Chris Vernon @ChrisVernonShow · 19h 19 hours ago
Pick protection on Grizz pick giving Celtics - 2017 1-10, 2018 1-12, 2019 1-8, 2020 1-6, 2021 unprotected.
I think Memphis owes a pick to another team which will likely be conveyed in 2017. That means with Stepien rule, C's can't get their pick before 2019.SeanBerry said:According to the above quote, I would think 2017 is the likely year, not 2019, right?
Eddie Jurak said:I think Memphis owes a pick to another team which will likely be conveyed in 2017. That means with Stepien rule, C's can't get their pick before 2019.
SeanBerry said:
Ah. I didn't know about the 2017 pick.
Memphis better come away with something good because they could be in rough shape in a few years.
Dan to Theo to Ben said:So we trade an above-average NBA player, our best talent (if he applied hhimself) for a draft pick in 4 1/2 years that may or may not amount to anything?
I don't get it. And would probably rather have Russ Smith than Austin. What are we getting from LAC?
Bass has a good attitude and I am not opposed to keeping him around.Koufax said:Next up: Brandon Bass. Good player, but not good enough to lead the kids to the promised land, and his few remaining good years will be wasted here. What can Danny get for him?
Dan to Theo to Ben said:So we trade an above-average NBA player, our best talent (if he applied hhimself) for a draft pick in 4 1/2 years that may or may not amount to anything?
Dan to Theo to Ben said:So we trade an above-average NBA player, our best talent (if he applied hhimself) for a draft pick in 4 1/2 years that may or may not amount to anything?
I don't get it. And would probably rather have Russ Smith than Austin. What are we getting from LAC?
It's a first and a second for half a year of performance that is probably a negative impact on our goals of developing young guys and losing games.Dan to Theo to Ben said:So we trade an above-average NBA player, our best talent (if he applied hhimself) for a draft pick in 4 1/2 years that may or may not amount to anything?
I don't get it. And would probably rather have Russ Smith than Austin. What are we getting from LAC?
Plenty of cash for LeBron and a second all star.zenter said:Jeff Green was traded: 1) for the luxury of not paying him 9M next year, 2) to offset not getting anything for him when he becomes an FA, and 3) a draft pick. Prince was simply there for salary match.
Assuming they deal Nelson, the C's are down to 34M against a projected 67-70M cap next season. This is enough room for 2 max players, and that's before all the TPEs.
Which is another way of saying that Danny has pulled another rabbit out of a hat.Cellar-Door said:It's a first and a second for half a year of performance that is probably a negative impact on our goals of developing young guys and losing games.
maufman said:From the Memphis perspective, I think there's two ways to look at this trade:
1. Green is a poor man's Antoine Walker. This trade is subtraction by addition and they will regret it, even if the pick going to Boston doesn't amount to anything.
2. Other than athletic big men who play defense, scorers who can create their own shot are the league's scarcest commodity, and the Grizz are in the unfortunate position of desperately needing one. Green doesn't clearly fit the bill, but he was the closest they could get without giving up a core piece like Conley, Gasol or Z-Bo. Given the huge impact that a scorer could make on this year's team, rolling the dice on Green was well worth giving up a pick that probably won't turn into a player materially better than Green.
Edit: I suppose there's a middle ground, where Green is an upgrade on Pondexter but isn't as impactful as some alternative target they could have acquired with the future #1 and Prince's expiring deal. Personally, if the best that can be said of Green is he's a little better than Pondexter, then I'd put this in category #1 -- the Grizz have great chemistry, and I wouldn't mess with that just to tinker around the edges.
zenter said:
I think you overstate somewhat in terms of his value to Memphis. There's upside for Green - between Conley and Gasol, defenses are bound to be more distracted and thus more likely to leave Green to double or rotate. Less defensive attention plus his explosive first step make him a perfect Gamma dog, and help stretch the floor when they go small. It's not like Memphis 1) gave up an asset of real value to land him, or 2) had this type of player on their roster.
He's not a star, but he's a pretty significant upgrade over Prince/Pondexter on both ends (particularly offense). His defense is a key to me in this deal, they needed a wing who could score some without degrading the defense that is the heart of a slowdown team like Memphis.maufman said:
You said basically what I was trying to say in #2, but much more clearly. I think a contender would like to have a better third option than Green, but it's not like guys who can create their own shot grow on trees. Green doesn't need to turn into the guy people thought he'd be five years ago for this to be a great deal for Memphis.
To get the cap room, you have to renounce the TPEs. Can't be under the cap and have exceptions.zenter said:
Jeff Green was traded: 1) for the luxury of not paying him 9M next year, 2) to offset not getting anything for him when he becomes an FA, and 3) a draft pick. Prince was simply there for salary match.
Assuming they deal Nelson, the C's are down to 34M against a projected 67-70M cap next season. This is enough room for 2 max players, and that's before all the TPEs.
mcpickl said:To get the cap room, you have to renounce the TPEs. Can't be under the cap and have exceptions.
