NBA Trade Deadline: 2020-21 Season

[ginobilized]

The way this Spurs team is gelling right now, it's hard to imagine a trade.
DDR is integral to the success of the team and the development of the young guns. If LMA accepts his role, why make any trades?
They might be able to hold onto a top spot and forego the play-in. Their depth is looking like a huge advantage going forward.

[rankingtear]

Posted in the LMA and DeRozan trade thread but relevant here:


According to Zach Lowe (by way of Bobby Marks from ESPN) on the BS Podcast the Heat actually can trade a future first if they change their pick protection.


Think its this one:


2023 — Owe first-rounder (lottery protected through 2025, unprotected in 2026) to the Oklahoma City Thunder


If Miami misses the playoffs in 2023 then that pick doesn't convey, and then they keep the pick. If they make the playoffs then that pick goes to OKC.


If true, then Miami can change the pick protection in a trade with the Spurs in which their 2023 1st would convey to the Spurs in a potential trade if the Heat misses the playoffs.


Maybe a package including Iggy, Olynyk, Achiuwa and a 1st* for DDR and Eubanks.


(* could be 1-5 and 16-30 protected in 2023, 2024, and 2025 otherwise it becomes 2 future seconds)

Spurs could end up with a pick 6-15 in 2023, 2024, or 2025 in a hypothetical trade if that pick conveys.

Don't know if that works , but maybe he was referring to something like what MIL did, they paid i think a second rounder to CLE to make the pick unprotected so they can trade their future picks.

[cd021]

Just to clarify: The above trade is legal. The rule about combining a TE with players is about aggregating salary. So if Langford and Ojeleye were needed to give Boston matching salary, then it wouldn't work. But every team is allowed to structure trades like they want, and in this case, Boston would be making three trades:

Mills to Boston with the TE absorbing the salary

Langford and Ojeleye to SA, with the Mills TE absorbing the salary (so Boston would get two new TEs)

Gay to Boston, with the TE absorbing the salary

I just spitballing here. I don't know exactly how much salary the team needs to send out. There's a rule that every trade has to include a real asset, so the first-rounder might have to be part of the trade, and a dummy second might also have to be part. Anyway, from SA's perspective, they can just do the straight trade, as far as I know again, I don't know about the rule with the dummy-second. I guess Boston could just add the rights to some rando to make everything work in the worst case. But regardless, the Spurs would create two TEs as a result of the trade as opposed to trading for Boston's TE. I know a lot of folks understand that, but I see a lot consider the TE an asset that gets moved, and that's not how it works.

EDIT: So reading over the CBA FAQ (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q87).

It looks like it's fine to trade a player "for nothing" so long as it's part of a bigger trade that's completed immediately. So there's no there's no need to be clever with a dummy second or cash. The FAQ also doesn't say that teams can't trade away players in the same deal as they use the TE to acquire them. If that's the case, then that second trade can be combined with the first, where the Celtics trade for Mills and trade away their guys with SA just getting their smaller TE while Boston gets nothing.

So Langford, Ojeleye, a 2021 first for Mills and Gay is technically possible without breaking it up into smaller trades?

I though players could be combined with TE's then Leetonidas said otherwise and I checked it out and I found this:

Trade exceptions cannot be combined and the Celtics can only absorb a player whose salary is equal to or lower than the individual exception. The exception also cannot be combined with a player's salary to take on a bigger contract. Boston can, however, use smaller chunks of each exception to sign multiple players and can send out additional players as part of any deal.

An example: The Celtics cannot combine their three exceptions and a player salary to make a trade for, say, Paul George’s $35.5 million salary. Boston could, however, trade for Denver’s Gary Harris and absorb his $19.6 million salary with the trade exception without having to otherwise match salaries.

https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/cel...t-help-celtics

[cd021]

Would you do it for Griffin + lottery protected first?

I believe their firsts and seconds are pretty much tied up going forward. They have their own this year but they aren't trading a possible top 5 pick to move on from Blake.

If they did then, Blake, Doumboya, a lottery pick, and possibly even another asset would probably be the price for Detroit to save $40 million in salary next season.

Still think Blake gets bough out though, with him taking a hair cut on his 2021-2022 salary.

[cd021]

Don't know if that works , but maybe he was referring to something like what MIL did, they paid i think a second rounder to CLE to make the pick unprotected so they can trade their future picks.

Maybe. I'm not familiar with how pick protections can be changed after the fact but I'm pretty sure that Miami altering the pick protections in my scenario is valid. If they miss the playoffs in 2023, then that pick is there's, otherwise it conveys to OKC. If they keep it then the same situation applies for 2024 and 2025. In 2026, if that pick still hasn't conveyed, then it would become unprotected and OKC gets that first no matter what.

Miami should be able to make a trade and double protect a 1st in 2023, 2024, or 2025, where they keep the pick if the pick if its 1-5 but conveys to a team like the Spurs if it falls in between 6-15, and OKC if it falls between 16-30.

If Miami's pick falls between 1-5 they keep the pick and the protections get pushed to 2024, and then 2025 with the Spurs and Thunder still having claims to that pick.

