Nick Young traded to Clippers/McGee to Denver/Nene to DC

tontoz · Post #741 » by **tontoz** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:43 pm

WizarDynasty wrote:i personally think an inshape blatche is a huge asset for the wizards. Unlike McGee and Young, Blatche has a high BBIQ

Couldn't read any more after that due to uncontrolled spasms of laughter.

Post #742 » by **Ruzious** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:45 pm

tontoz wrote:
WizarDynasty wrote:i personally think an inshape blatche is a huge asset for the wizards. Unlike McGee and Young, Blatche has a high BBIQ

Couldn't read any more after that due to uncontrolled spasms of laughter.

This is as far as I got:

"i personally think an inshape blatche is a huge ass"

MDStar · Post #743 » by **MDStar** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:54 pm

Ruzious wrote:
tontoz wrote:
WizarDynasty wrote:i personally think an inshape blatche is a huge asset for the wizards. Unlike McGee and Young, Blatche has a high BBIQ

Couldn't read any more after that due to uncontrolled spasms of laughter.

This is as far as I got:

"i personally think an inshape blatche is a huge ass"

+1

I completely skipped the rest. Sorry.

thinker07 · Post #744 » by **thinker07** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:57 pm

Nivek wrote:
thinker07 wrote:I have not seen this discussed, but I think people are misinterpreting how Lewis' contract works. I believe (but am definitely not sure) that going into next year, Lewis' contract is for $23.79 million. Only $13.7 million of that is guaranteed. But if the Wiz keep him for the year, at a certain date the full amount will become guaranteed. So I believe that the Wizards ultimately have to pay the $13.7 mil in some fashion AND have to cut him before some vesting date otherwise they'd be on the hook for the full amount - as would any team trading for him or assuming his contract.

The non-guaranteed portion of Lewis's contract are for things like his team making the NBA Finals, for making All-NBA -- that sort of thing. At least that's what I've been told by someone who I'm certain knows the details of Lewis's contract.

I get that those would be other factors that would cause the remaining $10 mil or so to become guaranteed PRIOR to next season. I believe that those conditions relate to guarantees NOT to the amount of the contract. Again, I think that if the Wiz keep him next year for the entire year, they would have to pay him the full $23.79 mil.

Post #745 » by **Ruzious** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:00 pm

Thinker, why do you think that?

MDStar · Post #746 » by **MDStar** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:20 pm

Wait, does only the guaranteed portion of his salary count against the cap? I only asked because what if the incentives were realistic, like play all 82 games or something. Where would the rest of the money be accounted at? I'm confused by this.

Nivek · Post #747 » by **Nivek** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:25 pm

Only "likely to be earned" incentives count against the cap. The league office determines what's likely and what isn't, but their criterion is that the player reached the benchmark in the preceding season. If a player earns a bonus that had been deemed "unlikely," the bonus gets added to total team salary at the end of the season and is included in the luxury tax calculations.

thinker07 · Post #748 » by **thinker07** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:26 pm

Ruzious wrote:Thinker, why do you think that?

I believe that the way people are discussing Lewis' contract would make those items (NBA Finals, etc.) "escalators" -- i.e. the contract raises in value based on performance. NFL contracts definitely are often structured with all kinds of conditions if met increase the base amount. I think that the way most NBA contracts work though is that the contract amount is set and those "escalators" generally just raise the amount of the guarantee -- NOT the base amount - and generally only in the last year of the contract. Every year around December and January NBA teams start to cut players before their contracts become fully guaranteed for the year. So it's obviously common for NBA contracts to have a term when the guarantee "vests."

I think Lewis would likely have a contract like mostly everyone has - everything guaranteed. As a concession when he was negotiating his contract years ago, the team got a little protection in the last year -- where the contract is not fully guaranteed - or partially guaranteed based on meeting certain performance measures along the way. It's quite common for baseball contracts have a team option with a buyout in the last year. Again I don't know for sure, but I believe Lewis' contract would work more like a buyout in baseball - keep him and pay the full amount or pay him the buyout and cut him.

MDStar · Post #749 » by **MDStar** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:28 pm

Nivek wrote:Only "likely to be earned" incentives count against the cap. The league office determines what's likely and what isn't, but their criterion is that the player reached the benchmark in the preceding season. If a player earns a bonus that had been deemed "unlikely," the bonus gets added to total team salary at the end of the season and is included in the luxury tax calculations.

Thanks Kev.

