(01-18-2022, 01:00 AM)OBX Maverick Wrote: [ -> ]Was thinking the exact same thing. Guess they were going for quickness to guard the 3. Also was curious that Josh Green was in there essentially in KP’s place. The Josh Green decision was looking pretty bad there for a sec when he clanked both of his FT’s.
Yeah, probably nothing though. We did just go through a stretch where we were without KP for like 9 straight games so I guess they probably already have an idea of what the team looks like without KP. Just thought it was interesting that Green was playing crunch time minutes over him.
(01-18-2022, 01:00 AM)OBX Maverick Wrote: [ -> ]Was thinking the exact same thing. Guess they were going for quickness to guard the 3. Also was curious that Josh Green was in there essentially in KP’s place. The Josh Green decision was looking pretty bad there for a sec when he clanked both of his FT’s.
Kid actually addressed this in his post game presser. Not sure if it was revisionist rationalization or sincere, but he said something to the effect of "I wanted to see how Josh would handle being in a close game."
Pretty ballsy, if actually premeditated with intention.
(01-18-2022, 01:14 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Kid actually addressed this in his post game presser. Not sure if it was revisionist rationalization or sincere, but he said something to the effect of "I wanted to see how Josh would handle being in a close game."
Pretty ballsy, if actually premeditated with intention.
If they had lost the game because of those missed FT’s he would have been facing a lot of scrutiny for that ballsy decision. Lucky for him and Dallas it didn’t cost them. At the time, the way the game was going, I was almost certain it would.
(01-18-2022, 01:44 AM)OBX Maverick Wrote: [ -> ]If they had lost the game because of those missed FT’s he would have been facing a lot of scrutiny for that ballsy decision. Lucky for him and Dallas it didn’t cost them. At the time, the way the game was going, I was almost certain it would.
I am and was right there with you.
(01-17-2022, 01:45 PM)Tyler Wrote: [ -> ]Here's the relevant text from the Larry Coon CBA FAQ:
Long story short, base year compensation adds additional trade matching rules that are extremely difficult to meet without adding lots of additional salary and/or getting a 3rd team involved. And since Dallas will be well over the cap this summer with Luka's extension kicking in, BYC rules will apply to Brunson's deal. So a S&T is still possible, but more difficult than a typical trade.
But doesn't that really just mean that if the Mavs S&T Brunson they would only be able to take back 5/8 of his salary (+$100,000)?
(And a minumum of (his salary minus $100,000) * 0.4 .)
If that is with New York that would be advantageous for the Mavs in terms of taking back less salary that they don't want (in addition to whatever picks were part of the trade)?
Or am I reading the cbafaq incorrectly?
(01-18-2022, 03:20 AM)BackToSquareOne Wrote: [ -> ]But doesn't that really just mean that if the Mavs S&T Brunson they would only be able to take back 5/8 of his salary (+$100,000)? (And a minumum of (his salary minus $100,000) * 0.4 .)
If that is with New York that would be advantageous for the Mavs in terms of taking back less salary that they don't want (in addition to whatever picks were part of the trade)?
Or am I reading the cbafaq incorrectly?
The tricky part is that even though only 50% of Brunson's outgoing salary would apply for trade matching purposes, they still have to meet the standard 125%+100k rule.
Let's say that Brunson signs for $20mm in the first year in a S&T. Base year compensation limits the outgoing salary for trade matching purposes to $10mm. So the highest salary Dallas could take back is $12.6mm (10mm*1.25+100k). However, the normal trade rules still apply the other way. If the trade puts a team over the cap, they can't trade a $12.6mm player for a $20mm player. So pretty much any normal trade would be illegal.
The ways to solve it mathematically are either to 1. free up more cap space so that the team getting Brunson is still under the cap even after the deal, or 2. stack a lot of additional salaries on top of it so that the percentages work out. So it's still possible, but generally a lot more complicated than most trades we talk about.
Depending on the new Brunson salary, FGump makes a good point that New York has just enough space that they may be able to make it work by also sending an extra player into Dallas's trade exception. So I don't rule that out. But I do think that the extra complexities should incentivize them (and others) to deal for Brunson before the deadline rather than push it to when options get more limited.
(01-18-2022, 11:20 AM)Tyler Wrote: [ -> ]The tricky part is that even though only 50% of Brunson's outgoing salary would apply for trade matching purposes, they still have to meet the standard 125%+100k rule.
Let's say that Brunson signs for $20mm in the first year in a S&T. Base year compensation limits the outgoing salary for trade matching purposes to $10mm. So the highest salary Dallas could take back is $12.6mm (10mm*1.25+100k). However, the normal trade rules still apply the other way. If the trade puts a team over the cap, they can't trade a $12.6mm player for a $20mm player. So pretty much any normal trade would be illegal.
