Question about the TPE from Childress...

parson · Post #1 » by **parson** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:29 pm

... we can use it to trade a player for another player who's worth $3 million more, right?

For example, Smoove for Chris Paul?

(Not a suggestion, just an example)

D21 · Post #2 » by **D21** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:35 pm

No.

If we get a TPE of $5M, we can use it to get a player making 2M, or two players making 2M each, or one that makes 4.5M,... but we can't combine it with a plyer we would send.
No way you can make Smith+5M TPE to get a 16M player.

parson · Post #3 » by **parson** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:51 pm

Okay, I was afraid of that - and I'm sure you're right.

But what if we traded a group of players, could we take back a player making $3 million IN ADDITION?

For example, Smoove/Evans for Okafor (again, only an example): We'd take $14,100,000 and only give to NO $11,495,000. Smoove and Okafor were close enough to trade, while Evans used $2,500,000 from a $2,801,198 TPE which NO held from trading Hilton Armstrong.

So, in a potential deal, couldn't we take an additional player that, perhaps, the other team would like to rid itself of - making the deal sweeter for them?

killbuckner · Post #4 » by **killbuckner** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 pm

The Childress TPE would be for 3.7 million. You have the direction wrong of where extra salary could go. The Hawks could trade for Smith for Okafor and also absorb Julian Wright.

D21 · Post #5 » by **D21** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:34 pm

If they send Okafor, they can get up to 125% + 100K of 14.1M so they can get Smith+Evans.
If they use the TPE for Evans, then it's Okafor for Smith and it has to work under the 125% rule with ATL nor getting more than 125% + 100K of Smith salary.

We don't know the value of Childress' TPE:
it can be:
- his first year salary if it's less than $4,357,741
- $3,631,451 if his first year is between $4,357,741 and $7,262,902
- 50% of his first year salary if this first year is higher than $7,262,902

More than $7,262,902 is still possible because a 34M/5yrs descending contract can start at $8,607,595

evildallas · Post #6 » by **evildallas** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:43 pm

killbuckner wrote:The Childress TPE would be for 3.7 million. You have the direction wrong of where extra salary could go. The Hawks could trade for Smith for Okafor and also absorb Julian Wright.

Only 3.7M, damn! I was hoping that it would be greater than 4M in hopes of possibly landing a Ramon Sessions dump from Minnesota.

killbuckner · Post #7 » by **killbuckner** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:47 pm

dallas- if the Hawks wanted sessions they could just make this a 3 way trade right now and take him on. But the problem is that Sessions would put them over the luxury tax line (by about 500k) so its doubtful the Hawks would do it.

D21 · Post #8 » by **D21** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:16 pm

KB, we are at 65M and Session makes less than 4M, so at 69M, we are under the tax IMO.

killbuckner · Post #9 » by **killbuckner** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:46 pm

D21- you are forgetting that the Hawks would need a 13 man roster to fit the minimum roster size. Even rookie FA's count as the minimum for a 2 year player or $854,389 per slot. So assuming the Hawks signed 2 minimum salary players to get to 12 and only needed one more to fill out the roster they would be at $66.8M in salary leaving just 3.5M to spend before hitting the tax. Signing Sessions would make them tax payers.

parson · Post #10 » by **parson** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:17 pm

killbuckner wrote:The Childress TPE would be for 3.7 million. You have the direction wrong of where extra salary could go. The Hawks could trade for Smith for Okafor and also absorb Julian Wright.

Appreciate the help, but in my example, NO has a TPE of $2,801,198 from trading Hilton Armstrong.

I wasn't suggesting a trade; I was giving an example of how the machinations of such a trade might work.

parson · Post #11 » by **parson** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:29 pm

So, I guess the answer is, yes, we CAN receive a $3.7 million (thanks kill for the correct #) player in addition to whatever trade we can manage for a star player. In other words, we can take on a $3.7 million player that the other team doesn't want WHILE making a trade for another, more important, player.

evildallas · Post #12 » by **evildallas** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:38 pm

killbuckner wrote:dallas- if the Hawks wanted sessions they could just make this a 3 way trade right now and take him on. But the problem is that Sessions would put them over the luxury tax line (by about 500k) so its doubtful the Hawks would do it.

My theory with Sessions was to take him on after making other deals that shed Mike Bibby and/or others for post help. Taking him on now commits the Hawks to a course of action they may not be able to pull off. If we can't move Bibby then we don't take on Sessions. It's a matter of timing and flexibility in my eyes.