[rankingtear]

Maybe. I'm not familiar with how pick protections can be changed after the fact but I'm pretty sure that Miami altering the pick protections in my scenario is valid. If they miss the playoffs in 2023, then that pick is there's, otherwise it conveys to OKC. If they keep it then the same situation applies for 2024 and 2025. In 2026, if that pick still hasn't conveyed, then it would become unprotected and OKC gets that first no matter what.

Miami should be able to make a trade and double protect a 1st in 2023, 2024, or 2025, where they keep the pick if the pick if its 1-5 but conveys to a team like the Spurs if it falls in between 6-15, and OKC if it falls between 16-30.

If Miami's pick falls between 1-5 they keep the pick and the protections get pushed to 2024, and then 2025 with the Spurs and Thunder still having claims to that pick.

Then if it went to the spurs in 2023 , the stepien rule triggers in 2024. They have a protected pick that doesn't exist or that is illegal to convey.

[exstatic]

Would you do it for Griffin + lottery protected first?

To pay the remaining roughly $60M for this year and next, they’re going to have to send more than a lottery protected first. The GS trade that didn’t happen, for instance, was the #2 overall pick to eat about $60M in salary, in the form of Wiggins contract, with LMAs contract as ballast. As an example, we sent the #30 pick with RJ to GS to eat like $12M, and people thought we got over on them.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I think we need a sticky message in each trade thread that half the NBA can’t deal first round picks. This includes Detroit, Miami, Portland and others.

[KingKev]

I think we need a sticky message in each trade thread that half the NBA can’t deal first round picks. This includes Detroit, Miami, Portland and others.

And another one reminding them LMA isn’t a 30 year old all star worth multiple first round picks.

[cjw]

To pay the remaining roughly $60M for this year and next, they’re going to have to send more than a lottery protected first. The GS trade that didn’t happen, for instance, was the #2 overall pick to eat about $60M in salary, in the form of Wiggins contract, with LMAs contract as ballast. As an example, we sent the #30 pick with RJ to GS to eat like $12M, and people thought we got over on them.

Thank you. Nobody is trading for Griffin and only getting back a lottery-protected first rounder (and the Pistons can’t trade it anyway). Spurs especially aren’t destroying all offseason flexibility for a first rounder that won’t convey.

[Chinook]

So Langford, Ojeleye, a 2021 first for Mills and Gay is technically possible without breaking it up into smaller trades?

I though players could be combined with TE's then Leetonidas said otherwise and I checked it out and I found this:

https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/cel...t-help-celtics

So to clarify: You can't trade a $10-Million TE and an $8-Million player to get a $15-Million player. But you can trade the TE and player to get an $10-Million player and a new $8-Million TE. If Boston needs the salary to give them enough outgoing salary to match Gay and Mills, then no, they can't do it. If Boston just needs to trade those players to shed the required salary to stay under the hard cap, then they can. What I said was going off the assumption that the latter scenario was what was being discussed. I know someone mentioned that Boston can't actually fit Mills and Gay into their TE, and if that's true, then yeah, no dice. But it's not even close if that's the case, since BOS can only use a net of like $20 Million or whatever in order to stay under the apron in the first place.

[Leetonidas]

Thanks for clarification, the rules around the TPE always confuse me

[tbdog]

I like our team. I wouldn't complain if we did nothing. But I wouldn't mind securing a future 4 that's ready now.

[Mal]

Last time I checked Spurs are on top of division, why are there trades for protected picks or buyouts talked ?

[Teamduncan21]

And another one reminding them LMA isn’t a 30 year old all star worth multiple first round picks.

While we are at it. Remind everyone we can't trade derozan for gianni's. We just can't.

[exstatic]

So to clarify: You can't trade a $10-Million TE and an $8-Million player to get a $15-Million player. But you can trade the TE and player to get an $10-Million player and a new $8-Million TE. If Boston needs the salary to give them enough outgoing salary to match Gay and Mills, then no, they can't do it. If Boston just needs to trade those players to shed the required salary to stay under the hard cap, then they can. What I said was going off the assumption that the latter scenario was what was being discussed. I know someone mentioned that Boston can't actually fit Mills and Gay into their TE, and if that's true, then yeah, no dice. But it's not even close if that's the case, since BOS can only use a net of like $20 Million or whatever in order to stay under the apron in the first place.

They can fit both Gay and Mills into their 27,500,000 TE. Gay makes a flat 14,000,000 and Mills makes 13,285,714.

[cd021]

So to clarify: You can't trade a $10-Million TE and an $8-Million player to get a $15-Million player. But you can trade the TE and player to get an $10-Million player and a new $8-Million TE. If Boston needs the salary to give them enough outgoing salary to match Gay and Mills, then no, they can't do it. If Boston just needs to trade those players to shed the required salary to stay under the hard cap, then they can. What I said was going off the assumption that the latter scenario was what was being discussed. I know someone mentioned that Boston can't actually fit Mills and Gay into their TE, and if that's true, then yeah, no dice. But it's not even close if that's the case, since BOS can only use a net of like $20 Million or whatever in order to stay under the apron in the first place.

