***2021-2022 NBA Season Thread***

[Going Commando]

Actually ****, I forgot the Lakers wouldn't have to salary match to trade for LeBron.  They could simply offer Cleveland something like Brandon Ingram in an unbalanced deal.  But that begs the question of why would LeBron force a trade to a team that could sign him for only a million dollars less when doing so would gut them of the young talent he'd need to support him?

 

So the point remains, if LeBron opts in, that very likely means LA is out of the running.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

What if DC builds a package around Porter, Oubre, and draft picks?

 

Cleveland hangs up the phone laughing

[Going Commando]

4 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Cleveland hangs up the phone laughing

 

That offer easily beats Kyrie Irving.

[PeterMP]

26 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

There is opportunity cost paid in caving to LeBron and accepting a crappy return package from the Rockets.  It means you're giving up the chance at benefiting from a LeBron bidding war, and that is far more costly than giving up a couple of late first rounders IMO.  You're right about the Spurs, but The Celtics and Wizards can put very appealing offers on the table for LeBron that leave their rosters with two All Stars.  Both Cleveland and LeBron win in this scenario.

 

But there's also a penalty if you don't cave in that he walks, and you get nothing for him.  The Cavs have some leverage, but they don't have a ton.  

 

Gordon, Tucker, a 2019 number 1 and a 2020 number 2 is a lot better than nothing. (There also has to be some dead contracts here in that Gordon and Tucker don't even work.  If you throw in Anderson, then it works, but that's a hard contract to take if you are the Cavs and starting over, and I don't think the Cavs can get anything for him.  Presumably Morey can do some of what he did before with the CP3 trade.)

17 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Actually ****, I forgot the Lakers wouldn't have to salary match to trade for LeBron.  They could simply offer Cleveland something like Brandon Ingram in an unbalanced deal.  But that begs the question of why would LeBron force a trade to a team that could sign him for only a million dollars less when doing so would gut them of the young talent he'd need to support him?

 

So the point remains, if LeBron opts in, that very likely means LA is out of the running.

 

Certainly, if you are Lebron, Ingram is one of the reasons to go to LA.  If they have to give up Ingram to get you, LA becomes much less attractive.

Edited June 15, 2018 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

That offer easily beats Kyrie Irving.

 

Depends on Porter's health.  The big thing here is the Celtics are still sitting on a pick.  I believe now they get the 2019 Kings pick.

 

Somebody raised the point does trading Kyrie back to Cleveland hurt your standing in terms of dealing with players in the future.  I think most players would understand it, but I don't know.

 

Kyrie + the 2019 Kings pick is a pretty attractive package for a team that is most likely going to rebuild (you hope Kyrie comes back healthy next year and then trade him).

[Going Commando]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

But there's also a penalty if you don't cave in that he walks, and you get nothing for him.  The Cavs have some leverage, but they don't have a ton.  

 

IMO that penalty is less than the opportunity cost paid by caving.  The worst case scenario of LeBron opting out isn't that bad for Cleveland.  They're going to be rebuilding from the ground up post LeBron no matter what.  If he walks, then that provides immediate luxury tax relief.  I believe that it'd actually put them under the tax line.  Having to salary match to have the chance to turn Gordon and Tucker into late first rounders down the line means they'd have to pay a lot of luxury tax this season for a team that'd be in the lottery.  That is not worth it to me, especially when it would also cost them the chance at a LeBron bidding war.

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

IMO that penalty is less than the opportunity cost paid by caving.  The worst case scenario of LeBron opting out isn't that bad for Cleveland.  They're going to be rebuilding from the ground up post LeBron no matter what.  If he walks, then that provides immediate luxury tax relief.  I believe that it'd actually put them under the tax line.  Having to salary match to have the chance to turn Gordon and Tucker into late first rounders down the line means they'd have to pay a lot of luxury tax this season for a team that'd be in the lottery.  That is not worth it to me, especially when it would also cost them the chance at a LeBron bidding war.

 

You'd flip Tucker and Gordon quickly.  It could even become a 3 or 4 team deal where somebody else takes Tucker and Gordon.  Gordon in Philly would be attractive.

