Has any team ever traded a player as good as Paul George in order to strengthen their bench?
Paul George to OKC
- Thread starter Marbleheader
- Start date
The charts show the options of what the roster looks like after you clear room for GH and then match the salary to get PG, I believe.
As he also points out, this gets crazy expensive very quickly if we assume they keep IT.
Part of the reason I love this trade is because it will drive Lebron bonkers. His best chance of acquiring help in Cleveland is gone and LA is no longer an attractive landing spot from a competition standpoint.
I love all of this and would love it even more if they can keep Smart in the fold.
If Smart goes with Bradley and a hurting IT the depth at #1 does concern me. I am comfortable rolling with Rozier as your principal backup but not as your starter in extended minutes for a stretch.
Also would think this means the end of IT in Boston post next year unless they find middle ground with his contract and the rest of the league does not approach max money. Depending on his health, I'm not ruling that out - even a one year make good on it extension with a player option if it does get that bad.
If Smart goes with Bradley and a hurting IT the depth at #1 does concern me. I am comfortable rolling with Rozier as your principal backup but not as your starter in extended minutes for a stretch.
Also would think this means the end of IT in Boston post next year unless they find middle ground with his contract and the rest of the league does not approach max money. Depending on his health, I'm not ruling that out - even a one year make good on it extension with a player option if it does get that bad.
For as long as I can remember, teams in all sports have been providing greater value in trades for players who agree to an extension. It doesn't matter that the sending team has nothing to do with the extension - the mere knowledge of an extension or willingness to negotiate increases the player's value.
Consider one possible scenario:
Indy: Boston, your current trade package just isn't good enough. We can't sell this to our fans, and we won't be building toward our future in a meaningful way. If that's the best you can do, we'll be better off standing pat and seeing what we can get for him at the trade deadline.
Ainge: Unforttunately, we can't risk more on a possible one-year extension.
Indy: Well, why don't you talk to him and see if he'd be willing to grant you the assurances you need to sweeten your offer?
Do you expect Danny to say "No thanks. The extension is none of your business."? Not to mention the fact that it is kind of Indy's business if they grant the Celtics permission to speak to PG.
Last edited:
I agree with that. I'm just having a tough time with the sweeteners.
Going from salary filler and mid lotto pick all the way to 3 starting caliber players plus 2 high lotto picks seems a bit much.
Going from salary filler and mid lotto pick all the way to 3 starting caliber players plus 2 high lotto picks seems a bit much.
Well it's really 1 starting caliber player (Bradley who is about to get a big raise ), one likely lottery pick, and one lottery ticket.
I don't think so, because the NBA minimum salary is $815K for 2017-18, same as the cap hold. But that raises an interesting question. The new 2-way contracts pay $275K to start. There are two of them. If (for example) Ainge signs two players to these new contracts, do they count as "roster spots" and does the 815K cap hold go away for those two spots? If so, that saves about $1M in cap space.
Well, that's a different story altogether (which you've also made clear in your post). It's just that people have been repeating the statement that I bolded in my last post, and I contend that it's largely irrelevant.
It's thin if you don't add any good cheap vets or buyouts, but on the other hand it's remarkably high pedigree and young with 3 more 1sts coming in 2018. Since most teams only go 7-8 deep in the playoffs you should take the best possible starting 5 over strength in the 8-10 spots in the rotation
You have to remember that Paul George's agent is definitely a part of this negotiation and is working to get both George his money and a locale that's pleasing to him. Part of the reason extension talks are even being leaked to the media is so that Indiana can extract more in potential trade packages and get George out rather from one year from now. That means Boston pays more but I'm sure that's okay with them if it means locking down a top 15 player for the next five years.
Trades in the NBA are not zero sum games. Everybody needs to get something that works for them. Choosing to negotiate from a leveraged position rather than in good faith can bite you in the ass (see: the Lakers right now).
