|
|
Post by cole on Aug 22, 2021 17:44:53 GMT -5
Rip Don Everly
|
|
|
|
Post by dfries13 on Aug 22, 2021 18:58:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 22, 2021 20:19:39 GMT -5
Dillon Brooks, Kyle Anderson Available On Trade Market
by JD Shaw
Grizzlies forwards Dillon Brooks and Kyle Anderson are said to be available on the trade market for the right price, sources tell Chris Fedor of Cleveland.com.
Brooks and Anderson have both been with the Grizzlies for quite some time – Brooks since 2017/18 and Anderson since 2018/19 – and played significant roles for the team last season. Brooks, who is under contract for two more years and $23.6MM, averaged 29.8 minutes per game, while Anderson, who is on an expiring $9.9MM deal, saw 27.3 minutes per contest.
Memphis currently has 17 guaranteed contracts, and that number could increase to 18 once the team’s trade with Minnesota (Patrick Beverley for Jarrett Culver and Juan Hernangomez) becomes official. In addition to Culver and Hernangomez, the team also recently acquired Rajon Rondo and Daniel Oturu.
The franchise must open one roster spot to complete its deal with Minnesota, so a player with a guaranteed contract could be traded, waived, or bought out to accommodate the one-for-two swap. The Grizzlies, who also have two players on two-way deals and Yves Pons on an Exhibit 10 contract, can carry up to 20 players in the offseason, but will have to trim their roster to 15 (plus two-ways) once the regular season begins.
Since Brooks and Anderson are productive wings on team-friendly contracts, Memphis would only move either player in a favorable deal — not just to address the club’s roster crunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 24, 2021 0:12:25 GMT -5
3 free agents to sign if Cs let Jabari Parker walk
by Mark Nilon
(Photo by Adam Glanzman/Getty Images)
... the Celtics will either have to pursue a past-peak veteran and/ or an unproven youngster or hope to get lucky with a highly-talented player that’s currently still available.
The first two options in Wilson and Valentine fall under the former category. A recently rumored target for the shamrocks in Lauri Markkanen would easily find its way falling under the latter.
According to Jake Fischer of Bleacher Report, Boston has “shown interest in signing Markkanen to deals worth around $15 million in average annual value.”
Now, obviously the Cs don’t have any more cap space after signing Schroder, so a sign-and-trade would likely be the only option for them to land the Finnish-born big should they really want him and, frankly, they should strongly consider such a pursuit.
Not so says Admin!
Now we can use the Fournier TPE and the Bulls won't have to take back any contracts ... all they want is a FRDP ... we got all of ours ... Time to place a long distance call to Chicago Brad. No S&T is needed ... stay over the cap, pay the tax and avoid the hard cap just in case a superstar shakes loose by the deadline.
|
|
|
|
Post by kdp59 on Aug 24, 2021 6:46:44 GMT -5
Now we can use the Fournier TPE and the Bulls won't have to take back any contracts ... all they want is a FRDP ... we got all of ours ... Time to place a long distance call to Chicago Brad. No S&T is needed ... stay over the cap, pay the tax and avoid the hard cap just in case a superstar shakes loose by the deadline.
isn't that still a sign and trade?
he's not under contract right now, so he has to sign something I would think.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Aug 24, 2021 7:26:05 GMT -5
3 free agents to sign if Cs let Jabari Parker walk
by Mark Nilon
(Photo by Adam Glanzman/Getty Images)
... the Celtics will either have to pursue a past-peak veteran and/ or an unproven youngster or hope to get lucky with a highly-talented player that’s currently still available.
The first two options in Wilson and Valentine fall under the former category. A recently rumored target for the shamrocks in Lauri Markkanen would easily find its way falling under the latter.
According to Jake Fischer of Bleacher Report, Boston has “shown interest in signing Markkanen to deals worth around $15 million in average annual value.”
Now, obviously the Cs don’t have any more cap space after signing Schroder, so a sign-and-trade would likely be the only option for them to land the Finnish-born big should they really want him and, frankly, they should strongly consider such a pursuit.
Not so says Admin!
Now we can use the Fournier TPE and the Bulls won't have to take back any contracts ... all they want is a FRDP ... we got all of ours ... Time to place a long distance call to Chicago Brad. No S&T is needed ... stay over the cap, pay the tax and avoid the hard cap just in case a superstar shakes loose by the deadline.
