(03-07-2018 12:22 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 09:42 AM)Tigx Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 07:21 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:01 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 03:50 PM)WColt45 Wrote:  The only way Wallace can salvage this is if he already has a deal with Tyreke in place to re-sign for the MLE (unlikely) or if he has ideas of how to clear up cap space (also unlikely).

Problem is two 2nd rounders don't get you a first. Last draft, for instance, Portland had to package the 20th pick with the 15th pick just to get the Sacramento pick, which was #10.

Also, re Gasol, NBA trades have to match salaries. Marc wouldn't get a lottery pick anyway, but if he did, Grizz would have to take approx. $25M back in salary, at least for next season. So very unlikely to happen.

Psst... For future reference; only if the team taking Marc has no cap room. Since most good teams that wanted Marc wouldn’t have any cap room,

If the Grizz got less back in salary than what Marc earns, they would get a trade exception for the difference that can be used within a year of the trade.

Psst . . . Lat lecturing me or anyone about CBA rules. Delusional much Lat?

First, only 5 teams projected to have cap room this summer, and they are saving it for Free Agents, not for a center who will be 34 next season.

2nd, re the traded player exception, there is no current TPE (they expire after 1 year) large enough to trade for Marc's salary, and TPEs have to be traded by themselves for a single player, i.e. can't be combined with another player to match Marc's salary. So totally a moot point in Marc's case.

But thanks for playing.

You don’t know who Latty is. I’ve had Larry Coon on bookmark for a score, son.

Maybe I was wrong about combining a trade exception with a contract, but Marc could have been traded for less than his salary.

But a team can receive 125% + $100k in a trade of Marc’s level of salary. Which means the Grizzlies can take back significantly less than Marc’s salary, even factoring his trade kicker.

Who wants to take back $20M in bad salary to get rid of Marc? Want the last 3 years of Tristan Thompson at $18M per year? I sure don't. Point is we wouldn't get much for Marc, so we are better off keeping him. He's still a very productive player, and he wants to be here.

(03-07-2018 03:23 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 12:22 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 09:42 AM)Tigx Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 07:21 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:01 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Problem is two 2nd rounders don't get you a first. Last draft, for instance, Portland had to package the 20th pick with the 15th pick just to get the Sacramento pick, which was #10.

Also, re Gasol, NBA trades have to match salaries. Marc wouldn't get a lottery pick anyway, but if he did, Grizz would have to take approx. $25M back in salary, at least for next season. So very unlikely to happen.

Psst... For future reference; only if the team taking Marc has no cap room. Since most good teams that wanted Marc wouldn’t have any cap room,

If the Grizz got less back in salary than what Marc earns, they would get a trade exception for the difference that can be used within a year of the trade.

Psst . . . Lat lecturing me or anyone about CBA rules. Delusional much Lat?

First, only 5 teams projected to have cap room this summer, and they are saving it for Free Agents, not for a center who will be 34 next season.

2nd, re the traded player exception, there is no current TPE (they expire after 1 year) large enough to trade for Marc's salary, and TPEs have to be traded by themselves for a single player, i.e. can't be combined with another player to match Marc's salary. So totally a moot point in Marc's case.

But thanks for playing.

You don’t know who Latty is. I’ve had Larry Coon on bookmark for a score, son.

Maybe I was wrong about combining a trade exception with a contract, but Marc could have been traded for less than his salary.

But a team can receive 125% + $100k in a trade of Marc’s level of salary. Which means the Grizzlies can take back significantly less than Marc’s salary, even factoring his trade kicker.

Who wants to take back $20M in bad salary to get rid of Marc? Want the last 3 years of Tristan Thompson at $18M per year? I sure don't. Point is we wouldn't get much for Marc, so we are better off keeping him. He's still a very productive player, and he wants to be here.

The point wasn’t whether it’s something we should do; the point was we don’t have to take Marc’s equivalent salary back in return.

(03-07-2018 06:29 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 03:23 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 12:22 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 09:42 AM)Tigx Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 07:21 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  Psst... For future reference; only if the team taking Marc has no cap room. Since most good teams that wanted Marc wouldn’t have any cap room,

If the Grizz got less back in salary than what Marc earns, they would get a trade exception for the difference that can be used within a year of the trade.

Psst . . . Lat lecturing me or anyone about CBA rules. Delusional much Lat?

First, only 5 teams projected to have cap room this summer, and they are saving it for Free Agents, not for a center who will be 34 next season.

2nd, re the traded player exception, there is no current TPE (they expire after 1 year) large enough to trade for Marc's salary, and TPEs have to be traded by themselves for a single player, i.e. can't be combined with another player to match Marc's salary. So totally a moot point in Marc's case.

But thanks for playing.

You don’t know who Latty is. I’ve had Larry Coon on bookmark for a score, son.

Maybe I was wrong about combining a trade exception with a contract, but Marc could have been traded for less than his salary.

But a team can receive 125% + $100k in a trade of Marc’s level of salary. Which means the Grizzlies can take back significantly less than Marc’s salary, even factoring his trade kicker.

Who wants to take back $20M in bad salary to get rid of Marc? Want the last 3 years of Tristan Thompson at $18M per year? I sure don't. Point is we wouldn't get much for Marc, so we are better off keeping him. He's still a very productive player, and he wants to be here.

The point wasn’t whether it’s something we should do; the point was we don’t have to take Marc’s equivalent salary back in return.

I know. But it's still an 85% match, and that is a lot of salary to take back. Just very hard to get a decent return, given Marc's age.