Paul George to OKC

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,838
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.
I get that. What I'm asking is, if the Celtics are confident they can do that extension, then that would appear to be the plan--how will the team look then? The rumors said they had contingencies in place.

I wondering what that would be.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
Did the rumor say he wanted Klay to play in LA with him, or simply "play with him"?
LA apparently.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2718286-paul-george-reportedly-talked-to-klay-thompson-about-playing-together-in-future
According to NBC Sports Bay Area analyst Kelenna Azubuike (via 95.7 The Game), George discussed with Thompson the possibility of playing together in Los Angeles when the two-time NBA champion becomes a free agent after the 2018-19 season.
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,277
CT
The rumors said they had contingencies in place. I wondering what that would be.
================================================================

Not sure if there are others, but I think I read somewhere that Blake Griffin was a contingency plan.
 
Last edited:

vicirus

New Member
Jul 17, 2005
60
I worked through a couple numbers tonight, and if Indiana can do an extend and trade of George, I believe we can keep Smart:

1. Renounce Olynyk, Mickey, Zeller
2. Sign Tatum and Zizic to 115% of rookie scale (guarantee 3rd years for discount)
3. Sign Hayward to a 29% max
4. Trade Bradley, Crowder, Rozier and Jackson ($18.98MM total) for George ($24MM extended)

That would leave a team of Thomas, Smart, Hayward, George, Horford, Brown, Tatum, Zizic. If the cap increases only 2% in 2019, George would make the same amount in the above scenario as compared to playing out this year and signing a new 3 year deal.

The luxury tax hit would be large in 2019 assuming an extended IT/Smart, however they could drop back down below the tax line if Horford opts out in 2020.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
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.
I believe you're right.

In Larry Coons' CBA FAQ this is the last bullet point under
"Can existing contracts be renegotiated?"

A contract cannot be renegotiated in conjunction with a trade.

Link here

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q61
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
2. Sign Tatum and Zizic to 115% of rookie scale (guarantee 3rd years for discount)
This isn't legal. Agents would be fighting like dogs to get third and fourth years of rookie deals guaranteed if it was allowed.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
This isn't legal. Agents would be fighting like dogs to get third and fourth years of rookie deals guaranteed if it was allowed.
Yes, it's allowed. 80% of rookie scale is allowed. See Coon's FAQ #49. The agents would have to urge the NBAPA to renegotiate the next time around.

And the third year is already guaranteed.
 
Last edited:

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,838
The rumors said they had contingencies in place. I wondering what that would be.
================================================================

Not sure if there are others, but I think I read somewhere that Blake Griffin was a contingency plan.
I meant contingencies to shave the dollars from roster to afford extension.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,465
Somewhere
Jimmy Stewart on 98.5 mentioned Bradley/Crowder/Smart/Philly and Memphis picks for George with an extension in place. Take it with a grain of salt but he does have a pretty good source within the Celtics organization.
I don't mind that trade in principle but this will effectively leave the Celtics with Rozier and Jackson as the only healthy guards.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
Both have some talent. It's not a disaster. Then there's Kadeem Allen and Jabari Bird, both of whom can play the 2.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,458
I worked through a couple numbers tonight, and if Indiana can do an extend and trade of George, I believe we can keep Smart:

1. Renounce Olynyk, Mickey, Zeller
2. Sign Tatum and Zizic to 115% of rookie scale (guarantee 3rd years for discount)
3. Sign Hayward to a 29% max
4. Trade Bradley, Crowder, Rozier and Jackson ($18.98MM total) for George ($24MM extended)

That would leave a team of Thomas, Smart, Hayward, George, Horford, Brown, Tatum, Zizic. If the cap increases only 2% in 2019, George would make the same amount in the above scenario as compared to playing out this year and signing a new 3 year deal.