I mean, absolutely. If we can give up only a first and fit him in the TPE, would be a great move. |
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Aug 24, 2021 7:26:38 GMT -5
Now we can use the Fournier TPE and the Bulls won't have to take back any contracts ... all they want is a FRDP ... we got all of ours ... Time to place a long distance call to Chicago Brad. No S&T is needed ... stay over the cap, pay the tax and avoid the hard cap just in case a superstar shakes loose by the deadline.
isn't that still a sign and trade? he's not under contract right now, so he has to sign something I would think. Good point, still a S+T and we'd have to get under the hard cap. |
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Aug 24, 2021 7:37:31 GMT -5
So we're prob better off matching contracts then just absorbing the contract into the TPE because this way 1) we keep the TPE for next offseason and 2) wed have to move out contracts anyways because S+T for Markk would hard cap us and we'd be well above the apron not sending salary back.
So maybe Dunn, Langford, Gwill, Edwards =13.5 going the other way, which is a match. But the q becomes are we under the hard cap....
Tatum + Brown + Smart + Richardson + Markk (15) + Schroder + Horford + Rwill + Nesmith + PP + Kanter + Bruno = 12 players @ ~140M. So I think its doable.
Might be easier targeting a guy that wouldnt trigger the hard cap like Anderson, Nance or Millsap.
|
|
|
|
Post by kyceltic on Aug 24, 2021 14:26:06 GMT -5
Looks like to me, we have to sign or trade for a power forward. Tatum is a small forward and Horford is mostly a center. Gwill is a bench player, Parker may not even be on the team. Getting a power forward has to be Stevens next move.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Aug 24, 2021 14:35:22 GMT -5
Looks like to me, we have to sign or trade for a power forward. Tatum is a small forward and Horford is mostly a center. Gwill is a bench player, Parker may not even be on the team. Getting a power forward has to be Stevens next move. Well, at this point, I think our starters are pretty locked in: Smart, Richardson, JB, Tatum, Al/RWill....Could also go with Schroder in for Richardson, moving Smart to 2. In either case, I dont see them bringing 2 of Schroder, Smart, Richardson off the bench - so 2 will start. Which means any PF we get wont start and Tatum will be our starting PF. Which is fine in todays NBA. That being said, I 100% agree this team could use a PF for certain matchups/situations. Give us the option to go big if a situation/matchup calls for it. |
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Aug 24, 2021 14:40:19 GMT -5
Giannis, AD, and Durant are freaks and you arent getting one. Looking at the other PFs in the league, Boucher, Zion, PJW, Collins, Harris, Randle, Siakam, Clarke....These guys are all 6'7-6'9. Tatum is 6'8. So its not like we're hugely outsized there (in most matchups). But I do agree that we def could use a true PF in the rotation. But be prepared to see a lot of sets with 2 guards + Brown, Tatum and a center.
The avg PF is actually getting smaller. You're seeing a lot more 6'5-6'7 forwards getting drafted in the lottery.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Aug 24, 2021 15:13:54 GMT -5
If Toronto would trade with us, I think Chris Boucher could be a fit. Easily matchable contract, and a pending UFA so should be able to make it work.
I like one of: Nance, Anderson, Boucher, Millsap.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Aug 24, 2021 15:23:10 GMT -5
Ater this year, Boucher will be 28/29 UFA and I doubt rebuidling Toronto will have a ton of interest in bringing him back. So why not get something for him? I think Langford + Edwards could work. As Toronto is going nowhere this year, they could give the young , once highly touted prospect Romeo a real shot with extended playing time and see if they have something there.
We sure up our forward depth.
I guess you could bring Richardson off the bench, and have Richardson as your first F and Nesmith as your second F off the bench, but neither of these guys are PFs, and we wont have many options if we want to go big. Plus, I like Richardson as a starter. But I guess you could do Schroder, Smart, Brown, Tatum, Al/Rob and at least have 2 playable bench forwards. Not ideal though, Id rather go get a real PF as others have alluded to, and I hope its someone in my top 4 (Nance, Anderson, Millsap, or Boucher)
|
|
|
|
Post by kyceltic on Aug 24, 2021 15:37:54 GMT -5
Ater this year, Boucher will be 28/29 UFA and I doubt rebuidling Toronto will have a ton of interest in bringing him back. So why not get something for him? I think Langford + Edwards could work. As Toronto is going nowhere this year, they could give the young , once highly touted prospect Romeo a real shot with extended playing time and see if they have something there. We sure up our forward depth. I guess you could bring Richardson off the bench, and have Richardson as your first F and Nesmith as your second F off the bench, but neither of these guys are PFs, and we wont have many options if we want to go big. Plus, I like Richardson as a starter. But I guess you could do Schroder, Smart, Brown, Tatum, Al/Rob and at least have 2 playable bench forwards. Not ideal though, Id rather go get a real PF as others have alluded to, and I hope its someone in my top 4 (Nance, Anderson, Millsap, or Boucher) Chris Boucher or Anderson over the others! Boucher would be a great pick up for the Celtics, 7'4" wingspan, may be all the way back from his acl injury. What are you waiting for Brad?? |
|
|
|
Post by kyceltic on Aug 24, 2021 15:42:33 GMT -5
Schroder, Brown, Tatum, Boucher and RWill, could cause problems for a lot of teams offensively and defensively!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 24, 2021 15:44:45 GMT -5
Now we can use the Fournier TPE and the Bulls won't have to take back any contracts ... all they want is a FRDP ... we got all of ours ... Time to place a long distance call to Chicago Brad. No S&T is needed ... stay over the cap, pay the tax and avoid the hard cap just in case a superstar shakes loose by the deadline.
