Summer Free Agency 2019 Part 4

[the_process]

If you combine the salaries of Neto, Korkmaz, and Bolden; the Sixers can take back up to 8.5M.

[51X3RF4N]

If you combine the salaries of Neto, Korkmaz, and Bolden; the Sixers can take back up to 8.5M.

That smells a lot like Saric, Okobo, and Bridges to me!

[ckchen]

If you combine the salaries of Neto, Korkmaz, and Bolden; the Sixers can take back up to 8.5M.

We see this type of aggregation comment/thinking a lot on this board - but there are probably very few teams that would be willing to absorb a 3-for-1 deal because logistically that means the team only has 13 players on their roster at the time of the trade, or would also have to waive at least one or more of their own players in order to process this type of trade, which they likely would have minimal incentive to do so unless you're throwing in a bunch of additional future assets (draft picks, etc)

i think this is more of a thought exercise than something that could ever actually happen. I'm pretty sure historically there has never been any kind of trade that aggregates a bunch of minimum contracts to match up with a single larger one. Maybe if one or more of those contracts were legitimate prospects/rookie types, none of which these really are.

[the_process]

If you combine the salaries of Neto, Korkmaz, and Bolden; the Sixers can take back up to 8.5M.

We see this type of aggregation comment/thinking a lot on this board - but there are probably very few teams that would be willing to absorb a 3-for-1 deal because logistically that means the team only has 13 players on their roster at the time of the trade, or would also have to waive at least one or more of their own players in order to process this type of trade, which they likely would have minimal incentive to do so unless you're throwing in a bunch of additional future assets (draft picks, etc)

i think this is more of a thought exercise than something that could ever actually happen. I'm pretty sure historically there has never been any kind of trade that aggregates a bunch of minimum contracts to match up with a single larger one. Maybe if one or more of those contracts were legitimate prospects/rookie types, none of which these really are.

They’re all minimum deals, the other team can cut at a minimal cost if need be. I also could see Elton add a future 1st to the pot.

[Ben]

If you combine the salaries of Neto, Korkmaz, and Bolden; the Sixers can take back up to 8.5M.

We see this type of aggregation comment/thinking a lot on this board - but there are probably very few teams that would be willing to absorb a 3-for-1 deal because logistically that means the team only has 13 players on their roster at the time of the trade, or would also have to waive at least one or more of their own players in order to process this type of trade, which they likely would have minimal incentive to do so unless you're throwing in a bunch of additional future assets (draft picks, etc)

i think this is more of a thought exercise than something that could ever actually happen. I'm pretty sure historically there has never been any kind of trade that aggregates a bunch of minimum contracts to match up with a single larger one. Maybe if one or more of those contracts were legitimate prospects/rookie types, none of which these really are.

They’re all minimum deals, the other team can cut at a minimal cost if need be. I also could see Elton add a future 1st to the pot.

Yes, adding an asset presumably would be the only way to trade for a relatively valuable player.

[LloydFree]

We see this type of aggregation comment/thinking a lot on this board - but there are probably very few teams that would be willing to absorb a 3-for-1 deal because logistically that means the team only has 13 players on their roster at the time of the trade, or would also have to waive at least one or more of their own players in order to process this type of trade, which they likely would have minimal incentive to do so unless you're throwing in a bunch of additional future assets (draft picks, etc)

i think this is more of a thought exercise than something that could ever actually happen. I'm pretty sure historically there has never been any kind of trade that aggregates a bunch of minimum contracts to match up with a single larger one. Maybe if one or more of those contracts were legitimate prospects/rookie types, none of which these really are.

They’re all minimum deals, the other team can cut at a minimal cost if need be. I also could see Elton add a future 1st to the pot.

Yes, adding an asset presumably would be the only way to trade for a relatively valuable player.

Yes. That's pretty unheard of. Trading something to get something.

[ckchen]

If you combine the salaries of Neto, Korkmaz, and Bolden; the Sixers can take back up to 8.5M.

