# Rashard Lewis



## 2010Illini (Jul 19, 2002)

I've heard rumors maybe on espn news I think, that Rashard Lewis is coming for a visit, I'm wondering if there's any truth to this rumor.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*HEY, keep me posted on this.....*

....as we do not get much BULLS rumors down this way!! LOL


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

The insider briefly mentioned that Lewis has not ruled out the Bulls and Houston. Also said that the bulls seem to be the only team that can trade and offer him the money he wants. Also mentioned that they cant see Lewis going to Dallas and accepting ANOTHER low salary to play fifth wheel on a team. In three years, what if Dallas doesnt pay him? Unlikely, imo but you still have to ask that. Cuban does trade players. 

On the Bulls he would be in the top three of options. We would have yet to see in what order he would be! And keep in mind Lewis on the Bulls would get us closer to the playoffs than we are now!


----------



## TJ (Jul 23, 2002)

The Bulls could easily sign Lewis for what he wants and still be under the Luxory tax level. I wonder if Krause does not really like Lewis or if he doing 
a stealth attack here. He could easily work out a sign a trade or just sign him straight up


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by *TJ *
> He could easily work out a sign a trade or just sign him straight up


How?


----------



## TJ (Jul 23, 2002)

The Bulls are at 36M right( if the renounce Best and Oakley) so adding 10M would be at 46M which is under 50M. I beleive these nunbers are correct .


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

The Bull were estimated to be 5.5 mil under the cap by Krause a month or so ago.
Now that the cap has come down I think most are estimating that the Bull(IF they changed strategy and renounced FA's) would be ~2 mil and change under the cap. As far as I know the most they can offer is the mid-level exception @ ~ 4.5 mil..

As for a S&T, it's possible but far from easy.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by *TJ *
> The Bulls are at 36M right( if the renounce Best and Oakley) so adding 10M would be at 46M which is under 50M. I beleive these nunbers are correct .


TJ, like the rest of us at times in the past, you have a lot to learn about the salary cap and CBA.

Right now, we are over the salary cap, and even if we renounced Best, Oakley, and our exceptions, we would not be able to offer Lewis more than about $4M. So the best we can do without a sign-and-trade is offer Lewis our full mid-level exception of $4.5M.

If Lewis signs for more that 20% of his salary last year (about $5.3M), he becomes a BYC player, which makes it very difficult to trade for him, since Seattle can only take back the maximum of (a) half of his new salary or (b) his last year's salary in trades for him. In order to sign-and-trade him to anything more than about $6M, we would need trade away about our whole roster, in particular Jalen Rose or involve a third team under the cap (good luck getting the Clippers involved).

Larry ****'s site in invaluable in learning all of the details of the CBA.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm


----------



## TJ (Jul 23, 2002)

The CBA and the Salary Cap are way too complicated for me and I read Larry's page and still do not
understand a thing.


----------



## dlt3 (Jul 11, 2002)

apparently the Players Assoc. has the same problem.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by *NCBullsFan *
> If Lewis signs for more that 20% of his salary last year (about $5.3M), he becomes a BYC player, which makes it very difficult to trade for him, since Seattle can only take back the maximum of (a) half of his new salary or (b) his last year's salary in trades for him. In order to sign-and-trade him to anything more than about $6M, we would need trade away about our whole roster, in particular Jalen Rose or involve a third team under the cap (good luck getting the Clippers involved).


You're not making sense. You say that Seattle can take back the max of last year's salary or 50% of new salary. It doesn't follow that the Bulls would have to trade away huge salary to meet this restriction. Perhaps you can re-state your thoughts.

Also, I'm pretty sure that renouncing Best and Oakley *would* put us under the cap. That's why Krause hasn't done it yet -- we wouldn't be allowed to use the exceptions if we were under the cap.


----------



## TJ (Jul 23, 2002)

In looking at Larry's page, it looks like Oakley and best will account for 12M in cap space unless I am reading this wrong. If the Bull renounce them,
do they get the full use of this cap space? Apperantly not!

I do think a sign and trade is possible for the Bulls & Sonics on Lewis, and it would not involve a 3rd team.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

It makes sense to me.

I think it helps to look at it from Seattle's perspective. Let's say Lewis gets $8 mil. then the most salary the Sonic can accept back is $4 mil.. IF Seattle will accept this then it can happen but why would they? IF a 3rd team under the cap or with exceptions wants to help then better terms can be had for Seattle but very few teams are both in the position cap wise to do it and have a self interest in doing so. 

If you re-read his post he clearly says that IF the Bull renounced FA's etc. that the Bull could offer ~ $4 mil.. This is probably a more accurate figure than the one I gave but still less than the mid-level exception.

BYC basics 

Advantage of a 3rd team example

How a S&T becomes BYC(2nd to last paragaph)


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by *TJ *
> I do think a sign and trade is possible for the Bulls & Sonics on Lewis, and it would not involve a 3rd team.


How? 

I know crazy things are happening due to the luxury tax and bad economy but I still don't think Seattle would do this. 

I'm all eyes. What gives you optimism?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Nater *
> 
> You're not making sense. You say that Seattle can take back the max of last year's salary or 50% of new salary. It doesn't follow that the Bulls would have to trade away huge salary to meet this restriction. Perhaps you can re-state your thoughts.


Thanks Sicky for all of the specific posts on this issue. You are absolutely great on doing that.

Nater, but remember since we are over the salary cap, the salaries we accept must be within about 15% of the salaries that we trade. So if we sign-and-trade Lewis for $8M, we need to trade at least $6.9M in salaries to make it work. But Seattle can only accept back $4.4M in salaries (plus about 15%) due to the BYC status of Lewis, so the trade is impossible.

The only way to get this to work is to involve a team with exceptions or cap-space or trade a whole bunch of salary so that the 15% leeway adds up to $3M-$5M difference in what Lewis costs for us and for Seattle due his BYC status. That means we need to be trading between $20M-$35M in salaries, i.e. practically our whole team.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

Ok, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. 

What if we renounce Oakley and Best? Then we're under the cap... so BYC issues no longer apply. Is that correct?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Nater *
> Ok, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> What if we renounce Oakley and Best? Then we're under the cap... so BYC issues no longer apply. Is that correct?


If renounced Oakley, Best, AND ALL OF OUR EXCEPTIONS, then I think we would be only about $3M under the cap. Lewis would still be a BYC player, since Seattle is over the salary cap.

We could then trade something like Crawford and Fizer (approximately $5M) for Lewis signed at about $8M. It would be hard to work a deal with Robinson.