Nivek · Post #750 » by **Nivek** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:36 pm

thinker -- I'm checking to see how the deal is structured. I might not get an answer because it's so specific. If the deal is structured the way you're thinking, then the Wiz would be smart to release Lewis and amnesty Blatche.

truwizfan4evr · Post #751 » by **truwizfan4evr** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:51 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTvvao1xK7Q . good luck Denver

thinker07 · Post #752 » by **thinker07** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:58 pm

Nivek wrote:thinker -- I'm checking to see how the deal is structured. I might not get an answer because it's so specific. If the deal is structured the way you're thinking, then the Wiz would be smart to release Lewis and amnesty Blatche.

Right. I think that the team will have to do that. I wanted to introduce the topic so we could figure out the cap situation going forward more accurately. I believe that if the Wiz can't dump Blatche then they'll have to amnesty him and buyout Lewis - resulting in a $13.7 mil charge on the cap next year.

Saqs · Post #753 » by **Saqs** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:24 pm

Listened to John Wall interview on 980. Sounds like he definitely approves of the trade and specifically said he likes having a reliable post man and that Javal was not that.

Not rocket science but interesting to hear it said in public by him.

Liverbird · Post #754 » by **Liverbird** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:30 pm

It would seem to me that considering the severity of the new luxury tax - Lewis' contract may be of value to teams interested in significantly reducing their cap number prior to 2014. If I were EG - I would start with those teams. The Bulls for example will be at $63M (shamsports) and will still need to resign Asik and T.Gibson + roster fillers. The Heat are candidates and so is Orlando (pending the Dwight/Anderson situation). I think EG should at minimum be able to at least haggle a 1st for Lewis from those teams.

dobrojim · Post #755 » by **dobrojim** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:34 pm

Anything we get back would be gravy. That said, a first from CHI or MIA is probably
going to be > 25th overall. Still technically a first and therefore, you have to pay
rookie scale/guaranteed. All the downsides of a first rnd pick without much of
the upside. That said, you never know who you might end up with.

thinker07 · Post #756 » by **thinker07** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:07 pm

Liverbird wrote:It would seem to me that considering the severity of the new luxury tax - Lewis' contract may be of value to teams interested in significantly reducing their cap number prior to 2014. If I were EG - I would start with those teams. The Bulls for example will be at $63M (shamsports) and will still need to resign Asik and T.Gibson + roster fillers. The Heat are candidates and so is Orlando (pending the Dwight/Anderson situation). I think EG should at minimum be able to at least haggle a 1st for Lewis from those teams.

The only way one can do a deal with Miami or Chicago that actually helps them is to take back more salary than we are sending. What purpose would there be for those teams to give us a pick to just take Lewis? These deals work when we take back a player(s) who would count more than $13.7 million next year -- then the other team could cut Lewis, pay him the guarantee and still be better off.

Liverbird · Post #757 » by **Liverbird** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:10 pm

dobrojim wrote:Anything we get back would be gravy. That said, a first from CHI or MIA is probably
going to be > 25th overall. Still technically a first and therefore, you have to pay
rookie scale/guaranteed. All the downsides of a first rnd pick without much of
the upside. That said, you never know who you might end up with.

Right. My line of thinking is that we may be able to obtain a good veteran player on a slightly longer contract for that price. For example - we may be able to trade of Luol Deng and his contract that runs one more year for Lewis (and before any of you jump on this suggestion, it is only an example). Again, my idea of needing to add quality players to the roster. I don't think it impacts our long term cap space to resign Wall et. al. I consider it the price of being "extremely sucky"...

Post #758 » by **nate33** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:45 pm

Chicago isn't giving up their second best player. It would have to be something like Lewis for Boozer - and we aren't doing that.

mhd · Post #759 » by **mhd** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:05 am

Blatche may be movable come draft day. It just depends if we get the 2nd pick. In a trade down, I'd want to be assured we'd get Beal.

Liverbird · Post #760 » by **Liverbird** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:27 am

nate33 wrote:Chicago isn't giving up their second best player. It would have to be something like Lewis for Boozer - and we aren't doing that.

That's right Nate. Chicago would/should never do that - I was using deng as an example of the type of contract/player we should target.

More realistically, perhaps Ben Gordon or Marvin Williams? Send Lewis back to Orlando for Hedo?

Anyway, the idea being to bring someone in with demonstrated skill on a contract 1 year longer who can contribute to building a proper team and not destroying our future cap.