Trades in the NBA are not zero sum games. Everybody needs to get something that works for them. Choosing to negotiate from a leveraged position rather than in good faith can bite you in the ass (see: the Lakers right now).
Is it a given only George would be coming back? No way they would include Glenn Robinson? Would the Celtics not want any extra salary at all, regardless of how small?
I am a complete novice with respect to NBA salary rules. I hope this isn't a silly question but it sounds like someone here likely has the knowledge. Is there any provision for a disable list and does that salary count towards the cap?
They can end up $5 million over because they can add $5 million over the cap via trade. This opens a narrow pathway to keeping Smart if they can get everything to fall perfectly (or convince Hayward to play for a slight discount) since Crowder and Bradley are enough salary for George.
Independent of the above, people need to stop suggesting cutting Jackson as a way to create room. Cutting Jackson costs room because the difference between his salary and guarantee is less than the vet min hold. Trading Jackson could clear space though, and it's possible someone could be interested in getting him for nothing. Trading him to Indiana for, essentially, nothing is also an option if it's part of a handshake deal to facilitate the George trade.
My calculations have us, essentially $3.5 million short of a max by just renouncing everyone and cutting Zeller and Mickey. Signing the three rookies to scale salaries could open up another $2 million (if this is actually possible, but it's hard to see why they would agree). Trading Jackson could clear $0.5 million. Stashing Yabusele saves another $0.75 million over the above. So, if you do all of these, they are a few hundred thousand shy of a true max offer, which is probably close enough. If anything breaks down in this, like Tatum not agreeing to play for a huge discount, they will need to trade Smart as a salary dump before signing Hayward. If they do that, there is no need to play games with the picks or stash Yabusele.
There is not, no. Injured players count towards the cap. Chris Bosh, for instance, was medically ineligible to play and counted towards Miami's cap. Miami is currently applying for a waiver.
They can't keep Smart and renegotiate George in order to give him a reasonable extension, correct?
And if this is true, to Big John's question, it's not that simple because the Cs have to have cap room in which to renegotiate PG's contract.
I wonder if DA drafted two PGs in the second round because he was pretty sure he'd be getting rid of AB and Smart.
What if the Celtics trade Smart as part of the package for George?
Outgoing: Smart, Bradley, Crowder and Mickey
Incoming: PG13
You wouldn't have had enough room to sign Hayward if Smart, or someone else at a similar salary, was still on the roster.
And in the case of Reggie Lewis, even dead players count towards the cap LOL.
To do this they need to thread the needle I discussed above of getting Hayward without losing Smart, have Indiana renegotiate up George's salary, and then trade for him with a package of Bradley, Crowder, and Smart that let them take on his new, higher salary that forms the base for his extension. Realistically, this also involves Hayward taking a bit of a discount to play with George, probably a couple million under the max.
this is assuming hayward and george both demand the max, it's not unprecedented that they both might take a few million less if they know for sure the other one is coming and staying
My favorite salary cap waiver was Alonzo Mourning in 2000-2001 who missed most of the season with kidney disease, the heat got a waiver, and then brought him back for the playoffs. As noted above, the Celtics don't get waivers when their players are dead.
I've been playing with these numbers for a while, so figured I'd share what I'm using in hopes it's helpful, and so others might catch mistakes I'm making.
A few notes: you can see by the middle column how tight it is to sign Hayward while saving AB+Crowder+Smart for a later PG deal. It only works if (1) you stash Yabu, (2) you renounce everyone you can, and (3) you can convince Tatum to sign for 5% over slot (rookies are allowed to sign for up to 20% over cap). There's no wiggle room here at all if you want to keep the full max as an option ($1100 under cap!).
Once you've done that, there's an option I hadn't really considered that makes the PG deal much easier-- you can give AB (or Smart, or maybe Crowder, though he has multiple years left) a raise! If the idea is to trade for PG, you want IND to first renegotiate his deal much higher so that you can then extend him to a max contract. Since extensions can only have a 7.5% raise, you want him at least at 27.6m this year. That's tough since outgoing salaries have to be within (I believe) 5mil of what's coming back. But, I think, you can just give each of those guys a little extra cash this season to make it work. Of course, then IND is paying more for them, which they have to agree to, which probably means they ask for a better draft pick return, which in turn might be why we're talking about something like the LAL/SAC and/or MEM picks being included.