But we could offer Crawford and Fizer for Lewis signed at about $5.8M without renouncing Best, Oakley, or our exceptions.

Or a trade of Crawford, Fizer, and Robinson for Booth and Lewis at $7.4M would also work without renouncing our exceptions. 

But this deal would put Seattle perilously close to luxury tax territory. The previous deals are a bit better for the Sonics, but still put them close to the luxury tax. Re-signing Lewis for more than $5M puts the Sonics is similarly-bad situation with regard to the luxury cap.

And remember just barely crossing the luxury tax line might cost teams $17M-$25M in lost escrow and luxury tax penalty paybacks.


----------



## TJ (Jul 23, 2002)

No, the BYC applies because Seattle is over the cap.
The Bulls will have a tough time doing this trade, but it could be done.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

NCBullsFan: Thanks for the  :laugh: . Right back at you for the more detailed example(the ~15% + $100,000).  .

I'm curious to get feedback on this idea to still get a BYC deal done without a 3rd team. I'm using Lewis as an example only and not because I'm in favor of dealing for him.

Let's say Seattle had "dead weight"(a player whose cost was clearly more than his worth and there was no real hope of that changing). What if this "dead weight" were traded with Lewis to "balance out" the "loss" in value the Sonic would recieve from Lewis? It's possible that Booth(your idea) or Potapenko are in this category.

Let's say Player "DW" is valued at $2 mil if he were to be up for a contract today but his contract pays him $6 mil.. Couldn't the Sonic use this $4 mil "extra" trade value to get the ~ $4 mil in value back that they'd lose from trading Lewis?

Another idea is to use rookie contracts. A good player is never cheaper than when he's under a rookie contract. Of course the Fizer/JC idea does just this.

It's my understanding that draft picks count as ZERO $ in trades. Wouldn't this be a way to "make up" value for the team with a BYC player?

To conclude: Either the team with the BYC player tacking on "over valued" players or the team interested in the BYC player offering "undervalued" assets"(rookie contracts/picks) in return seems like a way to "make whole"(reduce/eliminate the "value recieved" penalty the team with the BYC player incurs) the team trading a BYC player without the addition of a 3rd team.

Sonic Salaries 

Bull Salaries

I still don't see it happening but am "open to persuasion". (apology to J. Armatrading)


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Most of your post has to do with evening up the talent/value on both sides of a trade. Without a specific trade idea in mind, it is hard to talk about these kinds of things in the abstract.

Yes, unsigned draft picks count as zero dollars in trades (1st round pick do count against the cap though). But they count as zero dollars for both teams, so they don't help in making up salary differences in trades, such as in a BYC case.

Minimum-salary players also count as zero dollars for the team receiving the players, but not the team sending them, so if we had any minimum-salary players to give Seattle, that could help with this trade. But I don't think we have any.

I would consider Booth a DW player under your definition (salary higher than value), but we are trading another DW player, so I am not sure if adding Booth and Robinson to the mix makes it any more attractive for the Sonics.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

Let's use the Fizer/JC example posted before. Fizer ~ $3 mil. and JC ~ $2 mil. PLUS an unprotected 1st round pick ZERO $ for Lewis @ ~ $8 mil.. "Jay" signed for ~ $3.45 mil. so couldn't it be rationalized that there was really ROUGHLY equal value being traded even within the constraints of BYC? 

*There is a risk that the pick will be lower than a #2 and also a time value issue and therefore the value is not known but do you see and/or agree with the general idea here?

3(Fizer) + 2(JC) + 3.45(pick) ~ (*) = 8(Lewis) 

I think Hassell is a player whose value is greater than his salary but I'd rather not trade him.

Your comment about ERob is spot on.


----------



## TJ (Jul 23, 2002)

If you estimation of this Lewis trade is correct ( and I am beginning to think that it is ), than there is no way to do this trade. Lewis will be forced to re-sign with the Sonics and the Bulls will take Hapring and Big Old to be determined from the Free Agent Market. 
I was hoping for more than Harpring and Danny Manning.

Maybe they could do a Mike Miller or Wally trade,
but Wally wants the MAX and Miller is so-so.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Is Lewis worth $17M-$25M luxury cap hit?*

But re-signing Lewis for more than $5M might cost the Sonics $17M-$25M in lost escrow and luxury tax penalty payments.

See http://www.basketballboards.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=305&highlight=Complete+Free+Agent, especially the later posts in this thread. As I have been harping, people are really underestimating how important an issue this lump sum penalty for being just over the luxury tax threshhold is.

If the Sonics are unwilling to pay this huge penalty, then a sign-and-trade might be their most attractive option.

Lewis might like it because we could offer a nearly $20M three-year deal or $56M seven-year deal with the Fizer/Crawford for Lewis trade or a $25M three-year deal or $71M seven-year deal with the Fizer/Crawford/Robinson for Lewis/Booth trade. 

If we waited until 9/22, we could substitute Potapenko for Booth in a $24M three-year deal or $69M seven-year deal.

Or we could consider a more complicated trade that would require a trade exception from signing-and-trading Best and also could not take place until 9/22: Fizer/Crawford/Robinson/Bagaric for Lewis/Anderson/Drobnjak? The details of how this trade would work is tricky, but we could offer Lewis $21.6M over three years or $61.7M over 7 years. This deal would surely keep Seattle under the luxury tax threshhold.

Also, if we had a trade exception from signing-and-trading Best, I think we could offer Lewis up to a $28M three-year contract or $81M seven-year contract in a sign-and-trade for Fizer/Crawford, although I think we would not want to give Lewis that big of a contract. 

So there are lots of possibilites.

These deals are more attractive than the $15M three-year deal that Dallas can offer. Also, since Cuban is trade happy, Lewis could never be sure that he would be in Dallas three years from now to sign a max offer.

Now do I think this is ever going to happen? No, but not because we can't make it attractive for all of the interested parties. Krause has never shown much interest in Lewis either this year or a couple of years ago, so for some reason I don't think Krause thinks much of Lewis.

I am puzzled by this stance on Krause's part.


----------



## 2010Illini (Jul 19, 2002)

I wouldn't be surprised if Lewis signed with the Bulls he would be one of their go to guys. I think he wants to be a star and if he signs with Dallas he wont be one of their go to guys. He might sighn with Houston considering he's from their. But nobody can pay him more than the mid-level exception besides Seattle in the end I think he'll sighn with the Bulls. I heard he's coming for a visit today and Jerry will probably give him a big show.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

Yep. You've been right all along. 

I never thought Harpring would be unrestricted and chided FJ about it. I was wrong FJ. Sorry.

