Trade Target: Shane Battier

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.nba.com/media/grizzlies/battier_140_041026.jpghttp://www.nba.com/grizzlies/images/grizzlies_logo.gif

Shane Battier | 31
Position: F
Born: Sep 9, 1978
Height: 6-8 / 2,03
Weight: 220 lbs. / 99,8 kg.
College : Duke '01

Info (http://www.nba.com/playerfile/shane_battier/index.html)

Memphis has a plethora of small forwards and is in need of a center. The Spurs have a plethora of bigs and will eventually be in need of a starting small forward. Battier pretty much fits what you would look for in a small forward to eventually replace Bruce. Battier's a team player, he has good size for a 3, is coachable, will play and practice hard, has good range on his shot, doesn't try to play outside of his game, is relatively young, will defend, etc...

[batman2883]

And he's from Duke the best NCAA School in the world, Go Blue Devils, but im more interested in Gerald Wallace than Shane

[duncan_21]

My only problem with shane besides him being from duke is I don't know if he's that great defensively. Other then his d I think he would be a great addition. I might be hard on his d because I'm spoiled by bruce.

I also think bruce has another 3 or 4 years left. Guys like bruce who only play d can last quite awhile. Pippen was a great defender up until his last 2 years in the league.

As far as shane coming off the bench, I have no problem with that.

[Gino2882]

He will be 28 for next season. Wouldnt be a bad trade but I would think the Spurs would aim for someone younger?

[Gino2882]

Shane is a very good defender. Ever since college he played strong D.

[JsnSA]

Shane does seem like Spurs material. Except I think he hits more free throws than he misses. Of course that would surely change if he came here...so that shouldnt be a problem.

[samikeyp]

Not a bad pickup. Good defender, good fundamentals, good character guy.

[2centsworth]

I like it. Intelligent, known for his D, and has a nice touch from outside. Of course, that was more than 5 years ago. I have no clue how he's played the past 5 years.

[Marcus Bryant]

Bruce is 34 now. How long can he continue to defend at such a high level? Battier seems like a natural fit for the Spurs.

[caspian]

And he's from Duke the best NCAA School in the world, Go Blue Devils, but im more interested in Gerald Wallace than Shane

How is Dook the best in anything outside of its basketball mystique (and getting free recruiting publicity from AMEX ads)?

P.S. I'd also aim for someone younger and with more upside than Shane.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

I loved Battier in college. His pro game hasn't impressed me as much. I'm not sure he's as fast defensively as Bruce, he seems a step slower.

I guess this trade would depend on what we're giving up as much as what we're gaining.

[timvp]

Battier would fit in with the image of the Spurs. The only thing I question about his game is his speed. I've seen him get blown by defensively.

But as far as players who fit the Spurs mold and who could possibly replace Bowen down the line, Battier is one of the better fits in the league.

[2centsworth]

Looks like he has one year left on his deal at 4.9mm. Perfect in length because if he doesn't work out the spurs are not committed.

How could the spurs make this work?

[2centsworth]

Will NOT happen. He is Jerry West's favorite player on the Grizzlies. He has stated that many times. Plus he has a HUGE contract. It cannnot work financially and will not happen.
4.9 for one year doesn't seem huge, but my source could be wrong.

[Kori Ellis]

He signed an six-year extension last summer. Six year/$36.8M.

[2centsworth]

He signed an six-year extension last summer. Six year/$36.8M.
my source was hoopshype.:blah

[Marcus Bryant]

Will NOT happen. He is Jerry West's favorite player on the Grizzlies. He has stated that many times. Plus he has a HUGE contract. It cannnot work financially and will not happen.

6 years and $36.8 mil isn't exactly huge in today's NBA. That contract would start at about $4.65 mil. It wouldn't be hard for a trade to be worked out.