So, am I forgetting anything that we know about, or ignoring any relevant rules?
A few notes: you can see by the middle column how tight it is to sign Hayward while saving AB+Crowder+Smart for a later PG deal. It only works if (1) you stash Yabu, (2) you renounce everyone you can, and (3) you can convince Tatum to sign for 5% over slot (rookies are allowed to sign for up to 20% over cap). There's no wiggle room here at all if you want to keep the full max as an option ($1100 under cap!).
Once you've done that, there's an option I hadn't really considered that makes the PG deal much easier-- you can give AB (or Smart, or maybe Crowder, though he has multiple years left) a raise! If the idea is to trade for PG, you want IND to first renegotiate his deal much higher so that you can then extend him to a max contract. Since extensions can only have a 7.5% raise, you want him at least at 27.6m this year. That's tough since outgoing salaries have to be within (I believe) 5mil of what's coming back. But, I think, you can just give each of those guys a little extra cash this season to make it work. Of course, then IND is paying more for them, which they have to agree to, which probably means they ask for a better draft pick return, which in turn might be why we're talking about something like the LAL/SAC and/or MEM picks being included.
So, am I forgetting anything that we know about, or ignoring any relevant rules?
You've somehow made Jackson and his $650,000 guarantee disappear.I've been playing with these numbers for a while, so figured I'd share what I'm using in hopes it's helpful, and so others might catch mistakes I'm making.
A few notes: you can see by the middle column how tight it is to sign Hayward while saving AB+Crowder+Smart for a later PG deal. It only works if (1) you stash Yabu, (2) you renounce everyone you can, and (3) you can convince Tatum to sign for 5% over slot (rookies are allowed to sign for up to 20% over cap). There's no wiggle room here at all if you want to keep the full max as an option ($1100 under cap!).
Once you've done that, there's an option I hadn't really considered that makes the PG deal much easier-- you can give AB (or Smart, or maybe Crowder, though he has multiple years left) a raise! If the idea is to trade for PG, you want IND to first renegotiate his deal much higher so that you can then extend him to a max contract. Since extensions can only have a 7.5% raise, you want him at least at 27.6m this year. That's tough since outgoing salaries have to be within (I believe) 5mil of what's coming back. But, I think, you can just give each of those guys a little extra cash this season to make it work. Of course, then IND is paying more for them, which they have to agree to, which probably means they ask for a better draft pick return, which in turn might be why we're talking about something like the LAL/SAC and/or MEM picks being included.
So, am I forgetting anything that we know about, or ignoring any relevant rules?
You can't give anyone a raise after signing Hayward because you need cap room to renegotiate up a contract and the Celtics won't have cap room.
Yeah, I forgot part of Jackson's salary was guaranteed. You'd have to trade him away, rather than renouncing him (edit: oh, and i listed johnson rather than jackson in the renounce... it's really both, but johnson's gone as a UFA anyway), but I'm sure someone would take him for no return (e.g., heavily protected 2nd).
The renegotiate here would have to happen by IND, but they're pretty far under cap right now so that shouldn't be a problem, right? You then need to send more salaries back to get PG, since his salary will be higher, which is where the idea of bumping AB/Smart comes in.
The renegotiate here would have to happen by IND, but they're pretty far under cap right now so that shouldn't be a problem, right? You then need to send more salaries back to get PG, since his salary will be higher, which is where the idea of bumping AB/Smart comes in.
Yes, With Smart added to the package, you can take back about $25.1 million. Adding Jackson would add another $1.7 million or so, if you could keep him prior to signing Hayward. (If over $20 million in salary is being traded, they can take back 125% + $100k.)