It seems like the teams who are "real" contenders(Sacramento) will pay up but those who aren't(Philly) probably won't. Those teams that are in too deep(Portland) will have no choice but teams on the edge(Seattle) IMO shouldn't.

Real life is affecting the NBA finally.

I've been impatient with the FA "progress" of the Bull this summer but maybe there is a good reason for this. Maybe the "strong hand" teams(under the cap/tax) are just waiting for the "weak hand" teams(over tax) to cry "UNCLE"! I've been on the wrong end of this type of thing and it's painful. Maybe the Bull will benefit at another teams expense. I hope so. I'm feeling better now.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Sicky Dimpkins *
> Yep. You've been right all along.
> 
> I never thought Harpring would be unrestricted and chided FJ about it. I was wrong FJ. Sorry.
> ...


It does look like that might be what is happening.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

Nothing new here. Just a couple of old (mid July) articles to further the points being made here.

Lewis and the tax 

Seattle won't do a S & T ?

That's what it says(mid article ~ paragraph 10) but it doesn't list a source.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

Lewis/BYC/update article 

Nice to see writers catching up to NCBullsFan on this issue.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Read this article that Sicky pointed out. It is important if you want to understand why Lewis might still be a possibility.

http://www.tribnet.com/sports/story/1516290p-1633643c.html

Today I e-mailed the author of this article, Frank Hughes (yes, the same Frank Hughes who occasionally writes for ESPN), about some of the specifics of this article, and I received a reply (from his personal AOL e-mail address and no way will I give that out to anyone, so don't even ask) within two hours.

The upshot of the e-mail exchange is that I think he might be presenting my speculations about the ramifications of the luxury tax to the Sonics' brass. If I am right (and he did not dismiss my speculation out of hand), signing Lewis starting at $7M versus signing-and-trading him to someone, getting back players costing $5M, might save the owners of the Sonics $22M this year.

(This is higher than the $11M savings that he suggests in the article, although $11M is a lot of money, as well.)

In other words, if I am right, there is a very, very slight possibility (and I mean very, very slight possibility) that the Seattle brass right now is reconsidering the merits of re-signing Lewis vs. trading him.

And independently, I also got some news from another source who sometimes frequents this board, that Lewis is a possibility (and one that JK likes), but right now a long-shot possibility. Seattle so far has been asking for too much, but I think that might change as Seattle fully understands the ramifications of the luxury tax.

Here are some of the details in the e-mail I sent to Frank Hughes.

If Seattle re-signed Lewis for $7M and it put them at $54M and $2M over the luxury cap threshhold, here is what I think their salary situation would look like for 2002-2003.

$54M in salaries
$2M in dollar-for-dollar luxury tax penalties
$4.3M returned in escrow payments (60% share because of being over luxury cap threshhold)

$51.7M net salary costs

Let's assume instead they signed-and-traded Lewis to someone and got back $5M in salaries and ended up at $52M, just below the luxury cap threshhold. Here is what their salary structure would look like.

$52M in salaries
$7.1M returned in escrow payments (100% share)
$15M returned in luxury tax penalty payments

$29.9M net salary costs

So even though the trade only saves them $2M in salaries, once the luxury tax complications kick in, it saves them $21.8M in net salary costs. (Letting Lewis go would save them about $27M.)

If you were the owner of the Sonics, wouldn't you think that Crawford & Fizer for Lewis is a fair deal given that it may save you $22M?


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

Have they (Lewis or agent) mentioned a visit to Chicago recently?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

No, and that is why I do not think this has gotten serious yet. But I think the main reason it hasn't gotten serious is because Seattle has not gotten serious about a sign-and-trade. I am hoping that once the reality of luxury cap sets in with them, maybe they will get more serious.

And the fact that we apparently do have some interest in Lewis makes me a little bit hopeful.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I'll be hopeful when he actually visits the team, management and city. I think meeting the kids and Rose will be a big boost. I honestly don't understand why he would want to go to Dallas being a 3rd or 4th option. Cuban is in danger of putting together a nicer, gentler Portland team. Don't need that many big time players. He needs some role playing defenders.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

I'm  NCBullsFan. I saw the "thread" announcing an addition to this thread and I saw that you edited the post where you mentioned e-mailing the writer but I didn't recognize anything new. What am I missing?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Sorry to disappoint, but that is all I have for now. The new thread, which I now can't delete like I promised because it is locked, was primarily to alert a bunch of folks who were on the board at the time that they might be interested in this post.

It is not earth-shattering until you start to understand the ramifications of what re-signing Lewis might cost the Sonics. But it floors me that more people aren't interested in this stuff. I mentioned to Frank Hughes that he should write an article about this luxury tax stuff, but he said that I might be the only person in the country who would be interested.

I am afraid that he probably is right, even though this is far more important than 99.99% of the stuff we talk about ad nauseum.

Sometimes, I even wonder if there are enough folks interested in this stuff to make it worth posting.


----------



## HJHJR (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *NCBullsFan *
> Sorry to disappoint, but that is all I have for now. The new thread, which I now can't delete like I promised because it is locked, was primarily to alert a bunch of folks who were on the board at the time that they might be interested in this post.
> 
> It is not earth-shattering until you start to understand the ramifications of what re-signing Lewis might cost the Sonics. But it floors me that more people aren't interested in this stuff. I mentioned to Frank Hughes that he should write an article about this luxury tax stuff, but he said that I might be the only person in the country who would be interested.
> ...


No need for you to apologize, NC. You always put alot of thought into your posts. I, for one enjoy everything you have to say about our beloved Bulls, whether I agree with your point of view or not. I wish more people chose substance over style the way you do. Keep up the great work!


----------



## blkwdw13 (Jun 12, 2002)

NCBullsFan I'm very interested in all this talk about the CBA and the luxary tax, and thanks for explaining it for people like me. I'm not trying to suck up but it sure sounds like it huh.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by *NCBullsFan *
> 
> If you were the owner of the Sonics, wouldn't you think that Crawford & Fizer for Lewis is a fair deal given that it may save you $22M?


Just for kicks let's assume that Sonics are not high on Crawford and Fizer.

So the question is - Is signing Lewis worth taking a $22M hit?

I think the answer might be yes if they feel that Lewis will be the man.

The $22M hit is actually quite small compared to the hit that Cuban will take for picking up LaFrentz and VanExcel. Granted, the Mavs were already into Lux tax land and the Sonics are not, but the Mavs are paying Avery Johnston and Tariq a combined $10M next year which = $20M after the dollar for dollar tax. And they still owe those 2 another $30M is salary after next year. This is ignoring the salary and tax for LaFrentz and VanExcel's big contracts.