[2centsworth]

6 years and $36.8 mil isn't exactly huge in today's NBA. That contract would start at about $4.65 mil. It wouldn't be hard for a trade to be worked out.6 years is too long for an unknown commodity.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's known what he can do in the NBA.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Battier would be a very good fit for the Spurs, he's one of the guys I tabbed in mid-May as being a trade possibility for Rasho.

I wouldn't mind seeing this at all, though I am a bit leery about letting Rasho go when Shaq is still around in the East.

[exstatic]

The only thing I question about his game is his speed. I've seen him get blown by defensively.

That's OK, as long as it's baseline. :lol

[bigbendbruisebrother]

Damn I knew i was right! that feels good. i knew that he had around a 38 million dollar contract. thats too much. the only was we can get him is we give up rasho straight up and that could NEVER happen

What do you mean? Why could that never happen?

[ducks]

when has a duke player won a nba ring

[Solid D]

Get R.C. on the phone.

[Kori Ellis]

when has a duke player won a nba ring

Danny Ferry.

[Solid D]

Shane Battier = Perfect Spur.

[T Park]

when has a duke player won a nba ring


03 Danny Ferry

without him the Spurs dont get out of the first round.

PERIOD.

[bigbendbruisebrother]

Would a straight Rasho for Battier trade work from a collective bargaining agreement standpoint? Do their salaries match up closely enough?

[Marcus Bryant]

Would a straight Rasho for Battier trade work from a collective bargaining agreement standpoint? Do their salaries match up closely enough?


The problem is that Battier is a Base-Year Compensation player. That means Memphis would have to have the cap room to absorb some part of Rasho's contract.

[spurjur]

I think he would be a good pickup, but not a great one. I think the Spurs need someone longer and more athletic. I really can't think of a player right now. Give me time.

[Extra Stout]

West would want Nazr for Battier, not Rasho.

[Marcus Bryant]

Could the Spurs do better for Nazr than Battier?

[spurjur]

Isn't Doug Christie going to become avail? I hate the fact that he always points up to the sky and that he is attached by the hip to his wife, but he can play good defense.

[bigbendbruisebrother]

Could the Spurs do better for Nazr than Battier?

IMO they're in the same talent bracket, with Battier having a better all-around game (although he doesn't have Nazr's pump-faking abilities nor his ability to deflect passes from his teammates).

The question to me is, could the Spurs do better for a backup small forward than Barry? (Yes) Is Battier a better backup option? (Yes)

[bigbendbruisebrother]

The problem is that Battier is a Base-Year Compensation player. That means Memphis would have to have the cap room to absorb some part of Rasho's contract.


West would want Nazr for Battier, not Rasho.

Do Nazr's and Battier's contracts match up better than Rasho's and Battier's?

Would dealing Nazr to Memphis require them to use cap space?

[Marcus Bryant]

The same issue would remain if the proposed swap was Nazr for Battier. It's not about matching up salaries, it's about Memphis finding another team to absorb some of Nazr or Rasho's salary.

[strangeweather]

The same issue would remain if the proposed swap was Nazr for Battier. It's not about matching up salaries, it's about Memphis finding another team to absorb some of Nazr or Rasho's salary.

I'm a little rusty on base-year issues, but I thought base year players counted double their cap value for the purposes of a trade. Since Memphis is over the cap, wouldn't this mean that they would have to take back Rasho or Nazr plus a whole bunch of additional salary as cap filler?

[bigbendbruisebrother]

Bump for answer to strangeweather's question above.

[Solid D]

I'm a little rusty on base-year issues, but I thought base year players counted double their cap value for the purposes of a trade. Since Memphis is over the cap, wouldn't this mean that they would have to take back Rasho or Nazr plus a whole bunch of additional salary as cap filler?
To answer this question, you would have to assume the NBA is under the expired CBA rules in this area. The base year players don't count double but they do count whatever is greater of: (1) their base year salary or (2) 50% of their new salary. Refer to the attached link and verbiage in Q&A numbers 72, 73, and 74.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#72

72. What is "Base Year Compensation?" How does base year compensation affect trades? Why does it exist?
Base year compensation (BYC) prevents another salary cap loophole. Without BYC, a team over the salary cap that wants to trade a player, but can't because of the assigned player exception (which says teams can receive no more than 115% of the salary they trade away), could just sign the player to a new contract that fits within the desired range, then do the trade. BYC says "if you re-sign a player and give him a big raise, then for a period of time his trade value will be lower than his actual salary."

