and then left out in the cold if a trade falls through. I'm not saying it's perfect, but trading them one at a time after the draft isn't the only option.

[Scase]

As I pointed out to you in another thread, Utah were offering Olynyk and Agbaji for Brown. We also know that the Knicks were offering Fournier and a 1st. There were other offers that we don’t know the details of. He has value, but I think we’re better to move him this summer.



Even by your standards, this is nonsense.



You can take back almost as much “junk” operating over the cap, under the tax utilizing the Siakam TPE and the NTMLE as you could via cap space. Those returns would be on top of your returns for Brown and Trent. A much bigger haul.

I don't for a single second believe the Fournier + 1st offer, Masai specifically wanted a 1st for Brown, and then never traded him. One or the other happened, can't be both.

Trading either of them results in a smaller return, whereas with a bunch of capspace and the ability to take on some junk, opens you up for a much bigger potential haul.

Yeah, I get that. That's why I am suggesting letting them walk for the cap space, this team doesn't need minor mediocre returns on trades any more. It needs legitimate talent, and we aren't getting that trading GTJ/Brown piecemeal.

In the NBA needs and gets are not always related. That is why somebody coined the phrase "best player available".

BPA makes sense when you need to make a choice, if we are in a rebuild, we don't need to take on mediocre returns.

[islandboy53]

You trade Brown and get some assets back, whether it's rotation players as Utah was offering, or expiring and a pick or picks. Maybe you create a useful TPE in the process. You do the same with Trent. No massive hauls, but useful returns in each case. Trent and Brown only get you to about $30 million in space. There's about that much room to operate between the cap and the tax line, so really, ANY return for Brown and Trent puts you ahead of the game. Finally, neither strategy is getting us "legitimate talent", except to the extent we luck out on draft picks or prospects we might obtain, whether for Trent, or Brown, or for taking on unwanted salary.

I get what you are saying, what I am trying to say is that if you have a singular player, on a bad contract that isn't small, you can absorb the entire contract and get compensation otherwise, and not need to send anything back. Trading them piecemeal just flat out limits the returns you can get due to salary matching. Brown is 23mil, and GTJ is 18.5mil, if a trade to pick up some terrible contract is made, it still needs to match within those parameters. Plain cap space doesn't, meaning overall the trades become potentially bigger and less complex.

And when you look at a player like Brown, we must pick up his option, and considering he can't be traded before June 29th, which is after the draft, you risk signing him to a contract and then left out in the cold if a trade falls through. I'm not saying it's perfect, but trading them one at a time after the draft isn't the only option.

A couple of things. Hope you find them useful.

An over the cap team can use TPEs and its MLE to trade for players without taking matching salary back. Toronto could currently bring back salaries, up to $10 million for Siakam's TPE, and up to $13 million for the NTMLE. Not enough for a large salary, but still useful.

Brown can be traded without bringing back $23 million in matching salary, as long as the trade doesn't take the receiving team over the 1st apron.. A team like Houston, for example, only needs to send back $15.5 million. Jeff Green and Tate cover that, allowing Toronto to create a $6+ million TPE. OKC could take Brown entirely into space, creating a $23 million TPE. Trent, assuming he signs at $18.5, only needs $11 million coming back, so Ingles $11 million expiring works fine, and creates a $7.5 million TPE. In each case, Toronto would receive some draft capital, obviously, to make the deal happen. So, draft assets, TPEs, and players who can themselves be moved on for something else, and extra space under the tax line to maneuver with in future moves.

June 29th is the deadline to pick up Brown's option. It can be exercised any time prior to that, for example on June 26th to facilitate a draft weekend trade.

[Scase]

You trade Brown and get some assets back, whether it's rotation players as Utah was offering, or expiring and a pick or picks. Maybe you create a useful TPE in the process. You do the same with Trent. No massive hauls, but useful returns in each case. Trent and Brown only get you to about $30 million in space. There's about that much room to operate between the cap and the tax line, so really, ANY return for Brown and Trent puts you ahead of the game. Finally, neither strategy is getting us "legitimate talent", except to the extent we luck out on draft picks or prospects we might obtain, whether for Trent, or Brown, or for taking on unwanted salary.

