Lakers interested in Brown

[dhackett1565]

The issue with opting out of Bruce's deal and re-signing him to a one year deal has nothing to do with salary, or with the 5-6 month delay on being able to trade him.

He'd have had an automatic no-trade clause if they did that. As it is we can trade him wherever we want (that wants him).

[ciueli]

The issue with opting out of Bruce's deal and re-signing him to a one year deal has nothing to do with salary, or with the 5-6 month delay on being able to trade him.

He'd have had an automatic no-trade clause if they did that. As it is we can trade him wherever we want (that wants him).

The team that trades for him is probably going to be a playoff team which is a place he'd probably rather be than here. And it's easily solved with a trade kicker added to his contract, he isn't turning down a trade if it makes him more money.

[mihaic]

The issue with opting out of Bruce's deal and re-signing him to a one year deal has nothing to do with salary, or with the 5-6 month delay on being able to trade him.

He'd have had an automatic no-trade clause if they did that. As it is we can trade him wherever we want (that wants him).

Wouldn't it have counted against the Mle? If we opted out. This means we still keep Mle exception, and are able to trade him too. Basically flexibility in case someone wants him or if someone dumps assets.

[dhackett1565]

The issue with opting out of Bruce's deal and re-signing him to a one year deal has nothing to do with salary, or with the 5-6 month delay on being able to trade him.

He'd have had an automatic no-trade clause if they did that. As it is we can trade him wherever we want (that wants him).

The team that trades for him is probably going to be a playoff team which is a place he'd probably rather be than here. And it's easily solved with a trade kicker added to his contract, he isn't turning down a trade if it makes him more money.

And if two playoff teams want him and one offer is better than the other, but he wants to go to the other team?

It's a bad, bad idea.

[dhackett1565]

The issue with opting out of Bruce's deal and re-signing him to a one year deal has nothing to do with salary, or with the 5-6 month delay on being able to trade him.

He'd have had an automatic no-trade clause if they did that. As it is we can trade him wherever we want (that wants him).

Wouldn't it have counted against the Mle? If we opted out. This means we still keep Mle exception, and are able to trade him too. Basically flexibility in case someone wants him or if someone dumps assets.

Doesn't matter whether we re-sign him with non-Bird or Early Bird rights or with an exception like the MLE (we could have done any of those) - any player who signs a one year contract where they'll have early or regular Bird rights at the end of it, has an automatic no trade clause.

As it stands, we have freedom to trade him and yes, also maintain the full MLE. The alternative was likely still having the MLE, but without the ability to trade Brown freely.

[ciueli]

The issue with opting out of Bruce's deal and re-signing him to a one year deal has nothing to do with salary, or with the 5-6 month delay on being able to trade him.

He'd have had an automatic no-trade clause if they did that. As it is we can trade him wherever we want (that wants him).

The team that trades for him is probably going to be a playoff team which is a place he'd probably rather be than here. And it's easily solved with a trade kicker added to his contract, he isn't turning down a trade if it makes him more money.

And if two playoff teams want him and one offer is better than the other, but he wants to go to the other team?

It's a bad, bad idea.

I mean, you can't be serious. There isn't even one team in the NBA that wants Brown on his current contract, let alone two.

[dhackett1565]

The team that trades for him is probably going to be a playoff team which is a place he'd probably rather be than here. And it's easily solved with a trade kicker added to his contract, he isn't turning down a trade if it makes him more money.

And if two playoff teams want him and one offer is better than the other, but he wants to go to the other team?

It's a bad, bad idea.

I mean, you can't be serious. There isn't even one team in the NBA that wants Brown on his current contract, let alone two.

Salary is not that big a deal when there is no term. Plenty of teams with the ability to match salaries mid-season in a trade for Brown, not uncommon to have a contract in that range that teams don't value highly.

But in the worst case scenario where the trade Brown is involved in is just using him as an expiring contract - even in that scenario, it is better to have him on his current deal. They already have Boucher as a ~MLE salary match expiring, and had McDaniels as a ~tax MLE expiring (which they used) and for salaries that low they can just absorb with the MLE anyway. But with Brown's expiring they unlock the ability to make trades for bigger salaries.