BYC defines the salary that's used to compare players for compliance under the assigned player exception (see question number 67 for more information about the assigned player exception). Usually, the salary used for comparison is the player's actual salary. But under either of the following circumstances, a different salary is used when comparing salaries for trading purposes:

The team is over the salary cap, used theLarry Bird or Early Bird exception to re-sign the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20%.

The team is over the salary cap, it extended the rookie scale contract of the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20%.
If either of the above apply, then the player is considered a base year player. A player remains a base year player for two years (one year if the contract is signed on or after July 1, 2001). When trading a base year player, the salary used for comparison is defined as follows:
Contract signed First year BYC Second year BYC
Before July 1, 2001 Previous year's salary or
50% of first-year salary in new contract* 120% of the salary in the last year of the previous contract or
75% of the second-year salary in new contract*
July 1, 2001 or later Previous year's salary or
50% of first-year salary in new contract* N/A

*Whichever is greater

Here is an example of a BYC calculation: A player earned $2 million in 99-00, after which he became a free agent. Prior to the start of the 00-01 season, he signs a new contract (re-signing with his previous team, which is over the salary cap) starting at $9 million. This player qualifies for BYC, so his trade value is the greater of his previous salary ($2 million) or 50% of his new salary ($4.5 million), or $4.5 million. So this player, who actually earns $9 million, is worth $4.5 million for trading purposes.

When comparing salaries for trade, teams use their own player's BYC value and the other player's full salary, even if the other player is also BYC. Here is a simple example -- two $5 million players, both of whom are re-signed (by teams over the cap) for $10 million. Both players become base year players whose base year amount is $5 million (50% of the new salary). If the teams want to trade these players for each other they compare their player's base year amount to the other player's full salary. So each team can take back a maximum of 115% plus $100,000 of their player's $5 million base year amount, or $5.85 million. They compare $5.85 million to the other player's full $10 million. $10 million is way too high, so this trade can't be done, even though the players' actual salaries match exactly.

If one of the teams in the above example was below the cap, the trade still couldn't be done. For the team under the cap, their player would NOT be BYC, so they would be comparing $10 million to $10 million. But since the other team is over the cap, their player is BYC, and they'd still be comparing $5.85 million to $10 million, which prevents the trade from working. (See question number 74 for more information about trading BYC players.)

For Larry Bird or Early Bird players, the player's BYC begins on the date he signs his contract. For extended rookie scale contracts, the player's BYC begins on the July 1 preceding the first season of the extension. For example, if an extension of a rookie scale contract is signed on 10/30/99, his BYC begins on 7/1/00, because the first season of the extension is 00-01. If a team tries to trade an extended rookie between the date his extension is signed and the date it takes effect, his "trade value" for the receiving team is the average of the salaries in the last year of the scale contract and each year of the extension. This is called the "poison pill provision."

A player's BYC goes away if the team falls below the salary cap, the player signs with a different team, or the player is traded.

There was an interesting twist to base year compensation caused by the 1998 lockout. Since the start of the 98-99 season was delayed, contracts signed prior to the 98-99 season were signed in February 1999. The duration of BYC is specified in calendar years and not seasons, so for contracts signed in February 1999, the BYC amount changed in February 2000, which is in the middle of the 99-00 season. It then expired in February 2001, which was in the middle of the 00-01 season. So for these players, in addition to the mid-season change, BYC lasted into the third season of their contracts.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

73. How does a base year player's salary count against the team's salary cap?
His actual salary is included in the team salary. BYC is used only when comparing salaries for trades.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74. Whenever I read about prospective trades involving base year players, they always say a third team must get involved. Why? Can't a base year player be traded in a two-team trade?
There's no specific rule that prohibits trading base year players in a two-team deal. But the way the numbers work, it's not always possible unless one of the teams dumps additional salary onto a third team.

