More Free Agent Talk

[lars_rosenberg]

Hi. I hardly ever post here but I read the posts in the Warriors forum pretty religiously and the posts in the general board from time to time. I also know very little about NBA salary cap machinations - basically just what I read here.

Question about Oubre's situation.

He reportedly wants $20M/year and wants to start. Obviously, he's not getting either of those things with the Warriors (at least after Klay comes back). He's also not getting $20M/year from any team and he apparently hasn't gotten any sub-$20M/year offers he likes yet. What happens if a sign and trade deal doesn't materialize (and if I understand what I've been reading here in the forum, it's increasingly unlikely that it will happen)?

What if he says to the Warriors that he wants to come back on a one-year deal and that he's willing to come off the bench?

Is there a salary where you think he would have value coming off the bench? Or is he such a bad fit that he's not wanted at all?

Whatever the board's position, what do you think the Warriors say (especially since the roster is filling up)? If I remember correctly, in the press conference after the exit interviews, Myers said that they told Oubre they would like him to come back.

Given the Warriors financial situation, where each dollar spent gets multiplied by 5, because of the repeater tax, I don't think there's a reasonable deal Oubre would accept that would make him worth it for the Warriors.
He was by all means not good last season and even paying him something like 5M (I don't remember how much the TPMLE is, but it's something around that), it would become 25 millions for a player that is barely useful.
If he accepts the vet minimum, then fine, but he's not going to do that because there are teams for sure that can offer him at least the full MLE, so imho he's 100% gone.

The only reason why the Warriors could brings him back is if they plan to then trade him later in the season for a pick. So even if he re-sign, he's still not finishing the season with us.

[ChuckDurn]

I think the answer is that the team would love to have him, we'd all love to have him, but it would be extraordinarily difficult to find a way to make such a trade work. Even if we loaded up Paschall (who they supposedly like), Lee, and Mulder, and used draft picks to make it more appealing for them, we'd still be nowhere enough salary to take Ingles back. We'd have to include a center (Looney or Wiseman) where we're already thin, and such a move would arguably create more problems than it would solve. The only way I can imagine is getting creative with Oubre.

Just noticed Lee is a free agent. Just gets messier.

OKC is buying out Kemba, which will create huge salary space for them. While highly unlikely, I could squint and see an opportunity for an unbalanced 3+ party trade, starting with (note: this isn't complete, more would need to be added):

GSW out: Wiggins, Paschall, draft compensation
GSW in: Ingles + other players (and/or TPE, to add players in the future)

OKC out: TBD
OKC in: Wiggins, draft compensation

Utah out: Ingles
Utah in: Paschall

For the Warriors, this reduces their tax bill quite mightily, while getting back Ingles and maybe additional players. A HUGE concern would be our athleticism (defense) in the starting line-up, where Ingles could replace Wiggins (backed up by Porter, Moody, etc.....).

OKC would get back a productive player (who comes off the books in 2 years, when they're probably starting to want to be good) and more draft picks.

Utah is able to get off Ingles' salary (rumors are that they'd dump him for nothing), while getting back Paschall, who they're apparently interested in.

Again, I think it's really unlikely, given our front office's love for Wiggins, but it's possible.

I like Ingles, and hate this idea. I think as soon as you give up Wiggins to get Ingles, I'm not at all convinced we've improved, and by the time we're giving up draft picks and such on top of it, no way I'd do it.

This isn't where I thought you were going. My memory is bad, so I don't remember the exact ramifications for OKC of buying out Kemba; I know you don't get to pretend like the contract never happened, but I don't remember these days if you get to minimize the impact, or if it has to do with what the Knicks pay him, etc. etc. But if OKC finds they are below the minimum salary, or at least have money to play with and no players, then I thought you were going to propose sending them Oubre in a S&T. Ingles makes like $13m this year, so I wonder if you could do something like:
Trade 1:
Golden State gives Oubre (S&T for something at least equal to Ingles' salary)
Golden State gets Ingles

Utah gives Ingles, some draft compensation
Utah gets a bag of chips

OKC gives a bag of chips
OKC gets Oubre (S&T), some draft compensation

Trade 2:
Golden State gives Paschall, some draft compensation
Golden State gets a bag of chips

Utah gives a bag of chips
Utah gets Paschall

When the dust clears, we effectively get Ingles for Paschall and some draft stuff. Utah gets Paschall for Ingles. OKC gets Oubre and some draft compensation for facilitating. This naturally only makes sense if Utah wants out from under Ingles' contract and likes Paschall, otherwise they'd laugh, because the value isn't there for them. I *think* this is legal as described?