isn't that still a sign and trade? he's not under contract right now, so he has to sign something I would think. Good point, still a S+T and we'd have to get under the hard cap.
Technically he's a RFA ... if he gets no offer he will be forced to accept the QO @ $9MM or so by 10/1. We can acquire him at that point for the TPE or use a S&T to act sooner if willing to give him $15MM or moar for three years.
If he doesn't negotiate a new deal or sign the QO then he will be restricted again next season so the clock is ticking to find a team with a better offer than the QO or he will have no choice but accepting the $9MM ... in his interest to hammer out a deal with some team in the next 37 days.
|
|
|
|
Post by cole on Aug 24, 2021 16:46:50 GMT -5
Damn, now it's Charlie Watts! Now he's saying this:
|
|
|
|
Post by elvissurfs on Aug 24, 2021 20:37:22 GMT -5
Damn, now it's Charlie Watts! Now he's saying this: Yeah, but 80 is not bad, and quite a life playing drums with the Stones!... |
|
|
|
Post by hedleylamarr on Aug 25, 2021 14:22:14 GMT -5
Sad day. "Get Off My Cloud" is my favorite Stones song. I sang it with a band at the Beachcomber in Wellfleet. Then I looked up the true meaning............Mick, you dog!!
RIP Charlie. He, IMO, was the glue that held that band together.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Aug 26, 2021 12:12:34 GMT -5
Good point, still a S+T and we'd have to get under the hard cap.
Technically he's a RFA ... if he gets no offer he will be forced to accept the QO @ $9MM or so by 10/1. We can acquire him at that point for the TPE or use a S&T to act sooner if willing to give him $15MM or moar for three years.
If he doesn't negotiate a new deal or sign the QO then he will be restricted again next season so the clock is ticking to find a team with a better offer than the QO or he will have no choice but accepting the $9MM ... in his interest to hammer out a deal with some team in the next 37 days.
Sorry, but I would grade this as unlikely (but possible). I know that the Bulls have turned down offers and I think they are in the drivers seat here. A wrinkle could exist if the Thunder (only team w cap room) make an offer, and Markk accepts. I do not think it will be $15M, I think it would be $20M+. At that point, it would depend how far over $20M the contract is. If the Bulls can match, they will. Because they can always trade him later (after the 90 day window expires). But they are hard capped so at a certain price (I believe 22M+) they cant match. Not sure if OKC can get to this number. I see that OKC is currently 20M below cap and Bulls are 21M beneath apron (hard cap). But Im not sure if OKC can up that number by releasing rights to other players w cap holds. Pretty much 3 possibilites - signs an offer sheet w the thunder and bulls match signs an offer sheet w the thunder and bulls dont match No offer sheet is signed, plays under the QO If either of the top 2 options, I think $15m is low. I think you're looking at 20M here. But the thing is, in either case (if hes on the thunder or the bulls), the team has to wait 90 days to trade him. What I dont know, if he is traded in December (after 90 days) if that counts as a S+T, but I would think not. Still, its outside of our TPEs, so we'd have to match and I dont see that happening. Maybe if we offer the Thunder (or the Bulls) a first, a prospect, and Al - so possible there. More likely to happen w the Thunder because I dont think the bulls are looking to take any money back. But still possible w the bulls. Now if the third possibility comes to light, no offer sheet, plays as QO. I think we still have to wait 90 days, because I think the signing of a QO counts as a new contract. And again, my Q is if you trade for the player after the 90 days - is that a S+T? I lean towards no. So, in this case, we could fit him in the TPE or even match the contract (because its only 9M). And in this event, I would probably support making a strong offer. I might even go as high as Langford, Gwill, and a first. But the risk here is that he might not be available 90 days later. The team and player could mend their differences in that timeframe. My point is: if you can Milsap for the vet min, you do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 26, 2021 12:46:59 GMT -5
Technically he's a RFA ... if he gets no offer he will be forced to accept the QO @ $9MM or so by 10/1. We can acquire him at that point for the TPE or use a S&T to act sooner if willing to give him $15MM or moar for three years.