To be clear, I thought it was a mistake to pick up Brown's option and I much preferred them either keeping Gary or using cap room.

But re-signing Brown to a one year deal would have been even worse than picking up his option.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

Not signing him, probably could have got us a few picks. Bad teams sell cap space all the time.

[ciueli]

And if two playoff teams want him and one offer is better than the other, but he wants to go to the other team?

It's a bad, bad idea.

I mean, you can't be serious. There isn't even one team in the NBA that wants Brown on his current contract, let alone two.

Salary is not that big a deal when there is no term. Plenty of teams with the ability to match salaries mid-season in a trade for Brown, not uncommon to have a contract in that range that teams don't value highly.

But in the worst case scenario where the trade Brown is involved in is just using him as an expiring contract - even in that scenario, it is better to have him on his current deal. They already have Boucher as a ~MLE salary match expiring, and had McDaniels as a ~tax MLE expiring (which they used) and for salaries that low they can just absorb with the MLE anyway. But with Brown's expiring they unlock the ability to make trades for bigger salaries.

To be clear, I thought it was a mistake to pick up Brown's option and I much preferred them either keeping Gary or using cap room.

But re-signing Brown to a one year deal would have been even worse than picking up his option.

It is a big deal when it prevents us from accessing the full MLE and when a team that actually has vague interest in him (Lakers) can't make a trade work because they don't have matching salary and can't complete the trade without sending 3+ players back.

It isn't worse signing him to a 1 year deal because players that make less money are easier to trade than players that make more money. Pay him around an MLE deal and there's a lot of guys you can swap him for 1-to-1, this matters for teams in the luxury tax under the new CBA. I'm sure the Lakers would love to swap Gabe Vincent for him, for example. By contrast, there aren't many competitive teams that have over $23M in dead salary lying around they are trying to get off of to match Brown's contract.

[dhackett1565]

I mean, you can't be serious. There isn't even one team in the NBA that wants Brown on his current contract, let alone two.

Salary is not that big a deal when there is no term. Plenty of teams with the ability to match salaries mid-season in a trade for Brown, not uncommon to have a contract in that range that teams don't value highly.

But in the worst case scenario where the trade Brown is involved in is just using him as an expiring contract - even in that scenario, it is better to have him on his current deal. They already have Boucher as a ~MLE salary match expiring, and had McDaniels as a ~tax MLE expiring (which they used) and for salaries that low they can just absorb with the MLE anyway. But with Brown's expiring they unlock the ability to make trades for bigger salaries.

To be clear, I thought it was a mistake to pick up Brown's option and I much preferred them either keeping Gary or using cap room.

But re-signing Brown to a one year deal would have been even worse than picking up his option.

It is a big deal when it prevents us from accessing the full MLE and when a team that actually has vague interest in him (Lakers) can't make a trade work because they don't have matching salary and can't complete the trade without sending 3+ players back.

It isn't worse signing him to a 1 year deal because players that make less money are easier to trade than players that make more money. Pay him around an MLE deal and there's a lot of guys you can swap him for 1-to-1, this matters for teams in the luxury tax under the new CBA. I'm sure the Lakers would love to swap Gabe Vincent for him, for example. By contrast, there aren't many competitive teams that have over $23M in dead salary lying around they are trying to get off of to match Brown's contract.

The Raptors not having access to the full MLE is very much a choice. They did multiple things that ate into that - the Davion deal, Bruce, frontloading IQ's deal. And right around now having almost the entire MLE is not radically different anyway.

Again, I seriously doubt there would be significant enough interest out there to counterbalance the no-trade clause. And all of that assumes he wouldn't have just walked to somewhere else rather than re-sign here on a team you explicitly stated he'd not want to be on if a better team is interested. Half the MLE market is signing minimum deals to rebuild their value and bet on the following summer and Brown would probably be in that group.

It's not remotely clear cut that your scenario would be better in terms of trade market - the one thing sure about your scenario is the Raps would have a heck of a lot less control the whole way through.

[Spida888]

I'm mostly given up that Brown can net any FRP. Are there any teams with high SRPs that can use his services?