Considering Sonics payroll excluding Lewis gets cuts in half next year, I think they will ultimetely pay Lewis.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

NCBull, thanks for the inside scoop. I have to ask, even though I think I know the answer already, would the Sonics ever consider a sign and trade for Fizer and ERob? Logic tells me no as ERob's market value is way down right now and his contract isn't up until 2006. By taking on ERob's contract, they aren't really freeing up a ton of cap space. I just would hate to see JC go.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by *NCBullsFan *
> Sorry to disappoint, but that is all I have for now. The new
> 
> Sometimes, I even wonder if there are enough folks interested in this stuff to make it worth posting.


C'mon dawg . No self pity 

You want some love ? You got it 

You provide great input that I am positive is educational and enlightening. 

Its just that a lot of folk may not feel qualified to add to it in a meaningful way 

But there are those that continue to ignore it and come up with all the direct salary matching scenarios with dreams of discarding ERob without realising the BYC issues - which , I have gone bluw in the face trying to explain why it does not work. I have given up as there are those that just don't get it

But keep up the good work . It is appreciated


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by *NCBullsFan *
> Sorry to disappoint, but that is all I have for now. The new
> 
> Sometimes, I even wonder if there are enough folks interested in this stuff to make it worth posting.


C'mon dawg . No self pity 

You want some love ? You got it 

You provide great input that I am positive is educational and enlightening. 

Its just that a lot of folk may not feel qualified to add to it in a meaningful way 

But there are those that continue to ignore it and come up with all the direct salary matching scenarios with dreams of discarding ERob without realising the BYC issues - which , I have gone bluw in the face trying to explain why it does not work. I have given up as there are those that just don't get it

But keep up the good work . It is appreciated


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Thanks everyone!*

I guess I went trolling for love and found it. Thanks everyone for the kind words!

Johnston, yes I suppose that Seattle might think that Lewis is worth Fizer, Crawford, and $22M. Outside a very few folks like Cuban and Allen, I think $22M is a big deal to most owners. Remember these guys are watching their stock portfolios tank right now as well.

MichaelofAZ, I really think most teams would rather have a second round pick than ERob at the salary he is being paid. I think we have also learned from a few of our inside sources that Fizer's value around the league is only a bit higher than that. So no, I don't think Fizer & ERob is close to getting it done for a player like Lewis.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

So Fizer & JC is enough for Lewis(given the tax) but Fizer & ERob isn't. I guess JC still has some value.

It's not right but it's human nature to wait until change hits us in the face. Very few actually think and act ahead like you have done. I predict that when more of these crazy moves to save $ happen suddenly there will much interest in this topic. When it hits the fan you and this topic will get all the attention you can handle. Until then I guess some will look at those who point out these obstacles to fanatasy trades as being "negative".

Time is on your side NCBullsFan.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Lewis S&T with trade exception*

(Note: New stuff from a recent edit is in italics. I have also added some underlining to highlight important points that may have been missed earlier.)

Even I think we are starting to talk Rashard Lewis to death, but his case provides a nice launching point for talking about CBA matters. So here goes.

Suppose we have a $3.46M trade exception from a S&T with Miami (a big suppose).

Then we could trade Crawford ($2.03M) and Fizer ($2.95M) for Lewis signed anywhere from a starting salary of $4.24M to $8.44M. We would need to use the traded player exception for anything above $5.83M.

As an example, let's assume Lewis starting at $7.5M.

*Here is how it works from Seattle's end.*

If Lewis signs with Seattle for more than _1_20% of his previous year's salary, he becomes a BYC player. _120% of his previous year's salary is $5.3M._ Then Lewis counts for the maximum of (a) his salary in the previous year, or (b) 1/2 his new salary. In this case, the maximum is his salary in the previous year, $4.4M.

Using the assigned player exception, Seattle can accept back 115% of $4.4M plus $100K, which is $5.16M. They are only getting $4.98M in salaries, so the trade works for them. 

*Here is how it works from the Bulls' end*

Under the assigned player exception, we could accept back 115% of $4.98M plus $100K, which is $5.83M. But Lewis costs $7.5M for us, so this won't work. _In other words, the Bulls do not use the assigned player exception._ 

So instead of using the assigned player exception, we use our traded player exception. Since we aren't combining it with any other exceptions on any of OUR players, then we can use it. _My reading of Larry ****'s site is that this is legal, since we are not combining exceptions on any of OUR players. Notice that I am NOT using the assigned player exception._

Using the traded player exception, we have $4.98M + $3.46M = $8.44M that we can spend on incoming salaries. We are only spending $7.5M, so the trade works for us, as well.

_However, I don't think JK would be willing to spend $7.5M on Lewis if he is not able to unload Robinson. Arguably, Lewis, Robinson, and Rose are all SFs, and spending well more than $20M on any one position does not make a lot of sense._


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Well that is interesting if that is possible 

But I am not sure ( can't find anything in ****'s CBA FAQ ) as to whether the acquired exception can be used as a "tack on" without counting as salary value taken back - which would crash it from Seattle's end ... unless we wanted to sign Rashard to $16.6M as I foreshadowed earlier to meet the 50% BYC requirements ( reversing it back the other way in the salary value Seattle receives back - $8.3M - x 2 = $16.6M ) 

I would be inclined to think that it does count as salary value for trading purposes. 

Afterall if we are relying upon it as equal trading value to sign and trade Travis Best for it , why would it not have a similar value proposition for salary trading purposes in any trade for Rashard?

Which means ( to my mind ) Crawford, Fizer and the exception do not get it done - or in any partial combination ( if you are assuming full value of the acquired exception - eg Craw at $2M + exception at $3.3M = $5.3M which means we are over into BYC territory which means we would have to pay Rashard in this latter example , $10.6M ) 

To keep costs for Rashard down to $7M - $8M making him a BYC trading proposition we have to find value to $4.4M - and preferably give them a young up and coming muscle bound intimidator at PF/C.

That's my reality in the understanding of the criteria

As we have two prospects that would be of interest to Seattle in Tyson and Eddy , they are obviously not for trade - and I can't see Seattle being interested in Fizer.

So who else is there around the league that we could involve in a 3rd party trade that may be interested in Fizer and Crawford?

The criteria narrows .

First of all who may Seattle be interested in ?



Jamal Magliore

Chris Wilcox

Nene Hilario 

Amare Stoudemire

Zach Randolph



Question is , do we have anyone that could be traded to the Hornets for Magliore , the Clippers for Wilcox, the Nugz for Nene, Suns for Amare and Blazers for Zach ?

