RealGM

As we all know, the Vince Carter trade rumors have certainly picked up in the last week or so. A lot of the rumored packages do seem a little underwhelming, but to be fair I think we are spoiled by the Devin Harris robbery of a year ago. Especially with this economy and teams watching their long term commitments, I'm skeptical of the ability to land a Yi type of prospect, let alone a Lopez or Devin type of prospect like we did a year ago.

While it's not being mentioned specifically, I think the economy and it's potential impact are playing a big role in the possible Carter trades. However, it's not in the way most people are thinking (ie: Nets need to cut costs ASAP). To further explain, I'm going to break this into a couple of part and how they relate to some of the rumored Carter packages.

Because of declining revenue the salary cap is likely to go down in 2010/11 (ie: the summer of LeBron)

To help explain, I'll start with this blurb from John Hollinger back in January
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/stor ... ions09/nba

And if you think the summer of 2009 looks bad, just wait until the much-hyped summer of 2010. First, the league's revenues are likely to be much lower in 2009-10 than they are this season, and that's the number that's the basis for setting the 2010-11 cap. The many season-ticket holders and sponsors who couldn't get out of their commitments this fall instead will jump ship a year from now, creating a revenue shortfall league-wide.
....
To illustrate, I modeled a situation in which league revenues increase by 2 percent in 2008-09 but declined by 3 percent in 2009-10. I'm not saying this will happen, but just humor me for a second.

If that were the case, the cap would decrease by about 0.5 percent in 2008-09 ... and then it would decrease by a whopping 5.6 percent in 2009-10. The cap would go all the way down to $55.2 million that year.

Now, how does this relate to NJ? Remember how trading RJ gave the Nets max cap room in 2010? Not so much anymore. Let's look at the Nets current situation. Let's assume you buyout Dooling/Najera ($3 mil guaranteed), decline the player option on Williams and non-tender Boone (RFA), that means NJ has $38.23 mil committed in 10/11 to just 6 players (Vince, Devin, Lopez, Yi, Anderson and CDR). Add in the cost of 3 1st rounders and three scrubs to fill out the roster, that total is closer to $45 million.

Even if we feel Hollinger's projections are too drastic, if the 10/11 cap stays the same as it is 08/09 ($58.68 million instead of Hollinger's $55.2 projection), the Nets as is, don't have enough money to sign a max FA. The other thing this does is eliminate the idea that if you dump Carter for contracts that expire before 2010 (ie: Vince for TMac and a pick) you'd have enough cap room for 2 max contracts.

In theory you could use Boone or Williams as incentive for someone to take Dooling/Najera, but in the end, I doubt the $3 mil savings is enough in this scenario.

Earlier in the season, I was against the idea of trading Carter for a lesser wing with a long contract, like a Josh Howard, Jason Richardson or Gerald Wallace because, we could maintain max room without dealing Vince and the savings from swapping Vince with one of the above likely wouldn't be enough to get an above MLE level FA. Now, the $5.7 mil savings from a Carter/Howard swap (picking up Howard's team option), could very well be the difference between having max room or not. I personally don't love the idea of trading Vince for an inferior veteran, but with the changing cap environment, it's a deal I would be. Being able to dump Najera/Dooling and/or getting added picks/youth would be a bonus. Also, while I hardly think Vince is over the hill, I don't think it's a stretch that guys like Howard/Wallace will be at a closer level to Vince in 2 years.

The economy and teams gearing for 2010 will greatly limit spending this summer.

Earlier this week, Mark Cuban felt that these two factors could trigger a "nuclear winter" where a lot of guys will end up signing 1-year deals. A 2010 where a ton of teams have cap room will be one reason and the economy/cap will be another reason. From that same January Hollinger article:

The net effect, multiple league sources tell me, is that the cap is likely to increase little, if any, next season. Whether it increases will depend largely on team's walk-up sales the rest of the season.

That has huge implications league-wide because the luxury tax level moves in lockstep with the cap. Teams have built their salary structures on the assumption of a rising tax -- but instead, many teams are locked into salaries for next season that will increase 10 percent without any corresponding increase in the tax level.