If he doesn't negotiate a new deal or sign the QO then he will be restricted again next season so the clock is ticking to find a team with a better offer than the QO or he will have no choice but accepting the $9MM ... in his interest to hammer out a deal with some team in the next 37 days.
Sorry, but I would grade this as unlikely (but possible). I know that the Bulls have turned down offers and I think they are in the drivers seat here. A wrinkle could exist if the Thunder (only team w cap room) make an offer, and Markk accepts. I do not think it will be $15M, I think it would be $20M+. At that point, it would depend how far over $20M the contract is. If the Bulls can match, they will. Because they can always trade him later (after the 90 day window expires). But they are hard capped so at a certain price (I believe 22M+) they cant match. Not sure if OKC can get to this number. I see that OKC is currently 20M below cap and Bulls are 21M beneath apron (hard cap). But Im not sure if OKC can up that number by releasing rights to other players w cap holds. Pretty much 3 possibilites - signs an offer sheet w the thunder and bulls match signs an offer sheet w the thunder and bulls dont match No offer sheet is signed, plays under the QO If either of the top 2 options, I think $15m is low. I think you're looking at 20M here. But the thing is, in either case (if hes on the thunder or the bulls), the team has to wait 90 days to trade him. What I dont know, if he is traded in December (after 90 days) if that counts as a S+T, but I would think not. Still, its outside of our TPEs, so we'd have to match and I dont see that happening. Maybe if we offer the Thunder (or the Bulls) a first, a prospect, and Al - so possible there. More likely to happen w the Thunder because I dont think the bulls are looking to take any money back. But still possible w the bulls. Now if the third possibility comes to light, no offer sheet, plays as QO. I think we still have to wait 90 days, because I think the signing of a QO counts as a new contract. And again, my Q is if you trade for the player after the 90 days - is that a S+T? I lean towards no. So, in this case, we could fit him in the TPE or even match the contract (because its only 9M). And in this event, I would probably support making a strong offer. I might even go as high as Langford, Gwill, and a first. But the risk here is that he might not be available 90 days later. The team and player could mend their differences in that timeframe. My point is: if you can Milsap for the vet min, you do it.
If the trade is for TPE and draft capital the 90 day holding period is reduced to 30 days ...
|
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Aug 26, 2021 13:01:50 GMT -5
Sorry, but I would grade this as unlikely (but possible). I know that the Bulls have turned down offers and I think they are in the drivers seat here. A wrinkle could exist if the Thunder (only team w cap room) make an offer, and Markk accepts. I do not think it will be $15M, I think it would be $20M+. At that point, it would depend how far over $20M the contract is. If the Bulls can match, they will. Because they can always trade him later (after the 90 day window expires). But they are hard capped so at a certain price (I believe 22M+) they cant match. Not sure if OKC can get to this number. I see that OKC is currently 20M below cap and Bulls are 21M beneath apron (hard cap). But Im not sure if OKC can up that number by releasing rights to other players w cap holds. Pretty much 3 possibilites - signs an offer sheet w the thunder and bulls match signs an offer sheet w the thunder and bulls dont match No offer sheet is signed, plays under the QO If either of the top 2 options, I think $15m is low. I think you're looking at 20M here. But the thing is, in either case (if hes on the thunder or the bulls), the team has to wait 90 days to trade him. What I dont know, if he is traded in December (after 90 days) if that counts as a S+T, but I would think not. Still, its outside of our TPEs, so we'd have to match and I dont see that happening. Maybe if we offer the Thunder (or the Bulls) a first, a prospect, and Al - so possible there. More likely to happen w the Thunder because I dont think the bulls are looking to take any money back. But still possible w the bulls. Now if the third possibility comes to light, no offer sheet, plays as QO. I think we still have to wait 90 days, because I think the signing of a QO counts as a new contract. And again, my Q is if you trade for the player after the 90 days - is that a S+T? I lean towards no. So, in this case, we could fit him in the TPE or even match the contract (because its only 9M). And in this event, I would probably support making a strong offer. I might even go as high as Langford, Gwill, and a first. But the risk here is that he might not be available 90 days later. The team and player could mend their differences in that timeframe. My point is: if you can Milsap for the vet min, you do it.
