Warriors: Chris Paul non-guarantee trade token

[Colbinii]

With Wiggins, Draymond and one of Looney/Gary Payton.. I don't think the fit is perfect, but I also don't know if GSW are in a position to where they can only trade for a guy if its a perfect fit at this point.

Looney is getting or is already waived.

If I am trading 2 1sts, I better be getting a player who is a good fit.

The Athletic wrote something that the Warriors let Looney's guarantee date pass without waiving him, I think it was yesterday.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/warriors/article/warriors-guarantee-kevon-looney-s-salary-19531921.php

Today, which is a change of tune since the last news we had on Looney

[gswhoops]

Why would you give one of the best teams of the last decade a voucher for them to get a 30 million dollar player? For a 2nd round pick that likely never plays a single min in the playoffs. They probably would, but competitively it is an awful decision.

Why the %(#%*(#$ would Orlando care how good GS was in 2017?

Yes, just like why should the Bucks care if there was a chance Jrue ended up on the Celtics.... oh wait lol

These two things are not even remotely comparable lol

[JMAC3]

Why the %(#%*(#$ would Orlando care how good GS was in 2017?

Yes, just like why should the Bucks care if there was a chance Jrue ended up on the Celtics.... oh wait lol

These two things are not even remotely comparable lol

Scenario 1: Warriors are stuck with roster they have

Scenario 2: Warriors have team + 30 million dollar voucher

There is no way that is only worth a future 2nd round pick. So again the Magic would be doing the Warriors the favor.

[gswhoops]

Yes, just like why should the Bucks care if there was a chance Jrue ended up on the Celtics.... oh wait lol

These two things are not even remotely comparable lol

Scenario 1: Warriors are stuck with roster they have

Scenario 2: Warriors have team + 30 million dollar voucher

There is no way that is only worth a future 2nd round pick. So again the Magic would be doing the Warriors the favor.

The Celtics were the 2 seed in the East (one game behind Milwaukee) in 22-23, before they added Jrue.

Golden State was the 10 seed in the opposite conference last year.

Not remotely the same thing

[Scoot McGroot]

These two things are not even remotely comparable lol

Scenario 1: Warriors are stuck with roster they have

Scenario 2: Warriors have team + 30 million dollar voucher

There is no way that is only worth a future 2nd round pick. So again the Magic would be doing the Warriors the favor.

The Celtics were the 2 seed in the East (one game behind Milwaukee) in 22-23, before they added Jrue.

Golden State was the 10 seed in the opposite conference last year.

Not remotely the same thing

Milwaukee dealt Jrue to Portland. That he was then dealt to Boston isn’t the same.


But yes, often times teams will work with incumbent teams on sign and trades to create some value. Generally, it’s just good business, as what goes around, generally comes back around.

[JMAC3]

Scenario 1: Warriors are stuck with roster they have

Scenario 2: Warriors have team + 30 million dollar voucher

There is no way that is only worth a future 2nd round pick. So again the Magic would be doing the Warriors the favor.

The Celtics were the 2 seed in the East (one game behind Milwaukee) in 22-23, before they added Jrue.

Golden State was the 10 seed in the opposite conference last year.

Not remotely the same thing

Milwaukee dealt Jrue to Portland. That he was then dealt to Boston isn’t the same.


But yes, often times teams will work with incumbent teams on sign and trades to create some value. Generally, it’s just good business, as what goes around, generally comes back around.

Yes, but plenty of talk about how Milwaukee helped their rival team by trading Jrue to a team that everyone knew would flip him....

I am not arguing whether Orlando will do it, they probably will. I am just making the point that if I were them I wouldn't.

When is the last time a big market team like Lakers, Golden State, Boston, Miami etc did something to help out a small franchise?

[Scoot McGroot]

The Celtics were the 2 seed in the East (one game behind Milwaukee) in 22-23, before they added Jrue.

Golden State was the 10 seed in the opposite conference last year.

Not remotely the same thing

Milwaukee dealt Jrue to Portland. That he was then dealt to Boston isn’t the same.


But yes, often times teams will work with incumbent teams on sign and trades to create some value. Generally, it’s just good business, as what goes around, generally comes back around.

Yes, but plenty of talk about how Milwaukee helped their rival team by trading Jrue to a team that everyone knew would flip him....

I am not arguing whether Orlando will do it, they probably will. I am just making the point that if I were them I wouldn't.

