Post#1571 » by Klomp » Thu Oct 9, 2025 3:48 am
I am trying to think outside the box in terms of trade machinations. Most of my thought process has long revolved around our most expendable assets being Randle, DiVincenzo, and Dillingham. However, the biggest hurdle I have struggled with is the fact that we are still over $8 million over the first apron. The key reason this matters is the ability to aggregate players. Right now, we have to either arrange trades perfectly to where every 1-for-1 swap is bringing in less salary than we are trading out or we have to make sure the incoming salary in any trade is $8,317,013 less than what is outgoing.
What I've started to think about tonight is to take advantage of trade exceptions. This keeps the same principles, but lessens the margins to worry about.
Here are current trade exceptions that could help facilitate a trade for Donte DiVincenzo:
Boston $22,531,707 - we'd have to be creative, they're only $7,842,511 below second apron
Utah $18,380,000
Miami $16,834,692
Detroit $14,104,000
Washington $13,445,122
New Orleans $13,445,122
New Orleans $13,016,200
Atlanta $13,101,561
Here are current trade exceptions that could help facilitate a trade for Rob Dillingham:
Any of the above, plus....
Washington $9,900,000
Cleveland $8,500,000
Philadelphia $7,975,000
Miami $7,763,122
Denver $6,880,985
Atlanta $6,700,000
Hypothetically, if you trade DiVincenzo into a trade exception, Randle and Dillingham could bring in as much as $41,113,305 in return salary without going back into the first apron territory. Funny enough, if you trade Rob Dillingham into a trade exception, the combined return for Randle and DiVincenzo would only have to be $1,740,893 less than their combined salary in order to avoid the second apron (which is also $41,113,305). That range covers many of the big name PGs we have discussed in this thread for a while.
To tie it all together, the $8,317,013 less than all three salaries combined is still the same $41,113,305 number you need if you are trading someone into a trade exception. So in a sense it's still the same deals, but it opens up different ways for it to come together.
I apologize, I'm aware I probably bored everyone here not named shrink....
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment