So looking at the numbers, the trade does not work trading Kwame and Crittendon for Gasol. ESPN's reporting that the Lakers are going to do a sign and trade deal with Aaron McKie to make this deal work, who's basically retired.
Seems a little sketchy - so i guess McKie would get the standard 3 year deal, and would obviously only be guaranteed the first one?
Gasol Trade
-
grizzfan1204
- Sophomore
- Posts: 190
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jul 10, 2006
- Location: Memphis
As a die-hard Grizzlies fan, I just am not surprised at the garbage we got back in return for what essentially is our best player, or one of them.
I understand and agree that Gasol needed to be moved, but give me a break...basically creating $9 m in cap room for a $13 m player...I like Crittenton, the 08 and 10 draft picks won't do a whole lot since the Lakers will probably have a pick in the 20-30 range.
Sure, let the Lakers unload draft rights to Marc Gasol on the Grizzlies, AND a sign-and-trade for a "retired" player, while we can't even get Odom in this deal!
What happened to the notion of trading Gasol last year to Chicago for Gordon, P.J. Brown, and a first-round pick!?!?!?!? WAKE UP AND DO THAT DEAL!
Wallace seemed desparate...not a good trade....I see no big free agent wanting to come to Memphis even with this cap room. The big free agent class is in 2 years anyway, what are we going to try and do, get Maggette, when we already have Miller?
I understand and agree that Gasol needed to be moved, but give me a break...basically creating $9 m in cap room for a $13 m player...I like Crittenton, the 08 and 10 draft picks won't do a whole lot since the Lakers will probably have a pick in the 20-30 range.
Sure, let the Lakers unload draft rights to Marc Gasol on the Grizzlies, AND a sign-and-trade for a "retired" player, while we can't even get Odom in this deal!
What happened to the notion of trading Gasol last year to Chicago for Gordon, P.J. Brown, and a first-round pick!?!?!?!? WAKE UP AND DO THAT DEAL!
Wallace seemed desparate...not a good trade....I see no big free agent wanting to come to Memphis even with this cap room. The big free agent class is in 2 years anyway, what are we going to try and do, get Maggette, when we already have Miller?
-Andy
-
Dunkenstein
- Starter
- Posts: 2,454
- And1: 13
- Joined: Jun 17, 2002
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
I think the problem is not Wallace, it's your owner. He wants to sell the team and not having long-term, high dollar contracts makes the team more desirable to prospective suitors.
In that same vein, if the Grizz had traded Gasol to the Bulls for Gordon plus ending contracts and a pick, they'd run into a similar problem with Gordon who will want a long-term deal for $50M or so this summer.
As someone said to me today, "I know they're not going anywhere by getting rid of Gasol, but the truth is they weren't going anywhere with him."
The guy I feel sorry for is Navarro, who took chump change so he could play in the NBA along side his buddy. Wanna bet whether he'll be back in Europe next season, his great American adventure coming to an unexpected and abrupt halt.
I'll fully admit that the Grizz got robbed, but don't blame Wallace. Blame the owner. Heisley is a cheap bum. Buss knows you have to spend money if you want to win in this league
In that same vein, if the Grizz had traded Gasol to the Bulls for Gordon plus ending contracts and a pick, they'd run into a similar problem with Gordon who will want a long-term deal for $50M or so this summer.
As someone said to me today, "I know they're not going anywhere by getting rid of Gasol, but the truth is they weren't going anywhere with him."
The guy I feel sorry for is Navarro, who took chump change so he could play in the NBA along side his buddy. Wanna bet whether he'll be back in Europe next season, his great American adventure coming to an unexpected and abrupt halt.
I'll fully admit that the Grizz got robbed, but don't blame Wallace. Blame the owner. Heisley is a cheap bum. Buss knows you have to spend money if you want to win in this league
-
Dunkenstein
- Starter
- Posts: 2,454
- And1: 13
- Joined: Jun 17, 2002
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
grizzfan, Heisley basically confirmed what I said in my previous post:
Grizzlies owner Michael Heisley never shies away from conflict or controversy.
And in the case of trading away the team's one-time cornerstone in Pau Gasol to the Los Angeles Lakers essentially for draft picks and salary-cap savings, Heisley sounded as though he's ready to deal with the criticism.
"I'm the guy who is making the decisions," Heisley said Saturday. "If people want to (complain) don't get on (general manager) Chris Wallace about the trade -- get on me."
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... decisions/
Grizzlies owner Michael Heisley never shies away from conflict or controversy.
And in the case of trading away the team's one-time cornerstone in Pau Gasol to the Los Angeles Lakers essentially for draft picks and salary-cap savings, Heisley sounded as though he's ready to deal with the criticism.
"I'm the guy who is making the decisions," Heisley said Saturday. "If people want to (complain) don't get on (general manager) Chris Wallace about the trade -- get on me."
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... decisions/
-
grizzfan1204
- Sophomore
- Posts: 190
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jul 10, 2006
- Location: Memphis
-
bgwizarfan
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,186
- And1: 0
- Joined: Mar 01, 2007
I don't get how McKie was just traded. I thought he was signed and traded, but in reading articles, McKie said he was "shocked" by the deal... this confuses me because it must mean that McKie was not signed and traded.
I know the Sixers are still paying him, so his original contract is still going... but if the Lakers signed him and owned his rights (but aren't paying him now), wouldn't they have to sign him first (which requires his permission obviously) and then trade him?
I know the Sixers are still paying him, so his original contract is still going... but if the Lakers signed him and owned his rights (but aren't paying him now), wouldn't they have to sign him first (which requires his permission obviously) and then trade him?
