Sign & Trade Question - RE: Indiana Deal

vct33 · Post #1 » by **vct33** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:56 am

Can multiple players be Signed & Traded by the same team in the same deal? I'm asking because I wondered if Indiana could sign and trade both Daniels and Nesterovic in the same deal.

If we could get Marquis & Rasho for a total of under $6mil per year in exchange for Scals & TA, that might be a strong move.

No1CeltsFan · Post #2 » by **No1CeltsFan** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:59 am

Yea, I think so.

SonicYouth34 · Post #3 » by **SonicYouth34** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:20 am

I believe sign and trade deals are only player for player.

vct33 · Post #4 » by **vct33** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:28 am

SonicYouth34 wrote:I believe sign and trade deals are only player for player.

Yeah, I kinda remember reading that before. That's why I was asking. I think you're right.

Post #5 » by **ParticleMan** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:49 am

I don't think there's any limit. You can trade as many players as you like in a sign and trade. It's when you use a trade exception that you can only use it on 1 player.

indy_dave00 · Post #6 » by **indy_dave00** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 3:14 am

If they wanted the Pacers could send someone with Daniels for example Travis Diener a back up pg, Because Daniels is not coming off his rookie contract there are no base year compansation rules.

Heard that there is a chance Diener is included and part of reason Pacers will wait till Earl Watson officially signs before making the Daniels trade. He has a 1 year 1.7 mil contract.

Hemingway · Post #7 » by **Hemingway** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:48 am

The thing I don't understand is the motivation on Indy's part. Why would they want to do a sign and trade where they don't get anything good as opposed to just doing nothing? MD is already off their books right? So they can't save any money, only add some in the form of guys like Scal and our young guys. Also why do we want to ship out pieces that might prove useful just to pay someone more money? I know we would than have the LLE for a pg but than we wouldn't have expiring contracts to trade.

This whole thing puzzles me a bit. And I am a man who enjoys a good puzzle.

cinful · Post #8 » by **cinful** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:29 am

Hemingway wrote:The thing I don't understand is the motivation on Indy's part. Why would they want to do a sign and trade where they don't get anything good as opposed to just doing nothing? MD is already off their books right? So they can't save any money, only add some in the form of guys like Scal and our young guys. Also why do we want to ship out pieces that might prove useful just to pay someone more money? I know we would than have the LLE for a pg but than we wouldn't have expiring contracts to trade.

This whole thing puzzles me a bit. And I am a man who enjoys a good puzzle.

A number of possible motivations for Indy. First, if they could help Marquis out, I think they would like to do that. Secondly, theres been talk that a 2nd rounder would also be headed to Indy-they would like that. Also, cash considerations going to Indy have been mentioned. Considering the Pacers financial position, that would be fairly appealing-in effect, the Celtics give the Pacers a player or two and then pay their salaries for the year. So they are like freebies, versus the Pacers having to pay the guys if they just signed them to regular deals. Lastly, Indy would then have some expirings that they could possibly use at the deadline.

As for why Boston might do it rather than sign Marquis signing the LLE. Though its been stated publicly that he will do that, that very well could be a bit of pressure being applied to Indy in an effort to get them to consummate the deal. You have to believe Marquis could probably get a better deal from other contenders, and therefore would prefer to get paid a bit better than the LLE. And then as you mentioned, Boston can possibly use the LLE on something else, though I get this feeling Diener may be coming your way in the deal as well-in which case you wouldnt need to use the LLE on a backup pg.

vct33 · Post #9 » by **vct33** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:18 am

Another reason for Boston would do it would be to lock Daniels up for a multi-year deal. I'm sure he's only willing to take the LLE for a 1-year deal. Maybe Ainge likes him enough that he'd like to lock him in for three years. This can be accomplished via the S&T.

Post #10 » by **Darth Celtic** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:22 am

sign and trade daniels for ta, then sign and trade rasho for scal.

not sure rasho would do it to be 5th big man in deep rotation.

cinful · Post #11 » by **cinful** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:32 am

Darth Celtic wrote:sign and trade daniels for ta, then sign and trade rasho for scal.

not sure rasho would do it to be 5th big man in deep rotation.

from a salary standpoint it likely would be the other way around, but nevertheless I could see where Rasho could be a part of the scenario, as well.v

cfan79 · Post #12 » by **cfan79** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:46 am

yep, Nesterovic's on my list of possible bigs we could get. He's a much better option then Robert Swift.

(here's some of the players I'd talk to)

Joe Smith, Nesterovic, Gooden, Wilcox, Baby, Ben Wallace, S.Swift

Red2 · Post #13 » by **Red2** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:14 am

believe it or not I like scal more than nasto.Nasterovic is big but that's about it.

cfan79 · Post #14 » by **cfan79** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:24 am

Red2 wrote:believe it or not I like scal more than nasto.Nasterovic is big but that's about it.

Is it the red hair? I just don't see why you like him. Sure Nesty isn't the best, but we don't need him to do much. I'd just be happy if he gets in his opponents way.

cfan79 · Post #15 » by **cfan79** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:30 am

I think we are possibly getting Tinsley in the deal. That would make much more sense.

Scala, Tony and filler

for

Daniels and Tinsley

vct33 · Post #16 » by **vct33** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:46 am

cfan79 wrote:I think we are possibly getting Tinsley in the deal. That would make much more sense.

Scala, Tony and filler

for

Daniels and Tinsley

I'd consider that if we are paying TInsley a fraction of his current salary.

cfan79 · Post #17 » by **cfan79** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:49 am

vct33 wrote:
I'd consider that if we are paying TInsley a fraction of his current salary.

He's definitely overpaid, but he's got some decent numbers. We'd probably have to throw Pruitt into the deal to make it work.

Dave_From_NB · Post #18 » by **Dave_From_NB** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:08 pm

cfan79 wrote:
vct33 wrote:
I'd consider that if we are paying TInsley a fraction of his current salary.

He's definitely overpaid, but he's got some decent numbers. We'd probably have to throw Pruitt into the deal to make it work.

Unless the Pacers are throwing $30 mil in to pay for him or a couple of first round picks, no way the Celtics take Tinsley. The guy has immense negative value.

GregB · Post #19 » by **GregB** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:11 pm

Dave_From_NB wrote:
cfan79 wrote:
vct33 wrote:
I'd consider that if we are paying TInsley a fraction of his current salary.

He's definitely overpaid, but he's got some decent numbers. We'd probably have to throw Pruitt into the deal to make it work.

Unless the Pacers are throwing $30 mil in to pay for him or a couple of first round picks, no way the Celtics take Tinsley. The guy has immense negative value.

Exactly, Tinsley is pretty much untradeable. Did he even play last year?

celtxman · Post #20 » by **celtxman** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:59 pm

vct33 wrote:Another reason for Boston would do it would be to lock Daniels up for a multi-year deal. I'm sure he's only willing to take the LLE for a 1-year deal. Maybe Ainge likes him enough that he'd like to lock him in for three years. This can be accomplished via the S&T.

If they can get Daniels for around $3 million per and get his Bird rights with a sign and trade that would be a good scenario. Maybe the Celts take the $1.9 million biannual offer it to Marbury and he accepts the gesture to stay.