The luxury tax hit would be large in 2019 assuming an extended IT/Smart, however they could drop back down below the tax line if Horford opts out in 2020.
I don't think that works even if the Rookies take 115% (which they wouldn't). I assume that you have Yabusele agreeing to a stash, but do you have the holds for the empty roster spots?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,458
Not 100% certain but I believe that if you use Bernadoni's option B but don't sign Yabusele and trade out Jackson then you can extend George. It's tight, but I think it just works.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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?
Considering that Brown's salary is actually a bit higher than Smart's, and considering the fact that in a world with PG and GH slotted in for 4 years each that MS might have a better fit on the 17-18 Celtics, and considering that Indy might prefer JB to MS and thus might take lesser draft picks (i.e. Not the Philly pick), might it be wiser to include JB in a trade and keep MS?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,458
Considering that Brown's salary is actually a bit higher than Smart's, and considering the fact that in a world with PG and GH slotted in for 4 years each that MS might have a better fit on the 17-18 Celtics, and considering that Indy might prefer JB to MS and thus might take lesser draft picks (i.e. Not the Philly pick), might it be wiser to include JB in a trade and keep MS?
No. Brown will likely be the better player soon, and Marcus is due for a raise or walking away after this season. So you save a few dollars one year and get hurt badly going forward after that.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
No. Brown will likely be the better player soon, and Marcus is due for a raise or walking away after this season. So you save a few dollars one year and get hurt badly going forward after that.
I believe the deal with Smart is that they can extend a qualifying offer to for 2018-19, but after that he would be an UFA. So two more years of control, potentially.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/boston_celtics/
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
He's not signing a QO though, he'll get offer sheets from other teams that will make the Celtics either match or let him go.
Right, my bad. I misunderstood the rule. And to your original post, yes, he will walk after this year because the offers he get will be sizable enough that the C's won't match.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
This report from Bulpett lines up with my assumption - they'll trade for PG, but not if it includes any of the following: Brown, Tatum, BKN, LAL, IT or Horford. If Danny can pull this off, it would be an incredible job balancing the present and future.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics/2017/06/marcus_smart_endorses_celtics_targeting_paul_george_gordon_hayward_this
According to multiple sources, the Celts are willing to deal players and draft picks to the Pacers, while retaining the right to the most critical pieces of their future draft arsenal. George can be a free agent at the end of the 2017-18 season, and with Indiana having given no permission to explore whether he’d be amenable to staying beyond that, there is clearly risk involved that would have to be reflected in any trade offer.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
No. Brown will likely be the better player soon, and Marcus is due for a raise or walking away after this season. So you save a few dollars one year and get hurt badly going forward after that.
I don't know how likely it is that Brown will be better soon, but beyond that, if you are shooting for a one year gamble next year the better move is probably to not trade either of those guys, take George on his one year deal, and hope that you can convince him to stay. The lower cap hit and salary matching means you can keep Smart as a guy who can jump in at either guard position. Like if Brown improves defensively, you can play him at the 2 with Smart at the 1, or you can play Rozier at the 1 and Smart at the 2, etc.
 

finnVT

superspreadsheeter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,153
So, if you can't renegotiate and trade (i.e., have IND renegotiate PG then trade him), there's really no way to do Hayward+extended PG. You'd need to get payroll to two full max slots below the cap, which is 39.6m. Horford alone is 27m. Horford+Brown+Tatum+7 cap holds (since PG+Hayward will take up 2 of the spots) is 43.2m. So the options are:
(1) just PG (no max FA), extended
(2) Hayward + non-extended PG (take your chances on signing him in FA next season)
(3) extended PG + non-max FA