The ways to solve it mathematically are either to 1. free up more cap space so that the team getting Brunson is still under the cap even after the deal, or 2. stack a lot of additional salaries on top of it so that the percentages work out. So it's still possible, but generally a lot more complicated than most trades we talk about.
Depending on the new Brunson salary, FGump makes a good point that New York has just enough space that they may be able to make it work by also sending an extra player into Dallas's trade exception. So I don't rule that out. But I do think that the extra complexities should incentivize them (and others) to deal for Brunson before the deadline rather than push it to when options get more limited.
I'm feeling particularly stupid today, so could you explain a little more?
Let's use your figures and suppose
Brunson signs for $20mm in the first year in a S&T. Let's say, for the sake of an example, the other team is Knicks (who are & are trying to operate over the cap).
(1) Is the point that the Knicks would need to send out ~$16mm in salary? (Even though, just directly, that wouldn't be possible for the Mavs to take back as its greater than $12.6mm .)
(2) If I've understood correctly in (1), then, following up FGump's suggestion, would the Knicks need to send out ~$3.4mm of salary into the Dallas trade exception?
1. Yes.
2. I'll have to think about it. It's complicated, and the caffeine is wearing off.
I suspect it may be more involved than that, as I believe using the TPE in this situation requires two separate deals. My instinct is that they'd have to order it to first use the TPE to clear enough cap space so that NY is still under the cap even after the second Brunson deal. But maybe others have different interpretations.
If tomorrow they woke up and were the GM of the Mavs (and Cuban didn't get in the way)... who would be the player (not an allstar) they would chase...?... Interested in knowing your thoughts
(01-18-2022, 01:50 PM)Tyler Wrote: [ -> ]1. Yes.
2. I'll have to think about it. It's complicated, and the caffeine is wearing off.
I suspect it may be more involved than that, as I believe using the TPE in this situation requires two separate deals. My instinct is that they'd have to order it to first use the TPE to clear enough cap space so that NY is still under the cap even after the second Brunson deal. But maybe others have different interpretations.
Thanks for this. Let me have another try. (My warning about how I'm feeling today still applies and this may well be hot garbage.)
1st of all I'm going to ignore the $100,000s (to start with, just for simpliicty).
Let's suppose two teams, M and K, are both operating over the cap and intend to stay that way. (Eg, Mavs and Knicks.)
Team M wants to S&T a player B (eg, Brunson) to them K. His salary with team K will be 2*x. They include other players with salary totalling y (Eg, could be team M send one single other player P (eg Powell), whose salary is y.)
Let me try to figure out what team K would have to send in order for the deal to be legal.
Team K is adding 2*x + y in salary. So they need to send out at least 4/5 * (2*x + y) in salary (again, ignoring $100,000s).
Team M is sending x + y in salary, so they can take back at most 5/4 * (x+y) in salary.
The trade appears to be legal provided 5/4 * (x+y) >= 4/5 * (2*x +y) -----(#).
Simplifying, we get (#) is equivalent to (x+y) > = 16/25 (2*x +y) which is equivalent to 9/25 * y >= 7/25 * x.
So the trade appears to be legal provided y is >= 7/9 * x.
Worked examples. If x = 9mm and y = 7mm (fwiw, x = 9mm corresponds to player B making $80mm over 4 years) then team K has to send out exactly 20mm in salary. If x = 9mm and y = 11mm then team K need to send out anywhere from 23.2mm to 25mm.
For fixed x, as y increases there is a little more flexibility in what salary team K needs to send out, but not much.
(01-18-2022, 04:33 PM)Mikelo Wrote: [ -> ]If tomorrow they woke up and were the GM of the Mavs (and Cuban didn't get in the way)... who would be the player (not an allstar) they would chase...?... Interested in knowing your thoughts
With KP, or without? Just want a better sense of the rules for your exercise.
(01-18-2022, 05:53 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]PJ Washington
Would love this!
(01-18-2022, 06:05 PM)Tyler Wrote: [ -> ]John Collins
Ok!
(01-18-2022, 05:57 PM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: [ -> ]Murray from the Spurs.
Love the player. I like Brunson better, I think.
I don't know how to quote you, I'm too clumsy with technology... I thank you for your answers, about who would be the non-allstart player that you would pursue..
Rules..? That we have any chance of realistically catching him.
I really liked your answers. I recently read that (Washington might be on the block), by the way... ..
I would go with everything for Anunoby or Isaak.. (I'm not sure it's very realistic..) But I fantasize about catching a big wing with DPOY potential
(01-18-2022, 07:44 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Yes to either!
Both Anunoby and Isaac would be excellent. However, both seem unlikely to be available (in my view).