Independent of all of that, can you explain why Tatum would take a discount? He has all the leverage and there's no reason I can think of why he'd sacrifice $5 million+ over the next 4 years to help the team block him from any hope of being a starter.
Are years 2 and 3 of the rookie scale tied to the year 1 salary? I didn't think so, but could be wrong. I.e., if he signs for 5% over scale in year 1, can the year 2 salary still be 20% over the original year 2 scale? I was thinking you'd try to get him at 5% over scale in year 1, but max in years 2 and 3, which is a net cost to him of about $600k. I'm not sure what kind of sweeteners can be used (i.e., guarantees about the 4th year option) to convince him to do this, though.
Thanks for this; terrific work.I've been playing with these numbers for a while, so figured I'd share what I'm using in hopes it's helpful, and so others might catch mistakes I'm making.
A few notes: you can see by the middle column how tight it is to sign Hayward while saving AB+Crowder+Smart for a later PG deal. It only works if (1) you stash Yabu, (2) you renounce everyone you can, and (3) you can convince Tatum to sign for 5% over slot (rookies are allowed to sign for up to 20% over cap). There's no wiggle room here at all if you want to keep the full max as an option ($1100 under cap!).
Once you've done that, there's an option I hadn't really considered that makes the PG deal much easier-- you can give AB (or Smart, or maybe Crowder, though he has multiple years left) a raise! If the idea is to trade for PG, you want IND to first renegotiate his deal much higher so that you can then extend him to a max contract. Since extensions can only have a 7.5% raise, you want him at least at 27.6m this year. That's tough since outgoing salaries have to be within (I believe) 5mil of what's coming back. But, I think, you can just give each of those guys a little extra cash this season to make it work. Of course, then IND is paying more for them, which they have to agree to, which probably means they ask for a better draft pick return, which in turn might be why we're talking about something like the LAL/SAC and/or MEM picks being included.
So, am I forgetting anything that we know about, or ignoring any relevant rules?
Jumping off: keeping IT, especially after next season makes all of this much harder. I understand how great he was last year and how good an offensive player he is, and especially why fans love him. But if the plan is George-FA-Horford, all making the max, with Tatum/Brown/Nets Pick/LAL or SAC pick/Zizic developing into NBA stars behind them... how does IT fit? Both on the court and on the balance sheet? Are the C's really gonna pay 4 max deals, plus the prospects, and the veteran minimums needed to Cleveland-up the payroll?
Or does cashing in on IT in trade make fiscal sense, as part of the PG deal or in another to make the extension numbers work?
Well, yeah.
This exercise is trying to figure out a way to make max cap space for players that will get max offers. I think it's been pointed out pretty clearly many times in this thread alone that they can easily get close to a max offer, the trick is finding that little bit extra if you need to get full max space.
These threads would be real short if we just said, hey maybe Lebron will come play for the minimum.
It's a fair point, though, taken in light of the concerns JakeRae is raising. I.e., if you're within, say, $600k of making this work, and you've got everything in place and agreed to by all parties, going to Hayward and PG and asking them to each take 29.4m instead of 29.7m seems at least plausible.
I'm okay with trading all those players for PG if an extension is in place (and we are adding one of Hayward/Blake). I am even comfortable with throwing in all of those draft picks EXCEPT Brooklyn 18 and LAL18/SAC19. I just think the possibility of adding 2 of Ayton/Porter/Doncic/Bomba is too great. Adding two of those 4 could help set the core for the next dynasty (with Tatum and Brown as complementary players). Add those 4 to Hayward and PG and.....well let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. It's irrational of me to think the LAL18/SAC19 pick as an "untouchable asset". If a month ago, i was given the option of trading #1 + Crowder + AB + Smart for PG + Tatum, I would have jumped at the chance.
The biggest benefit of importing Hayward and PG is that Thomas might be compelled to sign for less to stay with the core and chase a ring.
The biggest benefit of importing Hayward and PG is that Thomas might be compelled to sign for less to stay with the core and chase a ring.
