Why getting a good player for very little is now possible

Gant · Post #1 » by **Gant** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:21 pm

When thinking of trades right now, give up all your previous notions of matching talent for equal talent. This no longer applies in all cases. Many owners around the league are in peril financially. They don't care about winning; all they care about is dumping salary. There are teams that will dump talent for cost savings now, especially teams that have no chance for the playoffs.

What DOES apply is matching and expiring salaries. Unfortunately the Celtics don't have much of either since most of their money is locked up in three guys.

But they do have some salaries that end next season like Scal at 3.2 and Tony Allen at 2.5, so those two alone can get you a guy making 7.1 this year. Add O'Bryant and Giddens and you can get a guy making over 10 and still barely lose anyone from the current rotation.

Add a third team to the mix and you can get all sorts of deals done.

So if a team has a long term guy they absolutely need to get rid of, the Celtics can still make them an offer that will save them money. It might be an ugly offer but if you're desperate enough to save money it might be good enough.

These are not normal times we are living in. By that I mean, for many owners winning is not as important as surviving.

Because of the salary restraints deals are very hard to do for Boston but not impossible.

These are surreal times and strange unfair lopsided deals could easily happen. You thought the Chandler deal yesterday was ugly? You thought the Pau Gasol trade was ugly? Well there's more ugly still to come.

Maybe the Celtics can take advantage.

BillessuR6 · Post #2 » by **BillessuR6** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:38 pm

If we had, expirings sure. But we don`t. And who would make a 5-1 or 4-1 trade?

Besides, Tony is a BYC player and his contract is only worth half in trades...

Bad-Thoma · Post #3 » by **Bad-Thoma** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:49 pm

Frighteningly enough I think you are dead on Gant. It's bound to be an interesting 24 hours around the league, and should the economy rebound there will be some interesting repercussions for the panic inspired decisions that may occur. Should the economy continue on it's current slow downward spiral I have the feeling we'll have bigger things to worry about next year than what Danny is going to do at the trade deadline, but for now I'm glad our team is one of the lucrative big market teams and we don't have to watch the cap cutting scramble that some of the smaller market's fans may have to endure. My heart goes out to them (starting with N.O. already), but I'm glad I'm not one of them.

Larry Joe Bird · Post #4 » by **Larry Joe Bird** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:17 pm

Some teams simply want to dump contracts and take on contracts that will expire in one year (e.g., Brad Miller's contract) to prepare for the big free agent season in 2010.

ryaningf · Post #5 » by **ryaningf** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:18 pm

Gant, I think you make a good point about the panic deals to come in the next 48 hours, only I don't think the Cs figure very much in how those deals go down. We don't have expiring contracts, we have a bunch of minimum guys, 3 low-priced veterans, and 5 untouchables. However, once the deadline passes, I think we're going to see a rush to buyout some pretty impressive veterans and I think once that happens you see the Cs at the forefront of those deals, getting Marbury (who I think will finally sit down with the Knicks and work something out) and Mystery Player X, and possibly cutting POB to make it work. To me, this financial crisis has the non-winning owners looking to shave money off the payroll wherever possible, and since we wisely sat out the free agent sweepstakes last summer, not only are we going to be in a position to capitalize on this crisis in the next couple weeks, I also think we're going to be in a great position come summer time. Once again, Danny has foreseen the market in advance and played his cards accordingly.

Hemingway · Post #6 » by **Hemingway** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:24 pm

It would have to be for a very marginal star with a very long term contract. It would have to basically be a situation where no one else wants whoever we are getting. You are right Gany in that it can happen, but off the top of my head I cant think of a situation where it all would work out.

FakeScreenName123 · Post #7 » by **FakeScreenName123** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:26 pm

thebirdman wrote:If we had, expirings sure. But we don`t. And who would make a 5-1 or 4-1 trade?

Besides, Tony is a BYC player and his contract is only worth half in trades...

+1.

We're not trading for anyone. We're going to sign stephon and thats it.

CelticFaninLBC · Post #8 » by **CelticFaninLBC** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:30 pm

The big beneficiaries will be teams with large expiring contracts like Portland, Cleveland and Chicago. If Boston gets anyone it will be someone signed for 3 years like Nick Collison, Mo Pete or Jeff Foster...

Dogen · Post #9 » by **Dogen** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:52 pm

FakeScreenName123 wrote:
thebirdman wrote:If we had, expirings sure. But we don`t. And who would make a 5-1 or 4-1 trade?