Truthfully, Kyle Lowry and Earl Waston are my top 2 PG free agent targets, but I don't anticipate being able to land Lowry and Earl Watson will probably be gone before a decision about the MLE get made. Sessions isn't an outside shooter, but he can penetrate and dish and can't be as bad as Bibby on D.

D21 · Post #13 » by **D21** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:45 am

killbuckner wrote:D21- you are forgetting that the Hawks would need a 13 man roster to fit the minimum roster size. Even rookie FA's count as the minimum for a 2 year player or $854,389 per slot. So assuming the Hawks signed 2 minimum salary players to get to 12 and only needed one more to fill out the roster they would be at $66.8M in salary leaving just 3.5M to spend before hitting the tax. Signing Sessions would make them tax payers.

I needed to wake up on this one.

OK, so it's clear that if we don't sign anybody for the Full MLE, it will show they don't want to spend to improve.
As they say it to justify the contract of Joe, they should be declared as official Liars of 2010.

If they thought that fans wanted us to "spend all they can on Joe and stay under the tax", then are are the official Clowns of 2010.

Can they just assume the deal, and what they say ?

killbuckner · Post #14 » by **killbuckner** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:31 pm

Honestly- I can't blame anyone for not wanting to pay the luxury tax to have the third best team in the division. You can't get a top 4 seed if you are the third best team in the division. Thats why I was shocked at the 6 years and 124 million for Joe.

azuresou1 · Post #15 » by **azuresou1** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:32 pm

Anyone else think the ASG gave JJ the max so that they could just be mentally lazy and not have to make many future moves under the pretense of not going deep into the tax?

D21 · Post #16 » by **D21** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:43 pm

killbuckner wrote:Honestly- I can't blame anyone for not wanting to pay the luxury tax to have the third best team in the division. You can't get a top 4 seed if you are the third best team in the division. Thats why I was shocked at the 6 years and 124 million for Joe.

Even with the 5th seed, if you have the 3rd or 4th record you should get the home court advantage.
But is ATL still in the top 4 in record ? I doubt.

The sad part : they said they want to spend when giving this unbelievable contract, then don't do it, and don't assume that.
You don't give contract like that if you doesn't want to pay a bit of tax to improve the team.
If only the guy was enough to sell lots of seats, but it's not the case.

If they knew they would not pay any tax, they would have better to trade for a very good player sooner, even not better than Joe, but it would have allow to see that Joe was not a Max player.
And if only Woodson did not play this ISO all this year, the other player would have got better stats, reducing the value of Joe.

Both owners and coach worked on what happen, without knowing it themselves.
They could have avoid that, but did not.
Now we are stuck under the tax with a diva eating all the money. If only Joe wanted to win like James and Bosh (even if they will loose some legacy) , he would not have accept this contract and ask for less.
Even Arenas, one of the biggest ego in the NBA, did it.

I find it unreal that Joe has no problem with that.
Hope for him he will play in playoffs like a guy with this contract should play.

Biggest ego in the NBA and stupid owners for years...

raleigh · Post #17 » by **raleigh** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:26 pm

azuresou1 wrote:Anyone else think the ASG gave JJ the max so that they could just be mentally lazy and not have to make many future moves under the pretense of not going deep into the tax?

Of course. How anyone can think anything else, I'll never understand.

The ASG think we're all fools.

evildallas · Post #18 » by **evildallas** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:36 pm

killbuckner wrote:Honestly- I can't blame anyone for not wanting to pay the luxury tax to have the third best team in the division. You can't get a top 4 seed if you are the third best team in the division. Thats why I was shocked at the 6 years and 124 million for Joe.

I've already been on record as against the Joe signing. I would have opted for a longer term strategy. If you are going to spend that money on Joe though it makes more sense to me to spend more in this year to take a run at a title while Miami is still in flux. Once they can augment the initial signings with an MLE signing or 2 they will have a distinct advantage. I'm not suggesting staying above the luxury tax threshold long term, just for 2 years. Once that window closes it will probably make more sense to shed contracts and rebuild a little.

By spending on Joe and then stopping short of any more to improve the lineup from last year the ASG have paid full retail to be mediocre and likely the 5th or 6th seed in the East. To me that was the worst possible alternative they could have picked.

Edit - It almost moot now anyway as they've already squandered one of their major assets. The TPE isn't really large enough to help out.