What to do with the Sixers 49 million in cap space

[HartfordWhalers]

No Feds..Any acronym for the Sixers should have an H in it.

But I'm taking on a bad contract for a 2020 or 2021 pick and extending Roco. That's my offseason. And if I can get value for Jah, he's gone.

I would honestly call Portland and touch base on a Bayless/Crabbe swap though.. I wouldn't add value, just offer to save Allen 10+ to 20+mil a year (pending taxes.)


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I've pitched variants on that deal a lot.

[Blazinaway]

No Feds..Any acronym for the Sixers should have an H in it.

But I'm taking on a bad contract for a 2020 or 2021 pick and extending Roco. That's my offseason. And if I can get value for Jah, he's gone.

I would honestly call Portland and touch base on a Bayless/Crabbe swap though.. I wouldn't add value, just offer to save Allen 10+ to 20+mil a year (pending taxes.)


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I've pitched variants on that deal a lot.

yeah we have thrown that one around before, I'd definitely consider it

[Mr Swagtastic]

Reddick is a perfect fit for them. A great shooter and can be a leader that they need, I like Caldwell-Pope as well. The guy I really think they need to go after is Otto Porter Jr. He is a really underrated SF in this league in terms of not being ranked where he should be.

He would be quite difficult to pry away from Washington though due to him being a RFA

[Goldbum]

I think Crabbe would be a better get for Philly than JJ. If he waives his trade kicker it's a perfect fit.

Sure, if Portland throws in an unprotected first rounder and a pick swap to offset his contract, it's definitely a perfect fit.

Well the # I keep hearing for JJ is 3/55 million. I don't see how Crabbe's contract is worse than that if he waives the kicker. Younger, longer, actual upside. Now I'd be curious to hear why paying that for JJ is better than Crabbe.

[ckchen]

I think Crabbe would be a better get for Philly than JJ. If he waives his trade kicker it's a perfect fit.

Sure, if Portland throws in an unprotected first rounder and a pick swap to offset his contract, it's definitely a perfect fit.

Well the # I keep hearing for JJ is 3/55 million. I don't see how Crabbe's contract is worse than that if he waives the kicker. Younger, longer, actual upside. Now I'd be curious to hear why paying that for JJ is better than Crabbe.

I have to say it again, no one waives their trade kicker. Crabbe has absolutely zero incentive to give away $8.5M for nothing. If he gets traded, it will include the trade kicker.

That said, if JJ costs 3 yrs/$55M - then I'm definitely not interested. Let the Nets have him.

[jayjaysee]

No Feds..Any acronym for the Sixers should have an H in it.

But I'm taking on a bad contract for a 2020 or 2021 pick and extending Roco. That's my offseason. And if I can get value for Jah, he's gone.

I would honestly call Portland and touch base on a Bayless/Crabbe swap though.. I wouldn't add value, just offer to save Allen 10+ to 20+mil a year (pending taxes.)


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I've pitched variants on that deal a lot.

It's a good idea you had that I stole.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Goldbum]

Crabbe's not giving away 8.5 million by waiving his kicker. If anything he's saving a bit on taxes (Oregon has no sales tax but sky high income tax), and getting a starting role and thus greater possibilities for endorsements ect. I could be wrong but my understanding is that he can waive the kicker and still retain the ability to use it if he's traded again. If he's not traded he never sees that money, so if that money is what prevents him from getting a starting role I don't see why he wouldnt choose to make the same and be a starter...
Again I keep hearing how no one will trade for him because of that kicker. If that's the case he's stuck coming off the bench.

[HartfordWhalers]

Sure, if Portland throws in an unprotected first rounder and a pick swap to offset his contract, it's definitely a perfect fit.

Well the # I keep hearing for JJ is 3/55 million. I don't see how Crabbe's contract is worse than that if he waives the kicker. Younger, longer, actual upside. Now I'd be curious to hear why paying that for JJ is better than Crabbe.

I have to say it again, no one waives their trade kicker. Crabbe has absolutely zero incentive to give away $8.5M for nothing. If he gets traded, it will include the trade kicker.

