Miami - Detroit

[oldncreaky]

I've long been a Duncan Robinson guy. But agree with GoDaddy that there is value to be had in a swap for Fontecchio potentially. Not sure where Jovic is in the minds of the Heat these days, but probably agree with Heat fans I wouldn't give up on him to make that swap.

But if Miami has several 2nds, I still think its not terrible if Detroit doesn't have a better deal lined up. Robinson really helps space for their young core and they pick up some more trade ballast. Miami gets a financial windfall and gains some flexibility for next season.

Agree, but I think you're being too generous to Miami

For Detroit, the "win" would be either Jovic or the draft compensation. I really like Jovic, so while I'd prefer to get him as part of the trade, I understand Miami fans not wanting to trade him, and I'd be fine with whatever draft compensation is fair.

For Miami, this would be about finances. I'd argue that, before we debate about how much draft compensation is fair, we need to take a close look at the financial impact. Never mind the names of the players, this trade is about saving Miami a ton of money. In round numbers, a trade of either
1) Robinson + Jovic for Fontecchio
or
2) Robinson for Beasley
saves Miami roughly $50M this season, and possibly just as much next season.
- about $12.5M in salary this season
- avoids a $21.7M tax bill this season
- getting a share of the tax payments distribution, i.e. one of 15 to 20 teams sharing between $500M and $600M in payments (at least $25M per team?) depending on how the TDL works out
- similar numbers for next season
That works out to somewhere between $50M and $100M in salary, tax and tax distribution impact

No way Detroit agrees to that for either a single prospect (Jovic) or a couple of SRPs. Detroit has options, and if they don't get a trade they like at the TDL, holding the space until the 2025 draft is a legit option.

Miami has options too; if they get out of the tax by trading Butler, they obviously won't look at this trade. But if they can't trade Butler and want to avoid the tax and net about $50-$100M in salary+tax savings, this trade is a good option -- but I think it will cost them a lot more than Jovic.

[jbk1234]

Robinson's only guaranteed $9 million next season and he is a better player than Fontecchio. The only negative asset here is Fontecchio. Spoelstra is getting the most out of him and we love him.

Unless a team is comfortable paying Robinson's full salary, he's negative. I'd argue that Robinson on his full salary is less negative than $10M in dead space which is clearly negative. That's the problem with guarantees that large.

I don't agree. If he is positive for us, I don't really care how the rest of them look at him. He is a useful player for us and that's what matters.

If the Heat aren't looking to trade Duncan that's all that matters, but if they want to include him in a package that returns another player, it very much matters how the trade partner views his contract.

[Godaddycurse]

I've long been a Duncan Robinson guy. But agree with GoDaddy that there is value to be had in a swap for Fontecchio potentially. Not sure where Jovic is in the minds of the Heat these days, but probably agree with Heat fans I wouldn't give up on him to make that swap.

But if Miami has several 2nds, I still think its not terrible if Detroit doesn't have a better deal lined up. Robinson really helps space for their young core and they pick up some more trade ballast. Miami gets a financial windfall and gains some flexibility for next season.

Agree, but I think you're being too generous to Miami

For Detroit, the "win" would be either Jovic or the draft compensation. I really like Jovic, so while I'd prefer to get him as part of the trade, I understand Miami fans not wanting to trade him, and I'd be fine with whatever draft compensation is fair.

For Miami, this would be about finances. I'd argue that, before we debate about how much draft compensation is fair, we need to take a close look at the financial impact. Never mind the names of the players, this trade is about saving Miami a ton of money. In round numbers, a trade of either
1) Robinson + Jovic for Fontecchio
or
2) Robinson for Beasley
saves Miami roughly $50M this season, and possibly just as much next season.
- about $12.5M in salary this season
- avoids a $21.7M tax bill this season
- getting a share of the tax payments distribution, i.e. one of 15 to 20 teams sharing between $500M and $600M in payments (at least $25M per team?) depending on how the TDL works out
- similar numbers for next season
That works out to somewhere between $50M and $100M in salary, tax and tax distribution impact

No way Detroit agrees to that for either a single prospect (Jovic) or a couple of SRPs. Detroit has options, and if they don't get a trade they like at the TDL, holding the space until the 2025 draft is a legit option.