When is the last time a big market team like Lakers, Golden State, Boston, Miami etc did something to help out a small franchise?

Generally, those teams get something out of it as well. At the trade deadline, GS gave Indy almost $6m to take on Corey Joseph’s contract, of which only around a million or so was left to pay in cash, and to get the 51st overall draft pick. Does it help GS? Yes. Does it help Indy, too? Yes. Was $6m an overpay for both dumping the CoJo contract and getting a super late 2nd? Yes. But it’s just good business and good relationships making things happen.

[Laimbeer]

A few caveats here.

1) Do the Warriors want to be in the Tax and/of above the 1st Apron?
2) What contracts are neutral/negative where the Warriors come out ahead on the deal?

In the example of Bogdanovic, I view him as a very much positive impact player on his deal. I don't think Atlanta wants to cut bait on him, at least not until they decide on what to do with Murray/Young. The Murray/Young saga may not be resolved by the CP3 guarantee date.

This brings us to #3:

3) Timing of the CP3 guarantee

I expect the Warriors will want to know by the NBA draft what they are doing with CP3, which takes a lot of options off the table. They can't wait on the guarantee date until Free Agency starts to then get creative and make moves.

4) The CP3 situation directly affects the Klay Thompson extension/re-sign.

The Warriors are in a tough spot, because if Klay leaves and they waive CP3 then they are basically around 145ish in cap. So they have no cap space to add, would be limited to the MLE and then they would go from one of the highest payrolls to one of the lowest in the league. I just don't see that happening with Steph still being a top 10 guy.

I don't think he is, tbh. We need to revisit the assumption we're working with prime seasons of a still great player. He is not at this point. The Warriors aren't obligated to mortgage their future to keep themselves a play-in team for Steph's sake. And I don't see any way they can make themselves a bonafide contender.

[Chris Porter's Hair]

Looney is getting or is already waived.

If I am trading 2 1sts, I better be getting a player who is a good fit.

The Athletic wrote something that the Warriors let Looney's guarantee date pass without waiving him, I think it was yesterday.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/warriors/article/warriors-guarantee-kevon-looney-s-salary-19531921.php

Today, which is a change of tune since the last news we had on Looney

Is the "last news" you refer to the speculation by Tim Kawakami? I really wouldn't put much stock in anything he ever says.

[Chris Porter's Hair]

The Warriors are probably flying under the radar right now with potentially one of the best trade assets in the NBA

CP3 owed 30 million (unguaranteed).
2024-25 non-guaranteed, fully guaranteed on 6/28/24

So correct me if I am wrong, but they can partially guarantee his contract anywhere from 3 million to the full 30 million to potentially match in a trade. Then the acquiring team can waive CP3 for whatever portion isn't guaranteed.

Example: Paul to the Hawks for Bogdanovic ($17,260,000).

So the Warriors can guarantee CP3 15 million, along with a first rounder.

Hawks then waive CP3 for the remainder of his contract, give them some room under tax moving forward and pick up a first in process.

CP3 makes 15 million, plus whatever he gets from Lakers, Clippers etc when he signs for the low low.

The receiving team has to salary match the full $30m contract in return. So in that Bogs suggestion, ATL would have to send much more salary as Bogs can’t return a $30m contract. Then, CP3 has to be guaranteed more to match for Bogs and an additional Contract, and then you have to find that middle ground.

As stated, that's not strictly true, right? Isn't it more accurate if it is something like, "The receiving team has to be able to take on the full $30m contract"?

Example: a team that was $40m under the cap surely doesn't need to send back $30m, right?

[Scoot McGroot]

The Warriors are probably flying under the radar right now with potentially one of the best trade assets in the NBA

CP3 owed 30 million (unguaranteed).
2024-25 non-guaranteed, fully guaranteed on 6/28/24

So correct me if I am wrong, but they can partially guarantee his contract anywhere from 3 million to the full 30 million to potentially match in a trade. Then the acquiring team can waive CP3 for whatever portion isn't guaranteed.

Example: Paul to the Hawks for Bogdanovic ($17,260,000).

So the Warriors can guarantee CP3 15 million, along with a first rounder.

Hawks then waive CP3 for the remainder of his contract, give them some room under tax moving forward and pick up a first in process.

CP3 makes 15 million, plus whatever he gets from Lakers, Clippers etc when he signs for the low low.