A couple of comments:
1. In my incarnation of the deal, I never said the deal was complete "as is". The Warriors would have an $18.5M TPE from the salary difference between Wiggins and Ingles (we'd get a $31.3M TPE sending Wiggins to OKC, and would use $13.0M of it getting Ingles). I don't currently have an answer, but I'd hope this board could come up with some creative ways to use some or all of that TPE to add to the team.
2. In your version, which I'd be delighted with, you'll have to explain why OKC chooses to go after and sign Oubre, which is the starting point for all the machinations. He may want to go there if they offer a bunch of money, but why would they want him - short of us basically offering them a truckload of draft picks to provide incentive for them to up an offer for him?

EDIT: One other challenge with your version of the deal is the elephant in the room regarding our payroll. Given the messaging that has been repeated ad nauseam by Myers and Lacob, the idea that we would add Ingles to our salary load without offsetting it seems...... unlikely. One could make the argument last year that we had a hole in our line-up which Oubre might fit...... in other words, Oubre's salary and all the luxury tax implications was paying for a starter. You can't make that same argument bringing in Ingles without moving Wiggins or other salary. While I know it's not our job to solve Lacob's money "barrier", the idea that we'd simply add Ingles' salary just seems dead on arrival right now.

[RooneyFan]

Given the Warriors financial situation, where each dollar spent gets multiplied by 5, because of the repeater tax, I don't think there's a reasonable deal Oubre would accept that would make him worth it for the Warriors.

He was by all means not good last season and even paying him something like 5M (I don't remember how much the TPMLE is, but it's something around that), it would become 25 millions for a player that is barely useful.

If he accepts the vet minimum, then fine, but he's not going to do that because there are teams for sure that can offer him at least the full MLE, so imho he's 100% gone.

The only reason why the Warriors could brings him back is if they plan to then trade him later in the season for a pick. So even if he re-sign, he's still not finishing the season with us.

They have his Bird rights, correct? - given that, do they have to use the TPMLE to sign him? I understand about the repeater tax, but since they said they wanted him back (at least when the season had just ended - who knows what he might have done to damage the relationship since then, and I can imagine him burning his bridges), I assume they were willing to pay the repeater tax then to retain him.

I'm not sure myself if I would want him (especially given some of what he's said publicly), but he did seem to play better at the end of the year. I'm just curious how the Warriors might look at it. And my curiosity is growing as the time goes on without him getting a deal.

[Scoots1994]

And that doesn't send up warning flags for you?

I think Ingles PT is dropping, he's old, and he's overpaid, and they want to get under the tax. They need to pay to get rid of him.

Yep, Ingles is getting older. But he makes less than half of what Wiggins makes, despite statistically being miles superior to him on every efficiency-based offense metric, and is actually not much worse defensively. Check out their offensive ratings, defensive ratings, and win shares/48, and it’s not even arguable.

I know this would be crazy controversial and very unpopular, but Ingles’ “ugly game” is actually way more effective than Wiggins’ game, at least on offense. And with Porter, Moody, JTA, and potentially a little bit of Kuminga, it’s not like we would need Ingles (or Wiggins, for that matter) to play 35 minutes a game.

But yeah, this idea definitely isn’t for everyone.

Oh I'd LOVE to get Ingles, just not at that price. Oubre/Paschall for Ingles and it's a no brainer.

[ChuckDurn]

Given the Warriors financial situation, where each dollar spent gets multiplied by 5, because of the repeater tax, I don't think there's a reasonable deal Oubre would accept that would make him worth it for the Warriors.