If you can get him cheap enough, I still like option 2 in hopes PG decides he likes it in boston enough to re-sign after the season. Without an extension, I think the deal I'd be trying to make is AB+Crowder+2 of (Smart, MEM pick, BOS 2018 1st). They should be able to flip AB+Crowder for additional picks. You don't need to include Smart for salary reasons if you're not renegotiating PG (though he might be an asset they actually want if there are other deals out there for PG). For only one year of PG guaranteed, that seems like a decent offer-- they could potentially end up with 3-4 1sts if they can flip AB and Crowder each or together for a (presumably heavily protected) 1st, although I doubt any of those would end up as lottery picks.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
Is there a statistical argument that George is an elite player? I don't get to see him play that much, but I've had the impression that he's a truly elite player who'd be a great fit in the Celtics lineup, but when I look at his advanced stats (RPM, VORP, WS/48), I see a guy who was an above average starter, but hardly elite. What am I missing?
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
5,867
Is there a statistical argument that George is an elite player? I don't get to see him play that much, but I've had the impression that he's a truly elite player who'd be a great fit in the Celtics lineup, but when I look at his advanced stats (RPM, VORP, WS/48), I see a guy who was an above average starter, but hardly elite. What am I missing?
I think the consensus here is he had a bad season(for him), but it's an open question. His RPM in the immediate aftermath of coming off the leg injury were in line with his career number, so you can't attribute the tail dive to that. More probably, he saw the Pacers stagnating and decided he wasn't going to kill himself every trip on defense. I thought he looked like the Paul George we knew in the Cleveland series, so I don't find the numbers troublesome.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
Well I think trading for George first is ass backwards. Sign Hayward as a free agent first, which only costs peripheral assets (Johnson, Jerebko, Zeller etc.). In the worst case it also costs you Crowder or Bradley (dealt for picks for cap reasons) Now you have Hayward in the fold plus all or most of your core assets. Then you can worry about George, and whether or not he's willing to spend more than a year in Boston. At that point you are dealing from a position of strength with both George and the Pacers. And even without George the Celtics with Hayward are clearly a top 4 NBA team.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,838
Well I think trading for George first is ass backwards. Sign Hayward as a free agent first, which only costs peripheral assets (Johnson, Jerebko, Zeller etc
Isn't that the plan--which is why nothing has happened and likely won't til FA opens?
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
Is there a statistical argument that George is an elite player? I don't get to see him play that much, but I've had the impression that he's a truly elite player who'd be a great fit in the Celtics lineup, but when I look at his advanced stats (RPM, VORP, WS/48), I see a guy who was an above average starter, but hardly elite. What am I missing?
I think a lot of his value comes on the defensive end, where he is both technically superior and also athletic and long enough to defend many types of players. A lot of this value last season was wasted because the Pacers' defensive system was just horrendously bad. They went from being a top defensive team under Vogel to an average to bad defense under Nate McMillan, and this change occurred with the team remaining more or less constant.

His value was not maximized because of poor coaching. The offense was similarly dysfunctional.

Here is a nice example of what he is capable of. Matched up on Derozan in the playoffs. Derozan is 6'7, George is 6'9, and yet Derozan is utterly incapable of blowing by. Here its the length and quickness.


Here he is defending Lebron. Its Lebron so he gives some up, but he is strong enough to make it tough on him.

 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,484
Not to mention that if you want to win a championship, you have to have at least one person who can guard KD. Hoyword took KD when the Jazz played GSW and while he tried, from what I saw it was still a mismatch.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
"Hell-bent as he is on signing with the Lakers, George - according to a person with knowledge of his situation - is also the kind of prudent professional who won’t close a window of opportunity prematurely. So if the Cavs can convince Pritchard to either take on four-time All-Star forward Kevin Love or send him to a third team in exchange for more suitable assets, then George will play his heart out alongside LeBron James and remain open to the idea of re-signing next summer if James were also to return (or, perhaps, George could leave for Los Angeles with James at his side).

Ditto for the Celtics or the San Antonio Spurs, teams that could fulfill George’s desire for title contention and thus put themselves in the running. And should the Lakers come along and trade for him early to ensure he doesn’t fall in love with another team, then so be it. The person spoke with USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the situation."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/06/28/paul-george-warned-indiana-pacers-trade/435476001/
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,484
"Hell-bent as he is on signing with the Lakers, George - according to a person with knowledge of his situation - is also the kind of prudent professional who won’t close a window of opportunity prematurely. So if the Cavs can convince Pritchard to either take on four-time All-Star forward Kevin Love or send him to a third team in exchange for more suitable assets, then George will play his heart out alongside LeBron James and remain open to the idea of re-signing next summer if James were also to return (or, perhaps, George could leave for Los Angeles with James at his side).

