Official Trade Thread Part XLVII

[nate33]

Random idea:

Cleveland is paying an insane luxury tax this year of $163.8M. The luxtax multipliers are totally ridiculous once you get about $12M over the tax. If Cleveland were to shed Lonzo Ball's $10M contract (second year is a TO so it is effectively expiring), they would save a whopping $59.3M in luxtax payments (plus the prorated amount of his $10M salary).

Lonzo has been awful this year, with a TS% of .416. As the deadline approaches, they might be willing to dump him. We could absorb Lonzo into our Kelly Olynyk TPE. How much in pick capital would Cleveland's owner be willing to spend in order to save roughly $64M dollars?

Unfortunately, these are not the kinds of trade ideas worth posting on the general Trade Board because fans have no way of assessing how much an owner is willing to lose money.

[dckingsfan]

Random idea:

Cleveland is paying an insane luxury tax this year of $163.8M. The luxtax multipliers are totally ridiculous once you get about $12M over the tax. If Cleveland were to shed Lonzo Ball's $10M contract (second year is a TO so it is effectively expiring), they would save a whopping $59.3M in luxtax payments (plus the prorated amount of his $10M salary).

Lonzo has been awful this year, with a TS% of .416. As the deadline approaches, they might be willing to dump him. We could absorb Lonzo into our Kelly Olynyk TPE. How much in pick capital would Cleveland's owner be willing to spend in order to save roughly $64M dollars?

Unfortunately, these are not the kinds of trade ideas worth posting on the general Trade Board because fans have no way of assessing how much an owner is willing to lose money.

To me, it would be their FRP for a couple of SRPs in this year's draft. But, I don't think they can do that since they don't have a pick next year?

[pcbothwel]

Random idea:

Cleveland is paying an insane luxury tax this year of $163.8M. The luxtax multipliers are totally ridiculous once you get about $12M over the tax. If Cleveland were to shed Lonzo Ball's $10M contract (second year is a TO so it is effectively expiring), they would save a whopping $59.3M in luxtax payments (plus the prorated amount of his $10M salary).

Lonzo has been awful this year, with a TS% of .416. As the deadline approaches, they might be willing to dump him. We could absorb Lonzo into our Kelly Olynyk TPE. How much in pick capital would Cleveland's owner be willing to spend in order to save roughly $64M dollars?

Unfortunately, these are not the kinds of trade ideas worth posting on the general Trade Board because fans have no way of assessing how much an owner is willing to lose money.

To me, it would be their FRP for a couple of SRPs in this year's draft. But, I don't think they can do that since they don't have a pick next year?

Correct. Though I would more than open for a swap. OKC pick for their pick (I believe worst of Twolves, Cavs, Spurs) might yield us a 3-5 spot move up. And then I would ask for a swap down the line (2030+). Obviously with some protection (top 8?), that would then Revert to 2nd.

That said, if I’m the Cavs I solve my 2nd apron and talent problem in one swoop and trade for Giannis. Garland and Allen plus picks would be the baseline package. A third and probably 4th team would be needed to make the mechanics work. EG. Absorb Ball and Strus.
But it’s doable and not sure they have a choice with their roster construction.

[payitforward]

This is actually a brilliant idea. Do it in the offseason and jettison the young players that you are less than convinced about. Plenty of room to add your new draft picks.

Sac's problem is that they are basically hard capped next year with 9 players, getting a bunch of youngsters where one can pan out is helpful.

We meet our minimum and get a defensive rebounder that we need.

On offense, folks forget that Sabonis added a 3 point shot to his arsenal - he is also a darn good passer.

On defense, he does what we need - take on the bruiser C and pull down defensive rebounds.

To recap, the reasons we do that is we get a bruiser C to take the pressure off of Sarr (likely Sarr stays healthier). We get to jettison some of the youngsters that just aren't going to make it here. Better yet, we are buying low on a player that is going to get back to at least 90% of his numbers when healthy next year - and that is a really good player.

1. Sabonas turns 30 in May. He's already played over 20K minutes. There is no doubt that he's had a terrific career, but we are future-oriented.