He was by all means not good last season and even paying him something like 5M (I don't remember how much the TPMLE is, but it's something around that), it would become 25 millions for a player that is barely useful.

If he accepts the vet minimum, then fine, but he's not going to do that because there are teams for sure that can offer him at least the full MLE, so imho he's 100% gone.

The only reason why the Warriors could brings him back is if they plan to then trade him later in the season for a pick. So even if he re-sign, he's still not finishing the season with us.

They have his Bird rights, correct? - given that, do they have to use the TPMLE to sign him? I understand about the repeater tax, but since they said they wanted him back (at least when the season had just ended - who knows what he might have done to damage the relationship since then, and I can imagine him burning his bridges), I assume they were willing to pay the repeater tax then to retain him.

I'm not sure myself if I would want him (especially given some of what he's said publicly), but he did seem to play better at the end of the year. I'm just curious how the Warriors might look at it. And my curiosity is growing as the time goes on without him getting a deal.

The Warriors do have Oubre's Bird rights, and thus don't have to (and wouldn't want to) use the TP MLE to sign him.

[Samurai]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Sent from my Golden State Warriors Protoast Elite toaster using RealGM mobile app

Would be nice for us to get a reliable vet at Center like Baynes. Especially since he's shown some ability to shoot the 3

Since we just signed Belly, is it worth a roster spot to also sign Baynes? Seems like Baynes is a better rebounder but Belly is a much better passer and shooter. Both are listed at 6-10 and both will have challenges defending in space given that they both lack lateral quickness. Given that we don't have many spots left, is Baynes really the best use of a valuable slot?

[FNQ]

Tony Bradley gone for the minimum

[Chris Porter's Hair]

OKC is buying out Kemba, which will create huge salary space for them. While highly unlikely, I could squint and see an opportunity for an unbalanced 3+ party trade, starting with (note: this isn't complete, more would need to be added):

GSW out: Wiggins, Paschall, draft compensation
GSW in: Ingles + other players (and/or TPE, to add players in the future)

OKC out: TBD
OKC in: Wiggins, draft compensation

Utah out: Ingles
Utah in: Paschall

For the Warriors, this reduces their tax bill quite mightily, while getting back Ingles and maybe additional players. A HUGE concern would be our athleticism (defense) in the starting line-up, where Ingles could replace Wiggins (backed up by Porter, Moody, etc.....).

OKC would get back a productive player (who comes off the books in 2 years, when they're probably starting to want to be good) and more draft picks.

Utah is able to get off Ingles' salary (rumors are that they'd dump him for nothing), while getting back Paschall, who they're apparently interested in.

Again, I think it's really unlikely, given our front office's love for Wiggins, but it's possible.

I like Ingles, and hate this idea. I think as soon as you give up Wiggins to get Ingles, I'm not at all convinced we've improved, and by the time we're giving up draft picks and such on top of it, no way I'd do it.

This isn't where I thought you were going. My memory is bad, so I don't remember the exact ramifications for OKC of buying out Kemba; I know you don't get to pretend like the contract never happened, but I don't remember these days if you get to minimize the impact, or if it has to do with what the Knicks pay him, etc. etc. But if OKC finds they are below the minimum salary, or at least have money to play with and no players, then I thought you were going to propose sending them Oubre in a S&T. Ingles makes like $13m this year, so I wonder if you could do something like:
Trade 1:
Golden State gives Oubre (S&T for something at least equal to Ingles' salary)
Golden State gets Ingles

Utah gives Ingles, some draft compensation
Utah gets a bag of chips

OKC gives a bag of chips
OKC gets Oubre (S&T), some draft compensation

Trade 2:
Golden State gives Paschall, some draft compensation
Golden State gets a bag of chips

Utah gives a bag of chips
Utah gets Paschall

When the dust clears, we effectively get Ingles for Paschall and some draft stuff. Utah gets Paschall for Ingles. OKC gets Oubre and some draft compensation for facilitating. This naturally only makes sense if Utah wants out from under Ingles' contract and likes Paschall, otherwise they'd laugh, because the value isn't there for them. I *think* this is legal as described?

