What should Washington do?

[becorz]

The Wizards can get under the tax by trading Ariza and taking back a deal that's around $10 million, there are a ton of trading partners that Washington can choose from by virtue of the 150% rule.

Washington is $6,436,364 over the luxury tax threshold. Yes, they can get under by dealing players and taking back less, but moving only Ariza in that scenario won't cut it, unless it's a multi-team deal.

Curious, where do you get your figures? I tend to use basketball reference, and over there they have Washington at $128.75 million, which based on $123.7 million luxury tax tax threshold would put Washington just around $5 million over.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Washington opted to turn Oubre and Rivers deals into a single $15 million contract that's attached to a somewhat desirable asset.

I have found that basketball reference is not the greatest for salaries. Sportstrac is what I used. https://www.spotrac.com/nba/washington-wizards/cap/ is the Wizards. It puts them at $130,169,364 in total taxable salaries. That includes the dead salaries of Martel Webster, Chasson Randal, and Okaro White. I think that is where a lot of the discrepancy is coming from. The rest is probably just small differences in listed salaries. But I sportstrac is usually really accurate. FWIW, sportstrac and espn trade machine both have the Wizards at right around 6.4m from the tax.

[queridiculo]

Please find the usage of 150% for trades and quote it for us.

You can start at page 155, Article VII, section 6 (j).

[shrink]

Here is a link to download the CBA.

CBA Download

Please find the usage of 150% for trades and quote it for us.

I agree queridiculo.

Take the time you are using posting childish eye-rolling emoticons, and show us your “150% Rule” that you claim is “clearly stated in the CBA.”

[queridiculo]

I have found that basketball reference is not the greatest for salaries. Sportstrac is what I used. https://www.spotrac.com/nba/washington-wizards/cap/ is the Wizards. It puts them at $130,169,364 in total taxable salaries. That includes the dead salaries of Martel Webster, Chasson Randal, and Okaro White. I think that is where a lot of the discrepancy is coming from. The rest is probably just small differences in listed salaries. But I sportstrac is usually really accurate. FWIW, sportstrac and espn trade machine both have the Wizards at right around 6.4m from the tax.

Ah, I get it now. bball reference and sportrac use the same data source for salary information, but sportrac includes dead cap hits in its calculation.

Thanks!

[shrink]

Please find the usage of 150% for trades and quote it for us.

You can start at page 155, Article VII, section 6 (j).

Page 155 is about BRI.

Article VII, section 6 (j) has nothing about your “150% Rule”

... Team with a Team Salary below the Salary Cap may (i) replace a Traded Player with one (1) or more Replacement Players whose Player Contracts are acquired simultaneously and whose post-trade Salaries for the then-current Season, in the aggregate, are no more than an amount equal to the greater of: (w) the lesser of: (A) one hundred seventy-five (175%) of the pre-trade Salary of the Traded Player, plus $100,000; or (B) one hundred percent (100%) of the pre-trade Salary of the Traded Player, plus $5 million; or (x) one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the pre-trade Salary of the Traded Player, plus $100,000; or (ii) aggregate the pre-trade Salaries in two (2) or more Player Contracts for the purpose of acquiring in a simultaneous trade one (1) or more Replacement Players whose post-trade Salaries, in the aggregate, are no more than an amount equal to the greater of: (y) lesser of: (C) one hundred seventy-five (175%) of the pre-trade aggregated Salaries of the Traded Players, plus $100,000; or (D) the pre-trade aggregated Salaries of the Traded Players, plus $5 million; or (z) one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the pre-trade aggregated Salaries of the Traded Players, plus $100,000. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, no Player Contract acquired pursuant to an Exception may, for a period of two months from the date the Player Contract is acquired, be aggregated with any other Contract for purposes of a trade in accordance with this Section 6(j)(3).

There is no “150% Rule” — check for yourself.

http://3c90sm37lsaecdwtr32v9qof-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2017-NBA-NBPA-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement.pdf

This isn’t about you just being wrong, but about the way you talked to Resistance when he tried to correct your mistakes. Maybe a little humility, and less eye-rolling next time, ok?

[queridiculo]

This isn’t about you just being wrong, but about the way you talked to Resistance when he tried to correct your mistakes. Maybe a little humility, and less eye-rolling next time, ok?

Whatever, so I referenced the 2011 CBA whose traded player exceptions didn't change materially, aside from the verbiage.

http://3c90sm37lsaecdwtr32v9qof-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2011-NBA-NBPA-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement.pdf

You can find the rule I referenced with respect to the Wizards and Trevor Ariza in the new CBA on page 208 Article VII, section 6j.

[shrink]

This is 2019.

[queridiculo]

This is 2019.

Yet I am still right.

[bondom34]

This isn’t about you just being wrong, but about the way you talked to Resistance when he tried to correct your mistakes. Maybe a little humility, and less eye-rolling next time, ok?

Whatever, so I referenced the 2011 CBA whose traded player exceptions didn't change materially, aside from the verbiage.

http://3c90sm37lsaecdwtr32v9qof-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2011-NBA-NBPA-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement.pdf

You can find the rule I referenced with respect to the Wizards and Trevor Ariza in the new CBA on page 208 Article VII, section 6j.

Could you quote the section?

Because reading the thread I'm not seeing anything there about this.

And you linked the 2011 CBA, which is not in effect.

[shrink]

This is 2019.

Yet I am still right.

No. There is no “150% Rule” in 2019. There is also no ABA, and you can’t trade Ariza for Wilt Chamberlain.

Just because something existed in the past, does not make it a CBA rule in 2019.

[MoneyTalks41890]

This is 2019.

Yet I am still right.