I get what you are saying, what I am trying to say is that if you have a singular player, on a bad contract that isn't small, you can absorb the entire contract and get compensation otherwise, and not need to send anything back. Trading them piecemeal just flat out limits the returns you can get due to salary matching. Brown is 23mil, and GTJ is 18.5mil, if a trade to pick up some terrible contract is made, it still needs to match within those parameters. Plain cap space doesn't, meaning overall the trades become potentially bigger and less complex.

And when you look at a player like Brown, we must pick up his option, and considering he can't be traded before June 29th, which is after the draft, you risk signing him to a contract and then left out in the cold if a trade falls through. I'm not saying it's perfect, but trading them one at a time after the draft isn't the only option.

A couple of things. Hope you find them useful.

An over the cap team can use TPEs and its MLE to trade for players without taking matching salary back. Toronto could currently bring back salaries, up to $10 million for Siakam's TPE, and up to $13 million for the NTMLE. Not enough for a large salary, but still useful.

Brown can be traded without bringing back $23 million in matching salary, as long as the trade doesn't take the receiving team over the 1st apron.. A team like Houston, for example, only needs to send back $15.5 million. Jeff Green and Tate cover that, allowing Toronto to create a $6+ million TPE. OKC could take Brown entirely into space, creating a $23 million TPE. Trent, assuming he signs at $18.5, only needs $11 million coming back, so Ingles $11 million expiring works fine, and creates a $7.5 million TPE. In each case, Toronto would receive some draft capital, obviously, to make the deal happen. So, draft assets, TPEs, and players who can themselves be moved on for something else, and extra space under the tax line to maneuver with in future moves.

June 29th is the deadline to pick up Brown's option. It can be exercised any time prior to that, for example on June 26th to facilitate a draft weekend trade.

Well yeah, there are options but they have to make sense. OKC/HOU has basically zero reason to take brown on. Ingles has a team option as well, so why would they trade an expiring for an expiring AND give us draft capital? So yeah sure, you could technically make all these trades, but they have no basis in reality. You could trade 40ish mil worth in salary and get Lebron, but why would the lakers do it.

Having 10 different TPEs also doesn't help when you can only use one per season. There is a point where you are making trades just for the sake of making trades.

[OAKLEY_2]

I don't for a single second believe the Fournier + 1st offer, Masai specifically wanted a 1st for Brown, and then never traded him. One or the other happened, can't be both.



Yeah, I get that. That's why I am suggesting letting them walk for the cap space, this team doesn't need minor mediocre returns on trades any more. It needs legitimate talent, and we aren't getting that trading GTJ/Brown piecemeal.

In the NBA needs and gets are not always related. That is why somebody coined the phrase "best player available".

BPA makes sense when you need to make a choice, if we are in a rebuild, we don't need to take on mediocre returns.

People freaked when Fred left for 42 a pop. I would have preferred a mediocre return than net zero.

[OAKLEY_2]

I get what you are saying, what I am trying to say is that if you have a singular player, on a bad contract that isn't small, you can absorb the entire contract and get compensation otherwise, and not need to send anything back. Trading them piecemeal just flat out limits the returns you can get due to salary matching. Brown is 23mil, and GTJ is 18.5mil, if a trade to pick up some terrible contract is made, it still needs to match within those parameters. Plain cap space doesn't, meaning overall the trades become potentially bigger and less complex.

And when you look at a player like Brown, we must pick up his option, and considering he can't be traded before June 29th, which is after the draft, you risk signing him to a contract and then left out in the cold if a trade falls through. I'm not saying it's perfect, but trading them one at a time after the draft isn't the only option.

A couple of things. Hope you find them useful.

An over the cap team can use TPEs and its MLE to trade for players without taking matching salary back. Toronto could currently bring back salaries, up to $10 million for Siakam's TPE, and up to $13 million for the NTMLE. Not enough for a large salary, but still useful.

Brown can be traded without bringing back $23 million in matching salary, as long as the trade doesn't take the receiving team over the 1st apron.. A team like Houston, for example, only needs to send back $15.5 million. Jeff Green and Tate cover that, allowing Toronto to create a $6+ million TPE. OKC could take Brown entirely into space, creating a $23 million TPE. Trent, assuming he signs at $18.5, only needs $11 million coming back, so Ingles $11 million expiring works fine, and creates a $7.5 million TPE. In each case, Toronto would receive some draft capital, obviously, to make the deal happen. So, draft assets, TPEs, and players who can themselves be moved on for something else, and extra space under the tax line to maneuver with in future moves.