A couple of comments:
1. In my incarnation of the deal, I never said the deal was complete "as is". The Warriors would have an $18.5M TPE from the salary difference between Wiggins and Ingles (we'd get a $31.3M TPE sending Wiggins to OKC, and would use $13.0M of it getting Ingles). I don't currently have an answer, but I'd hope this board could come up with some creative ways to use some or all of that TPE to add to the team.
2. In your version, which I'd be delighted with, you'll have to explain why OKC chooses to go after and sign Oubre, which is the starting point for all the machinations. He may want to go there if they offer a bunch of money, but why would they want him - short of us basically offering them a truckload of draft picks to provide incentive for them to up an offer for him?

re: point 1
I'm not optimistic we'd be able to do much of value with the TPE. It is in line with what got us Oubre last year, and I think that's about what you could expect. Not enough to make me take this risk, personally.

re: point 2
If it takes a truckload of draft picks, it is clearly a non-starter. If they think Oubre approaches being worth $13-15m a year, then they have to have somebody on their roster, they have to pay somebody, they can pay him that much without worrying about taxes and such, and they get some draft compensation (hopefully not truckloads) for taking him on. And if he is indeed worth his contract, decent bet they can move him to someone else later if they want for even more draft picks. This seems in line with their modus operandi lately; take on players other teams don't want to pay in exchange for piling on more draft picks.

Maybe we have a different idea what "truckloads" means. I really can't imagine why they'd need multiple first round picks (for example) to take on a young player at a reasonable salary. If Oubre is still convinced he can get $20m a year, that probably also ruins this plan. I also decided to stop being lazy, and looked this up: the minimum team salary will be around $101m. This is out of date:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/OKC.html

but it does suggest OKC might very well have to add salary just to get to the minimum, even if they were still on the hook for all of Kemba's salary.

[Scoots1994]

Given the Warriors financial situation, where each dollar spent gets multiplied by 5, because of the repeater tax, I don't think there's a reasonable deal Oubre would accept that would make him worth it for the Warriors.

He was by all means not good last season and even paying him something like 5M (I don't remember how much the TPMLE is, but it's something around that), it would become 25 millions for a player that is barely useful.

If he accepts the vet minimum, then fine, but he's not going to do that because there are teams for sure that can offer him at least the full MLE, so imho he's 100% gone.

The only reason why the Warriors could brings him back is if they plan to then trade him later in the season for a pick. So even if he re-sign, he's still not finishing the season with us.

They have his Bird rights, correct? - given that, do they have to use the TPMLE to sign him? I understand about the repeater tax, but since they said they wanted him back (at least when the season had just ended - who knows what he might have done to damage the relationship since then, and I can imagine him burning his bridges), I assume they were willing to pay the repeater tax then to retain him.

I'm not sure myself if I would want him (especially given some of what he's said publicly), but he did seem to play better at the end of the year. I'm just curious how the Warriors might look at it. And my curiosity is growing as the time goes on without him getting a deal.

Teams often say they want a player back to keep their value up. The issue is that Oubre will cost something like $100M a year on a team with the highest paid player in NBA history making half that. It's just a LOT of money. That said, it's not MY money

[Scoots1994]

I like Ingles, and hate this idea. I think as soon as you give up Wiggins to get Ingles, I'm not at all convinced we've improved, and by the time we're giving up draft picks and such on top of it, no way I'd do it.

