Trying to clear something up (Salary)

Post #1 » by **Manhattan Project** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:23 am

For a while I have read that the Wizards would be flirting with moving down in the draft due to luxury tax implications. Currently the luxury tax is 71.5 million and the Wizards are on the books for just under 76 million dollars.

Is it even remotely possible that the Wizards use their draft pick to shed a contract or just move down in the draft to save money? Or has this been blown out of proportion and is more fabrication then truth? I apologize if this topic has been beaten to death.

spaceman_E · Post #2 » by **spaceman_E** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:39 am

It is what we as fans fear the most, given that we sold our 2nd rounder last year and we only have 1 roster opening this season. Abe Pollin, the owner, has already stated he doesn't want to pay the tax but is willing for the chance at a winner. I see that as we are much more likely to trade down(or trade out altogether) if we don't land a top 2 pick and a shot at Griff or Rubio. We have Etan Thomas, Mike James, Deshawn Stevenson, and Darius Songaila all on the block while we'd be looking for an upgrade at SG or perhaps a quality backup at PG that could play alongside Gil at times.

Post #3 » by **Manhattan Project** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:06 am

spaceman_E wrote:It is what we as fans fear the most, given that we sold our 2nd rounder last year and we only have 1 roster opening this season. Abe Pollin, the owner, has already stated he doesn't want to pay the tax but is willing for the chance at a winner. I see that as we are much more likely to trade down(or trade out altogether) if we don't land a top 2 pick and a shot at Griff or Rubio. We have Etan Thomas, Mike James, Deshawn Stevenson, and Darius Songaila all on the block while we'd be looking for an upgrade at SG or perhaps a quality backup at PG that could play alongside Gil at times.

It's ironic, but would a Larry Hughes entering his contract year interest the Wizards? We all know how much him and Arenas get along, plus there is familiarity among them. Obviously it would take a lot more then just Hughes. Possibly the Knicks could take Thomas or James in addition to either Stevenson or Songaila. Knicks throw in some cash.

However coming from a fan perspective I can't see that going over well at all. Shedding some salary and trading away a lottery pick would be something hard to swallow.

Post #4 » by **nate33** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:31 am

The best NY deal I can come up with is:

New York trades: L.Hughes (EC) + M.Sene (EC) + #8 pick
Washington trades: E.Thomas (EC) + M.James (EC) + D.Stevenson (2011 contract) + #3 pick

That takes full advantage of the 125% Exemption, saving the Wizards $5.3M this year and $5.0M next year (factoring the savings of picking lower). It also gives them a solid veteran SG to rent for a season. The Wizards could probably buy out Sene or give him to another team and save another $800K next year.

This is the kind of deal that might make sense for the Wizards if Curry or Evans was still on the board at #8.

Post #5 » by **LyricalRico** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:31 am

nate33 wrote:This is the kind of deal that might make sense for the Wizards if Curry or Evans was still on the board at #8.

Who are you assuming we've taken at #3? Cuz NY would have to really that player to cut into their 2010 cap room, both by taking on Stevenson and getting a larger rookie contract. Thabeet is the only name that would make sense in this scenario.

And even if they did like Thabeet, it would probably make more sense for NY to stand pat and take a PG of the future at #8. At the very least they can get Lawson or Flynn. Then maybe they get lucky with Sene and have their shot blocker, too.

Post #6 » by **Manhattan Project** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:53 am

What about Mobley? He has a contract that is going to be expiring and probably is partially covered by insurance. Its unknown whether its the standard insurance because of the preexisting heart conditions, but still that would save even more money.

As far as who the Knicks would take I think it would be one of the four of Griffin, Rubio, Harden or Jennings.

Post #7 » by **LyricalRico** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:18 am

Manhattan Project wrote:What about Mobley? He has a contract that is going to be expiring and probably is partially covered by insurance. Its unknown whether its the standard insurance because of the preexisting heart conditions, but still that would save even more money.

As far as who the Knicks would take I think it would be one of the four of Griffin, Rubio, Harden or Jennings.

Isn't Mobley retired? Yes, his deal would still be on your books but you can't trade him if he's no longer with the team (or in the league for that matter).

And if you're after Harden and/or Jennings, I'm guessing that one of them will be available at #8. The earliest either of them goes is #6 IMO and even that's debatable.

Post #8 » by **nate33** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:31 am

LyricalRico wrote:
nate33 wrote:This is the kind of deal that might make sense for the Wizards if Curry or Evans was still on the board at #8.

Who are you assuming we've taken at #3? Cuz NY would have to really that player to cut into their 2010 cap room, both by taking on Stevenson and getting a larger rookie contract. Thabeet is the only name that would make sense in this scenario.

And even if they did like Thabeet, it would probably make more sense for NY to stand pat and take a PG of the future at #8. At the very least they can get Lawson or Flynn. Then maybe they get lucky with Sene and have their shot blocker, too.