Injecting myself because you're being annoying but there's a 125% rule, 175% rule, and a +5 mil rule. Those are the existing rules.

[becorz]

How about a trade like this for Washington and Sacramento.

Ariza
Mahimni
Green
Brown

for

Randlolph
McLemore
Koufus
Skal

(Note: This is actually two simultaneous trades. Randolph for Ariza is one. The rest is another trade. Technically)

For the Wizards, they get out of the tax this year and also get out of that last year of Mahimni. The cost is Brown and the opportunity cost of what they could get for Ariza/Green, which seems to me would be second round picks.

For the Kings, instead of getting a future first back for their cap space, the choose to take on Brown instead, while also getting Green and Ariza, who would be good in limited minutes on this Kings team this year. A bench unit of Yogi/Bogi/Ariza/Green/Bagley would be a strong bench. And the team would have Giles/Jackson/Brown/Mason to develop for the rest of the season. The cost is the cap space next year, but if we are being honest, the Kings weren't going to be able to spend it all anyway.

[pcbothwel]

This is 2019.

Yet I am still right.

Injecting myself because you're being annoying but there's a 125% rule, 175% rule, and a +5 mil rule. Those are the existing rules.

Yeah... just ignore him

[pcbothwel]

How about a trade like this for Washington and Sacramento.

Ariza
Mahimni
Green
Brown

for

Randlolph
McLemore
Koufus
Skal

(Note: This is actually two simultaneous trades. Randolph for Ariza is one. The rest is another trade. Technically)

For the Wizards, they get out of the tax this year and also get out of that last year of Mahimni. The cost is Brown and the opportunity cost of what they could get for Ariza/Green, which seems to me would be second round picks.

For the Kings, instead of getting a future first back for their cap space, the choose to take on Brown instead, while also getting Green and Ariza, who would be good in limited minutes on this Kings team this year. A bench unit of Yogi/Bogi/Ariza/Green/Bagley would be a strong bench. And the team would have Giles/Jackson/Brown/Mason to develop for the rest of the season. The cost is the cap space next year, but if we are being honest, the Kings weren't going to be able to spend it all anyway.

Zero interest. Green looks to be a key rotational piece for a contender and hes making the Vet Min. So hes easily worth a top 50 pick. That plus Brown, who Wiz fans REALLY like, to simply dump Mahinmi is both an overpay and unnecessary.

[Resistance]

This isn’t about you just being wrong, but about the way you talked to Resistance when he tried to correct your mistakes. Maybe a little humility, and less eye-rolling next time, ok?

Whatever, so I referenced the 2011 CBA whose traded player exceptions didn't change materially, aside from the verbiage.

http://3c90sm37lsaecdwtr32v9qof-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2011-NBA-NBPA-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement.pdf

You can find the rule I referenced with respect to the Wizards and Trevor Ariza in the new CBA on page 208 Article VII, section 6j.

208 Article VII

(j) Traded Player Exception.
(1) Subject to the rules set forth in Section 6(m) below and
Section 6(j)(5) below, a Team may, for a period of one (1) year
following the date of the trade of a Player Contract to another
Team, replace the Traded Player with one (1) or more players
acquired by assignment as follows:

(i) A Team whose post-assignment Team Salary would exceed
the Tax Level for the then-current Salary Cap Year may
replace a Traded Player with one (1) or more Replacement
Players whose Player Contracts are acquired simultaneously
and whose post-assignment Salaries for the then-current
Salary Cap Year, in the aggregate, are no more than an
amount equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%)
of the pre-trade Salary of the Traded Player, plus $100,000.
A Team whose post-assignment Team Salary would be
equal to or less than the Tax Level for the then-current
Salary Cap Year may replace a Traded Player with one (1)
or more Replacement Players whose Player Contracts are
acquired simultaneously and whose post-assignment
Salaries for the then-current Salary Cap Year, in the
aggregate, are no more than an amount equal to the greater
of: (y) the lesser of: (A) one hundred seventy-five (175%)
of the pre-trade Salary of the Traded Player, plus $100,000;
or (B) one hundred percent (100%) of the pre-trade Salary
of the Traded Player, plus $5 million; or (z) one hundred
twenty-five percent (125%) of the pre-trade Salary of the
Traded Player, plus $100,000.

It is what I posted earlier.

I did a copy and paste into a text editor and wasn't able to find "150".

Where is it?

[becorz]

How about a trade like this for Washington and Sacramento.

Ariza
Mahimni
Green
Brown

for

Randlolph
McLemore
Koufus
Skal

(Note: This is actually two simultaneous trades. Randolph for Ariza is one. The rest is another trade. Technically)

For the Wizards, they get out of the tax this year and also get out of that last year of Mahimni. The cost is Brown and the opportunity cost of what they could get for Ariza/Green, which seems to me would be second round picks.

For the Kings, instead of getting a future first back for their cap space, the choose to take on Brown instead, while also getting Green and Ariza, who would be good in limited minutes on this Kings team this year. A bench unit of Yogi/Bogi/Ariza/Green/Bagley would be a strong bench. And the team would have Giles/Jackson/Brown/Mason to develop for the rest of the season. The cost is the cap space next year, but if we are being honest, the Kings weren't going to be able to spend it all anyway.

Zero interest. Green looks to be a key rotational piece for a contender and hes making the Vet Min. So hes easily worth a top 50 pick. That plus Brown, who Wiz fans REALLY like, to simply dump Mahinmi is both an overpay and unnecessary.

I mean, you are trading Mahimni AND also getting out of the tax this year. The getting out of the tax this year would be a large part of the trade, so I don't think that could be overlooked.

That said, I do understand why Washington wouldn't do it.

I was just throwing the trade out to see if it stuck (which is why I posted here and not a new thread)