An early 2025 SRP may be more valuable than a 2024 late first which we allegedly turned down last year.

For example, DET has our 2025 SRP, which could be a nice pick if we end up tanking or just suck. They're probably not interested in Brown though.

[ciueli]

Salary is not that big a deal when there is no term. Plenty of teams with the ability to match salaries mid-season in a trade for Brown, not uncommon to have a contract in that range that teams don't value highly.

But in the worst case scenario where the trade Brown is involved in is just using him as an expiring contract - even in that scenario, it is better to have him on his current deal. They already have Boucher as a ~MLE salary match expiring, and had McDaniels as a ~tax MLE expiring (which they used) and for salaries that low they can just absorb with the MLE anyway. But with Brown's expiring they unlock the ability to make trades for bigger salaries.

To be clear, I thought it was a mistake to pick up Brown's option and I much preferred them either keeping Gary or using cap room.

But re-signing Brown to a one year deal would have been even worse than picking up his option.

It is a big deal when it prevents us from accessing the full MLE and when a team that actually has vague interest in him (Lakers) can't make a trade work because they don't have matching salary and can't complete the trade without sending 3+ players back.

It isn't worse signing him to a 1 year deal because players that make less money are easier to trade than players that make more money. Pay him around an MLE deal and there's a lot of guys you can swap him for 1-to-1, this matters for teams in the luxury tax under the new CBA. I'm sure the Lakers would love to swap Gabe Vincent for him, for example. By contrast, there aren't many competitive teams that have over $23M in dead salary lying around they are trying to get off of to match Brown's contract.

The Raptors not having access to the full MLE is very much a choice. They did multiple things that ate into that - the Davion deal, Bruce, frontloading IQ's deal. And right around now having almost the entire MLE is not radically different anyway.

Again, I seriously doubt there would be significant enough interest out there to counterbalance the no-trade clause. And all of that assumes he wouldn't have just walked to somewhere else rather than re-sign here on a team you explicitly stated he'd not want to be on if a better team is interested. Half the MLE market is signing minimum deals to rebuild their value and bet on the following summer and Brown would probably be in that group.

It's not remotely clear cut that your scenario would be better in terms of trade market - the one thing sure about your scenario is the Raps would have a heck of a lot less control the whole way through.

The no-trade clause is absolutely nothing that you're trying to make something out of. Please, tell me of all these players who were on 1 year deals who used their no-trade clause to prevent a trade to a team they didn't want to go to. Again, you gloss over the fact that adding a trade kicker completely eliminates this issue as it gives the player a strong incentive to get traded, especially given there is zero chance the Raptors use Brown's Early Bird rights to resign him (the whole point of the no-trade clause).

The reason so many players are taking minimum contracts to rebuild their value is that there is nothing else out there for them in this new NBA where teams are unwilling to spend their MLE. You think Gary Trent Jr. wouldn't have come crawling back to the Raptors for less than he initially wanted instead of taking a minimum contract from the Bucks? And if Brown leaves the Raptors to play for the minimum because an MLE level offer isn't good enough for him then it's no real loss for us as far as I'm concerned, more minutes for players we want to develop and more losses in a year we should be aiming for a top 5 pick instead of the play-in.

[dhackett1565]

It is a big deal when it prevents us from accessing the full MLE and when a team that actually has vague interest in him (Lakers) can't make a trade work because they don't have matching salary and can't complete the trade without sending 3+ players back.

It isn't worse signing him to a 1 year deal because players that make less money are easier to trade than players that make more money. Pay him around an MLE deal and there's a lot of guys you can swap him for 1-to-1, this matters for teams in the luxury tax under the new CBA. I'm sure the Lakers would love to swap Gabe Vincent for him, for example. By contrast, there aren't many competitive teams that have over $23M in dead salary lying around they are trying to get off of to match Brown's contract.

The Raptors not having access to the full MLE is very much a choice. They did multiple things that ate into that - the Davion deal, Bruce, frontloading IQ's deal. And right around now having almost the entire MLE is not radically different anyway.