This isn't where I thought you were going. My memory is bad, so I don't remember the exact ramifications for OKC of buying out Kemba; I know you don't get to pretend like the contract never happened, but I don't remember these days if you get to minimize the impact, or if it has to do with what the Knicks pay him, etc. etc. But if OKC finds they are below the minimum salary, or at least have money to play with and no players, then I thought you were going to propose sending them Oubre in a S&T. Ingles makes like $13m this year, so I wonder if you could do something like:
Trade 1:
Golden State gives Oubre (S&T for something at least equal to Ingles' salary)
Golden State gets Ingles

Utah gives Ingles, some draft compensation
Utah gets a bag of chips

OKC gives a bag of chips
OKC gets Oubre (S&T), some draft compensation

Trade 2:
Golden State gives Paschall, some draft compensation
Golden State gets a bag of chips

Utah gives a bag of chips
Utah gets Paschall

When the dust clears, we effectively get Ingles for Paschall and some draft stuff. Utah gets Paschall for Ingles. OKC gets Oubre and some draft compensation for facilitating. This naturally only makes sense if Utah wants out from under Ingles' contract and likes Paschall, otherwise they'd laugh, because the value isn't there for them. I *think* this is legal as described?

A couple of comments:
1. In my incarnation of the deal, I never said the deal was complete "as is". The Warriors would have an $18.5M TPE from the salary difference between Wiggins and Ingles (we'd get a $31.3M TPE sending Wiggins to OKC, and would use $13.0M of it getting Ingles). I don't currently have an answer, but I'd hope this board could come up with some creative ways to use some or all of that TPE to add to the team.
2. In your version, which I'd be delighted with, you'll have to explain why OKC chooses to go after and sign Oubre, which is the starting point for all the machinations. He may want to go there if they offer a bunch of money, but why would they want him - short of us basically offering them a truckload of draft picks to provide incentive for them to up an offer for him?

re: point 1
I'm not optimistic we'd be able to do much of value with the TPE. It is in line with what got us Oubre last year, and I think that's about what you could expect. Not enough to make me take this risk, personally.

re: point 2
If it takes a truckload of draft picks, it is clearly a non-starter. If they think Oubre approaches being worth $13-15m a year, then they have to have somebody on their roster, they have to pay somebody, they can pay him that much without worrying about taxes and such, and they get some draft compensation (hopefully not truckloads) for taking him on. And if he is indeed worth his contract, decent bet they can move him to someone else later if they want for even more draft picks. This seems in line with their modus operandi lately; take on players other teams don't want to pay in exchange for piling on more draft picks.

Maybe we have a different idea what "truckloads" means. I really can't imagine why they'd need multiple first round picks (for example) to take on a young player at a reasonable salary. If Oubre is still convinced he can get $20m a year, that probably also ruins this plan. I also decided to stop being lazy, and looked this up: the minimum team salary will be around $101m. This is out of date:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/OKC.html

but it does suggest OKC might very well have to add salary just to get to the minimum, even if they were still on the hook for all of Kemba's salary.

Keeping a roster spot and the TPMLE open gives the team options going forward too.

[RooneyFan]

Teams often say they want a player back to keep their value up.

Ahhhh - that's a helpful insight. Thanks!

The issue is that Oubre will cost something like $100M a year on a team with the highest paid player in NBA history making half that. It's just a LOT of money. That said, it's not MY money

Mine either - but with the really bad fit, probably not worth it.

[superunknown]

The team still needs one more key player. If they get RJ (the #1 option left), or Schroeder if RJ resigns, I'll take that and run. To me Batum was the perfect x factor to turn this team into a championship contender, RJ is the next closest thing even if he doesn't play like he did last PS.

Agree on Jackson but IMO the team still needs a big body at the C spot. Wiseman is still an equation’s unknown quantity and looney is not that type of big. Chriss, injury aside, wouldn’t be the answer neither.

I guess the question is what would the priority be? If we assume we are at 13 spots taken (Curry, Klay, Dray, Wiggins, Looney, Wiseman, Poole, JTA, Kuminga, Moody, OPJ, Belly, Paschall), that leaves 2 left if we go up to 15 but only 1 left if the team wants the flexibility of keeping the 15th spot open for flexibility. If we assume Paschall gets moved, that makes it 12. If we have 3 spots left, our choices are, among others, another big, a PG, Iggy (who could be considered as the PG), and a scrum between Lee (whom we have a team option), Mulder, GP2, and Jessup (assuming Mannion could get another 2-way). But if the team wants to keep the last slot open, then its only 2 left. What would be the priority for those 2 spots - a 4th big, a PG (Iguodala or someone else), or another shooter (Lee, Mulder, Jessup)?

