RealGM

GONYK wrote:

kneega wrote:

Capn'O wrote:So, the Mavs are looking to dump their pick/guaranteed salary spot.

Any way we can offer them cap relief? I imagine we could theoretically swap picks with them + cash for our lesser cap hold. That doesn't sound like a winning package though...

How many other teams can do the same thing is the question?we do have Cambys expiring contract due to the fact that his final year is not guaranteed...

It's partially guaranteed. He will be owed at least $1M in that final year one way or another.

Ok cool...still very workable...

Capn'O wrote:

kneega wrote:
How many other teams can do the same thing is the question?we do have Cambys expiring contract due to the fact that his final year is not guaranteed...

The Mavs will require immediate cap relief as they are looking for room to acquire Howard outright.

I've seen these weird expiring contract trades happen on draft night but have never really understood them. I'd imagine that's what they're looking for.

#24
Camby (4.3 mill, final year NOT GUARANTEED- 1 mil buy out)
+ cash

FOR


#13
Marion 9.3 million


Mavs knock off for free agency: 4,933,023

Oh. Hell yeah, I'd do it. At least given that we could still resign our guys.

About time we got the good end of a deal with a team looking to enter free agency.

Capn'O wrote:Oh. Hell yeah, I'd do it. At least given that we could still resign our guys.

About time we got the good end of a deal with a team looking to enter free agency.

Don't know much about this draft, just curious who and if an impact player would be available at 13...

kneega wrote:

Capn'O wrote:Oh. Hell yeah, I'd do it. At least given that we could still resign our guys.

About time we got the good end of a deal with a team looking to enter free agency.

Don't know much about this draft, just curious who and if an impact player would be available at 13...

I don't know much about the college game but Shawn Marion is still an impact player at a position of need. Defense, toughness, rebounding, 3-ball. He would be an AMAZING pickup for us, imo and would free us up to draft a development piece.

I just posted this trade in the Mavs thread, fyi.

kneega wrote:

Capn'O wrote:So, the Mavs are looking to dump their pick/guaranteed salary spot.

Any way we can offer them cap relief? I imagine we could theoretically swap picks with them + cash for our lesser cap hold. That doesn't sound like a winning package though...

How many other teams can do the same thing is the question?we do have Cambys expiring contract due to the fact that his final year is not guaranteed...

That is true...however, with the general piss poorness of this draft, not every team may even be willing to do that. A team will have to pay a 13th overall pick right now will have to pay the guy, minimally, $3.4 million for the 1st 2 seasons before they have the option of dumping him. To carry that player all the way through his QO, could amount to around $6 million.

kosmovitelli wrote:Keep in mind, I just made simple projections based on what could happen considering the current state of the roster and the direction of the team. I didn't include our 2013 first round pick and qualifying offers for Prigioni and Copeland. Max contract projections are just an indication (the best offer we can make). The taxpayer's MLE can obviously be split between Copeland and Prigioni but it probably makes more sense to let Prigioni take his QO worth $988,872).

Thanks for putting this together.

Just a small addendum, even if the knicks traded that pick and renounced rights to Prigioni and Copeland by not giving them qualifying offers, that space would still need to be filled with capholds for empty roster charges as required by the CBA to bring the minimum player slots up to the required 12. Those cap holds would make it even more unlikely that the Knicks would be under the apron even providing for an increase in the apron set by the league for the new season.

I mention this only because there was some blogger piece floating around earlier with ludicrous scenarios of going under the apron in order to facilitate a sign-and-trade for CP3, but disregarded the required empty roster charges that made the fantasy trade scenarios and calculations even more ludicrous. The knicks would almost certainly be above the apron one way or the other.

So for anyone using these numbers and trying to figure out a way to go below the apron, realize that you need to add empty roster charges to these numbers before you get your final team salary number. Neither the "Total Salary" nor "Total Salary (projected)" numbers in this chart include those empty roster charges.

I wonder whether Q and Barron got a second non-guaranteed year. That would open up a boatload trade options.

Sorry if this has already been asked-but I didn't see it.
How close can the knicks get to being under the apron to allow for sign and trades?

Quick question regarding the CBA. At what point is it determined whether you get the Tax Payer Mid Level Exception, Non-Tax Payer Mid Level Exception or the Room Mid Level Exception?

What i'm asking is, lets say a team goes into the off-season with about 60 Million dollars committed in salary. This would mean that they have the Non Tax-Payer MLE. But what if, during the off-season they make a trade where they take back less salary than they get, and get below the Salary Cap. Does this mean that instead of getting the Non Tax-Payer MLE you'd get the lesser, Room MLE?

