I hope the Siakam deal fails to go through.

[AHF]

3 minutes ago, Hawkish said:

Hope you’re right.  Hunter, Capela, Bogi, and the SAC 1st are the only assets I’m willing to use to facilitate a Pascal trade.

My ideal would be Hunter, Capela and Bufkin with the possibility of more draft assets.  This would necessitate involving other teams as part of that (example: Capela to Dallas, Dallas assets to Toronto).  

[macdaddy]

Just now, AHF said:

My ideal would be Hunter, Capela and Bufkin with the possibility of more draft assets.  This would necessitate involving other teams as part of that (example: Capela to Dallas, Dallas assets to Toronto).  

I'm not convinced it will take this much.   Everyone knows that Toronto isn't going to offer him a new deal.  They know that Toronto has to trade him this season or they will get nothing.  So only thing that makes if costly is a bidding war.  And i'm not convinced there are that many bidders.   In fact i think we could extract most of the assets from Dallas going to Toronto in a three way deal with Capela.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

I'm not convinced it will take this much.   Everyone knows that Toronto isn't going to offer him a new deal.  They know that Toronto has to trade him this season or they will get nothing.  So only thing that makes if costly is a bidding war.  And i'm not convinced there are that many bidders.   In fact i think we could extract most of the assets from Dallas going to Toronto in a three way deal with Capela.

That would obviously be better but I'd rather give those up than give up AJ.  Dallas doesn't have much I'd trade for AJ.

[JayBirdHawk]

I keep going back to find trades of recent 'All-stars' on 1 year deals and what the eventual price was:

Kawhi (and Danny Green): Demar DeRozan, Jakob Poetl and 1 1st round pick

Kyrie: Spencer Dinwiddie, Dorian Finney-Smith, 2029 1st and 2 2nds.

Can anyone think of anymore recently?

 

[JayBirdHawk]

11 minutes ago, AHF said:

My ideal would be Hunter, Capela and Bufkin with the possibility of more draft assets.  This would necessitate involving other teams as part of that (example: Capela to Dallas, Dallas assets to Toronto).  

I'm hoping the 'draft compensation' in the Sham's report is 2nds.

[macdaddy]

8 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I keep going back to find trades of recent 'All-stars' on 1 year deals and what the eventual price was:

Kawhi (and Danny Green): Demar DeRozan, Jakob Poetl and 1 1st round pick

Kyrie: Spencer Dinwiddie, Dorian Finney-Smith, 2029 1st and 2 2nds.

Can anyone think of anymore recently?

 

Aaron Gordon.  And he got traded for scraps i think.

[Diesel]

3 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Que?

Bogi isn't trade eligible until Sept 16th.

Hawks shouldn't trade their 2 best 3pt shooters.

Exactly.  My thought is that if a deal is done and hasn't been announced, then it must have Bogi included.  And the only salary that exchanges well with his is DHunter.   Nobody wants DHunter. 

 

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, shakes said:

How is that the deal if Toronto already rejected that deal?  I doubt replacing Hunter with Bogi moves the needle for Toronto.

Well, they were one of the worst 3 pt shooting teams last year.   Bogi is ~40%.

 

[Spud2nique]

5 hours ago, kg01 said:

Squd, I'm flummoxed by this blatant use of our intellectual property.  Time ta sue! 

Let’s go! 
 

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

Thanks.  I see this as a disaster for fans and the league as a whole without major changes to the CBA and other provisions.  Imagine if Luka was already gone from Dallas.  What hope would they have?

So keep a player on a team that he really don't want to play for and hope for the best. ... 

I see.   The idea of RFA has always been questionable.   You make a player go out and find their best deal and then when they find it, you say.. no... we're keeping you.   Yeah... Think John Collins.    For 3 years, we treated JC like crap because we wanted him to be an asset.    If there were a hard FAcy, then either sign the player or trade him.   That's not a disaster.   In the overall scheme, it lets the player get what he wants and let the team get something back for the player. 

 

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

He might also decide based on other terms of the deal such as which teams are willing to give him a no trade clause.  In any case, all NBA markets are in large cities so there is no equivalent to a Newport News scenario.  Even the smallest markets are among the biggest cities in the US.

Nah.  I used Newport News, but Sacramento, Indiana, Atlanta, OKC  has always been the Newport News of the NBA. 

But to the point, if players automatically had a no trade clause, it's protection against that scenario.   It makes a team work in good faith. 

 

 

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

Then Portland and Lillard go to arbitration and argue about...what?  What is the arbitrator deciding on here?  Is it about who is really to blame for the breakup ala a divorce proceeding?  Is it just a matter of showing that Lillard objected to the trade but Portland did it anyway?  (if the latter why even have an arbitration?)