June 29th is the deadline to pick up Brown's option. It can be exercised any time prior to that, for example on June 26th to facilitate a draft weekend trade.

Well yeah, there are options but they have to make sense. OKC/HOU has basically zero reason to take brown on. Ingles has a team option as well, so why would they trade an expiring for an expiring AND give us draft capital? So yeah sure, you could technically make all these trades, but they have no basis in reality. You could trade 40ish mil worth in salary and get Lebron, but why would the lakers do it.

Having 10 different TPEs also doesn't help when you can only use one per season. There is a point where you are making trades just for the sake of making trades.

Gonna stick by my one year of Brown plus TPE pick is better than 4 years of Gary at Brown money. Look what Kelly got paid.

[islandboy53]

I get what you are saying, what I am trying to say is that if you have a singular player, on a bad contract that isn't small, you can absorb the entire contract and get compensation otherwise, and not need to send anything back. Trading them piecemeal just flat out limits the returns you can get due to salary matching. Brown is 23mil, and GTJ is 18.5mil, if a trade to pick up some terrible contract is made, it still needs to match within those parameters. Plain cap space doesn't, meaning overall the trades become potentially bigger and less complex.

And when you look at a player like Brown, we must pick up his option, and considering he can't be traded before June 29th, which is after the draft, you risk signing him to a contract and then left out in the cold if a trade falls through. I'm not saying it's perfect, but trading them one at a time after the draft isn't the only option.

A couple of things. Hope you find them useful.

An over the cap team can use TPEs and its MLE to trade for players without taking matching salary back. Toronto could currently bring back salaries, up to $10 million for Siakam's TPE, and up to $13 million for the NTMLE. Not enough for a large salary, but still useful.

Brown can be traded without bringing back $23 million in matching salary, as long as the trade doesn't take the receiving team over the 1st apron.. A team like Houston, for example, only needs to send back $15.5 million. Jeff Green and Tate cover that, allowing Toronto to create a $6+ million TPE. OKC could take Brown entirely into space, creating a $23 million TPE. Trent, assuming he signs at $18.5, only needs $11 million coming back, so Ingles $11 million expiring works fine, and creates a $7.5 million TPE. In each case, Toronto would receive some draft capital, obviously, to make the deal happen. So, draft assets, TPEs, and players who can themselves be moved on for something else, and extra space under the tax line to maneuver with in future moves.

June 29th is the deadline to pick up Brown's option. It can be exercised any time prior to that, for example on June 26th to facilitate a draft weekend trade.

Well yeah, there are options but they have to make sense. OKC/HOU has basically zero reason to take brown on. Ingles has a team option as well, so why would they trade an expiring for an expiring AND give us draft capital? So yeah sure, you could technically make all these trades, but they have no basis in reality. You could trade 40ish mil worth in salary and get Lebron, but why would the lakers do it.

OKC or Houston would acquire Brown because he's a useful player who can provide many things their young teams need, even though he hasn't really shown it during his time here. Also, he's also an expiring salary which is large enough to be the basis for matching salary in a larger trade. These trades are entirely realistic, but Im not saying they're likely. They are presented to help you understand possibilities. At the same time, in the Trent to Orlando scenario presented, Trent would be signed and traded, so he'd be on at least a 3 year deal. Orlando would be trading Ingles, still playable at 37 but clearly nearing the end, for a young veteran who fills a significant need - shooting. Again, it's a realistic scenario which may or may not happen presented to show you that trades don't need to bring back fully matching salaries.

Having 10 different TPEs also doesn't help when you can only use one per season.

TPEs expire after a year, but there is no limit on the number them a team can use in a season. Washington, for example, has 7 TPEs currently on the books and used 2 of them already this year. Also, a cap space team must waive all existing TPEs and cannot generate new ones.

There is a point where you are making trades just for the sake of making trades.

That's generally a bad plan, I agree. However, if you don't intend to retain Trent, for example, getting some assets back in a sign and trade makes sense. Similarly, with a player like Brown, who we know from the trade deadline just past has value, it makes more sense to get that value rather than letting him walk.

[Scase]

In the NBA needs and gets are not always related. That is why somebody coined the phrase "best player available".

BPA makes sense when you need to make a choice, if we are in a rebuild, we don't need to take on mediocre returns.

People freaked when Fred left for 42 a pop. I would have preferred a mediocre return than net zero.