The upshot is if the tax level doesn't rise, at least 12 teams are threatening to be over next season's tax level on current contracts alone -- including several teams that have been adamant about staying under it in the past.

If the Nets dumped Vince for a package mainly centered around expirings (ie: Vince to CLE or POR), they could find themselves with major cap room this summer. Right now off the top of my head, Portland, Toronto, Memphis and Minnesota (possibly Atlanta and Detroit as well) are the only ones with cap room of note this summer. If you can do a straight salary dump with Vince (say him to CLE for Wally and 09/11 #1s), the Nets would be in a position to be at least $10 million under the cap this summer.

Thanks to Simmons and potentially Dooling, Najera, Hayes, Boone and Williams coming off the books after 09/10, you can sign a guy on a multi-year deal for around $10 million per while still maintaining max cap room in 10/11. While on the surface the Carter for Marion swap that Thorn/Kiki reportedly offered seems nuts, it doesn't seem quite as crazy now. Assuming Marion kept in tune with reality, you could have signed him to an extension, while maintaining cap room. Personally my two favorite FA targets for this summer would be Odom and Josh Childress (if he decides to return to the US). Granger is restricted, but I doubt Indiana would ever consider letting him go so it's a moot point.

The other option is to be able to use the cap room in a trade. As we've seen with Marcus Camby and Kurt Thomas trades, it's possible you can either get a good player dirt cheap or get some nice incentives for taking a contract off someone's hands. With around 12 teams staring the luxury tax in the face, I expect these type of opportunities to continue.

One final note. If there is any truth to the Carter/Dooling/Najera for Howard/Stackhouse deal, NJ could be in a position to take advantage of both scenarios I played out for you. Since Stackhouse's 09/10 is only partially guaranteed ($2 mil buyout), the Nets would save $9.797 million in 09/10. Assuming the cap stays the same next year, NJ would be between $6.5 (which is a touch above the MLE) to $12.2 million under cap depending on where their pick is and what you do with Hayes/Williams/Boone.

In conclusion, I think that even with trading Carter, it is possible to be just as good (if not better) in 09/10 and significantly better in 10/11 even if you strike out on LeBron, Bosh and Wade.

I read everything you wrote, and I completely agree. I especially like the idea of trading Vince for Josh Howard, if for no other reason than it might entice SAS to include Manu in their offer ( ).

Sorry, that's all I got.

I have to agree with a lot of what you wrote.

Najera does not ever come off the books, lol.
It has to be THE WORST MOVE Thorn has EVER made.
Najera's contract is fully guarenteed except 500K each season for the final 2 years of his deal.
Dooling is the exact opposite, only 500K is guarenteed.
How ass backwards are those 2 deals?

With all the picks we have coming up it wouldn't suprise me if Thorn eventually dumps a 1st rounder to dump Najera, if the cap savings are needed and if Thorn can't dupe some unsuspecting schmuck into thinking Najera will help their team for an useless expiring.

But on another note, if Dallas really offered that Josh Howard deal, I have a feeling it would have already been accepted, unless there is another similar deal on the table and Thorn is having trouble deciding, or if Rod has a blockbuster lined up to keep Carter and add a big time player.

Good post overall though.

To follow up,ESPN.com is claiming a source stating NEXT YRs cap and Lux Tax are going down much more than is assumed and said 2010 was looking like a "bloodbath".

FWIW,a Rockets blog,Clutchfans,had/has the Rockets seriously talking to Nets about Vince to point Nets were alledgedly asking other teams about Aaron Brook's value. That indicates it's an Artest,Head,Brooks and either Hayes or Landry type deal. The Nets would prob have to buy out Ager and Williams and include Boone in the trade(if Landry,maybe CDR if Hayes).

vincecarter4pres wrote:I have to agree with a lot of what you wrote.

Najera does not ever come off the books, lol.
It has to be THE WORST MOVE Thorn has EVER made.
Najera's contract is fully guarenteed except 500K each season for the final 2 years of his deal.
Dooling is the exact opposite, only 500K is guarenteed.
How ass backwards are those 2 deals?