I don't disagree. I'm not saying my proposal is something the Knicks would do. I'm just saying that's what it would take to trade down.

fishercob · Post #9 » by **fishercob** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:33 am

Using the pick to somehow pare salary isn't out of the realm of possibility, but given the fact that The Wiz had the opportunity to dump Jamison for an expiring at the deadline and chose not to, I think it's doubtful. Grunfeld is dying to see what the team he constructed can do with everyone healthy; he'll have some opportunity to strengthen that team this summer. While he wont completely ignore the financial implications of his moves (i.e. trading expirings and the pick for Bosh or Amare likely wont happen), money is likely not going to be the primary driver of anything he does.

TiKusDom · Post #10 » by **TiKusDom** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:22 pm

Why would you take on hughges in such a horrible pick exchange?

The Raptors easily swallow stevensons + songalia's contracts and you dont have to get anything significant contractually wise from us. 9th pick + any fillers you want for Songalia + Stevenson+ Rubio and any other contracts you may want to dump . Obviously the Raptors only take this salary cap hit only if they get Rubio who they want as their PG of the future.

Benjammin · Post #11 » by **Benjammin** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:38 pm

TiKusDom wrote:Why would you take on hughges in such a horrible pick exchange?

The Raptors easily swallow stevensons + songalia's contracts and you dont have to get anything significant contractually wise from us. 9th pick + any fillers you want for Songalia + Stevenson+ Rubio and any other contracts you may want to dump . Obviously the Raptors only take this salary cap hit only if they get Rubio who they want as their PG of the future.

The discussion regarding the Knicks assumed the 3rd pick in the draft. Rubio would mean the Wizards have the second pick. Clearly, the value for the 2nd pick is much higher with teams wanting Rubio than the 3rd pick unless another player emerges who is considered equally valuable.

Post #12 » by **nate33** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:16 pm

TiKusDom wrote:Why would you take on hughges in such a horrible pick exchange?

The Raptors easily swallow stevensons + songalia's contracts and you dont have to get anything significant contractually wise from us. 9th pick + any fillers you want for Songalia + Stevenson+ Rubio and any other contracts you may want to dump . Obviously the Raptors only take this salary cap hit only if they get Rubio who they want as their PG of the future.

Obviously, the Wizards would look at all offers. That Toronto offer is also something that would appeal to Ernie Grunfeld. But as Benjammin pointed out, that Toronto offer is based on the Wizards landing the #2 pick. Does Toronto have any interest in trading up to the #3 or #4 pick? Obviously, they wouldn't give up as much, but would they give up anything? Would they, for example, trade the #9 for the #3 plus Stevenson?

Post #13 » by **nate33** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:20 pm

fishercob wrote:Using the pick to somehow pare salary isn't out of the realm of possibility, but given the fact that The Wiz had the opportunity to dump Jamison for an expiring at the deadline and chose not to, I think it's doubtful.

Apples and oranges. Jamison is viewed as the leader of the team an integral cog to the Wizards' success. As Dat2U puts it, he's the "great leader of men". There's a big difference between trading Jamison for cap relief and trading some raw, unknown rookie for cap relief.

I think the general consensus is right. The Wizards won't trade the #1 pick because Griffin is potentially a franchise player, but any pick below that will be on the table if the trade brings back some salary relief. Obviously, the best result would be to get some salary relief while also adding some talent.

pad300 · Post #14 » by **pad300** » Fri May 1, 2009 11:01 pm

How much would you be interested in clearing cap without giving up a first. Specifically, would you be interested in trading Haywood?
Consider SAS trades - Bowen (partial guarantee at 2$ million), Oberto (partial guarantee at 1.9 million) for Haywood + filler (who's contracts don't last past 2010...They would take Stevenson for example if you could guarantee that he would take his 2010 ETO. Alternatively McGuire and Crittendon fit as well - I am assuming you don't want to give up Pecherov, McGee, or Young...).

Assuming the Haywood/McGuire/Crittendon package, you would cut 3.8 million from your cap in 09 and 7.6 in 2010.

Post #15 » by **nate33** » Fri May 1, 2009 11:20 pm

pad300 wrote:How much would you be interested in clearing cap without giving up a first. Specifically, would you be interested in trading Haywood?
Consider SAS trades - Bowen (partial guarantee at 2$ million), Oberto (partial guarantee at 1.9 million) for Haywood + filler (who's contracts don't last past 2010...They would take Stevenson for example if you could guarantee that he would take his 2010 ETO. Alternatively McGuire and Crittendon fit as well - I am assuming you don't want to give up Pecherov, McGee, or Young...).

Assuming the Haywood/McGuire/Crittendon package, you would cut 3.8 million from your cap in 09 and 7.6 in 2010.

No. Haywood is untouchable.