 

The Cavs get a bunch of players on non-guaranteed deals that they can cut, a 2019 #1 from the Rockets, the Sixers 2018 #1 pick (Sixers get Gordon), a 2019/2018 pick from somebody else (Tucker doesn't fit with the Sixers, I don't think), and a Rockets 2nd round pick in 2020.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by PeterMP

[Going Commando]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

Kyrie + the 2019 Kings pick is a pretty attractive package for a team that is most likely going to rebuild (you hope Kyrie comes back healthy next year and then trade him).

 

That's a tough needle to thread IMO.  You'd have about two months to deal Irving, who would have limited value because he's hitting the market and only a couple of teams could be suitors.  The Kings pick has definite value, but better value than a locked up Otto Porter?  Plus the Wizards are throwing in other young cheap assets with a lot of team control.

 

I think you use Kyrie to salary match if you're Boston, and then the real value in the deal comes from the second piece.  If it's Tatum, then I think Cleveland says yes over the Porter package (assuming LeBron signs off on this).  But if it's just the Kings pick, then I don't think that beats Washington's offer.

[PeterMP]

2 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

That's a tough needle to thread IMO.  You'd have about two months to deal Irving, who would have limited value because he's hitting the market and only a couple of teams could be suitors.  The Kings pick has definite value, but better value than a locked up Otto Porter?  Plus the Wizards are throwing in other young cheap assets with a lot of team control.

 

I think you use Kyrie to salary match if you're Boston, and then the real value in the deal comes from the second piece.  If it's Tatum, then I think Cleveland says yes over the Porter package (assuming LeBron signs off on this).  But if it's just the Kings pick, then I don't think that beats Washington's offer.

 

Depends on Porter's health.

[Going Commando]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

You'd flip Tucker and Gordon quickly.  It could even become a 3 or 4 deal where somebody else takes Tucker and Gordon.  Gordon in Philly would be attractive.

 

The Cavs get a bunch of players on non-guaranteed deals that they can cut, a 2019 #1 from the Rockets, the Sixers 2018 #1 pick, a 2019/2018 pick from somebody else (Tucker doesn't fit with the Sixers, I don't think), and a Rockets 2nd round pick in 2020.

 

That's still not a good enough return for me if I were Cleveland's GM.  And if the Rockets trade doesn't come as part of a multi-team deal, then Cleveland can't deal Gordon and Tucker and the other ballast contracts until December.  Are you thinking Philly would clear cap to make an unbalanced deal inside the LeBron>Gordon/Tucker trade to provide tax relief to Cleveland?  Because if Cleveland isn't getting tax relief or a high quality long term asset in hand from trading LeBron, then there isn't enough incentive for them to make the deal IMO.

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Depends on Porter's health.

 

As far as I can tell, his injury wasn't serious.  It seems like he just had a minor procedure to deal with a build up in the blood flow around his leg contusion.

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

That's still not a good enough return for me if I were Cleveland's GM.  And if the Rockets trade doesn't come as part of a multi-team deal, then Cleveland can't deal Gordon and Tucker and the other ballast contracts until December.  Are you thinking Philly would clear cap to make an unbalanced deal inside the LeBron>Gordon/Tucker trade to provide tax relief to Cleveland?  Because if Cleveland isn't getting tax relief or a high quality long term asset in hand from trading LeBron, then there isn't enough incentive for them to make the deal IMO.

 

Philly has cap space.  They don't need to clear it.  Philly could take Gordon's contract without any issue.  They'd have issues taking Gordon and Tucker, but I wouldn't want Tucker anyway.

 

And they aren't just providing Cleveland tax relief.  They are getting exactly the kind of player that they need to take the next step (somebody that can create their own shot) and has big time play off experience.  Gordon is only 29 and has 2 years left on his deal at pretty reasonable numbers.  He'd be a good pick up for Philly.

 

Why not until December?  The Clippers took a bunch of non-guaranteed contracts that they cut pretty much immediately.