We weren't rebuilding at that point, and FVV is way more valuable than either Brown/GTJ. Different situation entirely. Normally I would agree with you, but if the intent is to bottom out, that's our best route, if Masai wants to make more win now moves this off season, then yeah trading those 2 for mediocre returns is likely what he'll do.

A couple of things. Hope you find them useful.

An over the cap team can use TPEs and its MLE to trade for players without taking matching salary back. Toronto could currently bring back salaries, up to $10 million for Siakam's TPE, and up to $13 million for the NTMLE. Not enough for a large salary, but still useful.

Brown can be traded without bringing back $23 million in matching salary, as long as the trade doesn't take the receiving team over the 1st apron.. A team like Houston, for example, only needs to send back $15.5 million. Jeff Green and Tate cover that, allowing Toronto to create a $6+ million TPE. OKC could take Brown entirely into space, creating a $23 million TPE. Trent, assuming he signs at $18.5, only needs $11 million coming back, so Ingles $11 million expiring works fine, and creates a $7.5 million TPE. In each case, Toronto would receive some draft capital, obviously, to make the deal happen. So, draft assets, TPEs, and players who can themselves be moved on for something else, and extra space under the tax line to maneuver with in future moves.

June 29th is the deadline to pick up Brown's option. It can be exercised any time prior to that, for example on June 26th to facilitate a draft weekend trade.

Well yeah, there are options but they have to make sense. OKC/HOU has basically zero reason to take brown on. Ingles has a team option as well, so why would they trade an expiring for an expiring AND give us draft capital? So yeah sure, you could technically make all these trades, but they have no basis in reality. You could trade 40ish mil worth in salary and get Lebron, but why would the lakers do it.

Having 10 different TPEs also doesn't help when you can only use one per season. There is a point where you are making trades just for the sake of making trades.

Gonna stick by my one year of Brown plus TPE pick is better than 4 years of Gary at Brown money. Look what Kelly got paid.

I'd rather neither personally lol.

A couple of things. Hope you find them useful.

An over the cap team can use TPEs and its MLE to trade for players without taking matching salary back. Toronto could currently bring back salaries, up to $10 million for Siakam's TPE, and up to $13 million for the NTMLE. Not enough for a large salary, but still useful.

Brown can be traded without bringing back $23 million in matching salary, as long as the trade doesn't take the receiving team over the 1st apron.. A team like Houston, for example, only needs to send back $15.5 million. Jeff Green and Tate cover that, allowing Toronto to create a $6+ million TPE. OKC could take Brown entirely into space, creating a $23 million TPE. Trent, assuming he signs at $18.5, only needs $11 million coming back, so Ingles $11 million expiring works fine, and creates a $7.5 million TPE. In each case, Toronto would receive some draft capital, obviously, to make the deal happen. So, draft assets, TPEs, and players who can themselves be moved on for something else, and extra space under the tax line to maneuver with in future moves.

June 29th is the deadline to pick up Brown's option. It can be exercised any time prior to that, for example on June 26th to facilitate a draft weekend trade.

Well yeah, there are options but they have to make sense. OKC/HOU has basically zero reason to take brown on. Ingles has a team option as well, so why would they trade an expiring for an expiring AND give us draft capital? So yeah sure, you could technically make all these trades, but they have no basis in reality. You could trade 40ish mil worth in salary and get Lebron, but why would the lakers do it.

OKC or Houston would acquire Brown because he's a useful player who can provide many things their young teams need, even though he hasn't really shown it during his time here. Also, he's also an expiring salary which is large enough to be the basis for matching salary in a larger trade. These trades are entirely realistic, but Im not saying they're likely. They are presented to help you understand possibilities. At the same time, in the Trent to Orlando scenario presented, Trent would be signed and traded, so he'd be on at least a 3 year deal. Orlando would be trading Ingles, still playable at 37 but clearly nearing the end, for a young veteran who fills a significant need - shooting. Again, it's a realistic scenario which may or may not happen presented to show you that trades don't need to bring back fully matching salaries.

Having 10 different TPEs also doesn't help when you can only use one per season.

TPEs expire after a year, but there is no limit on the number them a team can use in a season. Washington, for example, has 7 TPEs currently on the books and used 2 of them already this year. Also, a cap space team must waive all existing TPEs and cannot generate new ones.

There is a point where you are making trades just for the sake of making trades.