2. The idea that he "is going to get back to... his numbers" is unlikely at best. Moreover, 90% of his numbers is no longer a terrific player, b/c the 90% will also apply to efficiency numbers.

3. Don't trade for guys you won't be able to trade. Sabonis is guaranteed about $50m in 2027-8 -- 2 years from now when he'll be turning 32.

As to "jettison some of the youngsters that just aren't going to make it here..." -- we have no idea who those guys are. No idea at all.

[nate33]

That said, if I’m the Cavs I solve my 2nd apron and talent problem in one swoop and trade for Giannis. Garland and Allen plus picks would be the baseline package. A third and probably 4th team would be needed to make the mechanics work. EG. Absorb Ball and Strus.
But it’s doable and not sure they have a choice with their roster construction.

That isn't anywhere close to getting Giannis. Allen isn't really a value contract anymore. At $30M a year, he is fully paid. He is not a negative contract, but not really a positive either. Same with Garland TBH. His injury history and contract render him a pretty mediocre asset. And Cleveland has already mortgaged most of their picks in the Mitchell acquisition, and future picks won't have much value on a team with Giannis and Mobley. And then factor the extra price to be paid to get guys to absorb Ball and Strus in order to make the trade work and it's not even remotely plausible.

[dckingsfan]

This is actually a brilliant idea. Do it in the offseason and jettison the young players that you are less than convinced about. Plenty of room to add your new draft picks.

Sac's problem is that they are basically hard capped next year with 9 players, getting a bunch of youngsters where one can pan out is helpful.

We meet our minimum and get a defensive rebounder that we need.

On offense, folks forget that Sabonis added a 3 point shot to his arsenal - he is also a darn good passer.

On defense, he does what we need - take on the bruiser C and pull down defensive rebounds.

To recap, the reasons we do that is we get a bruiser C to take the pressure off of Sarr (likely Sarr stays healthier). We get to jettison some of the youngsters that just aren't going to make it here. Better yet, we are buying low on a player that is going to get back to at least 90% of his numbers when healthy next year - and that is a really good player.

1. Sabonas turns 30 in May. He's already played over 20K minutes. There is no doubt that he's had a terrific career, but we are future-oriented.

2. The idea that he "is going to get back to... his numbers" is unlikely at best. Moreover, 90% of his numbers is no longer a terrific player, b/c the 90% will also apply to efficiency numbers.

3. Don't trade for guys you won't be able to trade. Sabonis is guaranteed about $50m in 2027-8 -- 2 years from now when he'll be turning 32.

As to "jettison some of the youngsters that just aren't going to make it here..." -- we have no idea who those guys are. No idea at all.

Hmmm, we get to agree on some things and disagree on others.

1) He only has two years on the current contract, it does not affect our future oriented nature.
2) 90% is still very much terrific.
3) We are trading for him in the off season, so for 2 years. It allows us to get over the minimum.
4) Disagree, we have a pretty good handle on them - certainly or FO should.

Regardless, we need to add players either through trade or free agency to get to our minimum. The conversation nate and I had was we would prefer a C bruiser and we have identified three prospective players. Sabonis, Robinson (who I absolutely would not sign given his injury history and the probable duration that he would want for a contract) or Hartenstein (which would also be fine by me, but that also would most likely entail a much longer contract).

[doclinkin]

I’d rather give a max contract to Duren. Force Detroit to match and clog up their cap. Bonus would be if he takes the offer we have a young player just breaking into his prime years.

Alex and Duren would be a monster front line.

[nate33]

I’d rather give a max contract to Duren. Force Detroit to match and clog up their cap. Bonus would be if he takes the offer we have a young player just breaking into his prime years.

Alex and Duren would be a monster front line.

Sure. But Detroit will surely match.

I'm fine doing that first and then working the Sabonis angle if that falls through.

[payitforward]

This is actually a brilliant idea. Do it in the offseason and jettison the young players that you are less than convinced about. Plenty of room to add your new draft picks.

Sac's problem is that they are basically hard capped next year with 9 players, getting a bunch of youngsters where one can pan out is helpful.