That said, if JJ costs 3 yrs/$55M - then I'm definitely not interested. Let the Nets have him.

Players couldn't waive their trade kicker unless needed to make a deal legal up to now. And iirc that has happened (don't ask me to look who, its been rare that it has even come up).
July 1st marks the first time players could waive a trade kicker when its not needed to make a deal legal.

As for if he would do it, I think if he saw a starting spot he would. As to whether Philly should give him a starting spot (or considerably bigger role), that is another question.

[ckchen]

Players couldn't waive their trade kicker unless needed to make a deal legal up to now. And iirc that has happened (don't ask me to look who, its been rare that it has even come up).
July 1st marks the first time players could waive a trade kicker when its not needed to make a deal legal.

As for if he would do it, I think if he saw a starting spot he would. As to whether Philly should give him a starting spot (or considerably bigger role), that is another question.

I've seen this narrative, but frankly, I don't buy it at all. Nobody's giving away $8.5M just because he could start vs already playing 28-29 mpg on the team he's already on. What exactly does that gain him? Why should a player do a favor for the owner of the team that's trading him? That's a pretty expensive gesture of goodwill, and like I said before, definitely no AGENT would let their player waive that kicker.

[HartfordWhalers]

I've pitched variants on that deal a lot.

It's a good idea you had that I stole.

I started pitching it back on November 15th with Philly adding that OKC pick as incentive: viewtopic.php?t=1491575

Recent versions included #36 and #39 for #26 and Ezeli iirc.

[HartfordWhalers]

Players couldn't waive their trade kicker unless needed to make a deal legal up to now. And iirc that has happened (don't ask me to look who, its been rare that it has even come up).
July 1st marks the first time players could waive a trade kicker when its not needed to make a deal legal.

As for if he would do it, I think if he saw a starting spot he would. As to whether Philly should give him a starting spot (or considerably bigger role), that is another question.

I've seen this narrative, but frankly, I don't buy it at all. Nobody's giving away $8.5M just because he could start vs already playing 28-29 mpg on the team he's already on. What exactly does that gain him? Why should a player do a favor for the owner of the team that's trading him? That's a pretty expensive gesture of goodwill, and like I said before, definitely no AGENT would let their player waive that kicker.

I could see a mutually beneficial waiving of part of a trade kicker. Taking 5% (or 10% or 7.5%) instead of 15%, with a team trying to play hardball and say waive all of it, and an agent saying he will waive none before they meet in the middle.

Hinkie would probably have pushed for at most a 3% TK, while Colangelo is likely to offer to up the trade kicker to 20%. All of which is to say I think it would really depend upon the personalities involved. If Melo ever does get traded, I expect some of his trade kicker will be waived.

[loserX]

Players couldn't waive their trade kicker unless needed to make a deal legal up to now. And iirc that has happened (don't ask me to look who, its been rare that it has even come up).

IIRC Hibbert did this when traded by the Pacers to the Lakers.

[ckchen]

Players couldn't waive their trade kicker unless needed to make a deal legal up to now. And iirc that has happened (don't ask me to look who, its been rare that it has even come up).
July 1st marks the first time players could waive a trade kicker when its not needed to make a deal legal.

As for if he would do it, I think if he saw a starting spot he would. As to whether Philly should give him a starting spot (or considerably bigger role), that is another question.

I've seen this narrative, but frankly, I don't buy it at all. Nobody's giving away $8.5M just because he could start vs already playing 28-29 mpg on the team he's already on. What exactly does that gain him? Why should a player do a favor for the owner of the team that's trading him? That's a pretty expensive gesture of goodwill, and like I said before, definitely no AGENT would let their player waive that kicker.

I could see a mutually beneficial waiving of part of a trade kicker. Taking 5% (or 10% or 7.5%) instead of 15%, with a team trying to play hardball and say waive all of it, and an agent saying he will waive none before they meet in the middle.

Hinkie would probably have pushed for at most a 3% TK, while Colangelo is likely to offer to up the trade kicker to 20%. All of which is to say I think it would really depend upon the personalities involved. If Melo ever does get traded, I expect some of his trade kicker will be waived.