Not that it matters much. Odds of getting two max players to choose Boston, with a shell of a roster, is miniscule.
Devizier said:
I think the Lebron-Kyrie-Love with 8 2/3 scrubs experience has pretty much ended the "big three" era.
They can certainly try to max out a restricted guy like Kawhi or Jimmy Butler, and that would be a totally reasonable move to make, but the chances are very low that a team like the Bulls or Spurs - who would not have cap space to go out and get a suitable replacement but can go over the cap to keep their own guys - aren't going to just match those offers to their budding stars. The guys you can potentially get in restricted free agency seem to be guys like Isiaiah Thomas or Jeremy Lin - people significantly down the pecking order who get lost during the early feeding frenzy in July.Chainsaw318 said:I have been wondering if, with cap room, younger players who will be in years 2-5 of their pro careers, and all of the draft assets, if the move will be to offer a restricted free agent at a huge number.
The NBA salary structure makes little sense to me, but, with the cap looking like it will increase, and the celtics losing most players who make any real money, couldn't they overpay for a guy like Kawhi and give him the max?
Chainsaw318 said:I have been wondering if, with cap room, younger players who will be in years 2-5 of their pro careers, and all of the draft assets, if the move will be to offer a restricted free agent at a huge number.
The NBA salary structure makes little sense to me, but, with the cap looking like it will increase, and the celtics losing most players who make any real money, couldn't they overpay for a guy like Kawhi and give him the max?
Really impossible to do because the max salary, especially for guys coming off their rookie contract, is so low.Chainsaw318 said:I have been wondering if, with cap room, younger players who will be in years 2-5 of their pro careers, and all of the draft assets, if the move will be to offer a restricted free agent at a huge number.
The NBA salary structure makes little sense to me, but, with the cap looking like it will increase, and the celtics losing most players who make any real money, couldn't they overpay for a guy like Kawhi and give him the max?
With the cap going way up in the not too distant future, a max offer for a non-max player may not be the anchor that it has been. Danny may have a shot at one of the lesser guys who will get the max, and unlike in years past that may not be a bad thing.mcpickl said:Really impossible to do because the max salary, especially for guys coming off their rookie contract, is so low.
Gordon Hayward got the max as an RFA this summer and Utah quickly matched.
If you can't get Gordon Hayward for a max offer, no shot at getting a Kawhi level player for the same.
How do you get them though?Eddie Jurak said:With the cap going way up in the not too distant future, a max offer for a non-max player may not be the anchor that it has been. Danny may have a shot at one of the lesser guys who will get the max, and unlike in years past that may not be a bad thing.
How do you get them though?
Teams have been matching max offers for non max players already. (Hayward, Batum, Eric Gordon)
I'd say those types of guys are even more likely to be matched now for the reason you just mentioned. Everyone knows the cap is about to explode. The team with matching rights will figure that in as well.[/]
Ainge could try the Asik/Lin trick and offer a hugely backloaded (or otherwise lopsided deal) to a player on a team that will likely be in the tax at that point. Harder to project with the uncertainty around the new TV deal, but that's been successful in the past.
That really only works on mid-level free agents though. You can only significantly backload it like that if the average per year is pretty low. They were 3/25 deals so you're likely looking at role players, which is less useful for a rebuild, Anything much more than the 3/25 range and you can't backload it as much (3/25 is 8 and change a year, but the final year of those deals was almost $15M, not much wiggle room there to add money without coming up on a player's yearly max.).Grin&MartyBarret said:Ainge could try the Asik/Lin trick and offer a hugely backloaded (or otherwise lopsided deal) to a player on a team that will likely be in the tax at that point. Harder to project with the uncertainty around the new TV deal, but that's been successful in the past.
Grin&MartyBarret said:That can happen only to very specific players though, which is why it's rare.How do you get them though?
Teams have been matching max offers for non max players already. (Hayward, Batum, Eric Gordon)
I'd say those types of guys are even more likely to be matched now for the reason you just mentioned. Everyone knows the cap is about to explode. The team with matching rights will figure that in as well.[/]
Ainge could try the Asik/Lin trick and offer a hugely backloaded (or otherwise lopsided deal) to a player on a team that will likely be in the tax at that point. Harder to project with the uncertainty around the new TV deal, but that's been successful in the past.
Those backloaded deals only work on restricted free agents where the team doesn't have Bird rights, which would be less than three years service. So any first round pick that hasn't been released is protected under Bird rights. You'd only be able to offer a deal like this to a second round pick or undrafted player who completed their rookie contract of less than three seasons.
No one's questioning that. The question is how to do it.Grin&MartyBarret said:
My money is on teams continuing to try and attract good players. Three of them, four of them. Five, even.
maufman said:No one's questioning that. The question is how to do it.
The Cavs' struggles this season make it less likely that the next big free agent decides to take two of his friends and sign with a team with nothing but cap room. Instead, he will look for teams that can offer max money and has a supporting cast already in place. The difference obviously has profound implications for how you construct a rebuilding team.
Where is that thread?Jed Zeppelin said:His high school highlight reel was awesome.