Or is the Exception that each team receives determined at the beginning of the off-season and no matter what you do during the off-season, you keep the same exception?

Edit: Never mind, I found the answer on a CBA FAQ site. According to that site, the determination of what value your MLE will have is made after you use it.

" macute wrote:I haven't seen an answer to this question yet.
I believe the rule is that we have to be under the apron AFTER the sign and trade.
If so, doesn't this make it possible for us?"


this was Moocow007's response in another thread.

It will be pretty hard to be under the apron AFTER the sign and trade. NY is projected to be about $4-5 million over the apron. In a trade, since NY is over the tax, they only have about 25% leeway to work with.

macute wrote:" macute wrote:I haven't seen an answer to this question yet.
I believe the rule is that we have to be under the apron AFTER the sign and trade.
If so, doesn't this make it possible for us?"


this was Moocow007's response in another thread.

It will be pretty hard to be under the apron AFTER the sign and trade. NY is projected to be about $4-5 million over the apron. In a trade, since NY is over the tax, they only have about 25% leeway to work with.

Correct, it is "after", which is kinda why Grunwald was repeatedly saying "creative".

Gettin under the apron isn't an issue, completing a worthy trade and being under the apron after completion si the hard part.

For instance, for Chris Paul, financially....Amare and Felton works...25 outgoing, 19 incoming.

Clippers need a great incentive to even consider a sign and trade for Chris Paul. I see no reason on their part to engage in a sign and trade yet consider getting Amare in a deal like that. Closest thing that might interest them is Melo, but even that is a stretch given Melo can opt out after the year and he is not an ideal fit anyways.

seren wrote:Clippers need a great incentive to even consider a sign and trade for Chris Paul. I see no reason on their part to engage in a sign and trade yet consider getting Amare in a deal like that. Closest thing that might interest them is Melo, but even that is a stretch given Melo can opt out after the year and he is not an ideal fit anyways.

Chris Paul would literally have to demand a trade to the Knicks before the Clippers even answer the phone call from the Knicks, and forfeit 30 mil in the S&T.

Thugger HBC wrote:

seren wrote:Clippers need a great incentive to even consider a sign and trade for Chris Paul. I see no reason on their part to engage in a sign and trade yet consider getting Amare in a deal like that. Closest thing that might interest them is Melo, but even that is a stretch given Melo can opt out after the year and he is not an ideal fit anyways.

Chris Paul would literally have to demand a trade to the Knicks before the Clippers even answer the phone call from the Knicks, and forfeit 30 mil in the S&T.

That is the easiest step to satisfy. There is the famous toast and we can semi-believe his desire to play in NY with other guys. The more difficult part is to convince Clippers to engage in a deal. As you noted, not only that we need to convince Clippers that CP3 is ready to leave for nothing, but also whatever we can put out there is better than nothing.

seren wrote:

Thugger HBC wrote:

seren wrote:Clippers need a great incentive to even consider a sign and trade for Chris Paul. I see no reason on their part to engage in a sign and trade yet consider getting Amare in a deal like that. Closest thing that might interest them is Melo, but even that is a stretch given Melo can opt out after the year and he is not an ideal fit anyways.

Chris Paul would literally have to demand a trade to the Knicks before the Clippers even answer the phone call from the Knicks, and forfeit 30 mil in the S&T.

That is the easiest step to satisfy. There is the famous toast and we can semi-believe his desire to play in NY with other guys. The more difficult part is to convince Clippers to engage in a deal. As you noted, not only that we need to convince Clippers that CP3 is ready to leave for nothing, but also whatever we can put out there is better than nothing.

idk, getting paul to do that would be the harder part, i do expect a platoon of rumors to surface around that time though.

similar to the melo deal, denver didn't get the best package, they got the one they were forced into and just got as much as possible.

