Arenas Traded for Rashard Lewis

[JonathanJoseph]

Going to link this here for lack of a better place.

If you want to know why players play and GMs GM, here you go: Dwight Howard did not want Gilbert Arenas to be waived via amnesty

https://twitter.com/#!/MagicInsider/statuses/145684321964007425

Are you still of the position that the Arenas trade was terrible for the Wizards?

There was no amnesty clause at that time and yes I think that Grunfeld destroyed Arenas trade value and sold low.

That being said, EG has recovered nicely.

[jholmbe1]

There was no amnesty clause at that time and yes I think that Grunfeld destroyed Arenas trade value and sold low.

That being said, EG has recovered nicely.

Sold low?!?! We are so fortunate that we were able to unload Gil at all. The only way to dump him was to take back a contract equally as terrible. We were actually lucky that we landed a veteran with a good attitude in Rashard who has embraced the mentor role. Gil was a terrible cancer not only with his contract but his attitude. EG did an amazing job to dump him.

[Wizardspride]

There was no amnesty clause at that time and yes I think that Grunfeld destroyed Arenas trade value and sold low.

That being said, EG has recovered nicely.

Gil was a terrible cancer not only with his contract but his attitude.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.....even if I disagree with it.

[7-Day Dray]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Wizards even try to void Arenas' contract after gungate? Because I don't think they did. That was a terrible mistake. It's not a guarantee the void would've went through, but if it did, we wouldn't be saddled with any bad contract.

And EG destroyed Gil's trade value by not trading him earlier. He waited on dealing him to see what he could do, but if he dealt him earlier, we probably wouldn't have had to take on a toxic contract like Lewis.

But now that we know there is an amnesty clause, it's not really a big deal.

[Illuminaire]

The Wizards explored voiding Gil's contract, realized there was almost no chance of success, and backpedaled quickly away from some of their earlier, harsher rhetoric.

[nate33]

And EG destroyed Gil's trade value by not trading him earlier. He waited on dealing him to see what he could do, but if he dealt him earlier, we probably wouldn't have had to take on a toxic contract like Lewis.

Complete and utter nonsense. Gil was unmovable the moment gungate happened.

[Nivek]

By the way -- the widely reported salary numbers on Rashard aren't exactly accurate. They include incentives. And, those incentives are almost exclusively for stuff like making the Finals -- stuff that he has zero chance of doing with Washington.

If Washington amnesties him next off-season, his payoff would be a little more than $18 million. His amnestied cap number would be in the neighborhood of $13.6 million.

That Arenas trade looks better and better.

Nivek, I've been looking for details on his incentive arrangement for 8 months now. The best I found was a mention by Peter Vescey, not exactly a reliable source. Where did you get this information?

I'm a little confused as to the mechanics of the last year of his contract. It is my understanding from Peter Vescey (now confirmed by you) that the lower end of his salary guarantee is in the neighborhood of $13.6M. The upper end of his guaranteed salary is $17.2M. And his actual stated salary is $22.7M. If the Wizards amnesty him now, I assume they would owe him his entire 2011/12 salary of $21.1M plus some amount of his guaranteed 2012/13 salary. Which 2012/13 salary figure would they use?

Another question: Let's assume the Wizards keep him for this entire year and they're sitting around next summer trying to make a decision on Lewis. They way I understand things, there would be three possible scenarios:
1. Keep him and pay him $22.7M (or would it cost less?).
2. Buy him out and pay him the lower limit of his guaranteed salary of $13.6M, which would count against the cap.
3. Amnesty him and pay him the upper limit of his guaranteed salary of $17.2M, which would not count against the cap.

Do I have it right?

My source is better than Vecsey.

In this case, Vecsey actually has it correct.

I don't have a copy of the contract, but I went back to my "source" and asked for more details. Bottom line is that the final year of the contract is guaranteed to $13.6 million. The additional money would come from reaching various incentives, but there's no realistic way for Lewis to reach those incentives at this point in his career, or the team that he's with.

What I've been told is that if the Wiz amnesty Rashard this season, they would owe him $36 million. If they wait, they can pay him $13.6 million for next season. Their thinking apparently is that a) they're going to have to spend the money anyway; b) he can still play -- not All-Star level, but he's a decent pro; and c) he's a good guy in the locker room.

My understanding after asking for further clarification is that the Wiz could amnesty Lewis and pay him $13.6 million. If I'm recalling amnesty rules properly, he would count for $3.4 million against the cap that season.

[pancakes3]

So it's the final salary figure that counts against the cap? Or just the base salary? Is luxtax collected at the end of a season?

[Nivek]

Had to double-check the rules on incentives. The system had to have been invented by lawyers. Here's the relevant section from Larry Coon's FAQ:

There are three types of allowable incentives: performance incentives, academic/physical achievement incentives, and extra promotional incentives. The latter two types of incentives are always included in team salary. Performance incentives are classified as either "likely to be achieved" or "not likely to be achieved," and are only included in team salary if they are "likely to be achieved." The league office determines what is likely and what is not. Their guideline is whether the criterion was achieved in the previous season. For example, if a player had seven assists per game the previous season, then an incentive based on seven assists per game would probably be classified as "likely to be achieved," but an incentive based on eight assists per game would probably be classified as "not likely to be achieved." Unlikely bonuses in any season are limited to 25% of the player's salary in that season. In the first year of a contract the base salary, likely bonuses and unlikely bonuses must all fit within the salary cap or exception. The league also determines a team's available cap room by adding in the unlikely bonuses for all players who signed that season. This prevents a team from signing multiple players to lower salaries but with lots of unlikely bonuses, and therefore committing to more salary than it has cap room to offer.