Miami has options too; if they get out of the tax by trading Butler, they obviously won't look at this trade. But if they can't trade Butler and want to avoid the tax and net about $50-$100M in salary+tax savings, this trade is a good option -- but I think it will cost them a lot more than Jovic.

woops i underestimated the amount of money saved.

[oldncreaky]

Miami trade: Robinson, Jovic
Detroit trade: Fontecchio (or beasley?)

Why for Detroit: use up their capspace to acquire a prospect
Why for Miami: duck the tax

add 2nd(s) as needed

I like the concept. For simplicity, I used Robinson for Beasley, which works in spotrac

But as I said in my post above, for DET I'd want a lot more than a single prospect or a couple of SRPs if I'm saving Miami a ton of money

[Texas Chuck]

But as I said in my post above, for DET I'd want a lot more than a single prospect or a couple of SRPs if I'm saving Miami a ton of money

So as the poster who explores more tax deals than any other (by far), I disagree here. The beauty in these kinds of trades is the cost to Detroit is smaller than the benefit to Miami which just adds value to the overall deal. Detroit should be compensated for the amount of salary they take on, not by how much it saves Miami. The fact that it saves Miami so much is what motivates them to make a deal like this but they don't owe Detroit for taking on the amount they save because Detroit doesn't take that much on.

[oldncreaky]

But as I said in my post above, for DET I'd want a lot more than a single prospect or a couple of SRPs if I'm saving Miami a ton of money

So as the poster who explores more tax deals than any other (by far), I disagree here. The beauty in these kinds of trades is the cost to Detroit is smaller than the benefit to Miami which just adds value to the overall deal. Detroit should be compensated for the amount of salary they take on, not by how much it saves Miami. The fact that it saves Miami so much is what motivates them to make a deal like this but they don't owe Detroit for taking on the amount they save because Detroit doesn't take that much on.

Disagree.

In a win-win negotiation, the excess value "created" is split roughly in half. Neither party is compelled to trade, and the deal has to clear the BATNA for both parties. If Miami offers DET merely the minimum value it can get away with for DET's space, and keeps all/most of the excess value for itself, DET can and should look for a better trade partner, or simply hold its dry powder.

[_GH0ST_]

Unless a team is comfortable paying Robinson's full salary, he's negative. I'd argue that Robinson on his full salary is less negative than $10M in dead space which is clearly negative. That's the problem with guarantees that large.

I don't agree. If he is positive for us, I don't really care how the rest of them look at him. He is a useful player for us and that's what matters.

If the Heat aren't looking to trade Duncan that's all that matters, but if they want to include him in a package that returns another player, it very much matters how the trade partner views his contract.

I think the Heat want to trade Rozier, not Robinson. I agree with BBallFreak. I would definitely consider that kind of deal.

[Texas Chuck]

But as I said in my post above, for DET I'd want a lot more than a single prospect or a couple of SRPs if I'm saving Miami a ton of money

So as the poster who explores more tax deals than any other (by far), I disagree here. The beauty in these kinds of trades is the cost to Detroit is smaller than the benefit to Miami which just adds value to the overall deal. Detroit should be compensated for the amount of salary they take on, not by how much it saves Miami. The fact that it saves Miami so much is what motivates them to make a deal like this but they don't owe Detroit for taking on the amount they save because Detroit doesn't take that much on.

Disagree.

In a win-win negotiation, the excess value "created" is split roughly in half. Neither party is compelled to trade, and the deal has to clear the BATNA for both parties. If Miami offers DET merely the minimum value it can get away with for DET's space, and keeps all/most of the excess value for itself, DET can and should look for a better trade partner, or simply hold its dry powder.

Obviously Detroit has to feel like they get a good deal(or can't make a better one). Obviously if htey can do better they should. We don't disagree there at all.