Thugger HBC wrote:idk, getting paul to do that would be the harder part, i do expect a platoon of rumors to surface around that time though.

similar to the melo deal, denver didn't get the best package, they got the one they were forced into and just got as much as possible.

couple of things here:

1) denver had a legitimate reason to worry about New York. we were set to have cap space at the end of the season. in CP3's case, it would be more like if you don't trade me to NY, I would sign with team X. not as legit.

but more importantly:

2) we gave up three young players with potential (two got big extensions from denver), a draft pick, and immediate cap relief that saved tens of millions in luxury tax avoidance with the help of minnesota. with the new rules, we are talking about not a cap relief to clippers but on the contrary, ie taking on more salaries and pushing them towards luxury tax border unless multiple other teams are involved. that plus, we have less goodies available at hand. shump, upcoming pick, maybe some future draft pick a half a decade from now. that doesn't come close to what Denver got.

seren wrote:

Thugger HBC wrote:idk, getting paul to do that would be the harder part, i do expect a platoon of rumors to surface around that time though.

similar to the melo deal, denver didn't get the best package, they got the one they were forced into and just got as much as possible.

couple of things here:

1) denver had a legitimate reason to worry about New York. we were set to have cap space at the end of the season. in CP3's case, it would be more like if you don't trade me to NY, I would sign with team X. not as legit.

but more importantly:

2) we gave up three young players with potential (two got big extensions from denver), a draft pick, and immediate cap relief that saved tens of millions in luxury tax avoidance with the help of minnesota. with the new rules, we are talking about not a cap relief to clippers but on the contrary, ie taking on more salaries and pushing them towards luxury tax border unless multiple other teams are involved. that plus, we have less goodies available at hand. shump, upcoming pick, maybe some future draft pick a half a decade from now. that doesn't come close to what Denver got.

CP3 can go the same route with the same result...

"You lose me for nothing unless, you trade me to the one team I'm willing to go to"

He makes that statement and the ball is in the Clippers court....deal with the Knicks or get nothing.

If he's will to come here at he'd have to give up money per CBA, just like if he walked to another team with cap space....it's really no difference imo, unless I'm missing something.

the deal can provide them cap relief as well since our guys have shorter contracts if they EXPAND THE DEAL, and the draft would be over so they can have who we draft and Shump.

Thugger HBC wrote:

seren wrote:
couple of things here:

1) denver had a legitimate reason to worry about New York. we were set to have cap space at the end of the season. in CP3's case, it would be more like if you don't trade me to NY, I would sign with team X. not as legit.

but more importantly:

2) we gave up three young players with potential (two got big extensions from denver), a draft pick, and immediate cap relief that saved tens of millions in luxury tax avoidance with the help of minnesota. with the new rules, we are talking about not a cap relief to clippers but on the contrary, ie taking on more salaries and pushing them towards luxury tax border unless multiple other teams are involved. that plus, we have less goodies available at hand. shump, upcoming pick, maybe some future draft pick a half a decade from now. that doesn't come close to what Denver got.

CP3 can go the same route with the same result...

"You lose me for nothing unless, you trade me to the one team I'm willing to go to"

He makes that statement and the ball is in the Clippers court....deal with the Knicks or get nothing.

If he's will to come here at he'd have to give up money per CBA, just like if he walked to another team with cap space....it's really no difference imo, unless I'm missing something.

the deal can provide them cap relief as well since our guys have shorter contracts if they EXPAND THE DEAL, and the draft would be over so they can have who we draft and Shump.

Whatever the Knicks can offer is not better than nothing is my point. Unless of course we deal Melo.

And there is no cap relief that we can provide them unless they decided it is time to unload Griffin which I doubt very much.

seren wrote:

Thugger HBC wrote:

seren wrote:
couple of things here:

1) denver had a legitimate reason to worry about New York. we were set to have cap space at the end of the season. in CP3's case, it would be more like if you don't trade me to NY, I would sign with team X. not as legit.

but more importantly:

2) we gave up three young players with potential (two got big extensions from denver), a draft pick, and immediate cap relief that saved tens of millions in luxury tax avoidance with the help of minnesota. with the new rules, we are talking about not a cap relief to clippers but on the contrary, ie taking on more salaries and pushing them towards luxury tax border unless multiple other teams are involved. that plus, we have less goodies available at hand. shump, upcoming pick, maybe some future draft pick a half a decade from now. that doesn't come close to what Denver got.

CP3 can go the same route with the same result...

"You lose me for nothing unless, you trade me to the one team I'm willing to go to"

He makes that statement and the ball is in the Clippers court....deal with the Knicks or get nothing.

If he's will to come here at he'd have to give up money per CBA, just like if he walked to another team with cap space....it's really no difference imo, unless I'm missing something.

the deal can provide them cap relief as well since our guys have shorter contracts if they EXPAND THE DEAL, and the draft would be over so they can have who we draft and Shump.

Whatever the Knicks can offer is not better than nothing is my point. Unless of course we deal Melo.

And there is no cap relief that we can provide them unless they decided it is time to unload Griffin which I doubt very much.

How so? if we offered them the 2013 drafted player + Shump, that's worse than nothing?

My bad on shorter, I meant smaller.