Kyle Kuzma

[Scoot McGroot]

Players can and do waive trade kickers when they want to be traded. It's not really a situation where they're being asked to give up money. If there's no trade, they're not getting the money anyway.

Sure, but if there is a trade, then they're giving up a lot of money.

Kuzma could waive his trade kicker, sure. But, he's also not a guy that's ever publicly talked of "taking less".

[jbk1234]

Players can and do waive trade kickers when they want to be traded. It's not really a situation where they're being asked to give up money. If there's no trade, they're not getting the money anyway.

Sure, but if there is a trade, then they're giving up a lot of money.

Kuzma could waive his trade kicker, sure. But, he's also not a guy that's ever publicly talked of "taking less".

I've always viewed trade kickers as a player tax on getting traded to a place the player would prefer not to be. Kuzma has been playing on the worst team in the NBA for years. If a trade partner makes the trade contingent upon Kuzma waiving his kicker, and he declines, he's still on the worst team in the NBA and he still doesn't get the kicker.

[bgrep14]

Butler and Richardson for Kuzma, Brogdon, and Davis

[Scoot McGroot]

Players can and do waive trade kickers when they want to be traded. It's not really a situation where they're being asked to give up money. If there's no trade, they're not getting the money anyway.

Sure, but if there is a trade, then they're giving up a lot of money.

Kuzma could waive his trade kicker, sure. But, he's also not a guy that's ever publicly talked of "taking less".

I've always viewed trade kickers as a player tax on getting traded to a place the player would prefer not to be. Kuzma has been playing on the worst team in the NBA for years. If a trade partner makes the trade contingent upon Kuzma waiving his kicker, and he declines, he's still on the worst team in the NBA and he still doesn't get the kicker.

Sure, but players have expenses with trades. Moving sucks. And he'd probably still get traded anyway. So why not have the money?

[SlimShady83]

didn't know that about Kuzma having trade kicker. list of players who have trade kicker

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2024/08/nba-players-with-trade-kickers-in-2024-25.html

[jbk1234]

Sure, but if there is a trade, then they're giving up a lot of money.

Kuzma could waive his trade kicker, sure. But, he's also not a guy that's ever publicly talked of "taking less".

I've always viewed trade kickers as a player tax on getting traded to a place the player would prefer not to be. Kuzma has been playing on the worst team in the NBA for years. If a trade partner makes the trade contingent upon Kuzma waiving his kicker, and he declines, he's still on the worst team in the NBA and he still doesn't get the kicker.

Sure, but players have expenses with trades. Moving sucks. And he'd probably still get traded anyway. So why not have the money?

I mean the premise here is that Kuzma really isn't worth his current contract and there won't be a trade if he doesn't waive the kicker. He's making $23M this season, I think he can spring for moving expenses in order to get himself to a more competitive situation. Again, I always view trade kickers as taxes teams pay when the player is involved in a trade they'd veto if they could.

[Scoot McGroot]

I've always viewed trade kickers as a player tax on getting traded to a place the player would prefer not to be. Kuzma has been playing on the worst team in the NBA for years. If a trade partner makes the trade contingent upon Kuzma waiving his kicker, and he declines, he's still on the worst team in the NBA and he still doesn't get the kicker.

Sure, but players have expenses with trades. Moving sucks. And he'd probably still get traded anyway. So why not have the money?

I mean the premise here is that Kuzma really isn't worth his current contract and there won't be a trade if he doesn't waive the kicker. He's making $23M this season, I think he can spring for moving expenses in order to get himself to a more competitive situation.

Guys get traded all the time whether they're worth their contract or not.

Again, I always view trade kickers as taxes teams pay when the player is involved in a trade they'd veto if they could.

Or, you could view it as money that is legally owed the player if their team trades them. Whether they would veto it if they could. The default is to accept it because their traded. If they decline it, they're generally just giving money back, which the players association has been asking players not to do for awhile now.

[winforlose]

It’s only be paid out on what he’s remaining to be paid. And it would increase his cap number on the books for cap/tax/apron calculations, too. Washington would pay the cash kicker, but any receiving team would have to account for the increase on their books.

Yeah, I never had Kuzma as very valuable but as his deal was front loaded - I just don’t think the extra 2.5-3 mil per year would hold up any trade. Feels minor

If you like Kuzma at 2yr41 you’re still going to like him at 2yr46?

Oh, yeah, mostly. And even then, it's not cash the new team has to pay, just the higher tax/apron number. Mostly just pointed it out as it could complicate deals for teams that are close to the apron, even if they're not over the tax. It's a really weird situation with how the unearned incentives for all players count against the hard caps, etc.