-
FGump
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,050
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
bgwizarfan wrote:I don't get how McKie was just traded. I thought he was signed and traded, but in reading articles, McKie said he was "shocked" by the deal... this confuses me because it must mean that McKie was not signed and traded.
McKie was shocked that LA came to him and said "Would you sign your name to a contract, and accept this pile of money for doing so, even though you are no longer capable of playing?"
Obviously he wasn't somehow shocked as in he woke up one day to hear he had been signed-and-traded, in that it couldn't have happened without him agreeing to and signing the deal.
-
Three34
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 36,406
- And1: 123
- Joined: Sep 18, 2002
Wait, let me get this straight.
Kwame Brown = $9,075,000
Javaris of Crittenton = $1,285,200
Pow Gasol = $13,735,000
So to meet 125% + $100,000 of Pau's contract value, the Lakers needed to add $547,800 to their outgoing salary. Which is where McKie comes in.
Now since McKie is of pension age, his not prorated minimum salary on a three year sign and trade contract would be $1,219,590. Prorated for what's left of this season, that's $545,228 by my maths (94 days of the season gone prior to Feb 1st, 76 left including it).
And so that's not enough.
So have:
a) the Lakers signed and traded him to a NOT prorated minimum salary deal? (if that's possible)
b) the Lakers signed and traded him to something slightly above the minimum, and prorated that? (if that's possible)
c) the Lakers signed and traded him to something slightly above the minimum, but not prorated it, thus his cap value this year is about two and a half times the $547,800 needed to make the deal work?
d) I got my maths wrong?
(Edited because apparently in my eyes, 170 minus 94 is 66.)
Kwame Brown = $9,075,000
Javaris of Crittenton = $1,285,200
Pow Gasol = $13,735,000
So to meet 125% + $100,000 of Pau's contract value, the Lakers needed to add $547,800 to their outgoing salary. Which is where McKie comes in.
Now since McKie is of pension age, his not prorated minimum salary on a three year sign and trade contract would be $1,219,590. Prorated for what's left of this season, that's $545,228 by my maths (94 days of the season gone prior to Feb 1st, 76 left including it).
And so that's not enough.
So have:
a) the Lakers signed and traded him to a NOT prorated minimum salary deal? (if that's possible)
b) the Lakers signed and traded him to something slightly above the minimum, and prorated that? (if that's possible)
c) the Lakers signed and traded him to something slightly above the minimum, but not prorated it, thus his cap value this year is about two and a half times the $547,800 needed to make the deal work?
d) I got my maths wrong?
(Edited because apparently in my eyes, 170 minus 94 is 66.)
-
Dunkenstein
- Starter
- Posts: 2,454
- And1: 13
- Joined: Jun 17, 2002
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
McKie was signed using the early-Bird exception, not the minimum exception. He was paid $750K, which is the prorated value of a contract for $1,275,000 (using your numbers regarding days remaining in the season) which is just over the minimum salary. His second and third years were NG salaries at the league minimum for a player with 10+ years of service.
-
daddyfivestar
- Banned User
- Posts: 5,215
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jun 19, 2004
- Location: Get to 17 while they are still on 17
You have to hand it to Kupchak and the Lakers FO for creativity.
Somehow, get a guy who is in an unpaid coach-like position with another organization yet still gets 7 mill from them from earlier obligations, that you (Lakers) somehow still have rights to.....genius.
It's like that whole will trade with you now and also swap picks in five years thing that landed them James Worthy.
Somehow, get a guy who is in an unpaid coach-like position with another organization yet still gets 7 mill from them from earlier obligations, that you (Lakers) somehow still have rights to.....genius.
It's like that whole will trade with you now and also swap picks in five years thing that landed them James Worthy.
-
FGump
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,050
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
daddyfivestar wrote:Somehow, get a guy who is in an unpaid coach-like position with another organization yet still gets 7 mill from them from earlier obligations, that you (Lakers) somehow still have rights to.....genius.
.
Genius? Don't be such a drooling Laker suckup, dude.
We've been talking about this kind of trade concept here regularly for a year or more, it's been done multiple times by other teams in the past, and even national media members use it regularly in their trade idea articles.
This shows Kupchak can at least read and follow along, but it sure doesn't come anywhere close to proving he's the sharpest crayon in the box.
-
Three34
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 36,406
- And1: 123
- Joined: Sep 18, 2002
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#20
Starting January 10 of each season, the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual, Larry Bird, Early-Bird and Non-Bird exceptions begin to reduce in value. For example, if there are 180 days in the season, then these exceptions (if they are still unused) reduce by 1/180 of their initial value each day starting January 10. If a team uses their $5 million Mid-Level exception on February 1, then the exception is actually worth $4,361,111.
-
FGump
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,050
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
The prior discussion told us that while the exception itself shrinks, the non-minimum contract is paid at its face.
The wording Dunk used ("that was also the date that newly signed non-minimum contracts also started to be prorated") if accurate would imply that ALL contracts would or could be prorated.
Was this written as a $1.2M deal, with a prorated-lessened payout? Or is it written as a $750K contract? If the latter, sounds to me like what gets prorated isn't the contract, but rather the amount of the specificly used exception that size contract consumes.
The wording Dunk used ("that was also the date that newly signed non-minimum contracts also started to be prorated") if accurate would imply that ALL contracts would or could be prorated.
Was this written as a $1.2M deal, with a prorated-lessened payout? Or is it written as a $750K contract? If the latter, sounds to me like what gets prorated isn't the contract, but rather the amount of the specificly used exception that size contract consumes.