We meet our minimum and get a defensive rebounder that we need.

On offense, folks forget that Sabonis added a 3 point shot to his arsenal - he is also a darn good passer.

On defense, he does what we need - take on the bruiser C and pull down defensive rebounds.

To recap, the reasons we do that is we get a bruiser C to take the pressure off of Sarr (likely Sarr stays healthier). We get to jettison some of the youngsters that just aren't going to make it here. Better yet, we are buying low on a player that is going to get back to at least 90% of his numbers when healthy next year - and that is a really good player.

1. Sabonas turns 30 in May. He's already played over 20K minutes. There is no doubt that he's had a terrific career, but we are future-oriented.

2. The idea that he "is going to get back to... his numbers" is unlikely at best. Moreover, 90% of his numbers is no longer a terrific player, b/c the 90% will also apply to efficiency numbers.

3. Don't trade for guys you won't be able to trade. Sabonis is guaranteed about $50m in 2027-8 -- 2 years from now when he'll be turning 32.

As to "jettison some of the youngsters that just aren't going to make it here..." -- we have no idea who those guys are. No idea at all.

Hmmm, we get to agree on some things and disagree on others.

1) He only has two years on the current contract, it does not affect our future oriented nature.
2) 90% is still very much terrific.
3) We are trading for him in the off season, so for 2 years. It allows us to get over the minimum.
4) Disagree, we have a pretty good handle on them - certainly or FO should.

Regardless, we need to add players either through trade or free agency to get to our minimum. The conversation nate and I had was we would prefer a C bruiser and we have identified three prospective players. Sabonis, Robinson (who I absolutely would not sign given his injury history and the probable duration that he would want for a contract) or Hartenstein (which would also be fine by me, but that also would most likely entail a much longer contract).

You make good points, although he's still not a target for me.

OTOH, if we have to find/pay a $40-50m-a-year guy in order to make the minimum salary threshold, then at least Sabonas is legitimately an extremely good player.

The core concept remains -- trading youth for age. i don't think we're likely to do that. Then again... what do I know?

[dckingsfan]

I’d rather give a max contract to Duren. Force Detroit to match and clog up their cap. Bonus would be if he takes the offer we have a young player just breaking into his prime years.

Alex and Duren would be a monster front line.

Sure. But Detroit will surely match.

I'm fine doing that first and then working the Sabonis angle if that falls through.

Note: it also ties you up during the time that it takes for Detroit to match. Hence why it isn't oft done.

[dckingsfan]

1. Sabonas turns 30 in May. He's already played over 20K minutes. There is no doubt that he's had a terrific career, but we are future-oriented.

2. The idea that he "is going to get back to... his numbers" is unlikely at best. Moreover, 90% of his numbers is no longer a terrific player, b/c the 90% will also apply to efficiency numbers.

3. Don't trade for guys you won't be able to trade. Sabonis is guaranteed about $50m in 2027-8 -- 2 years from now when he'll be turning 32.

As to "jettison some of the youngsters that just aren't going to make it here..." -- we have no idea who those guys are. No idea at all.

Hmmm, we get to agree on some things and disagree on others.

1) He only has two years on the current contract, it does not affect our future oriented nature.
2) 90% is still very much terrific.
3) We are trading for him in the off season, so for 2 years. It allows us to get over the minimum.
4) Disagree, we have a pretty good handle on them - certainly or FO should.

Regardless, we need to add players either through trade or free agency to get to our minimum. The conversation nate and I had was we would prefer a C bruiser and we have identified three prospective players. Sabonis, Robinson (who I absolutely would not sign given his injury history and the probable duration that he would want for a contract) or Hartenstein (which would also be fine by me, but that also would most likely entail a much longer contract).

You make good points, although he's still not a target for me.

OTOH, if we have to find/pay a $40-50m-a-year guy in order to make the minimum salary threshold, then at least Sabonas is legitimately an extremely good player.

The core concept remains -- trading youth for age. i don't think we're likely to do that. Then again... what do I know?

More like jettisoning youngsters that we are less than convinced with to be able to take in the next batch... but I hear you.