The only thing I don’t agree is the 4th big definition. It wouldn’t be a fourth big but the starter.
IMO neither wiseman nor looney should be the starting C, but the backups.

[parsnips33]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Sent from my Golden State Warriors Protoast Elite toaster using RealGM mobile app

Would be nice for us to get a reliable vet at Center like Baynes. Especially since he's shown some ability to shoot the 3

Since we just signed Belly, is it worth a roster spot to also sign Baynes? Seems like Baynes is a better rebounder but Belly is a much better passer and shooter. Both are listed at 6-10 and both will have challenges defending in space given that they both lack lateral quickness. Given that we don't have many spots left, is Baynes really the best use of a valuable slot?

I hear you, and I guess the intent is for Bjelly to fill that "veteran center" role but I don't love him in that spot. Getting a backup PG is still probably a bigger priority, and another veteran wing would help as well. Hopefully Wiseman shows some improvement, because I'm just concerned about the strain on Loon and Dray if they both have to play big minutes at the 5

[osx28]

I think Ingles PT is dropping, he's old, and he's overpaid, and they want to get under the tax. They need to pay to get rid of him.

Yep, Ingles is getting older. But he makes less than half of what Wiggins makes, despite statistically being miles superior to him on every efficiency-based offense metric, and is actually not much worse defensively. Check out their offensive ratings, defensive ratings, and win shares/48, and it’s not even arguable.

I know this would be crazy controversial and very unpopular, but Ingles’ “ugly game” is actually way more effective than Wiggins’ game, at least on offense. And with Porter, Moody, JTA, and potentially a little bit of Kuminga, it’s not like we would need Ingles (or Wiggins, for that matter) to play 35 minutes a game.

But yeah, this idea definitely isn’t for everyone.

Oh I'd LOVE to get Ingles, just not at that price. Oubre/Paschall for Ingles and it's a no brainer.

I think I read Bobby Marks saying that we can't get any salary back for Oubre in an S&T, is it because we'd be hard capped? Joe ingles would be worth hard capping ourselves I think.
Especially if it was at the price you mention or even adding a future protected first.

Add Neto to Ingles, Porter, Bielitza, Poole and Wiseman and you got a top 10 bench for sure. The rooks would just be icing on the cake if they can contribute

[tal57]

We need Iggy to run our second unit at PG position.

Thinking about it all the way, didn't have time this morning to post it out.

Priority #1 and than some.

Please don't give me Poole, GP2 and Mannion, been there done that.
The only other somewhat viable options are Bradley and Teague. Truthfully, I've rather have Iggy running the second unit, play defense with whatever he's got left and coach the youngsters. Hopefully between Poole, OPJ and Bjelica, plus they'll have enough shooting / scoring off the bench.

The other obvious get but less than PG2 priority is the big. Obviously I am thinking Chriss. That is it. Even than they would probably have to make some choices at the end of the bench in who stays, who goes, who may possibly be moved. The money and the spots are basically dried up already.

[ChuckDurn]

Yep, Ingles is getting older. But he makes less than half of what Wiggins makes, despite statistically being miles superior to him on every efficiency-based offense metric, and is actually not much worse defensively. Check out their offensive ratings, defensive ratings, and win shares/48, and it’s not even arguable.

I know this would be crazy controversial and very unpopular, but Ingles’ “ugly game” is actually way more effective than Wiggins’ game, at least on offense. And with Porter, Moody, JTA, and potentially a little bit of Kuminga, it’s not like we would need Ingles (or Wiggins, for that matter) to play 35 minutes a game.

But yeah, this idea definitely isn’t for everyone.

Oh I'd LOVE to get Ingles, just not at that price. Oubre/Paschall for Ingles and it's a no brainer.

I think I read Bobby Marks saying that we can't get any salary back for Oubre in an S&T, is it because we'd be hard capped? Joe ingles would be worth hard capping ourselves I think.
Especially if it was at the price you mention or even adding a future protected first.