I just disagree that Detroit should get compensated based on what Miami saves instead of what it costs Detroit in money, cap space, and opportunity cost. Because just like Detroit will walk away if they feel lowballed, Miami will walk away rather than overpay.

[chrbal]

If Detroit absolutely believes that Jovic is a star just waiting to get an opportunity, then absolutely. I personally just don’t see it. I don’t believe Robinson makes enough of an impact to justify the money. And I highly doubt Miami unloads Jovic in a Robinson for Hardaway jr trade. I also think Miami should be more focused on moving Rozier. Maybe to Utah or Charlotte or whomever

[oldncreaky]

So as the poster who explores more tax deals than any other (by far), I disagree here. The beauty in these kinds of trades is the cost to Detroit is smaller than the benefit to Miami which just adds value to the overall deal. Detroit should be compensated for the amount of salary they take on, not by how much it saves Miami. The fact that it saves Miami so much is what motivates them to make a deal like this but they don't owe Detroit for taking on the amount they save because Detroit doesn't take that much on.

Disagree.

In a win-win negotiation, the excess value "created" is split roughly in half. Neither party is compelled to trade, and the deal has to clear the BATNA for both parties. If Miami offers DET merely the minimum value it can get away with for DET's space, and keeps all/most of the excess value for itself, DET can and should look for a better trade partner, or simply hold its dry powder.

Obviously Detroit has to feel like they get a good deal(or can't make a better one). Obviously if htey can do better they should. We don't disagree there at all.

I just disagree that Detroit should get compensated based on what Miami saves instead of what it costs Detroit in money, cap space, and opportunity cost. Because just like Detroit will walk away if they feel lowballed, Miami will walk away rather than overpay.

We still disagree, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

If you're suggesting that the "price" should be based solely "on what Miami saves", you're basically suggesting that Detroit's opportunity cost is zero, and/or that DET should value that OC at $0.

We've also seen some recent deals under the current CBA (TOR-SAC for Mitchell; DET-DAL for THJ) where the cost of saving salary is significantly higher than 2 SRPs or a Jovic-level prospect for much less savings and net impact

Detroit won't get all of Miami's excess value; more likely it would be roughly half. in a classic deal in the mergers and acquisitions world in business, each side of would get roughly half the net benefit created, and with MIA getting north of $50M in savings, DET should expect "value" north of $25M. DET would be Weaver-level incompetent to agree for a Jovic level prospect only for providing that much value.

[Texas Chuck]

If you're suggesting that the "price" should be based solely "on what Miami saves", you're basically suggesting that Detroit's opportunity cost is zero, and/or that DET should value that OC at $0.
.

I literally said the opposite though. You said Detroit should get paid based on what Miami saved. I say they should not. So I'm confused now.

And I never remotely said Detroit had zero opportunity cost. There is always opportunity cost. That's baked into every deal.

[jbk1234]

If Detroit absolutely believes that Jovic is a star just waiting to get an opportunity, then absolutely. I personally just don’t see it. I don’t believe Robinson makes enough of an impact to justify the money. And I highly doubt Miami unloads Jovic in a Robinson for Hardaway jr trade. I also think Miami should be more focused on moving Rozier. Maybe to Utah or Charlotte or whomever

I see Jovic's performance this season being the primary impediment to a salary clearing move tbh. He could still turn it around, but this is not the type of play you hope to see in year 3 from a prospect.

[Texas Chuck]

And Dallas traded THJ/3 3nds for Grimes. a player Detroit had just paid a good 2nd for and whom Detroit fans were asking multiple 2nds for prior to him getting traded. So Dallas absolutely didn't pay significantly higher than 2 2nds.

[chrbal]

And Dallas traded THJ/3 3nds for Grimes. a player Detroit had just paid a good 2nd for and whom Detroit fans were asking multiple 2nds for prior to him getting traded. So Dallas absolutely didn't pay significantly higher than 2 2nds.

Well, they did pay 3 3nds. Grimes hasn’t been great, but I really don’t get why we handed him away.

[oldncreaky]

If you're suggesting that the "price" should be based solely "on what Miami saves", you're basically suggesting that Detroit's opportunity cost is zero, and/or that DET should value that OC at $0.
.