That's generally a bad plan, I agree. However, if you don't intend to retain Trent, for example, getting some assets back in a sign and trade makes sense. Similarly, with a player like Brown, who we know from the trade deadline just past has value, it makes more sense to get that value rather than letting him walk.

Fair enough on the examples of use, I appreciate the extra context. As for the TPE usage, thanks for the clarification as well, I think I may have misread that they can only use a TPE for a single MOVE, and not a single one per season. I am relatively ignorant when it comes to CBA/cap stuff.

As for Trent, I think a S&T is extremely unlikely, on top of the fact that his value in general is super low, as evidenced by the complete lack of trade talks with him over the last couple years. If we can send him out and not take back any salary and maybe some low picks, sure, I'm on board with that. But, he's not getting us back any useful players.

As for Brown, the ideal time was to trade him last year, I think his value is a lot lower than people think, much like Siakam. He's got value in theory, in practice, it doesn't seem as though he does. The Knicks (I think it was you who mentioned it before) offer of a pick in 2024 was the extent of his value, and if Masai wasn't willing to take that back, I don't see how he's got any genuine value. Remains to be seen though.

[islandboy53]

Well yeah, there are options but they have to make sense. OKC/HOU has basically zero reason to take brown on. Ingles has a team option as well, so why would they trade an expiring for an expiring AND give us draft capital? So yeah sure, you could technically make all these trades, but they have no basis in reality. You could trade 40ish mil worth in salary and get Lebron, but why would the lakers do it.

OKC or Houston would acquire Brown because he's a useful player who can provide many things their young teams need, even though he hasn't really shown it during his time here. Also, he's also an expiring salary which is large enough to be the basis for matching salary in a larger trade. These trades are entirely realistic, but Im not saying they're likely. They are presented to help you understand possibilities. At the same time, in the Trent to Orlando scenario presented, Trent would be signed and traded, so he'd be on at least a 3 year deal. Orlando would be trading Ingles, still playable at 37 but clearly nearing the end, for a young veteran who fills a significant need - shooting. Again, it's a realistic scenario which may or may not happen presented to show you that trades don't need to bring back fully matching salaries.

Having 10 different TPEs also doesn't help when you can only use one per season.

TPEs expire after a year, but there is no limit on the number them a team can use in a season. Washington, for example, has 7 TPEs currently on the books and used 2 of them already this year. Also, a cap space team must waive all existing TPEs and cannot generate new ones.

There is a point where you are making trades just for the sake of making trades.

That's generally a bad plan, I agree. However, if you don't intend to retain Trent, for example, getting some assets back in a sign and trade makes sense. Similarly, with a player like Brown, who we know from the trade deadline just past has value, it makes more sense to get that value rather than letting him walk.

Fair enough on the examples of use, I appreciate the extra context. As for the TPE usage, thanks for the clarification as well, I think I may have misread that they can only use a TPE for a single MOVE, and not a single one per season. I am relatively ignorant when it comes to CBA/cap stuff.

As for Trent, I think a S&T is extremely unlikely, on top of the fact that his value in general is super low, as evidenced by the complete lack of trade talks with him over the last couple years. If we can send him out and not take back any salary and maybe some low picks, sure, I'm on board with that. But, he's not getting us back any useful players.

I don't think Trent will bring back useful players, either. As to his value, he still shoots well and teams do value that, including Toronto. I've been on the fence on bringing him back for a while, but his play the last few games has me leaning toward keeping him, pending the $ needed.

As for Brown, the ideal time was to trade him last year, I think his value is a lot lower than people think, much like Siakam. He's got value in theory, in practice, it doesn't seem as though he does. The Knicks (I think it was you who mentioned it before) offer of a pick in 2024 was the extent of his value, and if Masai wasn't willing to take that back, I don't see how he's got any genuine value. Remains to be seen though.

Toronto didn't want a 24 FRP, given they already had at least 3 at that point, and that seems to have been what the Knicks had on the table. As I shared with you in the same post, Utah was offering Ochai and Olynyk for Bruce but, again, we were looking for a pick. These are the trade discussions which advanced far enough for folks like us to hear about. Others doubtless took place. We didn't accept any of the offers for him. That doesn't mean he didn't have value. In fact, it demonstrates the exact opposite. Please tell me you see that. Rest assured, he still has value.