We see this type of aggregation comment/thinking a lot on this board - but there are probably very few teams that would be willing to absorb a 3-for-1 deal because logistically that means the team only has 13 players on their roster at the time of the trade, or would also have to waive at least one or more of their own players in order to process this type of trade, which they likely would have minimal incentive to do so unless you're throwing in a bunch of additional future assets (draft picks, etc)

i think this is more of a thought exercise than something that could ever actually happen. I'm pretty sure historically there has never been any kind of trade that aggregates a bunch of minimum contracts to match up with a single larger one. Maybe if one or more of those contracts were legitimate prospects/rookie types, none of which these really are.

They’re all minimum deals, the other team can cut at a minimal cost if need be. I also could see Elton add a future 1st to the pot.

Sure, i understand that all of these things are technically possible, but my point is that pull off a trade like this, the other team will almost definitely have to waive at least 1 or more players to even process the trade, which makes it even more unlikely. So now that team not only has to have a player they want essentially want to salary dump in your under $8.5M range, but also at least one possibly two other players they are fine with just outright waiving in order to process the trade. Now you're trading likely at minimum a first-round pick + cash for what is likely to be someone's unwanted/overpaid salary dump player because the rest of the return for the other team is basically negative and you're asking them to take on even more additional financial burden of waiving additional players.

Can someone come up with a past trade where something approximating this happened? i genuinely would like to know, bc i can't think of any trades recently like this. My point is that these are just more factors as to why something like this, while technically feasible, is pretty unlikely.

[Ben]

Yes. That's pretty unheard of. Trading something to get something.

[ckchen]

Yes, adding an asset presumably would be the only way to trade for a relatively valuable player.

Hilarious. Now try to identify anyone that falls into this zone and you'll see either how cost prohibitive it will be in terms of additional assets it will be to pry them away or the complete lack of useful players in this salary range in the NBA. The way that salary distribution in the league has become, literally everyone either makes $9M+ or less than 4M. It's literally a list that might be at most dozen or players long, almost all of whom are debatably worse than the collection of minimum salaries you want to trade them for - except now you're throwing in picks and probably cash to do it. Unless you for some reason desperately want Ilyasova or Belinelli back or have an irrational love for like Patrick Patterson or Doug McDermott and are willing to throw in picks to get them, I don't really get it. Which is why I'm saying it's basically just exercise in logic, because the likelihood of something like going down is pretty damn small.

[BullyKing]

We see this type of aggregation comment/thinking a lot on this board - but there are probably very few teams that would be willing to absorb a 3-for-1 deal because logistically that means the team only has 13 players on their roster at the time of the trade, or would also have to waive at least one or more of their own players in order to process this type of trade, which they likely would have minimal incentive to do so unless you're throwing in a bunch of additional future assets (draft picks, etc)

i think this is more of a thought exercise than something that could ever actually happen. I'm pretty sure historically there has never been any kind of trade that aggregates a bunch of minimum contracts to match up with a single larger one. Maybe if one or more of those contracts were legitimate prospects/rookie types, none of which these really are.

They’re all minimum deals, the other team can cut at a minimal cost if need be. I also could see Elton add a future 1st to the pot.

Can someone come up with a past trade where something approximating this happened? i genuinely would like to know, bc i can't think of any trades recently like this. My point is that these are just more factors as to why something like this, while technically feasible, is pretty unlikely.

Two for one trades are common but you're right that three for ones in season are difficult. That said (and ignoring the draft pick components), Pelicans traded Asik, Tony Allen and Jameer Nelson for Mirotic at the deadline in 2018 and this year's deadline saw Valanciunas, Wright and Miles for Gasol.

[ckchen]

Two for one trades are common but you're right that three for ones in season are difficult. That said (and ignoring the draft pick components), Pelicans traded Asik, Tony Allen and Jameer Nelson for Mirotic at the deadline in 2018 and this year's deadline saw Valanciunas, Wright and Miles for Gasol.

Sure, but even those 3-for-1 deals were for massive salaries on both sides. Trying to trade 3 minimum deals to add up to something that's basically at best someone's declining player who's not worth the mid-cap exception they signed for anymore I think makes what people are proposing here even more unlikely.