[Going Commando]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Philly has cap space.  They don't need to clear it.  Philly could take Gordon's contract without any issue.  They'd have issues taking Gordon and Tucker, but I wouldn't want Tucker anyway.

 

And they aren't just providing Cleveland tax relief.  They are getting exactly the kind of player that they need to take the next step (somebody that can create their own shot) and has big time play off experience.  Gordon is only 29 and has 2 years left on his deal at pretty reasonable numbers.  He'd be a good pick up for Philly.

 

Why not until December?  The Clippers took a bunch of non-guaranteed contracts that they cut pretty much immediately.

 

I get why Philly would want in on the deal, but not why for Cleveland.

 

If Cleveland trades for Tucker, Gordon, and the other contract ballast from dealing LeBron and those guys don't get shipped elsewhere immediately by making the LeBron deal with a third team involved, then Cleveland is stuck with those players until December.

 

Cleveland can get immediate tax relief simply from letting LeBron walk.  Are a couple of late draft picks from Houston and Philly worth paying tens of millions of dollars in tax for this year?  That's why I think Cleveland has to either get tax relief or a quality long term asset from dealing LeBron or else they'll just let him walk.

 

Letting LeBron walk and getting under the tax is a proposition of saving like 150 million dollars in luxury tax this season.  That's how massive their bill is going to be if he stays.  Having to take back even a part of his salary probably means tens of millions in luxury tax.  PJ Tucker and ballast is enough to get Cleveland to say no unless they're getting something truly worthwhile from the deal.

 

And honestly... now that I think about it, their tax burden is so astronomical that I'm not even sure that Otto Porter, Kelly Oubre, and picks would be enough to make it worth paying.  They really can't afford to take any trash contracts back whatsoever and they need to be shipping out their bad deals in subsequent trades.  They can probably make a lot of that tax payment back if LeBron stayed and they made a postseason run.  I read that the Warriors banked 180 million in revenue from this year's postseason.  I imagine LeBron is making Cleveland a similarly huge amount of money.  But otherwise, the Cavs are probably going to just let LeBron walk unless they can make unbalanced deals.  140-150 million in tax payments is more than their whole team payroll.

 

So I'm changing my mind again.  LA and Philly would be in the cards for LeBron if he opts in because Cleveland would probably be willing to trade him in an unbalanced deal for minimal return.

 

But yeah, if LeBron came to me and said "trade me to Houston or I opt out" I'd say bye.

[Going Commando]

I keep looking at this LeBron situation from different angles, and it always seems to come back to the Lakers.

 

There is no way that the Wizards can provide Cleveland with the combination of tax relief/long term assets without making such a roster compromising swap that they'd be forced to back out.

 

Boston can do it.  Tatum and the draft pick and ballast is probably enough of a return to be willing to spend 100 million luxury tax this year.

 

But other than that, all the different scenarios I play out in my head seem to be pointing back to the Lakers.  They're going to get LeBron and Paul George this summer.  And even though they're going to get stomped by the Warriors in the playoffs, they're going to try and get Klay Thompson the next summer.  And they might be able to pull it off.

[PeterMP]

25 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I get why Philly would want in on the deal, but not why for Cleveland.

 

If Cleveland trades for Tucker, Gordon, and the other contract ballast from dealing LeBron and those guys don't get shipped elsewhere immediately by making the LeBron deal with a third team involved, then Cleveland is stuck with those players until December.

 

Cleveland can get immediate tax relief simply from letting LeBron walk.  Are a couple of late draft picks from Houston and Philly worth paying tens of millions of dollars in tax for this year?  That's why I think Cleveland has to either get tax relief or a quality long term asset from dealing LeBron or else they'll just let him walk.

 

Letting LeBron walk and getting under the tax is a proposition of saving like 150 million dollars in luxury tax this season.  That's how massive their bill is going to be if he stays.  Having to take back even a part of his salary probably means tens of millions in luxury tax.  PJ Tucker and ballast is enough to get Cleveland to say no unless they're getting something truly worthwhile from the deal.

