Reply With Quote
It’s not a benefit, and hitting the salary floor probably costs more than paying out the players. Worst case, it’s the same.
The hold up may be how absorbing WBs contract is being argued by LAL as a benefit to SA in the context of SA needing to meet the salary floor.
If LAL can successfully argue these benefits to SA, it might convince SA to ask for less value back in return (read, number of FRPs SA receives)
It’s not a benefit, and hitting the salary floor probably costs more than paying out the players. Worst case, it’s the same.
maybe a FRP toggles down to a 2RP in light of how the deal puts SA in objectively slimmer financial burdens or that might be what is in negotiations currently
Bet SA front office is in the WAR ROOM manning hot phones right now lol
CIA Pop in the situation room pouring over the battle maps as we speak lol.
Correct. If SA thinks they can do a bunch of smaller deals that net them more/better picks? By all means do it. I highly doubt though in anyone’s wildest dreams that they thought any combination of Doug/Josh/Collins and renting cap space would result in maybe THE most sought after pick on the market right now in a fully unprotected lakers first
How is losing Josh (who will walk in FA anyways), Zach (completely replaceable) and Doug (not worth his deal and frees up 13M to replace him with a better player than himself) and paying NO extra money a bad deal?
Definitely. Also, even if it costs you nothing, if it benefits someone else you should get a cut from it as well, because no one else would do that for you if the tables were turned. Squeeze every bit of value that you can from your assets, that's what successful teams do.
I don't see why the Spurs are trading Jones in this deal. The Lakers basically have to unprotect their picks to trade two, so the Spurs shouldn't be paying a premium for that. If anything, the Nets need to toss in a bit more value to the Spurs given that SA likes Collins.
Agree. That’s why I have one of the insanely valuable picks going to BKY instead of SA. But maybe SA gets some 2nds or a protected first from BKY down the road too. It’s just a general framework lol I am not on the trade calls
But for all the “it’s not enough crowd!’
You are basically arguing that Spurs taking on WB while sending out all that money + salary floor + shedding Dougs guaranteed money is such a huge deal that you in principle would rather walk away empty handed maybe and don’t think Doug/Collins/Zach (or maybe Tre too) are worth trading for an unprotected 1st???
Forget the WB part - would you not think its the trade of the century to flip Collins off the scrap heap, Doug who isnt doing anything here really and Josh who can walk in FA next year into an unprotected first????
Yes, why wouldn't SA be able to successfully argue back that financial benefits don't change the asking price because SA could just as easily pay up their roster instead and that has it's own benefits as well. Like worst case scenario, Spurs have to pay up their own players to meet the floor and in doing so make their own players happier, richer and possibly more loyal? Don't twist my arm to force me to invest in my own home grown guys, the horror!
Why should SA give back picks in the asking price for a residual financial benefit that isn't their only (or best) option there and isn't really a result of anything LAL deliberately did in our best interest but rather just happens to work out that way?
Ya - that was just a general thing to give BKY a PG since Kyrie is gone..but he was not mentioned in TIMVP post at all so may not be included and obviously would make the deal better if he is not. And if Jak is involved, absolutely SA should get more than one first.
Taking in Westbrook's contract won't be so onerous, as it expires in a few months. The only way you could extort such value out of someone, is if we're talking about a massive, massive trade (say Durant) and your involvement is indispensable.
SA appears to have most all of the negotiation leverage here imo.
Add that to the fact no deals have occurred yet? Spurs are ROASTING these opposing FOs for max extraction of value in my opinion. Will it work? Hey, that's what is yet unknown.
Because of Doug. Spurs would be shedding his guaranteed money next year, opening up that much more cap space and can run this same game again renting out their cap space (not +13M since Doug is off books) to get more assets.
The LA/BK trade literally can’t happen without our cap space. BK doesn’t want Russ, or his exorbitant tax killing salary. The cap space is not worthless, and we need to hold the line.
That’s fine - but again, ask yourself: Are you willing to get NOTHING for Doug/Richardson/Collins if you don’t meet your price? Seems foolish to me when the alternative is getting at least one incredibly invaluable pick + the same ability to use your cap space for assets next year too because you offloaded Dougs guaranteed money so will again be a premiere cap space team.
If Jones isn't included, or if Brooklyn is paying specifically so Jones is included, I don't mind the deal. I don't consider moving McDermott value, but I also don't mind getting rid Collins since I don't like him on the team. I do wonder what the Spurs can get if they sell their players off individually though. Collins is grading out well this year, and Richardson is playing well. They might be able to move them for value and ballast they can then send out in a Westbrook trade. They don't have the 60-day limit for aggregating since they are under the cap.
The Nets do have Cam Thomas, who flashes every once in a while, as their backup guard. I don't know that they see PG as a need position right now.
It 100% can happen without SA. I have no idea why people keep saying this. BKY can absolutely trade directly with LA, waive WB and use the 2 unprotected first that would have netted Buddy Hield + Turner at one point and flip those picks for players like that to a degree.
ya, will BKY save money in that scenario? Nope. But they will get a deal done and help their team win now.
It can happen, especially if the Nets want to move Simmons as well. If the Nets don't want Russ to go to them, they'll probably have to pay a third team to take him on, but there are other teams that can do this with expirings or decent ballast. It won't provide the tax savings the Spurs could, but that might be a sacrifice they're willing to make if the Spurs don't try to make a compe ive offer.
Ya - Cam had a monster game last night. I agree - I just *personally* value one unprotected LAL pick more than I’d say up to 3 lottery protected firsts. So for me it’s this: if by doing different deals for Doug/Collins/Josh and Cap space you can get 4 firsts? I say thats prob better than the one pick. If you can only get 3 1sts I would prefer the one Lakers pick
Spurs leverage:
- have tons of league exclusive cap space to host bad salary
- have plausibly decent player assets to return, and in wing or bigs player template to fit various needs
- have some surplus pick reserves even if it's somehow needed to sweeten back. Can build a deal in most any type of format, value and volume whether it's space, players or picks in the proposals.
- have no sense of urgency from contention this season. Spurs are not in the hunt to contend and have no feet to the fire or desperation in the sense that SA would be desperate or bound by any need to compete this season for a ring.
I’d definitely throw in the Charlotte pick if that helps net us an additional Laker FRP or the 2028 Nets pick. With what they gave up to Houston for Harden they could end up being for an extended period.
I don't know if SA views shedding Dougs contract as a need.
He only has one more year at 13.75mm and is plus contributor imo by the eye test this season. Next year Doug might even be an asset with his expiring.
It’s not always about leverage lol. Or feeling good that you fleeced a team. It’s about improving your team and overall outlook.
Spurs Non-Leverage:
Not needed to do a deal between LAL and BKY or anyone else.
Have vets in Josh + Doug that will walk for nothing next year or year after and aren’t helping them win anyways
Are a bad team desperately in need of premier draft capital to either draft their franchise guy(s) and/or trade for one or be in for 5-10 years of no playoffs
Are in the dumps and have Pop on the way out and need to find a way to not be a bottom feeder for 5+ years
Doesn’t have to be a need but it is a fact that it takes 13M off the books next year and allows even more opportunities than this year to use cap space in trades again. So not only does taking on WB here not add punitive money this year, but it actually gives SA MORE ammo to be a seller of cap space next year….seems like a good deal if you care about reality vs trying to “stick it” to other teams IMVHO
Very valid fear of mine - good call. To be left holding the hot potato after missing the last offramp for cashing out high and realize everyone is walking for nothing now instead over you mincing because of one extra pick here or there.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