[Aussiepiston1]

Yes, adding an asset presumably would be the only way to trade for a relatively valuable player.

Hilarious. Now try to identify anyone that falls into this zone and you'll see either how cost prohibitive it will be in terms of additional assets it will be to pry them away or the complete lack of useful players in this salary range in the NBA. The way that salary distribution in the league has become, literally everyone either makes $9M+ or less than 4M. It's literally a list that might be at most dozen or players long, almost all of whom are debatably worse than the collection of minimum salaries you want to trade them for - except now you're throwing in picks and probably cash to do it. Unless you for some reason desperately want Ilyasova or Belinelli back or have an irrational love for like Patrick Patterson or Doug McDermott and are willing to throw in picks to get them, I don't really get it. Which is why I'm saying it's basically just exercise in logic, because the likelihood of something like going down is pretty damn small.

D.J Augustine makes 7,250,000 Mil and is expiring.
If Orlando aren't making the Playoffs and Burke/Neto don't pan out we could probably trade that package plus an early OKC 2nd for him.

[Ben]

Yes, adding an asset presumably would be the only way to trade for a relatively valuable player.

Hilarious. Now try to identify anyone that falls into this zone and you'll see either how cost prohibitive it will be in terms of additional assets it will be to pry them away or the complete lack of useful players in this salary range in the NBA. The way that salary distribution in the league has become, literally everyone either makes $9M+ or less than 4M. It's literally a list that might be at most dozen or players long, almost all of whom are debatably worse than the collection of minimum salaries you want to trade them for - except now you're throwing in picks and probably cash to do it. Unless you for some reason desperately want Ilyasova or Belinelli back or have an irrational love for like Patrick Patterson or Doug McDermott and are willing to throw in picks to get them, I don't really get it. Which is why I'm saying it's basically just exercise in logic, because the likelihood of something like going down is pretty damn small.

Bud, I don't know why you're getting upset about this.

1.) I wasn't responding to you but to someone else who was quoting you.
2.) I wasn't even being especially sarcastic in my response. I was being literal.
3.) On the subject of literal and literally, if you'll allow me to be just the slightest bit humorous here, all of us should use those terms less frequently or more accurately than we tend to do.

Watch on YouTube

4.) It seems to me that there must be more than 40 players in the $4M- $9M range, if you sort this list by average yearly salary, and there are a fair number of players in there that could conceivably be desirable under the right conditions. KCP, E'Twaun Moore, Derrick Rose, Jabari Parker, JaMychal Green, etc. etc.

5.) If you'll look back just a couple of days in this very thread, I was reacting with dismay at how few players might possibly be in the sub-$5M range for mid-season acquisitions. I get it. Stacking contacts for a trade this season is more of a longshot than some folks here seem to have realized. But if you increase the trading amount up to $8 or $9M, the number of desirable players DOES go up meaningfully. It just does. That doesn't mean that we're likely to make a big splash via trade. I'm starting to get that, and I hope that others here are as well.

Peace. No battle here.

[76ciology]

Read on Twitter

[ckchen]

Bud, I don't know why you're getting upset about this.

1.) I wasn't responding to you but to someone else who was quoting you.
2.) I wasn't even being especially sarcastic in my response. I was being literal.
3.) On the subject of literal and literally, if you'll allow me to be just the slightest bit humorous here, all of us should use those terms less frequently or more accurately than we tend to do.

Watch on YouTube

4.) It seems to me that there must be more than 40 players in the $4M- $9M range, if you sort this list by average yearly salary, and there are a fair number of players in there that could conceivably be desirable under the right conditions. KCP, E'Twaun Moore, Derrick Rose, Jabari Parker, JaMychal Green, etc. etc.

5.) If you'll look back just a couple of days in this very thread, I was reacting with dismay at how few players might possibly be in the sub-$5M range for mid-season acquisitions. I get it. Stacking contacts for a trade this season is more of a longshot than some folks here seem to have realized. But if you increase the trading amount up to $8 or $9M, the number of desirable players DOES go up meaningfully. It just does. That doesn't mean that we're likely to make a big splash via trade. I'm starting to get that, and I hope that others here are as well.