Maybe Crawford for Zach or Magliore works with either or's salary of $1M being parcelled with the $3.3M exception ( if we could procure it in a Best to Miami sign and trade ) to on send one ofthese young big bangers to Seattle with the Miami trade exception and the Bulls get Rashard at around $7M starting

Craw to Hornets or Blazers
Best to Miami ( exception to Seattle via Chi )
Magliore or Randolph to Seattle 
Lewis to Chi 

Liklihood of anything happening ?

None

Krause reportedly does not want to sign Harpring unless he can shift ERob, which , probably explains his detachment from the ERob situation


----------



## willieblack (Jun 5, 2002)

Just to chime in here NC. FJ hit the nail on the head in my case, no way in hell I feel qualified to add any thing(this is why I post as infrequently as I do) to the well researched and thought out presentation you have provided for us here. Please whatever you do don't stop, despite the effort involved for me to comprehend a lot of what you are saying it is most certainly welcomed.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

NCBulls, I'll bet that JK could save some money on front office folks if he just read your posts on this board.

Good posts, keeping the finances in view of everything. In the end, I think that the money is what GM's have to be more concerned about than anything.

Lewis starting around $7.5 is reasonable, and probably all that he'll get in this market. We could probably put some scaled incentives in for future years.

And as you point out, using our traded player exception and Lewis's status as a BYC player makes it work out very nicely.

It could happen... will it happen? We can only wait and see....

On a basketball standpoint, I'd add that having Lewis and Rose together on the squad greatly increases the kind of firepower and versatility we have. As a result, these two players will find a way to stay on the floor almost all the time, and that can mean only good things for the Bulls' young remainder of the roster, whose greatest professional is probably Trenton Hassell, a 2nd year NBA veteran. Corie Blount? Eddie Robinson? These guys aren't REALLY veterans (they are both lifetime benchers). Chandler? Curry? They aren't really even PLAYERS yet. 

Lewis would bring enough developed talent, defense, and intensity that when Rose has his off nights or when Rose is sitting, Lewis can be the spark in the team. Craw/Jay will be the floor initiators, no doubt, but Lewis or Rose are the undoubted attention getters from opposing defenses.

The other great thing about getting Lewis is that ERob would not be thrown into a starter's role, forced to try to earn his pay. He can develop into a player at his own pace, now having TWO versatile SF type players from whom he can learn from. His minutes coming off the bench for either of Lewis or Rose will make him into a better player, in trying to fill their shoes.

Now, the finances work out in a Crawford/. JK doesn't seem interested? That's really too bad...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

FJ, if traded player exceptions counted as salary for both teams in these trades, then they would have absolutely no value.

Traded player exceptions are valuable precisely because they can be counted as outgoing (not incoming) salary, thereby making lots of illegal trades legal.

FJ, I think you are still a little confused on the BYC stuff. It would be nearly impossible to ever trade for a $16.6M BYC player if you were over the salary cap. The difference between how much that contract would count for the team trading that player ($8.3M) and recieving that player ($16.6M) would be too large to make up for with trade player exceptions or the 115% + $100K assigned player exception.

And I am not sure why Seattle would have less interest in Fizer than most other teams. The really don't have a PF right now.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by *MichaelOFAZ *
> NCBull, thanks for the inside scoop. I have to ask, even though I think I know the answer already, would the Sonics ever consider a sign and trade for Fizer and ERob? Logic tells me no as ERob's market value is way down right now and his contract isn't up until 2006. By taking on ERob's contract, they aren't really freeing up a ton of cap space. I just would hate to see JC go.


I'm also a fan of Crawford. But the beautiful thing about this trade proposal is that it leaves us with appropriate depth (IMO) at the positions we've been discussing: PG, SG, and SF. It instantly solves our "crowded backcourt" problem.

PG: Williams can start -- he obviously wasn't drafted to backup someone else.
SG: Rose starts here, Hassell as backup
SF: Lewis starts here, Erob as backup (assuming we can't move him)

By the way, thanks for all your expert analysis and insight, NCBullsFan! You should be proud of yourself for doing something that could actually help our team!


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

No I am not confused on the BYC stuff . I have read and researched too

Where the difference is in our understanding is in the treatment of the trade exception you nominate to be thrown in ( if it could be acquired on a Best sign and trade ) 

I am still not convinced on your trade exception proposal of Fizer, Crawford + the exception to pay Rashard

You can only use such trade exception in a sign and trade which I interpret as being it must flow to the other side that you are doing the S and T for ( in this case to Seattle ) In which case we would have to acquire it and then use it as consideration in an outflow with around $1.1M in salary for a player taking it to $4.4M which is going to be the max of what Seattle can take back in a sign and trade between $5.2M to $8.8M 

I have taken a very strict literal interpretation of this - I have emailed Larry **** for clarity

You seem to have a foot in both camps - using Fizer and Crawford at 115% of previous year's salary to keep in bounds of BYC territory ( up to $5.2M that we can flick to them and $5.85M that we can accept back and pay Rashard ) Then you say the exception we receive from say Miami could be offset against our cap partially to pay him ( the differential in what the nominal value of his contract is and what we give up in Fizer and Crawford's value ) to pay him more 


So given that Fizer and Crawford are at $5M collectively I cannot see how such a deal would work if you wanted to pay Shard his dough and take him into BYC territory given that up to $4.4M is the most they can take back over between $5.2M and $8.8M

I still stand on my previous digs and say the exception if it could be pryed loose would have to flow to Seattle ( via Chi first ) with a cheaper young big man like Zach or Magliore . If the trade exception is not counted as incoming as you say then Seattle get further cap relief with a valuable exception to give them cap flexibility and their young PF brute. 

As I have said previously if we cashed in CRaw for one of Magliore or Zach and sent the trade exception on , it would roughly equal the $4.4M mark we are constrained by under BYC rules if we want to pay him over $5.2M

As I have also said previously, Fizer and Crawford don't work unless we want to pay him $10M in BYC territory or $6M for under BYC territory

Anything between these two figures of $6M to $10M involving Fizer and Crawford and their salaries just don't work 

I stand corrected on that trade exception not being included as incoming however which highligted the ludicrous nature of the $8.3M - $16M example ( as was intended )


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

For those of you not sick and tired of Lewis, here is the latest.

http://www.tribnet.com/sports/basketball/story/1522379p-1639550c.html

Here is a snippet from the article.



> Schultz, Sund, Walker, assistant coach Dwane Casey and personnel director Dave Pendergast met all Thursday morning at a Houston hotel with Lewis, his mother, Juanita, and his agent, Carl Poston.
> 
> While Sund characterized the meeting as "healthy," and said the sides discussed several issues with the promise to speak more in the future, several sources indicated Lewis is more angry now than he was before.
> 
> ...