 

And honestly... now that I think about it, their tax burden is so astronomical that I'm not even sure that Otto Porter, Kelly Oubre, and picks would be enough to make it worth paying.  They really can't afford to take any trash contracts back whatsoever and they need to be shipping out their bad deals in subsequent trades.  They can probably make a lot of that tax payment back if LeBron stayed and they made a postseason run.  I read that the Warriors banked 180 million in revenue from this year's postseason.  I imagine LeBron is making Cleveland a similarly huge amount of money.  But otherwise, the Cavs are probably going to just let LeBron walk unless they can make unbalanced deals.  140-150 million in tax payments is more than their whole team payroll.

 

So I'm changing my mind again.  LA and Philly would be in the cards for LeBron if he opts in because Cleveland would probably be willing to trade him in an unbalanced deal for minimal return.

 

But yeah, if LeBron came to me and said "trade me to Houston or I opt out" I'd say bye.

 

I'm still not sure what your point is with "why for Cleveland".  They'd do it for themselves.  Houston isn't likely to trade Gordon for their 2018 #1 pick straight up.  Gordon has more value than that.  However, if you are Houston and getting Lebron, then Gordon becomes something you need less, and in that context, losing Gordon is okay.

 

(Realistically, that trade is a win for the Sixers.  There is no way that Houston trades Gordon for the Sixers 2018 #a pick straight up unless something else happens.  If the Sixers can Gordon for their 2018 pick #1 pick it is worth it.  Taking into account their contracts and ignoring Lebron, the Cavs do not have an asset as valuable to the Sixers as Gordon to trade for their #1 2018 or 2019 pick.)

 

I don't know much about the luxury tax, but just reading, it seems like the closer they are to the cap, they less they pay and partly it is going to depend on how much Gilbert values winning and the money that will come with it vs. the money in his pocket now, which I certainly don't know.

 

Do you get to the point that taking Tucker's salary for Lebron's lowers the tax enough that it makes sense in terms of what you get back in terms of being able to turn the franchise around more quickly?  That's a value decision that only Gilbert can make.  Is Gilbert willing to spend some money on the tax to bring some assets back to help to turn the team around more quickly?  There's got to be a point where getting something for Lebron and paying some of the tax (reduced from what you'd pay with Lebron) makes sense then just letting him walk.

 

(Though, I agree with you.  If the luxury tax is such a big deal for Gilbert, your proposed Wizards trade makes no sense.  You'd still be well over the cap with not even a legitimate shot at winning the East any time in the near future.  In that sense, Lebron for a bunch of unguaranteed contracts, 2 first round picks (the Sixers in 2018 or 19 and the Rockets in 2019), a 2nd round pick in 2020, and Tucker (even if you have to hold onto him until Dec.) makes more sense. 

 

It gets you closer to the cap this year, which lowers your tax payment, puts you on a path to be under the cap the following year (and so no tax payments), and gives you assets to start a rebuild.)

Edited June 15, 2018 by PeterMP

[Warhead36]

Can we please stop with the Lebron to DC non sense? ZERO chance he comes here. Zilch. Zippo. He's gonna go somewhere with a good organization.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

That offer easily beats Kyrie Irving.

 

Id much rather have a top 10 player in Kyrie than Porter, Oubre and a bunch of non lottery draft picks

[Going Commando]

Peter, I think such a deal would be a big win for the 76ers.  I don't see any issue at all with their incentive for making the trade.  The issue is with Cleveland's incentive for doing it.

 

Cleveland can get well under the luxury tax line just by letting LeBron walk.  But if they have to match salary with Houston to deal LeBron and are only able to clear Gordon's salary in the process and their only return for their trouble is a couple of late firsts, then I don't think that's enough.  You'd essentially have to see them as being worth tens of millions of dollars in tax payments, which I don't think they would be.

 

The more I think about it, the only trading partners Cleveland will have for LeBron are the Lakers, 76ers and Celtics.  The Celtics have the assets to make paying so much in tax by salary matching worth it.  And the Lakers and 76ers can give them tax relief in addition to a few low value long term assets.