Exceptions are reduced by the aggregate of the salary and unlikely bonuses, so if the Mid-Level exception is $5.5 million and a player is signed to a $2 million base salary and $500,000 in incentives, the team's Mid-Level exception is reduced by $2.5 million, leaving $3 million.

Incentives must be structured so that they provide an incentive for positive achievement by the player or team, and are based upon numerical benchmarks (such as points per game or team wins) or generally recognized league honors (such as MVP or all-NBA first team). The numerical benchmarks must be specific -- e.g., a bonus may be based on the player's free throw percentage exceeds 80%, but may not be based on the player's free throw percentage improving over his previous season's percentage. Certain kinds of incentives are not allowed, such as those based on the player being on the team's roster on a specific date, or for a specific length of time. An incentive also cannot be based on the player suiting up for a specific number of games.

All performance incentives are re-evaluated at the start of each season to determine whether they should be classified as likely or unlikely to be achieved. In addition, players' performance incentives may be re-evaluated if they are traded. For example, a bad team may have a player with a performance incentive based on the team winning 41 games, that the league classifies as "not likely to be achieved." If that player is traded to a contending team, the league may reclassify the incentive as "likely to be achieved," and include it in the new team's team salary.

Note that the incentives are classified based on the prior season, not on an assessment of the current season. Suppose Team A won 25 games last season, and Team B (with the league MVP) won 45. Also suppose the MVP had a performance incentive based on his team winning 30 games. This incentive would be classified as "likely to be achieved," since Team B achieved this standard the prior season. Now suppose this player is traded to Team A for draft picks. Even though adding the MVP should easily push Team A's win total above 30, the incentive would still be reclassified as "not likely to be achieved" since the classification is not based on an assessment of the current season, but on the results of the prior season.

As for your last question: luxury tax has been calculated/collected at the end of the season. That's why we've seen trade deadline deals that were primarily designed to get a team under the luxury tax threshold.

[verbal8]

I am surprised Arenas made it through waivers. I guess the length of his deal made even a $2 or $3 million dollar/year bid too risky. However it seems that would be a better risk than paying Caron 30+ million or Barea 19 million.

It seems he could also have been a good option for Houston or Charlotte.

[JonathanJoseph]

I am surprised Arenas made it through waivers. I guess the length of his deal made even a $2 or $3 million dollar/year bid too risky. However it seems that would be a better risk than paying Caron 30+ million or Barea 19 million.

It seems he could also have been a good option for Houston or Charlotte.

He was telling people not to bid for him, just like Chauncey Billups. Looks like Arenas might be a package deal with Dwight Howard.

Oh, the irony.

[verbal8]

I am surprised Arenas made it through waivers. I guess the length of his deal made even a $2 or $3 million dollar/year bid too risky. However it seems that would be a better risk than paying Caron 30+ million or Barea 19 million.

It seems he could also have been a good option for Houston or Charlotte.

He was telling people not to bid for him, just like Chauncey Billups. Looks like Arenas might be a package deal with Dwight Howard.

Oh, the irony.

I hadn't seen that, but in that case it is very understandable. I think Billups is in less control because he has an expiring deal. If a team picks him up they can waive him and only lose a little cap space. Or if he does retire, they don't lose anything.

[tontoz]

Yes. That appears to be the difference.

I see a guy who posted a PER 18.7 (with terrible defense) last year as a Wizard. He posted a PER of 14 (with terrible defense) in 21 games this year as a Wizard; and now he's posting a PER of 10 (with terrible defense) in 21 games as a Magic.

What will it take for you to be convinced that a "player playing badly" is actually a bad player?

For starters, look at your sample sizes. There is far, far more evidence that Arenas is a good player playing badly than vice versa. He has a career PER of 20.1.

And to be honest, nothing that happens this season will convince me of anything either way. Arenas is, inexcusably, out of shape (but since Blatche is as well, and Caron Butler was last year, I know where I place that blame) and that is affecting every part of his health and his game. When I see a healthy Arenas (and I know that is a relative term) playing poorly, I'll change my tune.

Deshawn Stevenson is a perfect example. Was a steady 11-13 PER until he got hurt and went down to a 3 PER. Now that's healthy again, he's up to 13 (and was much higher earlier in the season).

Arenas, post-knee injuries, was a steady 18-19 PER. He could come back next season and be back on track at an 18-19 PER at which point he'd have trade value with only 3 years left on his deal.

But it's difficult to make a credible argument that the Wizards did not trade Arenas at his lowest value considering his PER this season is far below even his rookie year. Would seem to be pretty clear what is the exception and what is the rule.

So do you still think the Wizards traded Arenas at his lowest value?

[hands11]

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/i ... hard-lewis

Well 60 games and two year later, the saga ends. RL has left the building. Nice guy. I would say to bad he couldn't have played more last year but then again, we needed him gone to help the tanks.

Come on lucky #3 pick.
The Magic are pick 19th

Orlando got 49 out of Gil before having to eat his monster contract for nothing.
http://hoopshype.com/salaries/orlando.htm Ouch.

Gil made $614,627 last year so Orlando is still on the hook for 40M. They eat 18M last year while the Wiz eat 22M

The Wiz turned Lewis's dead end deal into a couple of players who can still play and who contracts can get traded next year if needed.

I think the Wiz were the hands down winning here. Orlando got bent over by Ted and EG on this one. I hope they at least sent them flowers. It would be the gentlemanly thing to do.

Anyway. Happy trails Mr Lewis. Thanks for helping us out of the Gil dead contract.