Ditto for the Celtics or the San Antonio Spurs, teams that could fulfill George’s desire for title contention and thus put themselves in the running. And should the Lakers come along and trade for him early to ensure he doesn’t fall in love with another team, then so be it. The person spoke with USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the situation."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/06/28/paul-george-warned-indiana-pacers-trade/435476001/
Was that part written directly by Pritchard or just dictated?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
The scary part about PG13 is that if Houston can find a 3rd team to give the Pacers picks and players they can do this deal easily by just trading Ryan Anderson off their roster as Anderson and George make pretty much the same amount of money next year.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
No. Brown will likely be the better player soon, and Marcus is due for a raise or walking away after this season. So you save a few dollars one year and get hurt badly going forward after that.
It's not about saving money, it's about saving assets with a player who is literally bench depth after this deal. George & Hayward mean that Brown's future here is as a sixth man, when including him in trade makes it easier to maintain their draft picks to build a team for a decade plus.

Honestly the only reason for favoring Brown over Marcus is that you're convinced that George is leaving, in which case you shouldn't be giving anything of value up for him

As for Smart, if they keep they'll just sign him to an extension this fall, so it's not a big deal.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,289
The scary part about PG13 is that if Houston can find a 3rd team to give the Pacers picks and players they can do this deal easily by just trading Ryan Anderson off their roster as Anderson and George make pretty much the same amount of money next year.
The LA pick alone is better than what any 3rd team would move to take on Anderson's contract.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,458
It's not about saving money, it's about saving assets with a player who is literally bench depth after this deal. George & Hayward mean that Brown's future here is as a sixth man, when including him in trade makes it easier to maintain their draft picks to build a team for a decade plus.

Honestly the only reason for favoring Brown over Marcus is that you're convinced that George is leaving, in which case you shouldn't be giving anything of value up for him

As for Smart, if they keep they'll just sign him to an extension this fall, so it's not a big deal.
I think they're both bench players, though I wouldn't be surprised is the Celtics play more minutes with 3 wings than not, particularly late in games.

Also a team with 3 max players even without IT4 shouldn't be paying Smart like a starter.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
How much value does Clint Capella have in regards to Celtics players? Who would he compare to? Although not sure the Rockets would want to move him but for Paul George, you pull the trigger.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,484
The scary part about PG13 is that if Houston can find a 3rd team to give the Pacers picks and players they can do this deal easily by just trading Ryan Anderson off their roster as Anderson and George make pretty much the same amount of money next year.
Ryan Anderson has what, 3 years and over $60M on his contract? Shouldn't HOU be adding the picks to get another team to take him off their books?

If anyone was giving anything of value for Ryan Anderson over the past couple of weeks, he would have been gone in a heartbeat methinks.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I think they're both bench players, though I wouldn't be surprised is the Celtics play more minutes with 3 wings than not, particularly late in games.

Also a team with 3 max players even without IT4 shouldn't be paying Smart like a starter.
Right, but Smart's a bench player that can give you minutes at the point whereas Brown cannot. If they need to hold on to Brown because the risk of losing George is too high then there's no need to be throwing Smart into the deal, especially given the disastrous history of NBA players returning from torn hip labrum.

There's a non-zero chance that 2017 Lil' Zeke never returns, and that he might actually not be worth re-signing now. So unnecessarily unloading his coverage is not exactly ideal.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Some great info on this whole George/Hayward situation via cap expert Albert Nahmad's Twitter timeline. I figured it's easier to do it this way as it's a ton of Tweets.