Add Neto to Ingles, Porter, Bielitza, Poole and Wiseman and you got a top 10 bench for sure. The rooks would just be icing on the cake if they can contribute

We're not hard-capped (by the league) right now, and as long as we don't try to RECEIVE a player via sign-and-trade (i.e. a player who is currently a free agent, who is signed for the purpose of trading to us), we wouldn't be hard-capped in sending Oubre out via sign-and-trade. (And practically speaking, it's not an option for us to get hard-capped, because with Curry, Klay, Draymond, and Wiggins, we already way over the hard cap, and we would have to shed some of them to get back under it).

I suspect Marks is reacting to the statements from Lacob and Myers that basically imply that they aren't going to add more salary, because of the luxury tax penalties they're dealing with. In other words, a self-imposed financial limit, rather than a league-imposed hard cap.

[ChuckDurn]

I like Ingles, and hate this idea. I think as soon as you give up Wiggins to get Ingles, I'm not at all convinced we've improved, and by the time we're giving up draft picks and such on top of it, no way I'd do it.

This isn't where I thought you were going. My memory is bad, so I don't remember the exact ramifications for OKC of buying out Kemba; I know you don't get to pretend like the contract never happened, but I don't remember these days if you get to minimize the impact, or if it has to do with what the Knicks pay him, etc. etc. But if OKC finds they are below the minimum salary, or at least have money to play with and no players, then I thought you were going to propose sending them Oubre in a S&T. Ingles makes like $13m this year, so I wonder if you could do something like:
Trade 1:
Golden State gives Oubre (S&T for something at least equal to Ingles' salary)
Golden State gets Ingles

Utah gives Ingles, some draft compensation
Utah gets a bag of chips

OKC gives a bag of chips
OKC gets Oubre (S&T), some draft compensation

Trade 2:
Golden State gives Paschall, some draft compensation
Golden State gets a bag of chips

Utah gives a bag of chips
Utah gets Paschall

When the dust clears, we effectively get Ingles for Paschall and some draft stuff. Utah gets Paschall for Ingles. OKC gets Oubre and some draft compensation for facilitating. This naturally only makes sense if Utah wants out from under Ingles' contract and likes Paschall, otherwise they'd laugh, because the value isn't there for them. I *think* this is legal as described?

A couple of comments:
1. In my incarnation of the deal, I never said the deal was complete "as is". The Warriors would have an $18.5M TPE from the salary difference between Wiggins and Ingles (we'd get a $31.3M TPE sending Wiggins to OKC, and would use $13.0M of it getting Ingles). I don't currently have an answer, but I'd hope this board could come up with some creative ways to use some or all of that TPE to add to the team.
2. In your version, which I'd be delighted with, you'll have to explain why OKC chooses to go after and sign Oubre, which is the starting point for all the machinations. He may want to go there if they offer a bunch of money, but why would they want him - short of us basically offering them a truckload of draft picks to provide incentive for them to up an offer for him?

re: point 1
I'm not optimistic we'd be able to do much of value with the TPE. It is in line with what got us Oubre last year, and I think that's about what you could expect. Not enough to make me take this risk, personally.

re: point 2
If it takes a truckload of draft picks, it is clearly a non-starter. If they think Oubre approaches being worth $13-15m a year, then they have to have somebody on their roster, they have to pay somebody, they can pay him that much without worrying about taxes and such, and they get some draft compensation (hopefully not truckloads) for taking him on. And if he is indeed worth his contract, decent bet they can move him to someone else later if they want for even more draft picks. This seems in line with their modus operandi lately; take on players other teams don't want to pay in exchange for piling on more draft picks.

Maybe we have a different idea what "truckloads" means. I really can't imagine why they'd need multiple first round picks (for example) to take on a young player at a reasonable salary. If Oubre is still convinced he can get $20m a year, that probably also ruins this plan. I also decided to stop being lazy, and looked this up: the minimum team salary will be around $101m. This is out of date:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/OKC.html

but it does suggest OKC might very well have to add salary just to get to the minimum, even if they were still on the hook for all of Kemba's salary.