Again, I seriously doubt there would be significant enough interest out there to counterbalance the no-trade clause. And all of that assumes he wouldn't have just walked to somewhere else rather than re-sign here on a team you explicitly stated he'd not want to be on if a better team is interested. Half the MLE market is signing minimum deals to rebuild their value and bet on the following summer and Brown would probably be in that group.

It's not remotely clear cut that your scenario would be better in terms of trade market - the one thing sure about your scenario is the Raps would have a heck of a lot less control the whole way through.

The no-trade clause is absolutely nothing that you're trying to make something out of. Please, tell me of all these players who were on 1 year deals who used their no-trade clause to prevent a trade to a team they didn't want to go to. Again, you gloss over the fact that adding a trade kicker completely eliminates this issue as it gives the player a strong incentive to get traded, especially given there is zero chance the Raptors use Brown's Early Bird rights to resign him (the whole point of the no-trade clause).

The reason so many players are taking minimum contracts to rebuild their value is that there is nothing else out there for them in this new NBA where teams are unwilling to spend their MLE. You think Gary Trent Jr. wouldn't have come crawling back to the Raptors for less than he initially wanted instead of taking a minimum contract from the Bucks? And if Brown leaves the Raptors to play for the minimum because an MLE level offer isn't good enough for him then it's no real loss for us as far as I'm concerned, more minutes for players we want to develop and more losses in a year we should be aiming for a top 5 pick instead of the play-in.

I love that the problem is that teams up near the aprons have so little salary matching flexibility, and your solution is to give a trade kicker, which further complicates trade matching in trades.

I agree, we should have let Bruce go. Keeping him was bad. Re-signing him to a one year deal is the only scenario I can think of that would be worse than what we did.

[YogurtProducer]

The Raptors not having access to the full MLE is very much a choice. They did multiple things that ate into that - the Davion deal, Bruce, frontloading IQ's deal. And right around now having almost the entire MLE is not radically different anyway.

Again, I seriously doubt there would be significant enough interest out there to counterbalance the no-trade clause. And all of that assumes he wouldn't have just walked to somewhere else rather than re-sign here on a team you explicitly stated he'd not want to be on if a better team is interested. Half the MLE market is signing minimum deals to rebuild their value and bet on the following summer and Brown would probably be in that group.

It's not remotely clear cut that your scenario would be better in terms of trade market - the one thing sure about your scenario is the Raps would have a heck of a lot less control the whole way through.

The no-trade clause is absolutely nothing that you're trying to make something out of. Please, tell me of all these players who were on 1 year deals who used their no-trade clause to prevent a trade to a team they didn't want to go to. Again, you gloss over the fact that adding a trade kicker completely eliminates this issue as it gives the player a strong incentive to get traded, especially given there is zero chance the Raptors use Brown's Early Bird rights to resign him (the whole point of the no-trade clause).

The reason so many players are taking minimum contracts to rebuild their value is that there is nothing else out there for them in this new NBA where teams are unwilling to spend their MLE. You think Gary Trent Jr. wouldn't have come crawling back to the Raptors for less than he initially wanted instead of taking a minimum contract from the Bucks? And if Brown leaves the Raptors to play for the minimum because an MLE level offer isn't good enough for him then it's no real loss for us as far as I'm concerned, more minutes for players we want to develop and more losses in a year we should be aiming for a top 5 pick instead of the play-in.

I love that the problem is that teams up near the aprons have so little salary matching flexibility, and your solution is to give a trade kicker, which further complicates trade matching in trades.

I agree, we should have let Bruce go. Keeping him was bad. Re-signing him to a one year deal is the only scenario I can think of that would be worse than what we did.

Why was keeping him bad?

What salary ramifications did it cause? Was there some other type of deals available that we could have done that were significant and realistic enough to outweigh what "might" happen down the line this season?

[ciueli]

The Raptors not having access to the full MLE is very much a choice. They did multiple things that ate into that - the Davion deal, Bruce, frontloading IQ's deal. And right around now having almost the entire MLE is not radically different anyway.

Again, I seriously doubt there would be significant enough interest out there to counterbalance the no-trade clause. And all of that assumes he wouldn't have just walked to somewhere else rather than re-sign here on a team you explicitly stated he'd not want to be on if a better team is interested. Half the MLE market is signing minimum deals to rebuild their value and bet on the following summer and Brown would probably be in that group.

