Official Trade Thread XIV: 6/14/10 - 12/22/10

[hands11]

I don't follow college ball much and really don't start looking at draft picks until it is time.

So you say there are lots of SFs in the draft ?

I will have to look for some video on those players you mentioned and peak at draftx

So who of them is the toughest mentally. That is the one we should target.

But I wouldn't mind getting Chandler since he has some seasoning already.

[Induveca]

NY is very high on Chandler if they don't get Anthony. He's been their best guy outside of Stoudemire/Felton all season. He's stepped his game up this year. He worked hard in the offseason and it shows.

He's also a fan fav.

[Hoopalotta]

I would again voice that even thinking about Roy for Gil would be to court the ire of Medusa's hair stylist:

It’s no secret that playing alongside Andre Miller frustrates Brandon Roy. Miller keeps Roy from handling the ball as much as he wants and doesn’t spread the floor enough for Roy’s liking.

After Monday’s loss to Memphis, Roy all but blamed his struggles this season on Miller, saying “I wasn't that slow until you put a guy who is kind of slow next to me. I've always been kind of slow. Not to be controversial at all, but I was slow my rookie year, and now it's ...’’

One plugged-in person with knowledge of Portland’s inner workings told me Roy spoke with Blazers management less than two weeks ago about the need for Miller and him to part ways.

“He knows ‘Dre is good,’’ a person close to Roy said. “But he feels that most of the elite-level two-guards are better with the ball in their hands.’’

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... han-miller

His problem isn't that Miller's slow, it's that Miller has the audacity to try and play point guard. But where are going going with 2011 Roy squawking to dominate the ball? Guns in the locker room once is far less dangerous than this guy's delusions and mouth day in, day out.

To further cement that position, here's Blazers fans with a "Roy is physically done" thread:

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1075857&start=0

There's basically not a single note of optimism in there.

[Hoopalotta]

I'm too lazy to trawl round and find our CBA threads on page 14 or whatever, but here's some good talk about the wrangling towards the next arrangement and a potential hard cap:

Getting To A Hard Cap: If the NBA owners get their way and force a hard salary cap into the NBA, there is a major problem facing the league and that's how to get existing contracts and rosters under a new lower ceiling.

Sources with knowledge of the league thinking say that such a hard cap would likely come in around the $45 to $50 million range. If that threshold is achieved in a new agreement, it would also have a few provisions familiar to long-time NBA fans.

When the NBA reached its labor deal in 2005, it gave teams a one-time Luxury tax exemption on a single player salary. The team had to waive the player, but that salary did not count towards the tax computations. The team still had to pay the full value of the deal, but they were able to reduce their exposure......

Where a final hard cap number gets set will ultimately determine how many of the existing power teams can stay together, but as David Stern has indicated the owners don't seems as interested in keeping the current teams in place as much as they do in leveling the playing field for everyone.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=18205

Definitely interesting stuff that suggests that anything approximating the owners achieving their platform means that a lot of our assumptions and projections would be right out.

Kyler throws out $60 million as a possible compromise number for a hard cap, but hit the link and check it out. There's actually two separate mini-articles.

[Benjammin]

If there is a strong belief in the likelihood of a salary cap amnesty provision for one player, then I think that makes it much less likely that Gil will be traded unless the deal is reasonable. Otherwise, they can simply wait for the amnesty provision, and save that cap. Of course, the Wizards would still have to pay off Gil, not a small check.

[hands11]

This would no doubt shake things up.

Wouldnt this crush a lot of team at the top. Hell, Miami will have more there money in three players.

LA would be in hard time.

There would be players everywhere for the take, No ?

Maybe we are exactly were we need to be until this things get worked out.

[Hoopalotta]

There would be players everywhere for the take, No ?

Maybe we are exactly were we need to be until this things get worked out.

Quite possibly, but the trouble is that we probably wouldn't have a lot of cap space depending. And a real hard cap would make it difficult to manage things with extensions and all that - you'd really have to plan your moves and be very disciplined, though it's hard to say what the final parameters would be here with negotiations just starting.

If we were to use that amnesty provision on Gil, then we'd have a lot of money available, but, see below....

If there is a strong belief in the likelihood of a salary cap amnesty provision for one player, then I think that makes it much less likely that Gil will be traded unless the deal is reasonable. Otherwise, they can simply wait for the amnesty provision, and save that cap. Of course, the Wizards would still have to pay off Gil, not a small check.