Peace. No battle here.

I'm not upset - I'm just trying to point out that while as a thought exercise it sounds like something, the realities of a trade like this occurring are pretty slim. 3-for-1 deals are pretty unlikely just from the get-go and factoring in things like a lot of these guys in this target range are not likely to actually be available because they are playing for other presumably playoff-bound teams (KCP, Jamychal Green), actually fall outside the salary range (E'twaun Moore), or will require their teams to find 1 or 2 extra players to additionally waive in order to execute these kind of deals, and most teams surprisingly just don't have two guys at the end of their roster they're just willing to toss aside in order to execute a trade

I think the list in reality might be at best reasonably 3 or 4 players long, most with debatable return value for the Sixers. Ultimately I guess I'm just trying to splash cold water on the idea that this is actually a "thing" - while I acknowledge that, of course, it's possible.

It just seems to would be far more useful to actually discuss and debate the merits of the players themselves than the far more unlikely idea that they were acquired so that we could make a highly improbable 3-for-1 type deal, but far be it from me to crush the hopes and dreams of other people on the board, I guess.

[BullyKing]

Two for one trades are common but you're right that three for ones in season are difficult. That said (and ignoring the draft pick components), Pelicans traded Asik, Tony Allen and Jameer Nelson for Mirotic at the deadline in 2018 and this year's deadline saw Valanciunas, Wright and Miles for Gasol.

Sure, but even those 3-for-1 deals were for massive salaries on both sides. Trying to trade 3 minimum deals to add up to something that's basically at best someone's declining player who's not worth the mid-cap exception they signed for anymore I think makes what people are proposing here even more unlikely.

Mirotic was making like 12 million at the time. I don't see why it's less likely the smaller the salary involved. It might be less common because most teams have a useless player making $6 million but not less likely. Seems like you're just shifting the narrative at this point.

[Ben]

Bud, I don't know why you're getting upset about this.

I'm not upset - I'm just trying to point out that while as a thought exercise it sounds like something, the realities of a trade like this occurring are pretty slim.

All I'm saying is that you started your post with

Hilarious. Now try to identify anyone that falls into this zone and you'll see...

Sounded kind of upset to me. If I misread, we're all good. I agree that we're unlikely to pull of a meaningful trade mid-season. But if we do, we will likely have to include some valuable assets.

[ckchen]

Two for one trades are common but you're right that three for ones in season are difficult. That said (and ignoring the draft pick components), Pelicans traded Asik, Tony Allen and Jameer Nelson for Mirotic at the deadline in 2018 and this year's deadline saw Valanciunas, Wright and Miles for Gasol.

Sure, but even those 3-for-1 deals were for massive salaries on both sides. Trying to trade 3 minimum deals to add up to something that's basically at best someone's declining player who's not worth the mid-cap exception they signed for anymore I think makes what people are proposing here even more unlikely.

Mirotic was making like 12 million at the time. I don't see why it's less likely the smaller the salary involved. It might be less common because most teams have a useless player making $6 million but not less likely. Seems like you're just shifting the narrative at this point.

I'm not trying to shift the narrative. I think it is less likely because it's easier to try to add up a number of salaries of various sizes to trade for a larger salary range like $12M then a much narrower range when you're limited to only adding up 3 minimum salaries, which gives you something between $5.5-8.5M to shoot for. Out of the maybe 40 players in the league actually making salaries in that range, there actually aren't a lot of them that would actually be available other than, like I was saying a bunch of guys who once signed for like midlevel/room exception type money but are no longer wanted by their teams.

[BigSleep333]

not gonna lie, i expected more than koumadje and korkmaz with the 2 open spots. but whatever

Koumadje is an exhibit 10 contract....so he is not likely counting towards the 15 man roster and is essentially a lock to be a camp body and then headed to Delaware.

good to know! even better with the news of the signing of trey burke

[mithrandir17]

Read on Twitter

We better get ready for lob city!