It's not remotely clear cut that your scenario would be better in terms of trade market - the one thing sure about your scenario is the Raps would have a heck of a lot less control the whole way through.

The no-trade clause is absolutely nothing that you're trying to make something out of. Please, tell me of all these players who were on 1 year deals who used their no-trade clause to prevent a trade to a team they didn't want to go to. Again, you gloss over the fact that adding a trade kicker completely eliminates this issue as it gives the player a strong incentive to get traded, especially given there is zero chance the Raptors use Brown's Early Bird rights to resign him (the whole point of the no-trade clause).

The reason so many players are taking minimum contracts to rebuild their value is that there is nothing else out there for them in this new NBA where teams are unwilling to spend their MLE. You think Gary Trent Jr. wouldn't have come crawling back to the Raptors for less than he initially wanted instead of taking a minimum contract from the Bucks? And if Brown leaves the Raptors to play for the minimum because an MLE level offer isn't good enough for him then it's no real loss for us as far as I'm concerned, more minutes for players we want to develop and more losses in a year we should be aiming for a top 5 pick instead of the play-in.

I love that the problem is that teams up near the aprons have so little salary matching flexibility, and your solution is to give a trade kicker, which further complicates trade matching in trades.

I love that your answer to my question of what players are exercising their no-trade clauses to prevent being traded is to change the subject. Players in Brown's position just don't do this kind of thing, he had no problem throwing away his Bird rights when he signed with Indiana for more money and the understanding it was probably a 1 year deal (except for Masai being Masai and picking up the second year), he's a bench player who will always take the most money he can get, it's that simple.

I agree, we should have let Bruce go. Keeping him was bad. Re-signing him to a one year deal is the only scenario I can think of that would be worse than what we did.

The only way keeping Brown makes any sense is if there is a trade done before the season starts, and that trade can only be done because we have Brown making what he's making. The chances of this happening at this point are not zero, but you have to believe they are very close to zero.

[dhackett1565]

The no-trade clause is absolutely nothing that you're trying to make something out of. Please, tell me of all these players who were on 1 year deals who used their no-trade clause to prevent a trade to a team they didn't want to go to. Again, you gloss over the fact that adding a trade kicker completely eliminates this issue as it gives the player a strong incentive to get traded, especially given there is zero chance the Raptors use Brown's Early Bird rights to resign him (the whole point of the no-trade clause).

The reason so many players are taking minimum contracts to rebuild their value is that there is nothing else out there for them in this new NBA where teams are unwilling to spend their MLE. You think Gary Trent Jr. wouldn't have come crawling back to the Raptors for less than he initially wanted instead of taking a minimum contract from the Bucks? And if Brown leaves the Raptors to play for the minimum because an MLE level offer isn't good enough for him then it's no real loss for us as far as I'm concerned, more minutes for players we want to develop and more losses in a year we should be aiming for a top 5 pick instead of the play-in.

I love that the problem is that teams up near the aprons have so little salary matching flexibility, and your solution is to give a trade kicker, which further complicates trade matching in trades.

I agree, we should have let Bruce go. Keeping him was bad. Re-signing him to a one year deal is the only scenario I can think of that would be worse than what we did.

Why was keeping him bad?

What salary ramifications did it cause? Was there some other type of deals available that we could have done that were significant and realistic enough to outweigh what "might" happen down the line this season?

Depends on their goals. They'd be an objectively better team without Bruce and with Gary, if winning games was of interest to them.

They'd probably also be an objectively better team if they'd gotten in on some of the 20M+ FAs that were available with the cap room they could have had.

If they are just planning to lose, they could likely have leveraged that cap room to take on salary and some mediocre draft assets. Which feels like the absolute ceiling of a Brown trade outcome at this point.

But I'm glad they at least have him as a real trade chip in this scenario, versus creating a scenario where they had no additional benefit and also less control over being able to trade him.

[dhackett1565]

I love that your answer to my question of what players are exercising their no-trade clauses to prevent being traded is to change the subject. Players in Brown's position just don't do this kind of thing, he had no problem throwing away his Bird rights when he signed with Indiana for more money and the understanding it was probably a 1 year deal (except for Masai being Masai and picking up the second year), he's a bench player who will always take the most money he can get, it's that simple.