Yeah, that's a very expensive option. If we're talking about a lockout that knocks out 50% of the 2012 salary and then 15% rollbacks like Kyler was saying, that's almost a $53 million dollar buyout. That would probably be the best thing for the team if we're talking about it not showing up on the books, but it's a right n' proper hill o' loot.

If Ted rolls like that, it would be good news, but I have my doubts. My recollection is that the franchise and the Verizon center were sold for $500 million together, so that's a fair portion of the turnip patch being sacrificed there. If it happens, it would have to be the biggest payout that anyone is going to make.

But my concern is that this sort of scenario hovering around makes a Gil trade a lot more tricky. Gil for Vince was probably always a fantasy, but it's hard to see how a team like Orlando or Dallas could justify taking on Gil now unless they're sending a lot of money back and have a real good plan on how to manage the books later. There well might be a provisional period before the hard cap kicks in, but nobody is going to take Gil if they're at all worried about being the sucker paying out on that amnesty provision.

There might not even be a hard cap when all is said and done, but even just the possibility of one clouds things up significantly.

[nate33]

IIRC, the old Allan Houston Rule only generated luxtax savings. It didn't provide any cap savings. For example, if the cap was $45M, the luxtax limit was $55M, and a team had a payroll of $60M including the cost of a $20M overpriced vet; if the team Allan Houston Ruled the vet, their $5M luxtax penalty would disappear but they wouldn't have $5M in actual cap space.

It remains to be see what the nature of the new exemption will be, but my guess is that it won't help us out that much. I don't see it giving us actual cap flexibility to use to acquire free agents. It might result in a handful overpaid free agents entering the market for us to pick up on the cheap.

[dopeismarcus]

Looks like Brandon Roy wants to be traded. "Either I go or Miller goes"

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... han-miller

Arenas for Roy.

[Hoopalotta]

IIRC, the old Allan Houston Rule only generated luxtax savings. It didn't provide any cap savings. For example, if the cap was $45M, the luxtax limit was $55M, and a team had a payroll of $60M including the cost of a $20M overpriced vet. If the team Allan Houston Ruled the vet, their $5M luxtax penalty would disappear but they wouldn't have $5M in actual cap space.

It remains to be see what the nature of the new exemption will be, but my guess is that it won't help us out that much. I don't see it giving us actual cap flexibility to use to acquire free agents. It might result in a handful overpaid free agents entering the market for us to pick up on the cheap.

That's true as to the last go-round, but if there's an honest to goodness hard cap that's going to come in without a semi-soft transition period, something like the Allan Houston rule is not going to be close to sufficient to get teams in line with those new parameters. Going to a hard cap from a soft cap with a luxury tax is more extreme than going to a soft cap with a luxury tax from a soft tax without a tax, so one way or another they'll need more robust out clauses for teams poorly positioned than they used previously.

It might be that the hard cap would come in with a gradual transition instead, or a host of other possibilities and it's true that this may not open up usable space for us cap, but an outright cap clearing disintegration beam provision would have to at least be part of the discussion. Some teams literally will not be able to get under that cap line without said clause for several years, especially if we're talking about the absurdly low cap figures being thrown out there ($45-$50 million; $60 is easier).

Of course it could also be that there is no hard cap when all is said and done.....

[nate33]

FWIW, I hope they don't go to a hard cap. That seems too inflexible to me. Championship caliber teams will have to get blown up for no other reason that the fact that incremental yearly salary raises push them over the hard cap.

I thought the luxury tax combined with Bird Rights was a pretty good compromise for keeping salaries down while giving teams the flexibility to maintain some semblance of continuity. I'd like to see the same general structure we have now, but with teams having some provision to get out of Eddy Curry scenarios. Maybe institute a permanent Allan Houston clause where any team can buy out any player whenever they want with the associated luxtax payment getting wiped off the books as well (the player still gets paid). Or maybe institute a rule whereby any team can buy out any player at any time for half of his remaining salary. That would put some pressure on players to continue to work on their game. (That seems a little unfair for hurt players who legitimately got hurt on the job, though. They would have to work out some compromise there.) Or maybe just have all contracts include a team option in the final year.

They could also increase the luxtax payment if they want to keep total costs down. Or maybe have a graduated tax system where teams pay a 1:1 tax for the first $5M over the luxtax, a 2:1 tax for the next $5M over the luxtax, and a 3:1 tax for the next $5M etc.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the new CBA needs to accomplish two things. The first is to "harden" the cap a bit, but not necessarily make it a hard cap. Just increase the luxtax payment and lower the luxtax threshold. The second is to give teams a little more flexibility to dump bad contracts of players who clearly don't deserve it.