CPH - good point about the minimum salary requirements. I hadn't considered that. So maybe it wouldn't take much to invent OKC to take Oubre on...... I agree. Though knowing Presti's history, he doesn't do ANYTHING for free, without getting draft picks back.

However, are you suggesting that Lacob and Myers are okay with just adding Ingles' salary (and the tax) to our existing load? I'd be shocked if they'd consider doing so, for a guy who obviously would be coming off the bench (at least after Klay returns). While it didn't work, they could somewhat justify it when bringing in Oubre as a starter.

[tal57]

And that doesn't send up warning flags for you?

I think Ingles PT is dropping, he's old, and he's overpaid, and they want to get under the tax. They need to pay to get rid of him.

Yep, Ingles is getting older. But he makes less than half of what Wiggins makes, despite statistically being miles superior to him on every efficiency-based offense metric, and is actually not much worse defensively. Check out their offensive ratings, defensive ratings, and win shares/48, and it’s not even arguable.

I know this would be crazy controversial and very unpopular, but Ingles’ “ugly game” is actually way more effective than Wiggins’ game, at least on offense. And with Porter, Moody, JTA, and potentially a little bit of Kuminga, it’s not like we would need Ingles (or Wiggins, for that matter) to play 35 minutes a game.

But yeah, this idea definitely isn’t for everyone.

If you speak purely basketball, I perfectly see your Ingles angle. Loose athleticism but gain so much in other aspects of GS game, the net result could be very much positive. That problem is, Utah is dangling Ingles to shed payroll. Why in the world they'll be interested in Wiggins from the money standpoint.

[ChuckDurn]

We need Iggy to run our second unit at PG position.

Thinking about it all the way, didn't have time this morning to post it out.

Priority #1 and than some.

Please don't give me Poole, GP2 and Mannion, been there done that.
The only other somewhat viable options are Bradley and Teague. Truthfully, I've rather have Iggy running the second unit, play defense with whatever he's got left and coach the youngsters. Hopefully between Poole, OPJ and Bjelica, plus they'll have enough shooting / scoring off the bench.

The other obvious get but less than PG2 priority is the big. Obviously I am thinking Chriss. That is it. Even than they would probably have to make some choices at the end of the bench in who stays, who goes, who may possibly be moved. The money and the spots are basically dried up already.

Given what's happened with point guards on the market right now (and with Kemba going to New York this morning), I suspect Myers may be kicking the tires on Reggie Jackson and Schroeder..... obviously what we could offer them is way below what they first wanted, but there's not a lot of options out there for them. Of the 2, if they were to become options, I would highly, highly prefer Jackson.

(Note: again, just an idea, which I find unlikely. But you never know.)

I saw a report that Chriss unfollowed the Warriors' Instagram (or Twitter) account this morning, so take that for what it's worth.

[ChuckDurn]

I think Ingles PT is dropping, he's old, and he's overpaid, and they want to get under the tax. They need to pay to get rid of him.

Yep, Ingles is getting older. But he makes less than half of what Wiggins makes, despite statistically being miles superior to him on every efficiency-based offense metric, and is actually not much worse defensively. Check out their offensive ratings, defensive ratings, and win shares/48, and it’s not even arguable.

I know this would be crazy controversial and very unpopular, but Ingles’ “ugly game” is actually way more effective than Wiggins’ game, at least on offense. And with Porter, Moody, JTA, and potentially a little bit of Kuminga, it’s not like we would need Ingles (or Wiggins, for that matter) to play 35 minutes a game.

But yeah, this idea definitely isn’t for everyone.

If you speak purely basketball, I perfectly see your Ingles angle. Loose athleticism but gain so much in other aspects of GS game, the net result could be very much positive. That problem is, Utah is dangling Ingles to shed payroll. Why in the world they be interested in Wiggins from the money standpoint.

Go back in the thread - my proposal has Wiggins going to OKC, not Utah, so Utah achieves the salary reduction they're looking for.