Benjammin · Post #16 » by **Benjammin** » Sat May 2, 2009 1:23 am

nate33 wrote:
pad300 wrote:How much would you be interested in clearing cap without giving up a first. Specifically, would you be interested in trading Haywood?
Consider SAS trades - Bowen (partial guarantee at 2$ million), Oberto (partial guarantee at 1.9 million) for Haywood + filler (who's contracts don't last past 2010...They would take Stevenson for example if you could guarantee that he would take his 2010 ETO. Alternatively McGuire and Crittendon fit as well - I am assuming you don't want to give up Pecherov, McGee, or Young...).

Assuming the Haywood/McGuire/Crittendon package, you would cut 3.8 million from your cap in 09 and 7.6 in 2010.

No. Haywood is untouchable.

Or at least darn near untouchable, unless it's an amazing offer. Without Haywood this past season, the Wizards learned how much they rely on Haywood to help them be below average defensively rather than absolutely putrid defensively. Haywood for the Wizards is the key to their defense on a very reasonable contract (although it will expire in 2010). There are a number of ways for the Wizards to shed cap without giving up their best defensive player.

closg00 · Post #17 » by **closg00** » Sat May 2, 2009 1:30 am

^^^^^^
..or there could be a scenario in-which we draft Thabeet at 3 and are unable to make a trade that we like. Suddenly, Haywood walking away after his contract is up, might be a temptation for a GM who over-paid for Gilbert and Jamison.

dagger · Post #18 » by **dagger** » Sun May 3, 2009 10:53 pm

nate33 wrote:
TiKusDom wrote:Why would you take on hughges in such a horrible pick exchange?

The Raptors easily swallow stevensons + songalia's contracts and you dont have to get anything significant contractually wise from us. 9th pick + any fillers you want for Songalia + Stevenson+ Rubio and any other contracts you may want to dump . Obviously the Raptors only take this salary cap hit only if they get Rubio who they want as their PG of the future.

Obviously, the Wizards would look at all offers. That Toronto offer is also something that would appeal to Ernie Grunfeld. But as Benjammin pointed out, that Toronto offer is based on the Wizards landing the #2 pick. Does Toronto have any interest in trading up to the #3 or #4 pick? Obviously, they wouldn't give up as much, but would they give up anything? Would they, for example, trade the #9 for the #3 plus Stevenson?

We - Toronto - are in a position to take more salary than we give up in a trade, because we don't have a ton of cap space but will be nowhere near the tax. Any Toronto fan who says a trade has to be for pick #2 is blowing smoke, because we have a perfectly good point guard who played hurt this season, so Rubio is only a fantasy pick. Most of our fans have never seen him play. They didn't get up at 4 in the morning to watch the Olympics. Until workouts begin, it's impossible to say whether there is a SF or SG we'd want badly enough to move up to, say, #3 or #4 in a pick swap where we take back a bit more salary. We're so weak at the SF and SG spots that even Nick Young might be an interesting sweetener in some kind of package that trims salary. We also don't know Chris Bosh's intentions - despite what the US media says, he might want to sign and extension and force a trade in 2011. So we could end up trading him. If I was Grunfeld, I'd certainly be exchanging emails and phone calls with Bryan Colangelo because there is much that we can do for each other. Admittedly, what we can do for you is more along the lines of trimming what could be a $9 million tax bill on top of a $79 million player payroll. That's pretty damn rich, even for Abe Pollin.

pad300 · Post #19 » by **pad300** » Mon May 4, 2009 10:34 pm

Benjammin wrote:
nate33 wrote:No. Haywood is untouchable.

Or at least darn near untouchable, unless it's an amazing offer. Without Haywood this past season, the Wizards learned how much they rely on Haywood to help them be below average defensively rather than absolutely putrid defensively. Haywood for the Wizards is the key to their defense on a very reasonable contract (although it will expire in 2010). There are a number of ways for the Wizards to shed cap without giving up their best defensive player.

Interesting, I am surprised to find you so attached to Haywood. While he is a good player, which is why I am interested, as Benjammin pointed out, he expires in 2010. He's a UFA after next season. In 2010, Shamports estimates your commitment to be roughly 60 Million, assuming you cut loose Crittendon (who hasn't panned out yet). That's before 2010 and 2011 picks, as well as with only 9 contracts on the roster (assuming Crittendon cut loose, and the 2010 and 2011 picks unsigned). Your not going to have a lot of money to resign Haywood... Who if he's up to 07/08 standards is getting more money in 2010. Unless you expect to contend in 09/10, why not trade Haywood for some value, rather than watch him walk away? While I can see an argument that cap relief isn't enough value, I don't see him being untouchable to team management...

Benjammin · Post #20 » by **Benjammin** » Mon May 4, 2009 10:49 pm

He's not untouchable, but his defensive impact for a poor defensive team is very valuable. The Wizards have other ways to shed salary (as I mentioned before) without giving up arguably their second most important (notice I didn't say best) player. I think if the Wizards give Haywood a fair contract offer to extend his deal or when he is a free agent he's likely to stay with the team. In 2010 teams will be looking for front-line stars first with their cap dollars.