[Hoopalotta]

Yeah, I don't really like the sound of a hard-cap either. The NBA is not going to be a plucky underdog league with Cinderella stories for a host of reasons anyway and it just makes sense for teams trying to win a chip to have the freedom to ratchet things up fiscally over top of what the average clubs are going to spend. Breaking up proper power houses that play inspiring basketball just doesn't sound like a good idea.

I could see a hard cap put up over top of that tax package you laid out to where we knock out that last "etc." and there's a limit of $75 million over top of a cap line of $55-60 million (or whatever the owners feel they need). That evens things up and pinches the big market squads back down a bit, but it still provides a certain flexibility to where it's not going to be an inevitability that you're going to have to dismantle good teams. Like if you draft a Manu 25th, but you can't extend him because big fat Rashard Lewis is clogging you up? THat stinks.

Dunno know what the actual plan is, but it sounds rather like they want 16 teams in the range of 45-55 wins but with no one much higher than that.

[Hoopalotta]

Here's Steve Kyler again answering someone else Gilbert question:

BBall fan in Toronto:
Do you think it would be wise for the Magic to just pawn Vince on the Wizards and get Arenas on their team? I think he'd fit nicely in Orlando

Steve Kyler:
Not if a $55 million hard salary cap is coming.... The Magic will have almost $80 million in salary commitments next year.

If the owners get their way, the Magic may get the privilege of buying out a contract or two to get under the new hard cap being proposed.. if the Magic give up Vince's deal, there is a strong chance they'd have to eat Gilbert's entire deal to fit under a hard cap... that's just bad business.

Vince is almost as attractive for the cap he'll clear to Orlando as he would to another team.

Also factor in that no one on the basketball ops side of things in Orlando thinks Gilbert Arenas fits in Orlando.

Its a bad basketball move... its a bad business move...

[Edited for sHpeLlinG and gRahMer]

http://www.hoopsworld.com/chat.asp?chat ... s=Inactive

[bullitz]

Yeah, I don't really like the sound of a hard-cap either. The NBA is not going to be a plucky underdog league with Cinderella stories for a host of reasons anyway and it just makes sense for teams trying to win a chip to have the freedom to ratchet things up fiscally over top of what the average clubs are going to spend.

Don't tell that to the owners losing money because they can't put a team competitive enough to fill their stadiums. There is talk of moving the Hornets to Kansas continuing the trend of the NBA in smallish markets that will never compete with the LA's and Boston's if there is merely a pay to play soft cap as it exists today. The owners are having a hard time selling "we're going to compete and try to take LA to 5 games!" to their home town fans. Despite, the numerous bandwagon fans eager to jump on the the hottest team, there are many more potential fans that would care about their local team if they had a chance to do more than avoid getting swept in the playoffs.

The NBA is the only sport that exists in America where you can predict the finals participants or champions with a very miniscule error rate. It simply won't be able to sustain economic viability with its current business model. The hard cap is coming, it has to.

[hands11]

IIRC, the old Allan Houston Rule only generated luxtax savings. It didn't provide any cap savings. For example, if the cap was $45M, the luxtax limit was $55M, and a team had a payroll of $60M including the cost of a $20M overpriced vet. If the team Allan Houston Ruled the vet, their $5M luxtax penalty would disappear but they wouldn't have $5M in actual cap space.

It remains to be see what the nature of the new exemption will be, but my guess is that it won't help us out that much. I don't see it giving us actual cap flexibility to use to acquire free agents. It might result in a handful overpaid free agents entering the market for us to pick up on the cheap.

That's true as to the last go-round, but if there's an honest to goodness hard cap that's going to come in without a semi-soft transition period, something like the Allan Houston rule is not going to be close to sufficient to get teams in line with those new parameters. Going to a hard cap from a soft cap with a luxury tax is more extreme than going to a soft cap with a luxury tax from a soft tax without a tax, so one way or another they'll need more robust out clauses for teams poorly positioned than they used previously.

It might be that the hard cap would come in with a gradual transition instead, or a host of other possibilities and it's true that this may not open up usable space for us cap, but an outright cap clearing disintegration beam provision would have to at least be part of the discussion. Some teams literally will not be able to get under that cap line without said clause for several years, especially if we're talking about the absurdly low cap figures being thrown out there ($45-$50 million; $60 is easier).

Of course it could also be that there is no hard cap when all is said and done.....

Hey, the NFL did it and look what happen to the Skins. They were effectively the LA, Orlando, Dallas or their day. Basically they were like 30M over the cap and they had to let go of a lot of players. Could you imagine a new CBA crushing top teams like LA that badly.