The receiving team has to salary match the full $30m contract in return. So in that Bogs suggestion, ATL would have to send much more salary as Bogs can’t return a $30m contract. Then, CP3 has to be guaranteed more to match for Bogs and an additional Contract, and then you have to find that middle ground.

As stated, that's not strictly true, right? Isn't it more accurate if it is something like, "The receiving team has to be able to take on the full $30m contract"?

Example: a team that was $40m under the cap surely doesn't need to send back $30m, right?

You can salary match using cap space, or TPE, sure.

[CDM_Stats]

The receiving team has to salary match the full $30m contract in return. So in that Bogs suggestion, ATL would have to send much more salary as Bogs can’t return a $30m contract. Then, CP3 has to be guaranteed more to match for Bogs and an additional Contract, and then you have to find that middle ground.

As stated, that's not strictly true, right? Isn't it more accurate if it is something like, "The receiving team has to be able to take on the full $30m contract"?

Example: a team that was $40m under the cap surely doesn't need to send back $30m, right?

You can salary match using cap space, or TPE, sure.

Can you source this? Because once July 1st hits, and if CP3 extends his deadline as he likely will (can only benefit him, as long as its not extended indefinitely).. I dont see any reason why the team can't guarantee say, 15m of his contract, and use that to take back an only 15m player, not the full 30m.

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2023/05/hoops-rumors-glossary-trade-rules-for-non-guaranteed-salaries.html

Complicating matters further is the fact that a team can’t simply circumvent the new rules by trading a player before a league year ends on June 30, then having his new team waive him once his new non-guaranteed cap hit goes into effect on July 1. After the end of the regular season, a player’s outgoing salary for trade purposes is the lesser of his current-year salary and the guaranteed portion of his salary for the following season.

Here’s a practical example: Chris Paul‘s deal with the Suns featured a fully guaranteed salary of $28.4MM in 2022/23, with only $15.8MM of $30.8MM guaranteed for ’23/24. Between the end of the Suns’ season and June 28 – which is when Paul’s full ’23/24 salary will become guaranteed – his outgoing salary for matching purposes is just $15.8MM, but his incoming salary for his new team would be $30.8MM.

What's suggested here seems to only be relevant until the new season turns over, at which point its straightforward

[Scoot McGroot]

As stated, that's not strictly true, right? Isn't it more accurate if it is something like, "The receiving team has to be able to take on the full $30m contract"?

Example: a team that was $40m under the cap surely doesn't need to send back $30m, right?

You can salary match using cap space, or TPE, sure.

Can you source this? Because once July 1st hits, and if CP3 extends his deadline as he likely will (can only benefit him, as long as its not extended indefinitely).. I dont see any reason why the team can't guarantee say, 15m of his contract, and use that to take back an only 15m player, not the full 30m.

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2023/05/hoops-rumors-glossary-trade-rules-for-non-guaranteed-salaries.html

Complicating matters further is the fact that a team can’t simply circumvent the new rules by trading a player before a league year ends on June 30, then having his new team waive him once his new non-guaranteed cap hit goes into effect on July 1. After the end of the regular season, a player’s outgoing salary for trade purposes is the lesser of his current-year salary and the guaranteed portion of his salary for the following season.

Here’s a practical example: Chris Paul‘s deal with the Suns featured a fully guaranteed salary of $28.4MM in 2022/23, with only $15.8MM of $30.8MM guaranteed for ’23/24. Between the end of the Suns’ season and June 28 – which is when Paul’s full ’23/24 salary will become guaranteed – his outgoing salary for matching purposes is just $15.8MM, but his incoming salary for his new team would be $30.8MM.

What's suggested here seems to only be relevant until the new season turns over, at which point its straightforward

Once a season ends, the lesser of a players current salary or guaranteed salary for next year is used in salary matching for a trade. Currently, CP has $0 guaranteed. Yes, GS could guarantee only $15m, and use that as their salary matching in trade. However, the team trading FOR CP has to be able to absorb the WHOLE $30m contract, in case they actually kept him. GS is not required to take back $30m in salary for CP. the team trading for Chris Paul has to account for his full sized contract.

It’s a rule to block CBA circumvention where, say, a team couldn’t find a way to legally salary match a player at $30m, but could easily do it at $5m, trades for them, and then could theoretically guarantee the whole thing. The receiving team has to fit the whole thing, even if they are to waive the player for their partial guaranteed salary, and even if it’s immediately after the trade.