Golden State/San Antonio

Post #1 » by **gswhoops** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:13 am

Simple 1 for 1, Mickael Pietrus for Francisco Elson.

Warriors need another experienced big man who can contribute off the bench and Elson would fit the bill. Spurs expressed interest in the offseason in acquiring an athletic swingman who can play D and MP certainly qualifies.

Both have expiring contracts worth about $3M, so money shouldn't be an issue. Works straight up on the Checker.

Post #2 » by **loserX** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:19 am

Isn't Pietrus BYC? I see that the Checker works, but I don't see how.

Also, Elson is playing about 15MPG...not sure the Spurs can afford to give him up with no size coming back. And the additional $400K+ on Pietrus' deal puts them back in the luxury tax, which they have been giving away assets to avoid.

Post #3 » by **gswhoops** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:21 am

loserX wrote:Isn't Pietrus BYC? I see that the Checker works, but I don't see how.

Also, Elson is playing about 15MPG...not sure the Spurs can afford to give him up with no size coming back. And the additional $400K+ on Pietrus' deal puts them back in the luxury tax, which they have been giving away assets to avoid.

Ooh, the lux tax kinda kills it.

Whatever, it was worth a shot. For what it's worth, we'd be willing to take back Mahinmi too if San Antonio wanted

ss1986v2 · Post #4 » by **ss1986v2** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:26 am

the loss of elson isnt that big of a deal. he seems to be the odd man out this year (with bonner getting more and more minutes). but the luxury tax issue is a deal breaker. a half year rental of pietrus isnt worth his salary plus the loss of 3 mil or so in tax savings and reimbursements.

old rem · Post #5 » by **old rem** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:51 am

loserX wrote:Isn't Pietrus BYC? I see that the Checker works, but I don't see how.

Also, Elson is playing about 15MPG...not sure the Spurs can afford to give him up with no size coming back. And the additional $400K+ on Pietrus' deal puts them back in the luxury tax, which they have been giving away assets to avoid.

Pietrus is not BYC-that I'm pretty sure of. He's on qualifying offer. I'd think it's acceptable for GSW-but I don't think SA has the C depth to do it even if the $$$ stuff is not an issue.

old rem · Post #6 » by **old rem** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:58 am

When the Lux tax hit is "only" a few hundred Thou..that's not a big deal kill. You add (pro rated) a $300,000 boost to a payroll over $65 mill.....not a big crisis.

WarFan · Post #7 » by **WarFan** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:38 pm

I'm not 100% sure about this but I think that technically Pietrus is BYC because the QO (3.5 million) was more than a 20% raise of his previous salary of 2.5 million. However, unlike most BYC players his previous salary is greater than 50% of his new salary, so it's his old salary that is counted for trades. Since the difference isn't that large, it doesn't make a huge difference.

When the Lux tax hit is "only" a few hundred Thou..that's not a big deal kill. You add (pro rated) a $300,000 boost to a payroll over $65 mill.....not a big crisis.

Normally, this might be true, but when the "hit" causes the team to cross the tax threshold, they lose out on the shared revenue from all the teams that are over the tax (several million). That's why crossing the luxury tax line is a big deal, whereas once the team is over the line, yeah an extra $300,000 isn't that big a deal.

ss1986v2 · Post #8 » by **ss1986v2** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:46 pm

WarFan wrote:Normally, this might be true, but when the "hit" causes the team to cross the tax threshold, they lose out on the shared revenue from all the teams that are over the tax (several million). That's why crossing the luxury tax line is a big deal, whereas once the team is over the line, yeah an extra $300,000 isn't that big a deal.

warfan is right on this one, its not the extra 300k that is the deal breaker, its the fact that that extra money would push the spurs into the luxury tax, costing them just under 3 mil in tax reimbursements IIRC. that is a deal breaker.

killbuckner · Post #9 » by **killbuckner** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:06 pm

Pietrus isn't BYC. BYC is only when you use bird rights to give a player a large raise.

Post #10 » by **loserX** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:34 pm

killbuckner wrote:Pietrus isn't BYC. BYC is only when you use bird rights to give a player a large raise.

Thanks. The Trade Checker for some reason has him LISTED as BYC, but doesn't use it in the calculation. That's why I was confused.

And old rem, the others are right...they get $3M for being OUT of the tax. Taking on Pietrus' extra $400K means they get $300K into the tax...double that and add $3M and it means they're paying $3.7M more than they are now, which they won't.

Look at their transaction register for the year...Handed Scola to a division rival just to dump Jackie Butler. Gave money to the Wolves so THEY could buy out Udrih. They've been signing guys to unguaranteed contracts for 3 days at a time so they can then cut them and stay out of the tax. Obviously it's a big priority for them this year.

Post #11 » by **FNQ** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:31 pm

Could the deal be possible as a 3 way w/MIL?

Pietrus / Voskuhl / Elson? Spurs get a 2nd rounder from GS for the trouble?

Or it could Pietrus/CV/Elson, with the Spurs getting CV and the Bucks getting the 2nd from GS?

Elson would be great here..

killacalijatt · Post #12 » by **killacalijatt** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:20 am

Id rather have a Pietrus for Berry trade Instead.

4ho5ive · Post #13 » by **4ho5ive** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:02 am

Didnt the Spurs already get the athletic swingman who plays D this offseason in Ime Udoka??? Pietrus seems kinda unnecessary.

the southern dandy · Post #14 » by **the southern dandy** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:23 am

I don't see the point for the spurs to do this. Pietrus is a low IQ bball player who probably wouldn't be able to grasp the offensive system in time for him to be useful in the half a year he would be in SA. Elson may be out of the rotation now, but he is an athletic big who can help us in certain matchups.