At least in basketball you need less players to be successful.

Also, Basketball is becoming an international game. I wonder how many players will look at going over seas if there is more money for them.

These could end up being very strange times. But the end result should be a more level league.

[hands11]

FWIW, I hope they don't go to a hard cap. That seems too inflexible to me. Championship caliber teams will have to get blown up for no other reason that the fact that incremental yearly salary raises push them over the hard cap.

I thought the luxury tax combined with Bird Rights was a pretty good compromise for keeping salaries down while giving teams the flexibility to maintain some semblance of continuity. I'd like to see the same general structure we have now, but with teams having some provision to get out of Eddy Curry scenarios. Maybe institute a permanent Allan Houston clause where any team can buy out any player whenever they want with the associated luxtax payment getting wiped off the books as well (the player still gets paid). Or maybe institute a rule whereby any team can buy out any player at any time for half of his remaining salary. That would put some pressure on players to continue to work on their game. (That seems a little unfair for hurt players who legitimately got hurt on the job, though. They would have to work out some compromise there.) Or maybe just have all contracts include a team option in the final year.

They could also increase the luxtax payment if they want to keep total costs down. Or maybe have a graduated tax system where teams pay a 1:1 tax for the first $5M over the luxtax, a 2:1 tax for the next $5M over the luxtax, and a 3:1 tax for the next $5M etc.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the new CBA needs to accomplish two things. The first is to "harden" the cap a bit, but not necessarily make it a hard cap. Just increase the luxtax payment and lower the luxtax threshold. The second is to give teams a little more flexibility to dump bad contracts of players who clearly don't deserve it.

Depends on what the goal of the owners is. I guess for most it is making money outright. For others it is probably winning and making money along the way.

If they actually want winning, then they need a hard cap. You can't have most the top established winning team spending 83-94M while most the middle median is like 65M

The way the NFL does it is pretty good. Then more team that are in the running for the longest amount of time and that keeps fans interested longer. Also, contract are year to year. You can still use money if you have it by doing more bonus money but you can also dig yourself a hole doing that if you are stupid, see Synder.

Then the team that can still pull off the dynasty thing are the ones lucky enough to be in the right place a the right time and the best run organizations period. Not the ones with deeper pockets.

[hands11]

Yeah, I don't really like the sound of a hard-cap either. The NBA is not going to be a plucky underdog league with Cinderella stories for a host of reasons anyway and it just makes sense for teams trying to win a chip to have the freedom to ratchet things up fiscally over top of what the average clubs are going to spend. Breaking up proper power houses that play inspiring basketball just doesn't sound like a good idea.

I could see a hard cap put up over top of that tax package you laid out to where we knock out that last "etc." and there's a limit of $75 million over top of a cap line of $55-60 million (or whatever the owners feel they need). That evens things up and pinches the big market squads back down a bit, but it still provides a certain flexibility to where it's not going to be an inevitability that you're going to have to dismantle good teams. Like if you draft a Manu 25th, but you can't extend him because big fat Rashard Lewis is clogging you up? THat stinks.

Dunno know what the actual plan is, but it sounds rather like they want 16 teams in the range of 45-55 wins but with no one much higher than that.

That is interesting. A hard cap over the Lux cap. That gives you some wiggle room if you are close and wanta take a shot. That along with some way to get out of longer contracts could work.

[dlts20]

to the Bucks fan who asked about the Maggette trade



IBTL, as there is already a trade thread.

As for the question, its interesting as there contracts arent that far off and I want Hinrich gone as he is a good player but Id rather have addition by subtraction. The problem is Maggette has one more year on his contract and we already have NY, may keep Howard in the future, have Booker who may give us some run at the 3, still have Gil if youre looking at the 2, and we probably want to draft a young 3. I just dont see it. We are trying to cut money. Corey can play when he's right but he's not good enough for us to take on that right now.

[tontoz]

to the Bucks fan who asked about the Maggette trade



IBTL, as there is already a trade thread.

As for the question, its interesting as there contracts arent that far off and I want Hinrich gone as he is a good player but Id rather have addition by subtraction. The problem is Maggette has one more year on his contract and we already have NY, may keep Howard in the future, have Booker who may give us some run at the 3, still have Gil if youre looking at the 2, and we probably want to draft a young 3. I just dont see it. We are trying to cut money. Corey can play when he's right but he's not good enough for us to take on that right now.

Agreed. This is a deal to possibly look at during the summer but not now.

[nate33]

I wouldn't look at this deal at all. It's terrible. Maggette is a team killer. He loses everywhere he goes. I'd rather start Gee at SF.