I literally said the opposite though. You said Detroit should get paid based on what Miami saved. I say they should not. So I'm confused now.

And I never remotely said Detroit had zero opportunity cost. There is always opportunity cost. That's baked into every deal.

You quote part of my post, cutting out the part where I said DET should get roughly half the value created -- not all, half. Now you're moving the goal posts, as well as miss-stating my original argument in this post, and doing yet another partial quote which muddies the water even more.

You have a bad part of quoting a single sentence or phrase from a post, removing the context, and then 3 replies later arguing about the ignored part. If you skim read, fine, I know you're busy and read/post a lot. But so do I, and I'm not going to waste more time on this.

[Texas Chuck]

Just trying not to clutter the board with long repetitive quotes. Sucks you take that as trying to misrepresent you. Not my intention I assure you.

Sent from my SM-A156U using RealGM mobile app

[oldncreaky]

And Dallas traded THJ/3 3nds for Grimes. a player Detroit had just paid a good 2nd for and whom Detroit fans were asking multiple 2nds for prior to him getting traded. So Dallas absolutely didn't pay significantly higher than 2 2nds.

Well, they did pay 3 3nds. Grimes hasn’t been great, but I really don’t get why we handed him away.

Also, a large part of the value for DET -- arguably the largest -- was making progress to reaching the 90% salary floor.

The salary floor aspect matters a lot. It's hard to make firm conclusions about how much that counted in the deal because we have exactly one and only one instance of a team making transactions with the salary floor in mind. But not qualifying for the tax distribution is a big deal, and DET's alternative to taking on THJ would probably have involved making a multi-year commitment to overpay someone.

So IMO the TOR-SAC deal is more indicative of how to value deals whose motivation is solely to save money under the current CBA. In that deal, SAC saved a total of about $7M, and for that it gave up a prospect of weak/neutral value (Davion Mitchell) plus 3 SRPs

[Godaddycurse]

So IMO the TOR-SAC deal is more indicative of how to value deals whose motivation is solely to save money under the current CBA. In that deal, SAC saved a total of about $7M, and for that it gave up a prospect of weak/neutral value (Davion Mitchell) plus 3 SRPs

sacramento gave up POR 2025 2nd and pick #45 IIRC

[BBallFreak]

If you're suggesting that the "price" should be based solely "on what Miami saves", you're basically suggesting that Detroit's opportunity cost is zero, and/or that DET should value that OC at $0.
.

I literally said the opposite though. You said Detroit should get paid based on what Miami saved. I say they should not. So I'm confused now.

And I never remotely said Detroit had zero opportunity cost. There is always opportunity cost. That's baked into every deal.

You quote part of my post, cutting out the part where I said DET should get roughly half the value created -- not all, half. Now you're moving the goal posts, as well as miss-stating my original argument in this post, and doing yet another partial quote which muddies the water even more.

You have a bad part of quoting a single sentence or phrase from a post, removing the context, and then 3 replies later arguing about the ignored part. If you skim read, fine, I know you're busy and read/post a lot. But so do I, and I'm not going to waste more time on this.

The part that neither of you is considering is the other teams in this league. Robinson isn't valueless, which means we're not going to pay to get rid of him (not even a couple of seconds). If we wanted to move him, it would be pretty easy and likely for smaller, more moveable contracts plus an asset (even a couple of seconds). You cannot tell me that a contender wouldn't have interest.

The other part of this is his value to Miami. He is a gravity player. His constant motion, incredible shot, and surprisingly complete offensive game make him crucial to what we do offensively. That makes it less likely we'd want to move him, especially as nothing but a salary dump.

[chrbal]

So IMO the TOR-SAC deal is more indicative of how to value deals whose motivation is solely to save money under the current CBA. In that deal, SAC saved a total of about $7M, and for that it gave up a prospect of weak/neutral value (Davion Mitchell) plus 3 SRPs

sacramento gave up POR 2025 2nd and pick #45 IIRC

I think the poster is referring to they then traded him to the Spurs with a second round pick.