If the trade is for TPE and draft capital the 90 day holding period is reduced to 30 days ...
I dont think thats correct. The 30 vs 90 doesnt depend on the return. Its 30 days for a signed rookie or player coming off a 2-way contract, 90 days for a signed player coming off a 1 way contract. From: cbabreakdown.com/trades"New Contracts — Any draft rookie (whether drafted in the first or second round) that signs a standard NBA contract and any player that signs a two-way contract may not be traded for 30 days after they sign. Any free agent playing on a standard NBA contract (or if they are converted to one) may not be traded until the later of 3 months after they sign or December 15. (For sign-and-trade deals, this rule only applies to any subsequent trade and not the initial sign-and-trade.)" |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 26, 2021 13:13:08 GMT -5
If the trade is for TPE and draft capital the 90 day holding period is reduced to 30 days ...
I dont think thats correct. The 30 vs 90 doesnt depend on the return. Its 30 days for a signed rookie or player coming off a 2-way contract, 90 days for a signed player coming off a 1 way contract. From: cbabreakdown.com/trades"New Contracts — Any draft rookie (whether drafted in the first or second round) that signs a standard NBA contract and any player that signs a two-way contract may not be traded for 30 days after they sign. Any free agent playing on a standard NBA contract (or if they are converted to one) may not be traded until the later of 3 months after they sign or December 15. (For sign-and-trade deals, this rule only applies to any subsequent trade and not the initial sign-and-trade.)"
How do you interpret this clause?
No free agent signed in the offseason can be traded until December 15 of that year or until three months have passed (whichever comes later), a rule that prevents teams from signing free agents with the intent of using them strictly as trade fodder. For draft picks this moratorium lasts 30 days.
A) A trade for draft pick/s rather than player/s
or
B) A draft pick traded upon being signed and traded from team A to team B?
If "B" is the right interpretation then yes my conclusion is incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Aug 26, 2021 13:23:35 GMT -5
I dont think thats correct. The 30 vs 90 doesnt depend on the return. Its 30 days for a signed rookie or player coming off a 2-way contract, 90 days for a signed player coming off a 1 way contract. From: cbabreakdown.com/trades"New Contracts — Any draft rookie (whether drafted in the first or second round) that signs a standard NBA contract and any player that signs a two-way contract may not be traded for 30 days after they sign. Any free agent playing on a standard NBA contract (or if they are converted to one) may not be traded until the later of 3 months after they sign or December 15. (For sign-and-trade deals, this rule only applies to any subsequent trade and not the initial sign-and-trade.)"
How do you interpret this clause?
No free agent signed in the offseason can be traded until December 15 of that year or until three months have passed (whichever comes later), a rule that prevents teams from signing free agents with the intent of using them strictly as trade fodder. For draft picks this moratorium lasts 30 days.
A) A trade for draft pick/s rather than player/s
or
B) A draft pick traded upon being signed and traded from team A to team B?
If "B" is the right interpretation then yes my conclusion is incorrect.
Im pretty sure its "B". We could trade Begarin after 30 days from signing him to his rookie deal. But if we wanted to trade TT last year, we would have had to wait 90 even if the only thing coming back was picks + TPE |
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Aug 26, 2021 13:39:18 GMT -5
Found it, yeah its "B". Section VII, Article 8, d
(i) No Draft Rookie who signs a Standard NBA Contract or player who signs a Two-Way Contract may be traded before thirty (30) days following the date on which the Contract is signed.
(ii) No player who signs a Contract as a Free Agent (or who signs a Standard NBA Contract while under a Two-Way Contract) may be traded before the later of (A) three (3) months following the date on which such Contract was signed or (B) the December 15 of the Salary Cap Year in which such Contract was signed; provided, that if a Contract is signed in connection with an agreement to trade the Contract in accordance with Section 8(e) below, the foregoing rule shall not apply to the initial trade but shall instead be applicable if the Contract is traded a second time. For the purposes of this rule, a Two-Way Contract that is converted to a Standard NBA Contract pursuant to such Contract’s Standard NBA Contract Conversion Option will be deemed to be signed at the date of the conversion.
....
Note it talks about an exception in VII.8.e but thats just a S+T. But the rule still applies after the player is S+T'd. So for example, the Bulls could S+T Markk to the thunder (instantly), but the thunder couldnt trade him within 90 days of him signing the contract (with the bulls).
|
|