Thanks for clarification, the rules around the TPE always confuse me

I guess that makes sense, though TE's in general are still kinda confusing to me tbh.

[cd021]

Then if it went to the spurs in 2023 , the stepien rule triggers in 2024. They have a protected pick that doesn't exist or that is illegal to convey.

You're right. I forgot about the rule in regards to the protections. I think Miami could still use the double protections for 2023 and 2025, so if the pick conveys to the Thunder or Spurs--probably the Thunder-- then it would comply with the Stepien rule in 2024, meaning Miami would keep their pick that year.

In 2025, The Spurs, or Thunder, would still have claim to that pick but if the pick doesn't fall in between 6-15 that year then the Spurs wouldn't receive a first from Miami at all.

[Chinook]

I guess that makes sense, though TE's in general are still kinda confusing to me tbh.

I think I linked the relevant section of the CBA FAQ somewhere back. Basically, even though the trade would be organized as three trades for Boston and two for SA, they would all get handled with the same trade call, and the rules on compensation would be satisfied even if not all trades had something going to both sides. Like normally, Boston couldn't trade for Gay or Mills using the TE and get nothing back. A trade like that by itself would get rejected. But if simultaneously with that are trades from SA's POV where they are trading Gay/Mills for whatever players, and Boston also has parallel trades where they are moving those players to the Spurs, then it'll all even out in the wash. Those 2/3 trades will get reported as one deal, and Boston and SA would each get two TEs from the transaction.

[cd021]

I think I linked the relevant section of the CBA FAQ somewhere back. Basically, even though the trade would be organized as three trades for Boston and two for SA, they would all get handled with the same trade call, and the rules on compensation would be satisfied even if not all trades had something going to both sides. Like normally, Boston couldn't trade for Gay or Mills using the TE and get nothing back. A trade like that by itself would get rejected. But if simultaneously with that are trades from SA's POV where they are trading Gay/Mills for whatever players, and Boston also has parallel trades where they are moving those players to the Spurs, then it'll all even out in the wash. Those 2/3 trades will get reported as one deal, and Boston and SA would each get two TEs from the transaction.

[Chinook]

Folks in this thread have basically been looking at the Spurs as sellers, but would anyone be okay with the team including this year's first with some expirings looking to buy something? Back when it looked like the Spurs were going to pick in the lottery again, it didn't make sense to trade the pick. But honestly, I'm not sure how badly the team needs a guy picked in the 20s given the youth on the squad already. I don't see them as one reasonable piece from a le or anything. But it might be possible to get a long-term fit with the young guys and then use subsequent off-seasons or trades to try to take more steps.

[Dejounte]

Folks in this thread have basically been looking at the Spurs as sellers, but would anyone be okay with the team including this year's first with some expirings looking to buy something? Back when it looked like the Spurs were going to pick in the lottery again, it didn't make sense to trade the pick. But honestly, I'm not sure how badly the team needs a guy picked in the 20s given the youth on the squad already. I don't see them as one reasonable piece from a le or anything. But it might be possible to get a long-term fit with the young guys and then use subsequent off-seasons or trades to try to take more steps.

Agreed. The Spurs need to find reliable, solid performers who won't outplay their contract and bid themselves out of the Spurs budget when their contract is up. If the Spurs are all in on their current core, this is what needs to happen.

[Robz4000]

Folks in this thread have basically been looking at the Spurs as sellers, but would anyone be okay with the team including this year's first with some expirings looking to buy something? Back when it looked like the Spurs were going to pick in the lottery again, it didn't make sense to trade the pick. But honestly, I'm not sure how badly the team needs a guy picked in the 20s given the youth on the squad already. I don't see them as one reasonable piece from a le or anything. But it might be possible to get a long-term fit with the young guys and then use subsequent off-seasons or trades to try to take more steps.

This draft is pretty deep, and it still isn't a forgone conclusion they make the playoffs with the schedule they have in the second half and how so many teams are jumbled together.

[Chinook]

This draft is pretty deep, and it still isn't a forgone conclusion they make the playoffs with the schedule they have in the second half and how so many teams are jumbled together.

But they can protect their pick to avoid that downside. I'm thinking about it as what is best for the 21/22 Spurs. The team could end up keeping DeRozan and not really having the space to sign a real difference-maker. I'm wondering if getting a vet who makes about as much as Gay makes now but is locked in for a bit longer could take the Spurs from legit playoff compe or to solid playoff team that's a move away from being a dark horse contender.

[KobesAchilles]

Folks in this thread have basically been looking at the Spurs as sellers, but would anyone be okay with the team including this year's first with some expirings looking to buy something? Back when it looked like the Spurs were going to pick in the lottery again, it didn't make sense to trade the pick. But honestly, I'm not sure how badly the team needs a guy picked in the 20s given the youth on the squad already. I don't see them as one reasonable piece from a le or anything. But it might be possible to get a long-term fit with the young guys and then use subsequent off-seasons or trades to try to take more steps.

Pipe dream but I would love TJ Warren from the Pacers. I wouldn't mind giving a pick and a player for him. Though I'm not sure if you can trade for an injured player.