Back to the Celtics for a moment… I want to address the Paul George R&E topic one more time… Sorry all, but it's important...There’s an element to Celtics scenario I haven’t mentioned b/c, while legal, I wanted to 1st confirm if it’d be perceived as circumvention. I haven’t been able to confirm it. I don’t think I will b/c I don’t have pull :). But it’s important. So I’ll describe it with that caveat. After securing Hayward with room, Celtics could then execute a trade with Pacers for George by sending back as little as $14.5M in salaries. I've proposed 3-year R&E for Paul George: $24M (17-18) + $29M (18-19) + $30M (19-20) = same $82M he can get in free agency (+ 10 YOS at end). To give George such an R&E, Celtics would need to trade not just $14.5M but rather $23M. Many say that’s unrealistic. So how about this…A player’s salary can’t be renegotiated in conjunction with a trade, but it can renegotiated after a trade...and, theoretically, before too. Whether Pacers renegotiating Paul George’s salary before trade would be considered circumvention would need to be cleared w/ league office. Pacers would need to create $4M of cap room to renegotiate Paul George’s 2017-18 salary from $19.5M to my $24M figure before a trade. If Pacers were to renegotiate and extend Paul George before a trade, Celtics could then use the Traded Player Exception to acquire him. Celtics, using TPE, could send Pacers as little as $19M for an R&E’d Paul George (vs. the $24M of room they’d need for a post-trade R&E). Celtics are already on verge of clearing a max slot for Gordon Hayward. Could you then find another $19M to trade for an R&E’d Paul George?

Basically he's saying that they possibly could trade for an extended George and not have to match the exact salary. It'd be Bradley, Crowder, and Smart.
 

finnVT

superspreadsheeter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,153
That's essentially the scenario I proposed last night (here). It works, if it's allowed, but it's really hard to find info on clarifying what the rule about no renegotiate+trade means. I feel like I saw at least one indication you couldn't trade within 60 days of a renegotiate, but that may have just been speculation.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
That's essentially the scenario I proposed last night (here). It works, if it's allowed, but it's really hard to find info on clarifying what the rule about no renegotiate+trade means. I feel like I saw at least one indication you couldn't trade within 60 days of a renegotiate, but that may have just been speculation.
That might be the Pacers best way to secure the sort of return they're looking for (assuming they just needed to wait until the end of August before dealing). That makes it easier on Boston to give Indy what it would want in trade, and also open the floodgates on offers, because LA couldn't strongarm Indy any more and would need to pony up.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,458
Right, but Smart's a bench player that can give you minutes at the point whereas Brown cannot. If they need to hold on to Brown because the risk of losing George is too high then there's no need to be throwing Smart into the deal, especially given the disastrous history of NBA players returning from torn hip labrum.

There's a non-zero chance that 2017 Lil' Zeke never returns, and that he might actually not be worth re-signing now. So unnecessarily unloading his coverage is not exactly ideal.
I don't think either will be in a George trade btw, Marcus seems more likely to be the guy traded to create cap space for Hayward.
Overall though....
I just don't get your player valuations at all.
Smart is a great defender, but not a good offensive player, and really plays more of an undersized 3 role for the Celtics than the point. Rozier based on the playoffs at least is the more likely (and cheaper) backup PG, and Smart getting paid to come be a below average backup PG when you can get a vet off the scrap heap for league minimum to pair with Rozier and perhaps another young guy from one of these upcoming picks seems crazy to me.
You also keep saying that Brown is being held for risk of losing George... I don't see that at all. The Celtics best lineups were last year and will be going forward: 3 wings, point and Horford. I look at the Warriors as an example. Brown is hopefully the Iggy role, may not start but will be top 5 in minutes and will close games in a 3 wings, point, 1 big lineups. In fact the top 6 for the Warriors in minutes is a PG, 1 big (Draymond) and 4 wings. I think the Celtics coaching staff sees the future of this team as approximating the Warriors in some ways:
PG- IT for now maybe someone else down the road
4 wings- George, Hayward, Brown, Tatum
Small C/PF- Horford
Starting big- Zizic? 2018 BKN? Vet FA?

bench guys- Yabusele, Rozier,

Smart may fit into the Livingston role, but I think Rozier could do it as well where Brown fits the Iggy role better than anyone else.

TL:DR- I think flexible wings can always find minutes, and Brown with his longer control at cheap money is a far better asset whether he is your 5th man in crunch time or you trade him down the road. Smart is less valuable and on a shorter clock, so he should be moved now. Also adding so many ball handling wings means the bacup PG needs to shoot more than run the offense and Marcus is historically bad at shooting.
 

finnVT

superspreadsheeter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,153
Actually, I'm curious about something for those who understand the cap... what would actually be best for the C's isn't to have him renegotiate his base salary, but to renegotiate to add a trade kicker. I.e., his salary stays at 19.5, but IND adds a 30-40% kicker so that his salary increases to something in the range of 25-27m if he gets traded.