I think it is time for JK to swoop in with a S&T offer. Perhaps he should even make it public, so that Lewis realizes that there are other options out there being considered.

Seattle really has to be getting scared that they are going to lose Lewis to Dallas with no compensation. It really sounds like things are starting to get personal.

Notice that Seattle sent practically the entire front office to Houston and came back only making Lewis more angry.

Lewis is asking for too much, but signing Booth last year and especially James this year to big-money deals really is killing them in these negotiations with Lewis, especially given Lewis's beliefs about what he was promised in the past.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by *NCBullsFan *
> 
> 
> Lewis is asking for too much, but signing Booth last year and especially James this year to big-money deals really is killing them in these negotiations with Lewis, especially given Lewis's beliefs about what he was promised in the past.


Maybe he should have had it in writing under the table. 

Nudge Nudge Wink Wink

There is only one Kevin McHale though 

Yeah maybe Jerry does need to show some love but I still don't think he will because of ERob's contract and without much prospect of being able to do anything about it - which I think is bollocks as we need more depth at the 3.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Okay, this is my first post in heaaah and I just wanted to add a thing or two for you to think about.

Rashard Lewis has every right to be upset. As others have said, he is on a squad where he has sat patiently and watched his teammates get fat contracts that they don't deserve.

He is the 2nd biggest piece of that pie, and will be the whole enchilada soon as Payton leaves... he knows this. He went though his first seasons with the uncertainty of a 2nd round deal, then on top of it didn't he sign a 1 year deal last summer in good faith? 

As a guy who used to live in Seattle, '92-'96, I know how the Sonic management works a bit. They are extremely bad at taking care of their peoples. When I first moved there, there was a Dale Ellis fiasco, who Seattle didn't want to pay up. Then came the George Karl dealings, which were a disaster. They also didn't want to pony up money for Nate McMillan but finally were forced to because he was Mr. Seattle. They have never liked to pay their talent.

On a personal note, Wally Walker is a real azzhole. I met him when I was in Sonic basketball camp. Rich King taught me some post up moves... LMAO.

His stats are also right up there for players comparable to him, namely one Shawn Marion. On top of it, he is gonna get more touches next year with Baker leaving, so his numbers will go up as well.

I'm gonna to say that I'll honestly be surprised if Lewis resigns with the Sonics for that 7 year, $60 deal.


----------



## DSB (Aug 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by *RetroDreams *
> Okay, this is my first post in heaaah and I just wanted to add a thing or two for you to think about.
> 
> Rashard Lewis has every right to be upset. As others have said, he is on a squad where he has sat patiently and watched his teammates get fat contracts that they don't deserve.
> ...


You stopped just when it was getting interesting! Play it out and give us your personal guess what Rashard will do!


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Well, my feelings is that either Seattle gives him a better deal or he goes to the Mavs, earns his Bird rights and then gets a bigger deal.

If he does take the current deal on the table, he has no gonads. He put a vote of confidence in them and they will have completely used him, then he stays?

No way.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

Clicking on the link and reading what Payton's agent Goodwin says is very interesting. If Payton were traded now(they have Anderson) it could very well solve the Lewis problem. Payton's contract dies after this season(as does his career as a Sonic) and would seem to be attractive to teams who would be in tax hell come July 2004.
If Seattle accepted in return ~ 15% less in salary for this year it may save enough to satisfy Lewis. The key is this year because after this season they don't have a problem. Other teams with a long term problem and contracts might want to have only 1 year of pain. Seattle could accept these longer deals IF the first year was less than Payton's salary and then sign Lewis. 

Seattle salaries

Payton will make $13,079,593. 85% of that is just shy of $2 mil.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

*Re: Lewis S&T with trade exception*



> Originally posted by *NCBullsFan *
> (This is a copy of a post in another the 2 More Blount Articles/Quotes thread that probably belonged here.)
> 
> Even I think we are starting to talk Rashard Lewis to death, but his case provides a nice launching point for talking about CBA matters. So here goes.
> ...


I'm taking a shot in the dark here but here goes:

Wouldn't the Sonic get a $2.62 mil traded player exception from this deal?

$4.98 mil(combined salaries of JC & MF)

is

$2.52 mil less than the $7.5 mil salary of Lewis that is leaving.

Add to that the $100,000 that the rules seem to allow and I get $2.62 mil.

If by some longshot this is true then wouldn't it satisfy the concern of FJ in terms of the Sonic balance sheet being short? Because it's a "credit" and not salary it works under BYC. Because it IS a credit it DOES restore the gap in "value"(present salary(MF & JC) + potential future(up to 1 year)salary if they use the exception to aquire another player) going out versus salary coming in.

Seattle gets MF($2.95 mil) & JC($2.03 mil) & $2.62 mil traded player exception (a total of $4.98 mil in salary but $7.5 mil in total "value"(salary + traded player exception) for sending Lewis($7.5 mil) out.

Please be gentle in blowing this up. I have a headache.

Traded player exception mentioned 

Traded player exception mentioned 

Traded player exception: In detail


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

Thisis what I hear/comprehend on this subject:


Blah Blah Blah Blah Sonics Blah Blah trade Fizer and Crawford Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Mid-Level Exception Blah Blah Blah Blah Or Robinson and Fizer Blah Blah unhappy with the offer Blah Blah but Seattle would save 22 million next season Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Between Dallas and Seattle.


So...when do we get Rashard Lewis? :laugh: 

(Numbers are my himartia)


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

But Lizzy, you are damn efficient, because that $22M savings for the Sonics is BY FAR AND AWAY the most important number.

And even I am starting to get a headache. I also am heading out of town this weekend, so you will not be tortured with any more of this from my end for awhile.

Man, Sicky, you and FJ are wearing me out, but yes, I think Seattle would get a traded player exception here. The major problem with FJ and I is that we organize this material in our heads quite differently, so I am not always quite sure how make my point in a clear manner.

The problem I see with most of the S&T proposals is that we leave Seattle too perilously close to the luxury tax threshhold. They probably would need to trade Anderson, Payton, Potapenko, or Booth in order to protect themselves a bit more.


----------



## Professor (Jun 6, 2002)

Sicky, your post on the Gary Payton trade to create cap room under the luxury tax to sign Lewis presents an interesting possibility for the Bulls.

Bulls could trade ERob, Fizer, Crawford, and Hoiberg for Payton, Drobjnak, and Seattle's 2004 pick (can't be 2003 since they already gave up their 2002 pick). The trade creates nearly $2 million of room which should be enough to sign Lewis. And they pick up a nice group of young developing players in the bargain.