If Portland says we're trading him to Houston.  OK.. Lillard goes to Houston with a trade kicker.   Portland has to pay that to Lillard and it counts against their cap.  So they still get everything they wanted from Houston but they have this figure that they have kept from the Lillard trade. 

IF Portland says,  we don't want to pay the trade Kicker, they work out a deal with Miami and they get the 15% from Lillard and an exception. 

2 HOURS AGO, AHF SAID:

This also seems like it would generate lots of gamesmanship since players will be incentivized to block trades just to ensure they get the 15% kicker.

The risk that the player takes is that arbitration may lead to them getting what they want with a 15% kickback to the original team. 

In essence, the player would be decentivize to do gamesmanship. 

[JayBirdHawk]

17 minutes ago, Diesel said:

But to the point, if players automatically had a no trade clause, it's protection against that scenario.   It makes a team work in good faith. 

Give it up man.

Teams aren't going to be handing out NTC's like Halloween candy (see the Bradley Beal deal). Not without the players giving back a whole lot - like non-guaranteed contracts. So you either accept a trade and keep your money or get cut.

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I keep going back to find trades of recent 'All-stars' on 1 year deals and what the eventual price was:

Kawhi (and Danny Green): Demar DeRozan, Jakob Poetl and 1 1st round pick

Kyrie: Spencer Dinwiddie, Dorian Finney-Smith, 2029 1st and 2 2nds.

Can anyone think of anymore recently?

 

To me, it looks like Toronto got fleeced, but they won the chip.   However, that chip was due to torn ACLs. 

 

[AHF]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

If Portland says we're trading him to Houston.  OK.. Lillard goes to Houston with a trade kicker.   Portland has to pay that to Lillard and it counts against their cap.  So they still get everything they wanted from Houston but they have this figure that they have kept from the Lillard trade. 

IF Portland says,  we don't want to pay the trade Kicker, they work out a deal with Miami and they get the 15% from Lillard and an exception. 

2 HOURS AGO, AHF SAID:

This also seems like it would generate lots of gamesmanship since players will be incentivized to block trades just to ensure they get the 15% kicker.

The risk that the player takes is that arbitration may lead to them getting what they want with a 15% kickback to the original team. 

In essence, the player would be decentivize to do gamesmanship. 

Now I'm very confused how this would work. 

Philly decides to trade Simmons. Simmons wants to play for GS but GS is only offering Jordan Poole and demanding Philly throw in a first on top of that.  Philly comes up with 6 different trades it likes much better and Simmons exercises his no trade clause for every one of them and tells them he won't play anywhere other than GS.  PHI decides it wants to trade Simmons to Brooklyn without his consent.  

I had previously thought you were suggesting that the Simmons to Brooklyn trade would just happen then and Simmons would get the 15% kicker regardless of how toxic he was to Philly.

Is there a risk now that "arbitration may lead to Simmons getting traded to GS with a 15% kickback to PHI"? 

Is there a chance that PHI is forced to accept GS's offer and now has to give up a first round pick along with Simmons to take Poole who they don't want at all? 

Is there a potential in this scenario that PHI trades Simmons to Brooklyn but doesn't have to pay the 15% kicker even though Simmons exercised his no trade rights? 

On what basis is the arbitrator deciding this case and does the trade happen when PHI decides it is going to just take the Brooklyn offer or does it happen only after the arbitration?

[Diesel]

37 minutes ago, AHF said:

Philly decides to trade Simmons. Simmons wants to play for GS but GS is only offering Jordan Poole and demanding Philly throw in a first on top of that.  Philly comes up with 6 different trades it likes much better and Simmons exercises his no trade clause for every one of them and tells them he won't play anywhere other than GS.  PHI decides it wants to trade Simmons to Brooklyn without his consent.  

I had previously thought you were suggesting that the Simmons to Brooklyn trade would just happen then and Simmons would get the 15% kicker regardless of how toxic he was to Philly.

So...  IF Philly wants to send him to GS.. and they could agree on a deal that they liked, Simmons would have to pay back 15% to Philly.

The reasoning here is that Philly doesn't really want to deal Simmons to GS.   They are only doing this to satisfy Simmons and to get him out of their hair.   Secondly, if it's the team that Simmons wants to go to, he cannot veto any deal that they decide to make.   He (at this point) is no longer a part of the process except for the fact that he is being traded.   i.e. You wanted to go to GS, well, now you're going and when you get there, you're going to pay Philly 15% for their trouble. 

 Philly sending him to Brooklyn against his wishes means that they will pay the 15% Kicker. 

The reasoning here is that Philly forced Simmons to go to Brooklyn so that they may prosper.   Therefore, he gets compensated for this action and they take a penalty both in loss salary and loss cap. 

