Texas Chuck wrote:again we can't double count salary to demand extra pay. Yes Simmons isn't worth his money. But that money is already allocated to Mitchell. So you would get compensated for the better player, you don't also get to claim an additional $40M of salary you must be compensated for.
I also notice we never do this when our team uses bad money as salary matching. Kevin Love was sold to this board as an asset because he would eventually be an expiring contract. He wasn't an asset, but if he had been used as matching as an expiring and the team getting him was sending out as much or more money there wouldn't have been a Kevin Love tax. Cleveland would have just been expected to pay for the upgrade.
No idea why this continues.
Cleveland did, in fact, have to pay neutral player value instead of Kevin Love's expiring salary (or LeVert's salary in the place of Markkanen or Sexton) in the original Mitchell deal. It's literally an example of expiring salary having less value than what was looked at at the time as roughly neutral salary going back to Utah.
Philly offering 4 1sts and a trade exception (and/or Reed, and/or a S&T of Melton, Hield, or Harris) is worth more to the Cavs than the Nets' offer of 4 1sts and Ben Simmons. It might be worth more to the Cavs than five 1sts, given the Cavs' tax situation after taking back Simmons.
(Morey tries to go for a Kawhi + PG-style free agency move here, as Mitchell's salary is relatively low for a max. Even if it's just luring Siakam or OG to play with Nurse again.)