As an example, let's say Player A plays for Washington. He earned $3 million last season and re-signed as a free agent for $10 million. That makes him a base year player whose BYC value is $5 million (see question number 72 ). Player B plays for Seattle and also earns $10 million, but is not a base year player. Both Seattle and Washington are over the salary cap.

Now suppose Seattle and Washington want to trade Player A and Player B for each other. Seattle can take back 115% plus $100,000 of Player B's $10 million salary, or $11.6 million. Player A's $10 million salary easily fits within that limit. But Washington can only take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of Player A's $5 million BYC value, or $5.85 million. Player B's $10 million salary is too high by $4.15 million.

This means, if the two teams want to complete this trade, that Washington must rid themselves of an additional $3.61 million in salary (I'll show why this is the correct amount a little later). Let's say that Player C plays for Washington, is not a base year player, and earns exactly $3.61 million. What happens if they want to trade Player A plus Player C for Player B? Player A plus Player C total $13.61 million, which is greater than Seattle's $11.6 million maximum. So Washington can't give the additional $3.61 million to Seattle.

This is where a third team must get involved. This team must be far enough under the cap, or has a trade exception (see question number 68 ) to absorb the additional $3.61 million in salary. Let's say Chicago (a team way under the salary cap) gets involved. Here is an example three-team trade:

Washington sends Seattle Player A
Seattle sends Washington Player B
Washington sends Chicago Player C
Chicago sends Washington a future second round draft pick
Here's how the numbers work:
Washington trades $5 million BYC plus $3.61 million salary, or $8.61 million. They can receive 115% plus $100,000 of $8.61 million, or exactly $10 million, in return (this is why $3.61 million was correct above). Washington receives Player B's $10 million salary, along with a draft pick that has zero trade value (see question number 70 ) for a total of $10 million. The numbers exactly match.
Seattle trades $10 million in salary, and recives $10 million in salary, so they're fine.

Chicago trades $0 and receives $3.61 million, but since they're more than $3.61 million under the salary cap, they can absorb the increase.

So the numbers work for all teams involved.

However, not all trades involving base year players require a third team. Let's say Player D plays for Washington. He earned $8 million last season and re-signed as a free agent for $10 million, so his BYC amount is $8 million (see question number 72 ). Washington can take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of $8 million in trade, or $9.3 million. Player E plays for Seattle, is not a base year player, and earns $9 million. So Seattle can take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of $9 million, or $10.45 million.

Player D and Player E can be traded for each other directly, even though Player D is a base year player. Player E's $9 million salary is less than Washington's $9.3 million maximum, and Player D's $10 million salary is less than Seattle's $10.45 million maximum. The teams have even more flexibility if one or both have a trade exception (see question number 68 ) or disabled player exception (see question number 17 ).

So a trade involving a base year player doesn't necessarily require a third team.

[Manu Man]

What the fuck is all thsi Lakerfan porn? Ban flash gordon for causing this? I think so.

[midgetonadonkey]

I wouldn't take any Duke player on my team. Those Duke bastards can't do shit in the NBA. Grant Hill is their greatest NBA player and he really isn't worth shit.

[Money316]

To answer this question, you would have to assume the NBA is under the expired CBA rules in this area. The base year players don't count double but they do count whatever is greater of: (1) their base year salary or (2) 50% of their new salary. Refer to the attached link and verbiage in Q&A numbers 72, 73, and 74.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#72

72. What is "Base Year Compensation?" How does base year compensation affect trades? Why does it exist?
Base year compensation (BYC) prevents another salary cap loophole. Without BYC, a team over the salary cap that wants to trade a player, but can't because of the assigned player exception (which says teams can receive no more than 115% of the salary they trade away), could just sign the player to a new contract that fits within the desired range, then do the trade. BYC says "if you re-sign a player and give him a big raise, then for a period of time his trade value will be lower than his actual salary."