42 minutes ago, AHF said:

Is there a chance that PHI is forced to accept GS's offer and now has to give up a first round pick along with Simmons to take Poole who they don't want at all? 

Believe it or not, I just figured out how to do this...

Once Philly starts negotiations with GS, they are working for a good faith deal.   Their benefit is that they will get the 15% from Simmons.   IF they negotiate themselves out of a first, that's on them.    So if the deal is Poole/Filler for Simmons/1st... if that's the deal they negotiate, then so be it and Simmons gets what he wants... and Philly gets the 15% from Simmons.   The point is for the player to get what he wants, he has to pay for it. 

45 minutes ago, AHF said:

On what basis is the arbitrator deciding this case and does the trade happen when PHI decides it is going to just take the Brooklyn offer or does it happen only after the arbitration?

The only arbitration is how badly do the original team want to make a deal.   If they want to force a player to go to a specific place so that they can get said players and picks... then it will cost them.   IF the player has asked to stay with the team and he doesn't want to go through with the trade and the team doesn't want to force the issue, they now get 15% of that players salary back because he costed them a deal.   If the player demands a trade, the team gets 15% of that players salary back after the trade because of what they and their fanbase loss.   In each scenario, the player is considered. 

[Johnnybravo4]

8 hours ago, Diesel said:

If this is a done deal, that would suggest that maybe Bogi is part of the deal and not Hunter. 

So that would be Bogi/AJ and a Draft pick or maybe Bogi/Bufkin and a draft pick. 

Either way, we would be the worst shooting team in the league. 

 

I think it's Hunter, AJ  Kobe and a Future 1st 

[Diesel]

11 minutes ago, Johnnybravo4 said:

I think it's Hunter, AJ  Kobe and a Future 1st 

That's a lot for a rental. 

Money still have to work also. 

This is what your deal would equate to...

 

I'm not feeling good about giving them AJ.  I would rather hold on to him. 

 

[swanlee]

Hunter and CC and maybe a draft pick are all I'm willing to give. Anything else will hurt us long term.

If they want more Id walk

AJ and OO should be off limits at least for a few years

Edited August 10, 2023 by swanlee

[AHF]

3 hours ago, Diesel said:

So...  IF Philly wants to send him to GS.. and they could agree on a deal that they liked, Simmons would have to pay back 15% to Philly.

The reasoning here is that Philly doesn't really want to deal Simmons to GS.   They are only doing this to satisfy Simmons and to get him out of their hair.   Secondly, if it's the team that Simmons wants to go to, he cannot veto any deal that they decide to make.   He (at this point) is no longer a part of the process except for the fact that he is being traded.   i.e. You wanted to go to GS, well, now you're going and when you get there, you're going to pay Philly 15% for their trouble. 

 Philly sending him to Brooklyn against his wishes means that they will pay the 15% Kicker. 

The reasoning here is that Philly forced Simmons to go to Brooklyn so that they may prosper.   Therefore, he gets compensated for this action and they take a penalty both in loss salary and loss cap. 

Believe it or not, I just figured out how to do this...

Once Philly starts negotiations with GS, they are working for a good faith deal.   Their benefit is that they will get the 15% from Simmons.   IF they negotiate themselves out of a first, that's on them.    So if the deal is Poole/Filler for Simmons/1st... if that's the deal they negotiate, then so be it and Simmons gets what he wants... and Philly gets the 15% from Simmons.   The point is for the player to get what he wants, he has to pay for it. 

The only arbitration is how badly do the original team want to make a deal.   If they want to force a player to go to a specific place so that they can get said players and picks... then it will cost them.   IF the player has asked to stay with the team and he doesn't want to go through with the trade and the team doesn't want to force the issue, they now get 15% of that players salary back because he costed them a deal.   If the player demands a trade, the team gets 15% of that players salary back after the trade because of what they and their fanbase loss.   In each scenario, the player is considered. 

So in the example where Gobeet is toxic and isn’t playing for the team but is demanding they pay him as he “rehabs”, if he vetos every team but LA the only options for Utah are to do a terrible deal with LA, pay Gobert 15% extra even though he is the one who made them want to move on, or hold onto him with him giving a Harden-in-Houston style performance while he poisons the locker room?  
 

None of those seem to serve the fan base as well as trading him to Minnesota for a real return without needing to add a kicker.  That also gives a huge incentive for players to do things like that to get themselves out of a team they don’t like and a 15% pay raise to boot.  It also gives teams like LA very little incentive to offer a fair deal because they know any deal with a team other than them will cost Utah say $30M extra (assuming a $200M contract as you used earlier).  
 

I do thank you for giving more detail but I think I know exactly why no sport does trades like that.