Bulls would need to ink Harpring asap and probably pick up a few vets for the minimum. But we keep the Williams/Curry/Chandler core and field a team featuring Payton and Rose this season.

PG: Payton, Mason (Williams)
SG: Williams, Hassell (Payton, Rose)
SF: Rose, Harpring
PF: Chandler, Blount, Baxter
C: Curry, Drobjnak, Bagaric

If Payton doesn't resign for reasonable dollars next season, the Bulls will have $12 to $13 million of additional cap room to go after free agents in 2003. I expect there will be two or three unhappy Clipper free agents next summer that would look nice in a Bulls uniform.

If Seattle is ever going to move Payton, this would be a good reason and a good time to do it. Might work out nicely for the Bulls as well.


----------



## blkwdw13 (Jun 12, 2002)

So what you are basically saying is that if Lewis doesn't accept this offeer then they are probably going to just let him walk so they can save all this money that is going to come around at the years end. Never mind the other questions what do you think they are goingt o do with him let him walk sign him, or sign and trade him.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Blk: I know this isn't what you want to hear, but my gut feeling tells me absolutely nothing. There are very good arguments for all three options. If we got Lewis, Krause, the Sonics' owner together today, I suspect that they would be just about as clueless.

And Professor, that is a great post, and something that makes a lot of sense for both parties. But "making a lot of sense" does not always get a deal done. And I still think the Sonics may still be perilously close to the luxury tax if the re-sign Lewis.

Out of here. See you next week.


----------



## 2010Illini (Jul 19, 2002)

sO IF THEY DID A S&T WOULDN'T THAT MAKE lEWIS A bYC PLAYER. I dont like the Payton idea this just gets rid of Fizer and Craw. I want them gone but I'd rather have somebody like Wally. Payton is much better but unless the bULLS CAN INK HIM TO A MULT-YEAR i dont like this.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Lizzy *
> Thisis what I hear/comprehend on this subject:
> 
> 
> ...


I looked up -himartia- at dictionary.com but had no success. Do I want to know what it means? :grinning:

Seriously though I think your ears are the best. All this CBA garbage really does take the joy out of being a fan and for what benefit? Insert : puke : smiley here.


----------



## Professor (Jun 6, 2002)

NCBullsFan, you are quite correct that the Payton deal is one of those interesting possibilities that are fun to think about but have virtually no chance of happening. By the way, thanks for all your insightful posts on the cap issues. 

jwillbulls8, in the unlikely event we did the trade for Payton, he would either resign for a reasonable amount next year (giving you your multi-year deal), or he would walk and we would have plenty of room under the cap to sign a guy like Wally (who will be a restricted free agent next summer).


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Sicky Dimpkins *
> 
> I looked up -himartia- at dictionary.com but had no success. Do I want to know what it means? :grinning:
> 
> Seriously though I think your ears are the best. All this CBA garbage really does take the joy out of being a fan and for what benefit? Insert : puke : smiley here.


If I remember correctly from my college days Himartia means "tragic flaw." Basically I didn't use it in the most accurate manner, as not being good with numbers isn't really tragic. I just thought it sounded funny and using a big word might make up for my complete inability to understand the economics being discussed in this thread! :sigh:


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Sicky,

Try looking it up under hamartia.

I would disagree with Lizzy about it not being tragic. I have had many a gf that had this tragic flaw when they were helping me spend my money. well, it was tragic to me at least.

I think it is on the table how that if the Bulls are going to get Lewis it is going to have to involve ERob somehow going elsewhere. I couldnt see it happening with the Sonics straight up as that would put Lewis in BYX territory.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

Did I mention my other hamartia was spelling?!


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

Lizzy & BCH, thanks for teaching me a new word.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Hamartia, eh. haha.

Concerning the recent thought of Payton coming to the Bulls.. a little over a year ago, when Payton was on the trading block, I suggested a Payton trade on RealGM. People thought I was a little nuts, but that's when Crawford was our PG of the future. I figured, if he can't be in Seattle, let's bring the best part of Seattle to him.

However, now the picture looks different. Jay Williams is the PG of the future, in all probability, and JC will either have to be a converted SG or he'll have to be gone.

Payton had a nearly career year last year, and he's 33 (?). This guy has got four or five more really productive years left in him... at 37, the Glove will still be good for 30 mpg and 15 ppg, 7.5 apg.

He'd be by FAR the best player the Bulls have had since Michael, and also the most team-captain-tough-rugged-mentor-oriented player that the Bulls might be ever able to get their hands on. Everyone knows how Payton was kind of a tutor to Kidd. Everyone knows he's a father figure to Crawford...

It's an interesting thought, to say the least.


----------



## blkwdw13 (Jun 12, 2002)

He would be good, but what would that do to the progress of Jay Williams after say two years behind Payton. By that time not many teams are going to want him for another two to three years and he definitely won't take a back up role, so it would be a quick fix that might set us back in the future.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

NCBullsFan, Sicky , and others who maybe interested :

*From #63 of Larry ****'s FAQ on the CBA* 

_What is not allowed is using two different exceptions for the same player. For example, a team cannot add a traded player exception to the 115% plus $100,000 margin from the assigned player exception to create a larger margin. Here is something that is not allowed: A team has a $5 million player and a $1 million traded player exception, and wants to add the $1 million trade exception to the 115% plus $100,000 margin from their $5 million player ($5,850,000), in order to trade for a player making $6,850,000. This cannot be done. _ 

This suggests to me further reasoning as to why Fizer, Crawford and a trade exception that we acquired from say Miami could not work to pay Rashard his money as was previously suggested .

*NC*

*I assume you were talking of Fizer and Crawford with the trade exception in this context of a workable trade so long as BYC issues were not encountered ( Fizer and Crawford being under $5.2M at $5M and Rashard being taken by Chi at $5.85M) * . *The point of our difference was that I was sure you could not include a trade exception we had acquired from say Miami to beef it up as that still counts as part of the nominal salary that gets assigned to him once it is triggered . He then earns over $5.85M which makes him a BYC and blows the Fizer and Crawford package out of the water as I have previously explained ( due to Seattle being limited in taking back $4.4M only once he becomes BYC ) Point #63 from Larry ****'s FAQ on CBA affirms as I have outlined above if this is where you were going with the idea* 

Outside of Point #63 and to further reiterate, I have been trying to point out for weeks ( and everyone comes together in agreeance on but then loses sight of the fact ) , and that is , once Rashard gets signed for more than $5.85M he becomes a BYC player.