BYC defines the salary that's used to compare players for compliance under the assigned player exception (see question number 67 for more information about the assigned player exception). Usually, the salary used for comparison is the player's actual salary. But under either of the following circumstances, a different salary is used when comparing salaries for trading purposes:

The team is over the salary cap, used theLarry Bird or Early Bird exception to re-sign the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20%.

The team is over the salary cap, it extended the rookie scale contract of the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20%.
If either of the above apply, then the player is considered a base year player. A player remains a base year player for two years (one year if the contract is signed on or after July 1, 2001). When trading a base year player, the salary used for comparison is defined as follows:
Contract signed First year BYC Second year BYC
Before July 1, 2001 Previous year's salary or
50% of first-year salary in new contract* 120% of the salary in the last year of the previous contract or
75% of the second-year salary in new contract*
July 1, 2001 or later Previous year's salary or
50% of first-year salary in new contract* N/A

*Whichever is greater

Here is an example of a BYC calculation: A player earned $2 million in 99-00, after which he became a free agent. Prior to the start of the 00-01 season, he signs a new contract (re-signing with his previous team, which is over the salary cap) starting at $9 million. This player qualifies for BYC, so his trade value is the greater of his previous salary ($2 million) or 50% of his new salary ($4.5 million), or $4.5 million. So this player, who actually earns $9 million, is worth $4.5 million for trading purposes.

When comparing salaries for trade, teams use their own player's BYC value and the other player's full salary, even if the other player is also BYC. Here is a simple example -- two $5 million players, both of whom are re-signed (by teams over the cap) for $10 million. Both players become base year players whose base year amount is $5 million (50% of the new salary). If the teams want to trade these players for each other they compare their player's base year amount to the other player's full salary. So each team can take back a maximum of 115% plus $100,000 of their player's $5 million base year amount, or $5.85 million. They compare $5.85 million to the other player's full $10 million. $10 million is way too high, so this trade can't be done, even though the players' actual salaries match exactly.

If one of the teams in the above example was below the cap, the trade still couldn't be done. For the team under the cap, their player would NOT be BYC, so they would be comparing $10 million to $10 million. But since the other team is over the cap, their player is BYC, and they'd still be comparing $5.85 million to $10 million, which prevents the trade from working. (See question number 74 for more information about trading BYC players.)

For Larry Bird or Early Bird players, the player's BYC begins on the date he signs his contract. For extended rookie scale contracts, the player's BYC begins on the July 1 preceding the first season of the extension. For example, if an extension of a rookie scale contract is signed on 10/30/99, his BYC begins on 7/1/00, because the first season of the extension is 00-01. If a team tries to trade an extended rookie between the date his extension is signed and the date it takes effect, his "trade value" for the receiving team is the average of the salaries in the last year of the scale contract and each year of the extension. This is called the "poison pill provision."

A player's BYC goes away if the team falls below the salary cap, the player signs with a different team, or the player is traded.

There was an interesting twist to base year compensation caused by the 1998 lockout. Since the start of the 98-99 season was delayed, contracts signed prior to the 98-99 season were signed in February 1999. The duration of BYC is specified in calendar years and not seasons, so for contracts signed in February 1999, the BYC amount changed in February 2000, which is in the middle of the 99-00 season. It then expired in February 2001, which was in the middle of the 00-01 season. So for these players, in addition to the mid-season change, BYC lasted into the third season of their contracts.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

73. How does a base year player's salary count against the team's salary cap?
His actual salary is included in the team salary. BYC is used only when comparing salaries for trades.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74. Whenever I read about prospective trades involving base year players, they always say a third team must get involved. Why? Can't a base year player be traded in a two-team trade?
There's no specific rule that prohibits trading base year players in a two-team deal. But the way the numbers work, it's not always possible unless one of the teams dumps additional salary onto a third team.