Using the Lakers as an example, the above 3 for 1 trade forces them to sign someone else to a minimum. Depending on who the someone is I believe they might be a 2nd apron team.

[jbk1234]

Sure, but players have expenses with trades. Moving sucks. And he'd probably still get traded anyway. So why not have the money?

I mean the premise here is that Kuzma really isn't worth his current contract and there won't be a trade if he doesn't waive the kicker. He's making $23M this season, I think he can spring for moving expenses in order to get himself to a more competitive situation.

Guys get traded all the time whether they're worth their contract or not.

Again, I always view trade kickers as taxes teams pay when the player is involved in a trade they'd veto if they could.

Or, you could view it as money that is legally owed the player if their team trades them. Whether they would veto it if they could. The default is to accept it because their traded. If they decline it, they're generally just giving money back, which the players association has been asking players not to do for awhile now.

Yes, if there's a trade, then the player is legally entitled to the money. If the receiving team won't consent to the trade unless the player waives the kicker, then the player can agree, or not agree, in which case there's no trade and no extra money.

If the union wants kickers not to be waivable, they should negotiate for that, but I suspect their own members would object for two reasons: (1) it will be a lot harder to get trade kickers included in contracts; and (2) players in Kuzma's situation could find themselves stuck on a rebuilding team for half a decade.

[Scoot McGroot]

I mean the premise here is that Kuzma really isn't worth his current contract and there won't be a trade if he doesn't waive the kicker. He's making $23M this season, I think he can spring for moving expenses in order to get himself to a more competitive situation.

Guys get traded all the time whether they're worth their contract or not.

Again, I always view trade kickers as taxes teams pay when the player is involved in a trade they'd veto if they could.

Or, you could view it as money that is legally owed the player if their team trades them. Whether they would veto it if they could. The default is to accept it because their traded. If they decline it, they're generally just giving money back, which the players association has been asking players not to do for awhile now.

Yes, if there's a trade, then the player is legally entitled to the money. If the receiving team won't consent to the trade unless the player waives the kicker, then the player can agree, or not agree, in which case there's no trade and no extra money.

If the union wants kickers not to be waivable, they should negotiate for that, but I suspect their own members would object for two reasons: (1) it will be a lot harder to get trade kickers included in contracts; and (2) players in Kuzma's situation could find themselves stuck on a rebuilding team for half a decade.

Ok. But Kuzma would be entitled to his $7.5m. He doesn’t have to waive it to be traded. It’s very possible any team that wanted to trade for him still would after his trade kicker, since Washington lays out the kicker.

[Bentley1225]

Washington wants I’m sure a protected 1st for him. His market value isn’t there yet given his current production and remaining contract term.

[jbk1234]

Guys get traded all the time whether they're worth their contract or not.



Or, you could view it as money that is legally owed the player if their team trades them. Whether they would veto it if they could. The default is to accept it because their traded. If they decline it, they're generally just giving money back, which the players association has been asking players not to do for awhile now.

Yes, if there's a trade, then the player is legally entitled to the money. If the receiving team won't consent to the trade unless the player waives the kicker, then the player can agree, or not agree, in which case there's no trade and no extra money.

If the union wants kickers not to be waivable, they should negotiate for that, but I suspect their own members would object for two reasons: (1) it will be a lot harder to get trade kickers included in contracts; and (2) players in Kuzma's situation could find themselves stuck on a rebuilding team for half a decade.

Ok. But Kuzma would be entitled to his $7.5m. He doesn’t have to waive it to be traded. It’s very possible any team that wanted to trade for him still would after his trade kicker, since Washington lays out the kicker.

I hadn't realized the kickers don't count against the cap. That makes a big difference. It's still real money though. They can wait until the summer and spend $4M in non-cap money to get off the remaining $40M.

[Scoot McGroot]

Yes, if there's a trade, then the player is legally entitled to the money. If the receiving team won't consent to the trade unless the player waives the kicker, then the player can agree, or not agree, in which case there's no trade and no extra money.

If the union wants kickers not to be waivable, they should negotiate for that, but I suspect their own members would object for two reasons: (1) it will be a lot harder to get trade kickers included in contracts; and (2) players in Kuzma's situation could find themselves stuck on a rebuilding team for half a decade.

Ok. But Kuzma would be entitled to his $7.5m. He doesn’t have to waive it to be traded. It’s very possible any team that wanted to trade for him still would after his trade kicker, since Washington lays out the kicker.