 

So I think you were initially right about LeBron having a lot of say in where he gets traded if Cleveland is only going to have three suitors.  He can say nope to any two of them and knock them right out.

[PeterMP]

3 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Id much rather have a top 10 player in Kyrie than Porter, Oubre and a bunch of non lottery draft picks

 

Again, I think the question is what is your plan.  Subtracting Lebron and adding Kyrie leaves very far from competing for a championship, and moving Kyrie with his contract, history, and reported desire to be free agent for fair value might be hard to do.

 

If your looking at getting under the cap as soon as possible and picking up assets to start a rebuild, the Porter, Oubre and a bunch of picks might be the better move.

 

Moving smaller pieces a lot of times returns more value than trying to move on big piece.

[Going Commando]

6 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Id much rather have a top 10 player in Kyrie than Porter, Oubre and a bunch of non lottery draft picks

 

Kyrie is an expiring.  They wouldn't be able to keep him beyond the season.  He's of negligible value to Cleveland, he'd just be needed to match salaries and provide an expiring contract to give Cleveland tax relief next year.

[PeterMP]

13 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Peter, I think such a deal would be a big win for the 76ers.  I don't see any issue at all with their incentive for making the trade.  The issue is with Cleveland's incentive for doing it.

 

Cleveland can get well under the luxury tax line just by letting LeBron walk.  But if they have to match salary with Houston to deal LeBron and are only able to clear Gordon's salary in the process and their only return for their trouble is a couple of late firsts, then I don't think that's enough.  You'd essentially have to see them as being worth tens of millions of dollars in tax payments, which I don't think they would be.

 

The more I think about it, the only trading partners Cleveland will have for LeBron are the Lakers, 76ers and Celtics.  The Celtics have the assets to make paying so much in tax by salary matching worth it.  And the Lakers and 76ers can give them tax relief in addition to a few low value long term assets.

 

So I think you were initially right about LeBron having a lot of say in where he gets traded if Cleveland is only going to have three suitors.  He can say nope to any two of them and knock them right out.

 

Even Tucker and Gordon don't match up with Lebron's salary.  In the Houston deal, Houston paid other teams money for players that were on unguaranteed contracts and then added them to the grade.  The Clippers were just able to cut those players then.  I'm not sure when they look at payroll to to determine the tax, but Tucker makes less than $8 million next year.

 

Dropping Lebron's contract for somebody under $8 million is going to reduce payroll a lot and correspondingly their tax payment.  Is it worth doing that to actually get something back for Lebron?  Somewhere there has to be a line. 

 

(And again, really only Gilbert can make that decision.  Where does we're still over the cap, but we're closer so are paying less of a tax hit and in a place where we can get under the cap next year become worth it in terms of assets coming back?  That depends on Gilbert and how quickly he wants to turn the team around.)

12 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Kyrie is an expiring.  They wouldn't be able to keep him beyond the season.  He's of negligible value to Cleveland, he'd just be needed to match salaries and provide an expiring contract to give Cleveland tax relief next year.

 

And Kyrie has said he's going to be a free agent. He has limited value right now.  The Cavs aren't competing for a championship with him next year  without Lebron.

 

And you'd need a team with cap space that wanted to take a player for one year that has stated he wants to be a free agent to make a trade.  I'm not sure who would be willing to do that.

Edited June 15, 2018 by PeterMP

[Going Commando]

I just read an article from a Cleveland newspaper in February that stated Gilbert said he won't pay luxury tax if LeBron leaves.  According to this article from February, Windhorst stated that they could have a 140 million dollar tax bill for next season if LeBron stayed and they retained Rodney Hood: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22420673/cavaliers-face-300-million-dollar-future-espn

 

I don't know how he got those numbers, I haven't done the calculations.  But that would essentially be doubling their payroll.  I don't know how you get to that level of tax burden when they had been previously only paying ~40 million in luxury tax for a payroll that was pretty similar.  But I assume Windhorst is accurate.  If he is, and if you assume that Gilbert won't pay luxury tax on a roster sans LeBron, then that seems to make it clear they'd prefer to let him walk rather than have to match any of his outgoing salary.