The only way keeping Brown makes any sense is if there is a trade done before the season starts, and that trade can only be done because we have Brown making what he's making. The chances of this happening at this point are not zero, but you have to believe they are very close to zero.

No one is reported as exercising their right to veto a trade because those trades don't get reported. Some players absolutely don't care and will not veto - the ones that do veto we rarely hear about because the team knows they will veto and doesn't chase trades they wouldn't accept.

Yes, everyone is happy to throw away Bird Rights when they get handed 20M. Not really relevant to this discussion.

Yeah there's not likely a trade before the season. Probably at the deadline if anything.

That last set of requirements is a little silly. You think if there's a Brown trade this summer, that could have been done with him on a 10M deal, that would not qualify as needing them to pick up his option? If they re-signed him they couldn't trade him until December at the earliest. The actual set of requirements is: picking up his option only makes sense if a) there is a trade this summer (so the re-signing timeline doesn't make sense), OR b) there is a trade that requires his larger contract, OR c) there is a trade that sends him to a destination he doesn't want to be at.

I agree that keeping Brown probably doesn't make sense. Was a bad idea. Literally only makes sense to keep him as a larger expiring than they otherwise had, though, so keeping him as a smaller re-signed expiring is the one thing I can think of that would make less sense.

[ciueli]

I love that the problem is that teams up near the aprons have so little salary matching flexibility, and your solution is to give a trade kicker, which further complicates trade matching in trades.

I agree, we should have let Bruce go. Keeping him was bad. Re-signing him to a one year deal is the only scenario I can think of that would be worse than what we did.

Why was keeping him bad?

What salary ramifications did it cause? Was there some other type of deals available that we could have done that were significant and realistic enough to outweigh what "might" happen down the line this season?

Depends on their goals. They'd be an objectively better team without Bruce and with Gary, if winning games was of interest to them.

They'd probably also be an objectively better team if they'd gotten in on some of the 20M+ FAs that were available with the cap room they could have had.

If they are just planning to lose, they could likely have leveraged that cap room to take on salary and some mediocre draft assets. Which feels like the absolute ceiling of a Brown trade outcome at this point.

But I'm glad they at least have him as a real trade chip in this scenario, versus creating a scenario where they had no additional benefit and also less control over being able to trade him.

The thing you're missing is that no other team operates this way, there are no other teams picking up option years of mediocre players on overpay contracts just to use them as a possible trade chips. It's incredible that Masai is allowed to operate this way, I'm amazed the bean counters at MLSE haven't had him assassinated yet for lighting tens of millions of dollars on fire for no reason (Lowry/Dragic trade which could have been done at the deadline to get off Dragic's money right away, picking up Thad Young's option year just to keep him for a trade, now paying Bruce Brown tens of millions he isn't worth). A few simple moves could have saved MLSE a big pile of money, I do wonder if this kind of behaviour will catch up to Masai once his contract is up for renewal in a couple of years.

[dhackett1565]

Gosh I've never seen someone advocate for a team to try to save money when they are already operating under the tax consistently. Weird.

The idea that Masai might lose his job because the Raps aren't making enough money is absolutely wild to me.

[YogurtProducer]

[quote="dhackett1565"

Depends on their goals. They'd be an objectively better team without Bruce and with Gary, if winning games was of interest to them. [/quote]
Would they be? Is Gary better than Bruce? I would say probably not - and if there is any difference in GTJ's favor it is entirely immaterial

They'd probably also be an objectively better team if they'd gotten in on some of the 20M+ FAs that were available with the cap room they could have had.

Simply renouncing Brown would not have given us $20M of cap room as far as I understand. It was a not "Brown at $23M" or "FA @ 20M"

If they are just planning to lose, they could likely have leveraged that cap room to take on salary and some mediocre draft assets. Which feels like the absolute ceiling of a Brown trade outcome at this point.

Maybe - but also maybe not. There is also the legitimate chance some contender at the deadline convinces themselves Brown is the missing piece and gives us a decent deal for him.