I hadn't realized the kickers don't count against the cap. That makes a big difference. It's still real money though. They can wait until the summer and spend $4M in non-cap money to get off the remaining $40M.

The team trading a player with a trade kicker are responsible for the full cash payment. Washington would pay the cash. Kuzma’s cap number would then rise to account for the kicker payment correspondingly for his remaining years. However, the new team wouldn’t pay extra.

I’m terrible at explaining things, so that may still be confusing.

[jbk1234]

Ok. But Kuzma would be entitled to his $7.5m. He doesn’t have to waive it to be traded. It’s very possible any team that wanted to trade for him still would after his trade kicker, since Washington lays out the kicker.

I hadn't realized the kickers don't count against the cap. That makes a big difference. It's still real money though. They can wait until the summer and spend $4M in non-cap money to get off the remaining $40M.

The team trading a player with a trade kicker are responsible for the full cash payment. Washington would pay the cash. Kuzma’s cap number would then rise to account for the kicker payment correspondingly for his remaining years. However, the new team wouldn’t pay extra.

I’m terrible at explaining things, so that may still be confusing.

Yeah, I read that the kicker doesn't count against the cap. If the new team has to account for the kicker payments against their cap, even if the Wizards are making them, then they have an incentive not to agree unless he waives. Of course, if it's a cheap owner, maybe the preference is to have ficticious payments on the books rather than real ones.

[winforlose]

Ok. But Kuzma would be entitled to his $7.5m. He doesn’t have to waive it to be traded. It’s very possible any team that wanted to trade for him still would after his trade kicker, since Washington lays out the kicker.

I hadn't realized the kickers don't count against the cap. That makes a big difference. It's still real money though. They can wait until the summer and spend $4M in non-cap money to get off the remaining $40M.

The team trading a player with a trade kicker are responsible for the full cash payment. Washington would pay the cash. Kuzma’s cap number would then rise to account for the kicker payment correspondingly for his remaining years. However, the new team wouldn’t pay extra.

I’m terrible at explaining things, so that may still be confusing.

I think it does. Another phrasing is, the outgoing team pays the cost, but the incoming team must recognize the players salary as higher having received the bonus. Accordingly the cap and tax considerations are based on the higher salary number of the incoming player.

[NYG]

Cole Anthony and Gary Harris?

[Scoot McGroot]

I hadn't realized the kickers don't count against the cap. That makes a big difference. It's still real money though. They can wait until the summer and spend $4M in non-cap money to get off the remaining $40M.

The team trading a player with a trade kicker are responsible for the full cash payment. Washington would pay the cash. Kuzma’s cap number would then rise to account for the kicker payment correspondingly for his remaining years. However, the new team wouldn’t pay extra.

I’m terrible at explaining things, so that may still be confusing.

Yeah, I read that the kicker doesn't count against the cap. If the new team has to account for the kicker payments against their cap, even if the Wizards are making them, then they have an incentive not to agree unless he waives. Of course, if it's a cheap owner, maybe the preference is to have ficticious payments on the books rather than real ones.

Yup. This is my thought here. Mostly, cash is king, so I think that owners would be happy just to not have to pay that payment.

[NYG]

I kind of like Kuzma, Poole, Holmes and Valanciunas for Nurkic and Beal, but it would need to involve other teams to work cap-wise as salary-wise...

Poole + Kuzma > Beal
and
Holmes + Valanciunas > Nurkic

..and Phoenix is hard capped.

[jbk1234]

The team trading a player with a trade kicker are responsible for the full cash payment. Washington would pay the cash. Kuzma’s cap number would then rise to account for the kicker payment correspondingly for his remaining years. However, the new team wouldn’t pay extra.

I’m terrible at explaining things, so that may still be confusing.

Yeah, I read that the kicker doesn't count against the cap. If the new team has to account for the kicker payments against their cap, even if the Wizards are making them, then they have an incentive not to agree unless he waives. Of course, if it's a cheap owner, maybe the preference is to have ficticious payments on the books rather than real ones.

Yup. This is my thought here. Mostly, cash is king, so I think that owners would be happy just to not have to pay that payment.

I assume a tax paying team would still have to pay the actual taxes (which could eclipse the actual amount of the kicker). This does create a loophole for the cheaper owners after the union negotiated to make sure they actually spend more. Frankly, the receiving team should be on the hook for all of it.

[Texas Chuck]

the reason the trading team is on the hook for it is because they are the team that negotiated the kicker in. Which means they got something else of value in exchange for the kicker.