But if Melo waives his kicker it's because he's fed up with the Knicks and in that case is basically paying to get him to leave a bad situation. That isn't the case here. The Blazers literally have ZERO leverage to even get Crabbe to negotiate it down. What is their alternative? "Fine, then you have to stay on this team for the next 3 years?" His and his agent's mentality should literally be "If you're going to trade me, then pay me. If you don't want to pay me, then don't trade me." Where do you see any kind of leverage that would even get them to negotiate at all?

If it was a bad situation, sure, I could see something. I think in Hibbert's case it was also a bad situation - they wouldn't even play him by the end and he was languishing on the bench and the kicker was the impediment to not being moved at all. I don't think there's really that kind of threat here.

[HartfordWhalers]

I've seen this narrative, but frankly, I don't buy it at all. Nobody's giving away $8.5M just because he could start vs already playing 28-29 mpg on the team he's already on. What exactly does that gain him? Why should a player do a favor for the owner of the team that's trading him? That's a pretty expensive gesture of goodwill, and like I said before, definitely no AGENT would let their player waive that kicker.

I could see a mutually beneficial waiving of part of a trade kicker. Taking 5% (or 10% or 7.5%) instead of 15%, with a team trying to play hardball and say waive all of it, and an agent saying he will waive none before they meet in the middle.

Hinkie would probably have pushed for at most a 3% TK, while Colangelo is likely to offer to up the trade kicker to 20%. All of which is to say I think it would really depend upon the personalities involved. If Melo ever does get traded, I expect some of his trade kicker will be waived.

But if Melo waives his kicker it's because he's fed up with the Knicks and in that case is basically paying to get him to leave a bad situation. That isn't the case here. The Blazers literally have ZERO leverage to even get Crabbe to negotiate it down. What is their alternative? "Fine, then you have to stay on this team for the next 3 years?" His and his agent's mentality should literally be "If you're going to trade me, then pay me. If you don't want to pay me, then don't trade me." Where do you see any kind of leverage that would even get them to negotiate at all?

If it was a bad situation, sure, I could see something. I think in Hibbert's case it was also a bad situation - they wouldn't even play him by the end and he was languishing on the bench and the kicker was the impediment to not being moved at all. I don't think there's really that kind of threat here.

Get half your trade kicker or stay and get none obviously has a tradeoff structure. /shrug.

[Pipp33]

I can't see the Spurs letting him go or if he wants to leave, but I would be chasing Patty Mills for a 6th man role on this team. GREAT team guy and locker room presence and can be the impact scorer off the bench for them. IMO, much better option than chasing guys like Lowry. having Mills lets them play the rookies, but also gives them a vert presence who can still contribute and won't be on a ridiculous contract like Lowry

[ckchen]

Get half your trade kicker or stay and get none obviously has a tradeoff structure. /shrug.

I guess that's true. Again, unless the situation in Portland is a negative one for Crabbe, I don't see this happening. I'm not sure it's much of an incentive.

[HartfordWhalers]

Get half your trade kicker or stay and get none obviously has a tradeoff structure. /shrug.

I guess that's true. Again, unless the situation in Portland is a negative one for Crabbe, I don't see this happening. I'm not sure it's much of an incentive.

I'm not sure I understand this set of beliefs.
The whole trade kicker is irresistible and won't be waived for more playing time... but getting half that trade kicker isn't much incentive to accept a trade and waive the other half?

[BullyKing]

I feel like this thread has become a debate over whether it is better to give Reddick a 3 year deal or trade for Crabbe while totally ignoring option 3 of neither.

Here's what I'd do with the space:

Read on Twitter

[atlantabbq99]

Sixers front office should read this...

http://clipperholics.com/2015/05/27/clippers-cavs-nba-finals-trade/

[BullyKing]

Sixers front office should read this...

http://clipperholics.com/2015/05/27/clippers-cavs-nba-finals-trade/

Dude, you're acting as if the Sixers haven't been doing this for four years. I'm pretty confident they understand the concept.