Besides, Tony is a BYC player and his contract is only worth half in trades...

+1.

We're not trading for anyone. We're going to sign stephon and thats it.

I think it's going to be more than Starbury. But heck, that's pretty good since we get a quality player-- albeit a headcase-- at discount pricing. Very Ainge.

If a trade doesn't go down tomorrow (I Still say we end up with Collison), then there will be blood-- er, I mean buyouts coming around before the 3/2/09 playoff roster deadline. We'll get another big w/experience I think. Not somebaody great, but serviceable.

And if nothing else happens, like I said Marbury could be a significant scorer/distributor/handler off the bench. That right there is huge. Plus, Baby and Powe have been pretty good and are getting more experience through the year.

FakeScreenName123 · Post #10 » by **FakeScreenName123** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:02 pm

oh yeah, i think signing marbury is a great move and im all for it. High reward-low risk players are the best.

but don't expect Marcus Camby walking through that door.

BakersDozen · Post #11 » by **BakersDozen** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:18 pm

I was thinking Nocioni. Not quite as good defensivly as Posey,but he would hustle like all hell and could fill in spot minutes at the 4 much like Pose did.... then I saw he was signed for 4 more years.

celt4ever · Post #12 » by **celt4ever** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:48 pm

BakersDozen wrote:I was thinking Nocioni. Not quite as good defensivly as Posey,but he would hustle like all hell and could fill in spot minutes at the 4 much like Pose did.... then I saw he was signed for 4 more years.

mmmmmmm i lke the idea of nocioni but the only way we get him is tradin scalabrine, t. alle and house. i don't like the idea of loosing house in the playoff

Pogue Mahone · Post #13 » by **Pogue Mahone** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:14 pm

thebirdman wrote:Besides, Tony is a BYC player and his contract is only worth half in trades...

While that is generally true, there is an exception. When a player is signed to greater than 20% of his previous year's salary, he becomes a Base Year Compensation player. That will last until the last day of the season (June 30th) or six months ... whichever is later. The other sticking point is that, for trade purposes of a BYC player, the salary will be determined by previous year salary or 50% of the current year's salary ... whichever is greater.

Tony Allen made $1,868,141 last season. That is greater than $1,250,000 (50% of 2009 compensation.) For trade purposes, Tony Allen counts as $1,868,141.

BillessuR6 · Post #14 » by **BillessuR6** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:36 pm

Pogue Mahone wrote:
While that is generally true, there is an exception. When a player is signed to greater than 20% of his previous year's salary, he becomes a Base Year Compensation player. That will last until the last day of the season (June 30th) or six months ... whichever is later. The other sticking point is that, for trade purposes of a BYC player, the salary will be determined by previous year salary or 50% of the current year's salary ... whichever is greater.

Tony Allen made $1,868,141 last season. That is greater than $1,250,000 (50% of 2009 compensation.) For trade purposes, Tony Allen counts as $1,868,141.

Thanks, Pogue, didn`t know that!

Post #15 » by **sully00** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:17 pm

FakeScreenName123 wrote:oh yeah, i think signing marbury is a great move and im all for it. High reward-low risk players are the best.

but don't expect Marcus Camby walking through that door.

Unless Camby is bought out.

Right now GM's are making basketball deals with an eye towards the finances. tomorrow around 2:30pm ownership steps in and the financial deals start to happen. If teams think making deals for $350,000 are worth while imagine what saving a million here or there will mean.

greenbeans · Post #16 » by **greenbeans** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:24 pm

Giddens + 3mil to LAC for a protected 2nd with a wink wink that the 3mil goes to a Camby buyout.

[/pipedream]

BakersDozen · Post #17 » by **BakersDozen** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:29 pm

thebirdman wrote:If we had, expirings sure. But we don`t. And who would make a 5-1 or 4-1 trade?

Besides, Tony is a BYC player and his contract is only worth half in trades...

the Al Jefferson/Ryan Gomes/Gerald Green/Sebastian Telfair/Theo Ratlif/ 2 first rounders deal wave hello

haha.... i see what your saying though. not exactly the norm.

enzino · Post #18 » by **enzino** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:29 pm

few options, assuming we wonna get a 3/4 type player:
- boris diaw or g.wallace (a dream), corey maggette
- nocioni himself (still could be traded alone)
- jarvis hayes
- devean george- shane battier
- rickey davis
- marko jaric
- morris peterson, james posey...
- joey graham
- matt harpring (but his contract, expiring in the famous summer 2010 is too valuable)