I had suggested this last idea from FinnVT earlier but some folks said it wouldn't work. But yes, if Indiana uses its cap space prior to the trade, George can still get his raise.
I wish I could get into Mike Zarren's head in some sort of being John Malkovitch scenario. Then I might understand all of this perfectly.
I'm getting nervous about the idea of a capped out, studs&duds roster that gives up our defensive core of Bradley/Smart/Crowder plus top picks and other role players for Hayward and PG. I'm not sure Gordon in particular is worth it, especially when those 2 acquisitions make PT for Brown and Tatum questionable.
You can use the MLE to get a good defensive 2 guard to pair with IT and also PG is a very good defender in his own right. It sucks to lose the defensive prowess of those three but I think they'll be fine.
No, they will have to renounce the MLE to sign Hayward. They wont have it until 2018-19 assuming they go over the cap between now and then. All they will have is the room exception.
A certain ex-Hamilton-Wenham star and former rookie of the year is on the market. Of course, he makes Smart look like Kyle Korver.
A certain ex-Hamilton-Wenham star and former rookie of the year is on the market. Of course, he makes Smart look like Kyle Korver.
Of course it's plausible, it may even be likely for all I know, but is that what we're trying to do here?
We're trying to figure out ways to make both guys fit at their max salaries that they'll be offered elsewhere, but at the end of each post we have to say, of course these guys could just take less and make all these exercises worthless.
Can't we just assume that if they want to take less, then yes we wouldn't have to get to max cap space, but just the amount of space that would take?
The CBA would seem to preclude Indiana from renegotiating PG and then trading him but it's not clear cut.
Article VII, Section 8(e)(2) states "A player and his Team may amend a Player Contract (including by entering into an Extension but not by entering into a Renegotiation) pursuant to an agreement between such Team and
another Team concerning the signing of the amendment and subsequent trade of the amended Contract . . ."
However, I can't find anything in the CBA that defines a timeframe where a trade is barred after a renegotiation/extension. The CBA definitely prevents it from being done as two different transactions, I.e. Pacers renegotiate the remaining year on PG's current deal, then trade him to Boston with the Cs extending the previously renegotiated contract.
Article VII, Section 8(e)(2) states "A player and his Team may amend a Player Contract (including by entering into an Extension but not by entering into a Renegotiation) pursuant to an agreement between such Team and
another Team concerning the signing of the amendment and subsequent trade of the amended Contract . . ."
However, I can't find anything in the CBA that defines a timeframe where a trade is barred after a renegotiation/extension. The CBA definitely prevents it from being done as two different transactions, I.e. Pacers renegotiate the remaining year on PG's current deal, then trade him to Boston with the Cs extending the previously renegotiated contract.
I think it's the least likely scenario out of any of the ideas. It's much more likely, in my opinion, that the guys about to make $20M+ a year will be willing to take a bit of a haircut, and I'm not even sure that's likely.
Hayward and George are nearly every bit of the defensive players as Bradley/Smart/Crowder, and they happen to be much better offensively. Nervous is not a word I would choose
But some of the rumors intimated that there was going to be an extension, and that Boston was feeling more confident about extending him.
This weekend should be very interesting.
Yes except they play completely different positions (not including Crowder). Are 6'8 and 6'9 Hayward / George going to check the other team's best guard? Or are you leaving that to one-vote-for-all-nba-defensive-2nd-team IT?
Ryan's chart was meant to give everyone an idea of what needs to happen to get PG and GH in the door. The extension for George would force the C's to further gut the team.
Yeah, an extension isn't happening because of that. Maybe you have a handshake deal in place, but if you don't and the rumors are true he's calling Klay about playing in LA...then I sure hope we don't give up a huge asset (e.g. LAL pick) on a gamble like that. That's something you offer for Butler when you know he's locked up for 2 years.
Did the rumor say he wanted Klay to play in LA with him, or simply "play with him"?