A sequence of trades
1) Trade Elson to SAC for J Williams, Dahntay Jones, Douby
2) Kings Sign and trade Darryl Watkins ($427563, league min, 3 years, only 1st year guaranteed) for 1.845 million Traded Player Exception from SA (acquired when we traded Udrih to the Wolves)
3) Kings trade part of Trade Exception to SA for Douby and a 2nd round pick
4) Kings trade remainder of TE to SA for Watkins and Cash to compensate the extra salary they incur as part of this deal (Elson + Watkins = 3,427,563, pro rated to end of year, vs. Williams and Jones = 1,401,883, pro rated to end of year ~ 1,000,000).
5) Kings buy out Watkins..
Net SA trades Elson + 2nd round pick for Williams and Jones.
SA gets under cap. Gets 2 bodies to fill out end of bench (Elson has been useless so no loss there). Kings get an extra 2nd round pick. Williams (81 MIN, 18 GAMES) and Jones(198, 20 gAMES) have played a combined 279 minutes so far. They are not significant parts of the Kings rotation; now that the kings are over their injury issues, they won't be seeing time at all.
Getting SA under lux tax
Moderator: G R E Y
Getting SA under lux tax
-
pad300
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,995
- And1: 418
- Joined: Feb 16, 2005
-
HotSpurs21
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,116
- And1: 0
- Joined: Dec 30, 2005
-
Texas Longhorns
- Banned User
- Posts: 4,005
- And1: 3
- Joined: Jan 08, 2008
- Location: Cockrell School of Engineering
- Contact:
-
Rique
- Senior
- Posts: 521
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jan 05, 2005
mudyez wrote:dont think we are trading elson until he can show us, that he can do his defense-magic against dirk in the playoffs! thats the main reason he is on the team and I cant see us getting rid of him for nothing, as long as the dirk-threat is looming over our heads!
Quick question. Now that we have Ime, can't he handle the Dirk duties? I'm not saying I want to get rid of Elson, I just think that Ime can do a good job guarding dirk. This would be a similar approach to what GS did in guarding dirk with Stephen Jax. I think Ime would give Dirk a world of troubles.
-
Blame Rasho
- On Leave
- Posts: 42,079
- And1: 9,763
- Joined: Apr 25, 2002
-
Blame Rasho
- On Leave
- Posts: 42,079
- And1: 9,763
- Joined: Apr 25, 2002
-
pad300
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,995
- And1: 418
- Joined: Feb 16, 2005
TD is the MAN wrote:I would rather do an Elson G Green trade...
Jones
http://www.82games.com/0708/07SAC7A.HTM
Green
http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN6A.HTM
Jones has been as good or better this year; they're all UFA anyway this summer. And Williams give us a big who can give us as least as much as Elson.
-
shrink
- RealGM
- Posts: 59,276
- And1: 19,284
- Joined: Sep 26, 2005
TD is the MAN wrote:I would rather do an Elson G Green trade...
MIN is in a weird spot, that while Elson is more valuable to them, why pay $1.6 mil more to improve the team, and potentially cost ping pong balls? Even if they liked Elson, a nice audition would also raise his contract's cost this summer, when their real season begins. I suppose you could send cash, but ...
How far do you need to go to get under? Barry for Buckner and Gerald Green would save about $250K. Buckner's a good defensive veteran but he is simply not going to get any playing time as a swingman on the young Wolves. GG's an expiring, and Buckner goes one more year at $4 mil, but if you do the deal and save $2.5 by getting your share back, he's not a bad price for next year at a net $1.5 mil. However, I should point out he has a $1 mil buy-out.
Craig Smith is an option for Gerald Green (and saves more money to get under the lux), but SA would need to come up with some decent incentive.
-
ss1986v2
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,635
- And1: 1
- Joined: Mar 07, 2004
- Location: San Antonio, Tx
-
shrink wrote:How far do you need to go to get under?
no clue. two of the most senior member of two different spurs boards have two different sets of calculations, if i have read correctly. one has them about 400k over, the other about 200k under. not positive on these exact figures, but it basically comes down to one saying "just over" and the other saying "just under". im going with the one saying "just over". hes using more recent numbers from espn, and he has a better track record than the other.
if anyone can answer me this with absolute certainty, id love to know: what is the tax figure for vaughn and damon? is it their cap figure? or is it more/less than their cap figure? both are signed to vet min deals. im not even sure where to look on larry coons page for this info. and im kinda lazy...
Stupidity Should be Painful!
-
Three34
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 36,406
- And1: 123
- Joined: Sep 18, 2002
Not absolutely certainty, because I haven't looked hard enough. But I double checked this this afternoon when I was updating payrolls, and I have the Spurs at $67,724,122 versus a tax threshold of $67,865,000.
There are other factors to calculating tax figures other than just looking at payroll, and those are the bits that I haven't done yet. But they're probably fine.
There are other factors to calculating tax figures other than just looking at payroll, and those are the bits that I haven't done yet. But they're probably fine.
-
-bob-
- RealGM
- Posts: 19,991
- And1: 41
- Joined: Jan 03, 2004
-
I'll go with the Spurs beat writer, no offense to sham.
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=757395
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=757395
-
Three34
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 36,406
- And1: 123
- Joined: Sep 18, 2002
Take it from the guy who spent more hours looking up these numbers than you've had hot dinners (if that makes sense. Which it doesn't.)
Beat writers generally suck at this sort of thing.
If you can fault my numbers, do so, but I will defend them with evidence.
The only question is whether Darius Washington, Langford and Richardson'sprorate dminimum salaries are changed to being those of a third year player instead of the rookies/sophomores that they are. If so, the Spurs are probably over it by a tiny amount.
But in terms of salary cap figure, you're under it. It's all about the technicalities, though.
Beat writers generally suck at this sort of thing.
If you can fault my numbers, do so, but I will defend them with evidence.
The only question is whether Darius Washington, Langford and Richardson'sprorate dminimum salaries are changed to being those of a third year player instead of the rookies/sophomores that they are. If so, the Spurs are probably over it by a tiny amount.
But in terms of salary cap figure, you're under it. It's all about the technicalities, though.
-
Three34
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 36,406
- And1: 123
- Joined: Sep 18, 2002
Indeed, if the prorated numbers of Langford/Richardson/Washington/Williams are changed to prorated numbers for a third year veteran (as is what you do when calculating team tax figures on minimum salary 1st and 2nd year players thta you didn't draft - not sure if Williams counts in this respect for he was drafted, but also waived, then re-signed), then the Spurs come out at $67,903,716, which is above the tax threshold. By like millimetres.
Whether you do that for players who spent a mere fraction of the season on the roster, I don't know. That be the question. Either that or my maths are wrong.
It's worth mentioning that the Spurs will have calculated this long before we have, and before they signed Damon. If they went ahead and did so anyway, rather than politely asking him to wait the 7 or so days it would take to make this irrelevant, then that tells you they're in the clear. No team out there is THAT desperate for Damon Stoudamire.
Whether you do that for players who spent a mere fraction of the season on the roster, I don't know. That be the question. Either that or my maths are wrong.
It's worth mentioning that the Spurs will have calculated this long before we have, and before they signed Damon. If they went ahead and did so anyway, rather than politely asking him to wait the 7 or so days it would take to make this irrelevant, then that tells you they're in the clear. No team out there is THAT desperate for Damon Stoudamire.