[Scase]

OKC or Houston would acquire Brown because he's a useful player who can provide many things their young teams need, even though he hasn't really shown it during his time here. Also, he's also an expiring salary which is large enough to be the basis for matching salary in a larger trade. These trades are entirely realistic, but Im not saying they're likely. They are presented to help you understand possibilities. At the same time, in the Trent to Orlando scenario presented, Trent would be signed and traded, so he'd be on at least a 3 year deal. Orlando would be trading Ingles, still playable at 37 but clearly nearing the end, for a young veteran who fills a significant need - shooting. Again, it's a realistic scenario which may or may not happen presented to show you that trades don't need to bring back fully matching salaries.



TPEs expire after a year, but there is no limit on the number them a team can use in a season. Washington, for example, has 7 TPEs currently on the books and used 2 of them already this year. Also, a cap space team must waive all existing TPEs and cannot generate new ones.



That's generally a bad plan, I agree. However, if you don't intend to retain Trent, for example, getting some assets back in a sign and trade makes sense. Similarly, with a player like Brown, who we know from the trade deadline just past has value, it makes more sense to get that value rather than letting him walk.

Fair enough on the examples of use, I appreciate the extra context. As for the TPE usage, thanks for the clarification as well, I think I may have misread that they can only use a TPE for a single MOVE, and not a single one per season. I am relatively ignorant when it comes to CBA/cap stuff.

As for Trent, I think a S&T is extremely unlikely, on top of the fact that his value in general is super low, as evidenced by the complete lack of trade talks with him over the last couple years. If we can send him out and not take back any salary and maybe some low picks, sure, I'm on board with that. But, he's not getting us back any useful players.

I don't think Trent will bring back useful players, either. As to his value, he still shoots well and teams do value that, including Toronto. I've been on the fence on bringing him back for a while, but his play the last few games has me leaning toward keeping him, pending the $ needed.

As for Brown, the ideal time was to trade him last year, I think his value is a lot lower than people think, much like Siakam. He's got value in theory, in practice, it doesn't seem as though he does. The Knicks (I think it was you who mentioned it before) offer of a pick in 2024 was the extent of his value, and if Masai wasn't willing to take that back, I don't see how he's got any genuine value. Remains to be seen though.

Toronto didn't want a 24 FRP, given they already had at least 3 at that point, and that seems to have been what the Knicks had on the table. As I shared with you in the same post, Utah was offering Ochai and Olynyk for Bruce but, again, we were looking for a pick. These are the trade discussions which advanced far enough for folks like us to hear about. Others doubtless took place. We didn't accept any of the offers for him. That doesn't mean he didn't have value. In fact, it demonstrates the exact opposite. Please tell me you see that. Rest assured, he still has value.

Alternatively, they only offered a 24 pick, because they don't particularly value Brown. I get that Masai wouldn't have interest in the pick, but that doesn't mean he's worth a FRP in a better draft either. If all Brown is worth is a mid 20's pick in a bad draft, I don't see how you get anything useful next year either.

[islandboy53]

As for Brown, the ideal time was to trade him last year, I think his value is a lot lower than people think, much like Siakam. He's got value in theory, in practice, it doesn't seem as though he does. The Knicks (I think it was you who mentioned it before) offer of a pick in 2024 was the extent of his value, and if Masai wasn't willing to take that back, I don't see how he's got any genuine value. Remains to be seen though.

Toronto didn't want a 24 FRP, given they already had at least 3 at that point, and that seems to have been what the Knicks had on the table. As I shared with you in the same post, Utah was offering Ochai and Olynyk for Bruce but, again, we were looking for a pick. These are the trade discussions which advanced far enough for folks like us to hear about. Others doubtless took place. We didn't accept any of the offers for him. That doesn't mean he didn't have value. In fact, it demonstrates the exact opposite. Please tell me you see that. Rest assured, he still has value.

Alternatively, they only offered a 24 pick, because they don't particularly value Brown. I get that Masai wouldn't have interest in the pick, but that doesn't mean he's worth a FRP in a better draft either. If all Brown is worth is a mid 20's pick in a bad draft, I don't see how you get anything useful next year either.

Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you to grasp. Utah and New York made offers for Brown. Toronto wanted more than was offered, so the deals didn't happen. Clearly Brown had value last year. He's still a very useful player on the right team (Toronto right now is not the team) with a very useful mid sized expiring salary, great for salary filler in trades. His value may be lower this summer, it may be higher, but it certainly isn't zero.