This would potentially allow the C's to then extend him at a max level after they acquire him, but (and here's where I'm not sure), the salaries they send out would only have to match the 19.5, right? Or in the case of trade kickers, do you have to match based on the new contract value?
 

Statman

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
1,057
Los Angeles, CA
Actually, I'm curious about something for those who understand the cap... what would actually be best for the C's isn't to have him renegotiate his base salary, but to renegotiate to add a trade kicker. I.e., his salary stays at 19.5, but IND adds a 30-40% kicker so that his salary increases to something in the range of 25-27m if he gets traded.

This would potentially allow the C's to then extend him at a max level after they acquire him, but (and here's where I'm not sure), the salaries they send out would only have to match the 19.5, right? Or in the case of trade kickers, do you have to match based on the new contract value?
I don't believe George has a trade kicker clause in his current contract. Even if he did, trade kickers are capped at 15%.

See #98 in Coon's NBA salary cap FAQ.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
Yes, it's allowed. 80% of rookie scale is allowed. See Coon's FAQ #49. The agents would have to urge the NBAPA to renegotiate the next time around.

And the third year is already guaranteed.
Huh?

It says this right in the Coon FAQ #49 you cited.

"Rookie scale contracts are always for two seasons, with team options for the third and fourth seasons"

Guaranteed for two seasons, not three. Can't guarantee more than two.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q49
 

vicirus

New Member
Jul 17, 2005
60
I don't think that works even if the Rookies take 115% (which they wouldn't). I assume that you have Yabusele agreeing to a stash, but do you have the holds for the empty roster spots?
It's essentially the same math as what finnVT posted earlier, but in the "Add Max FA" column, you have a 29% max for Hayward, 115% rookie scale for Zizic and Tatum, and Jackson on the team. I neglected to say that Yabu would be stashed.

The trade I detailed previously is exactly what @RedOctober3829 had in the Tweet compilation. Crowder/Bradley/Rozier/Jackson make up the necessary salary to raise and extend George to a level where he wouldn't lose money on a 3yr extension. I've yet to receive confirmation on whether the R&E mechanic is allowed, but I believe it is.

@mcpickl Theres no way to guarantee 3rd years but they could "guarantee" it (wink-nod). Possibly easier just to get Hayward to take 28% of the cap and give them the full 120%. The other option is to trade Bradley for just a pick (no salary), keep Zeller, and then flip both to Indiana. PG would then need to take ~$900K less on a raise.
 
Last edited:

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
Huh?

It says this right in the Coon FAQ #49 you cited.

"Rookie scale contracts are always for two seasons, with team options for the third and fourth seasons"
Yes I was wrong. I was responding more to the 120 percent.

Has a first round pick ever been dropped after the second year? Not even the injured Greg Oden was cut, although he had to accept something less than the full qualifying offer.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
Yes I was wrong. I was responding more to the 120 percent.

Has a first round pick ever been dropped after the second year? Not even the injured Greg Oden was cut, although he had to accept something less than the full qualifying offer.
Sure. Some get dropped even earlier. RJ Hunter and Fab Melo got waived after one year.

I wouldn't be making wink-nod guarantees with anyone against the rules either. Danny Ainge can ask his bud Kevin McHale about what can go wrong there.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,484
Or in the case of trade kickers, do you have to match based on the new contract value?
From the stuff I'm reading on Chris Paul, the salaries have to match the trade kicker (which is why they had to get additional players) but I'm not certain about this.
Since CP3 waived some of his trade kicker he cannot renegotiate his contract for either 60, 90, or 180 days. (Can't remember what the length was.)
It's 60 days. See #60 in the FAQs.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
I'm not really seeing how Houston is a threat to land George. They have almost no assets and can't compete with Cleveland, let alone Boston.