With all the picks we have coming up it wouldn't suprise me if Thorn eventually dumps a 1st rounder to dump Najera, if the cap savings are needed and if Thorn can't dupe some unsuspecting schmuck into thinking Najera will help their team for an useless expiring.

But on another note, if Dallas really offered that Josh Howard deal, I have a feeling it would have already been accepted, unless there is another similar deal on the table and Thorn is having trouble deciding, or if Rod has a blockbuster lined up to keep Carter and add a big time player.

Good post overall though.

Something tells me that if incentive is needed to dump Najera, it would come in the way of Boone or Williams (though his value is in the toilet). It's nothing against Boone, but unless he's willing to sign a really cheap deal, NJ would have to renounce his rights in 2010 to have the needed cap room.

ecuhus1981 wrote:I read everything you wrote, and I completely agree. I especially like the idea of trading Vince for Josh Howard, if for no other reason than it might entice SAS to include Manu in their offer ( ).

Sorry, that's all I got.

Thanks,

I'll admit I wasn't that high on the Howard deal until I realized he had the 2010/11 team option. Since the option of two max FAs in 2010/11, is basically DOA even if Carter was dumped, dealing him for guy(s) with longer contracts doesn't bother me anymore.

Now, I have to disagree with you about wanting Manu. Manu is a very good player, but I just don't think he's a good fit for this situation. We're talking about a player who is only 6 months younger than Vince and has a lot of mileage on him (over 100 NBA playoff games, international comp, etc.).

The other big issue is that unlike Howard, JRich, Gerald Wallace, etc. is that Manu is not controlled in 2010/11. Yes Manu's the best player of that group, but if winning over the next season and a third was the priority, we wouldn't be talking about moving Vince. Barring a crazy 3-way deal with Amare, there isn't a Vince trade that makes us better in 2009/10.

If I'm trading Vince, I want one of the following, preferably both:
1. A piece or pieces that will be a viable part of a 2010/11 team. This could be done through a cheaper near-all-star caliber wing (like Howard) or through quality picks/prospects.

2. Enough financial flexibility this summer to either add a quality free agent (Lamar Odom? Shawn Marion) and/or be able to take advantage of other team's financial hardships like OKC did with Kurt Thomas or the Clippers with Camby. Some sort of youth/future would also have to be included so sorry CLE Vince for Wally straight up won't fly.

I don't feel like a trade of say Vince for Manu/Oberto trade accomplishes either. Since Manu is not under contract for 2010/11, this deal does not accomplish objective 1. IIRC Oberto has a $1.9 million buyout for 09/10. If this is true, that means the savings for next year is only $4.1 million. After taking into account the cost of this year's #1, NJ would be less than $1 million under the cap, so it doesn't accomplish objective 2.

A Howard/Stackhouse for Carter trade accomplishes mission #1. The expanded version that includes Dooling and Najera accomplishes both objectives.

For these reasons, if the Spurs ever did offer Manu in a Carter deal, I'd rather flip him to a 3rd team instead of keeping him. Considering the difference in contracts, I'd be willing to bet that Manu can fetch more in a trade than Vince.

As for the rumored Spurs package, it doesn't really fit either objective 1 or 2, unless Bowen/Oberto agree to buyouts that eliminate any 09/10 salary counting on our books. Even then, I don't particularly like the idea of Vince for Hill and Roger Mason.

2010 is gonna be one of the most overrated offseason's EVER.

There are only 4 guys worth max or close to max money, at least for a 5 year deal.

The cap might be a lot lower then originally thought.

Most(Make that all.) of the other semi-big name guys, even if available are going to be old, some of then ancient and aren't going to be worth more then 2-3 year contracts, if they are worth signing at all. Even the ones worth signing for the 2-3 year deals aren't going to be the players they are today in 2010-2011.

2011 or even this offseason will be much better years.

I still have a feeling management is duping all of us into this faux pipedream. I have a feeling they aren't going to sign ANY big money FA unless the chance to get one of literally Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Melo(2011) or Joe Johnson.

Out of the top 4 guys and possibly even some of the less talented or older guys, many of them are going to sign extensions with their current teams early, or just resign in 2010 anyway.