As an example, let's say Player A plays for Washington. He earned $3 million last season and re-signed as a free agent for $10 million. That makes him a base year player whose BYC value is $5 million (see question number 72 ). Player B plays for Seattle and also earns $10 million, but is not a base year player. Both Seattle and Washington are over the salary cap.

Now suppose Seattle and Washington want to trade Player A and Player B for each other. Seattle can take back 115% plus $100,000 of Player B's $10 million salary, or $11.6 million. Player A's $10 million salary easily fits within that limit. But Washington can only take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of Player A's $5 million BYC value, or $5.85 million. Player B's $10 million salary is too high by $4.15 million.

This means, if the two teams want to complete this trade, that Washington must rid themselves of an additional $3.61 million in salary (I'll show why this is the correct amount a little later). Let's say that Player C plays for Washington, is not a base year player, and earns exactly $3.61 million. What happens if they want to trade Player A plus Player C for Player B? Player A plus Player C total $13.61 million, which is greater than Seattle's $11.6 million maximum. So Washington can't give the additional $3.61 million to Seattle.

This is where a third team must get involved. This team must be far enough under the cap, or has a trade exception (see question number 68 ) to absorb the additional $3.61 million in salary. Let's say Chicago (a team way under the salary cap) gets involved. Here is an example three-team trade:

Washington sends Seattle Player A
Seattle sends Washington Player B
Washington sends Chicago Player C
Chicago sends Washington a future second round draft pick
Here's how the numbers work:
Washington trades $5 million BYC plus $3.61 million salary, or $8.61 million. They can receive 115% plus $100,000 of $8.61 million, or exactly $10 million, in return (this is why $3.61 million was correct above). Washington receives Player B's $10 million salary, along with a draft pick that has zero trade value (see question number 70 ) for a total of $10 million. The numbers exactly match.
Seattle trades $10 million in salary, and recives $10 million in salary, so they're fine.

Chicago trades $0 and receives $3.61 million, but since they're more than $3.61 million under the salary cap, they can absorb the increase.

So the numbers work for all teams involved.

However, not all trades involving base year players require a third team. Let's say Player D plays for Washington. He earned $8 million last season and re-signed as a free agent for $10 million, so his BYC amount is $8 million (see question number 72 ). Washington can take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of $8 million in trade, or $9.3 million. Player E plays for Seattle, is not a base year player, and earns $9 million. So Seattle can take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of $9 million, or $10.45 million.

Player D and Player E can be traded for each other directly, even though Player D is a base year player. Player E's $9 million salary is less than Washington's $9.3 million maximum, and Player D's $10 million salary is less than Seattle's $10.45 million maximum. The teams have even more flexibility if one or both have a trade exception (see question number 68 ) or disabled player exception (see question number 17 ).

So a trade involving a base year player doesn't necessarily require a third team.

[Scola#13]

If west dosen't want to give away battier why not try for JAmes posey, he isn't a bad defender

[BigDiggyD]

Battier is an intriguing player to me. Nothing statistically says he is anything more than an average player (he does have solid shot blocking, rebounding and 3PT % for a SF) at his position, but the effect he has on the floor is interesting. He seems to do all the smart little things to make the whole team better when he is in the game. The Grizz offensive efficiency goes up and the defense gets better when he is on the floor.

I have a highly scientific meter I use to examine the value of a role player that we trade for or sign that is based on how much I hated them when they played for another team. Speedy Claxton would be a good example of someone I hated, Horry is another good but kind of obvious example, hated Barry too but the jury is still out on the meter on that one, and had no feelings for Nazr.

Based on that meter Battier is one of those players that I worried about when the games were in doubt.