All roads seem to be leading to LA.

[PeterMP]

15 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

I just read an article from a Cleveland newspaper in February that stated Gilbert said he won't pay luxury tax if LeBron leaves.  According to this article from February, Windhorst stated that they could have a 140 million dollar tax bill for next season if LeBron stayed and they retained Rodney Hood: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22420673/cavaliers-face-300-million-dollar-future-espn

 

I don't know how he got those numbers, I haven't done the calculations.  But that would essentially be doubling their payroll.  I don't know how you get to that level of tax burden when they had been previously only paying ~40 million in luxury tax for a payroll that was pretty similar.  But I assume Windhorst is accurate.  If he is, and if you assume that Gilbert won't pay luxury tax on a roster sans LeBron, then that seems to make it clear they'd prefer to let him walk rather than have to match any of his outgoing salary.

 

I know the tax increases every year you are over the cap.  It might be 5% year one 10% year 2, 20% year 3, etc.  The other thing that matters is how much over the cap you are.  So it might $1 tax for every $1 over on the first $5 million over, and then $1.50 for every dollar over for everything above it.

 

But if you have been over for 3 years, it is $2.50 for $1 over on the first $5 million over and $4 for every $1 over $5 million over.

 

If he's really determined to get under the cap and pay 0 tax if Lebron leaves, then it seems likely that Lebron is going to have to walk or stay or maybe you can put together some sort of 4 or 5 team deal (Sixers take Gordon.  Can you find somebody to take Tucker without giving up salary?).

 

(Though that seems short sighted to me.  It seems like it would be better to get something for him, pay some of the tax, and then get under the tax next year, then get nothing for him.  There must be value in getting assets that generate excitement in the team in the future.  I'm not sure where the line would be, but there must be some point where that makes sense.)

Edited June 15, 2018 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

Here you go:

 

The Rockets send a bunch of non-guaranteed contracts, a 2019 1st round pick, and a 2020 2nd round pick to the Cavs.

The Sixers get Tucker and Gordon (and make the roster adjustments that they need to to take both of them).

The Sixers send the rights to some Euro that is almost certainly never going to play in the NBA to the Cavs.

 

The Cavs get something for Lebron and are under the cap.  The Sixers get Tucker and Gordon for essentially nothing.  The Rockets get Lebron.

 

(If the Sixers, really really don't want Tucker, you pull in some tanking team that will take Tucker and a Sixers 2nd round pick.  The team has to have cap space, but they get a 2nd round pick, and Tucker has value (I think) where he could be moved before the trade deadline for something else.)

 

(The Sixers also get the benefit of getting Lebron out of the East.)

 

Gilbert gets what he wants and is under the cap.  It isn't much of a return, but if you aren't willing to take any salary back that really limits things.

Edited June 15, 2018 by PeterMP

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

2 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

That offer easily beats Kyrie Irving.

 

I've reached the conclusion that Irving beat you up and stole your wife.

 

That's the only thing that explains this.

 

(Okay. I read your follow-ups and this now makes more sense. I thought you were saying Porter and ballast > Kyrie).

Edited June 15, 2018 by Lombardi's_kid_brother

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

3 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

I would but I don't think Boston would. They were pretty ruthless with IT but it made sense. Turning around and immediately trading Kyrie is going to sour that locker room and franchise perception around the league among free agents. 

 

Plus they might not want everything else that comes with Lebron and how he basically takes over a franchise and team. They have a good thing going right now with Stevens and their roster. 

 

Boston would take Lebron obviously. But they (and possibly Houston) are the two franchises that would be skeptical of the one-year contract that Lebron forces you to sign. They seriously have opened something like a ten year window to win a title. Switching that to one-year in a league where the Warriors still exist is really risky and not in line with what Ainge typically does. I think they need a multiple year commitment from Lebron to go in that big with a superstar.

 

Cleveland almost has to take whatever they can get at this point unless they decide that letting Lebron walk simply makes the most financial sense. And it may.