As such , and based on the assumption that $7M starting is reasonable money , the most Seattle can accept back is his previous year's salary which was $4.4M.

Fizer + Craw = $5M 

*No deal is possible with Fizer and Crawford in this circumstance . I cannot be clearer on this. *

The only thing we can realistically do is send a player or players with or without an acquired trade exception we may try and nab (from Miami or Milwaukee ) to a value of up to $4.4M 

I have previously suggested a number of young big men banger targets like *Wilcox, Magliore or Randolph* that could be sent with the trade exception ( probably Miami's ) 

The beauty from both Chicago and Seattle's perspective is because both teams are over the CAP then any exceptions that either hold are not counted against salary cap ( this is why Krause did not renounce Oakley Best and Richardson ) So Seattle move a guy who cost them $4.4M last year and who they can't pay more than $5M to if they don't want to break the Luxury tax ,and they get back a guy at $1.1M in a psoition that needs to be filled and they get a buffer of nearly $4M in flirting with the luxury tax limit . This solves the problem of any mooted sign and trade proposals sending them perilously close to the luxury tax limit.


*From Larry ****'s FAQ on the CBA* 

_If the team's team salary is already over the cap before adding the exceptions, then the exceptions are not added to their team salary. _ 

I am still waiting to hear back from Larry **** on whether Seattle gets a further trade exception if ERob was signe and traded for $7M . I would say that a trade exception in a BYC scenario would only apply to the value of salary the team had placed on the BYC player for trading purposes. In this case it is $4.4M - not the nominal $7M he would sign with Chi . As they receive equivalence from Chi to the value of $4.4M incorporating a player and an exception under my basis of the only way it can get done , I do not believe they would acquire another one 

Hopefully this clarifies and is not as clear as mud to some who may be scratching the head


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Would Rashard sign a deal starting at $5.85M for 3 years and wait for the next CBA?

That seems to be his best chance. 

With the Bulls trade exception they could do it for Fizer+Crawford, and I am sure other teams would have something to offer in the 115% + $100,000 range as well. I personally do not see Fizer and Crawford getting the deal done, though.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Speaking of Payton and how it impacts the Rashard Lewis situation....

A deal I could see is Damon Stoudemire and Zach Randolph for the Glove.

Seattle gives up $13M and gets back $14.5M 

This definately puts Rashard on the outer and further increases the desire for Seattle to shed salary via a sign and trade where they take less in via a player and a trade exception that doesnt actually count against their cap , or just letting Rashard go alltogether and have him sign with Dallas for their exception.

No way I see the Glove in Chi . He would find that too disrespectful and would talk way too much in the 3rd person about it . 

I only really see him being traded to Portland as mentioned above or to New York for Spree ( this trade could be expanded to include KT and Calvin Booth ) - in which case ERob for Charlie Ward may seem to have more legs 

We then work a Chi / Cleveland / Seattle 3 way whereby :

Cleveland gets :

Marcus Fizer , Dalibor Bagaric and Fred Hoiberg = $4.9M

Cleveland gives up 

Chris Mihm , Jumaine Jones and Jeff Trepagnier = $4.2M (Trepagnier would need to be dumped probably to the Knicks in an expanded the expanded trade set out below ) 

Seattle gets :

Chris Mihm and Jamal Crawford $4.2M 

Seattle gives up :

Rashard Lewis $7M - $4.4M BYC Value

Chicago gives up :

Marcus Fizer , Jamal Crawford , Dalibor Bagaric and Fred Hoiberg $7.1M 

Chicago receives :

Rashard Lewis and Jumaine Jones at $8.5M



So , working both trades togther :

Seattle gives up Payton, Booth and Lewis and get back Spree, Kurt Thomas , Chris Mihm and Jamal Crawford 

Cleveland give up Mihm, J.Jones and Trepagnier for Fizer and a possibly future 2nd round pick(s) to Cleveland 

New York give up Spree, Ward and Kurt Thomas and get the Glove , Booth, ERob 

Chicago gives up Fizer , Crawford , ERob , Dalibor and Hoiberg and gets Rashard Lewis , Jumaine Jones and Charlie Ward.


Seattle would look like :

James/ Drobjnak / Potapenko 
Kurt Thomas/ Chris Mihm / Potapenko
Spree / Radmonovic 
Barry/Mason / Forte 
Andersen / Crawford / SWilliams


New York would look like 

Booth/Doleac/Knight
MyDyess/Weatherspoon/ Harrington
ERob/S.Andersen/Postell
Houston/S.Andersen/ Trepagnier
Payton/F.Williams/Eisley

Cleveland would look like:

Z/Bagaric/Hill/Diop
Fizer/Hill/Jamison
Miles/Murray/Andersen
Davis/Hoiberg
Wagner/Coles

Chicago would look like :

Curry/Blount
Chandler/ Baxter
Rashard Lewis/Jumaine Jones
Rose/Hassell/Mason
Williams/Ward/

That's 4 guys we have to sign with our mid level exception and vets minimum

Jumaine Jones can play some 4 and is a terrific hustler/rebounder but someone like Brian Skinner could be acquired short term to fill time at the 4 and 5 as could say Chris Anstey . 

Maybe someone like Walt Williams could be signed at the vet's minimum and on short term to give depth at the 3 and then there is the talk of adding Kevin Ollie back into the mix at point. All of these guys could probably be acquired short term for $4.5M cumulative which would free our mide level exception up next year in free agency to make a push for Juwan Howard if it is can be justified. 

So the final squad could look like :


Curry/ Anstey/ Blount
Chandler/ Skinner/ Baxter
Lewis/Jones/ W.Williams
Rose/Hassell/ Mason
J.Williams/Ward/Ollie

Big and Hairy and hard as all sh*t to co-ordinate and do, but the salaries work and there are justifications there for everybody to do the deal for their own reasons


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

FJ,

You have chicago giving up $7.1M and receiving $8.5M.

Wouldn't the max the could get back be ($7.1 * 115%) + $100,000 = $8.265M.

Unless the Bulls have a $1.4M trade exception.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

yah BCH, you are right

There is a differential of $235K to make itwork under CBA under what we receive back and take in .

I identified the players , did a quick check of their salaries on hoopshype and rounded in this instance ( a liberty I know ) o make it work

It would need to be tweaked to make it work - perhaps starting Rashard at $6.8M say instead of $7M .

I'm pretty sure the rest of it balances out as I did the 115% + 100K calcs ( albeit in a hurry as I was on my way out )


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> Would Rashard sign a deal starting at $5.85M for 3 years and wait for the next CBA?
> 
> That seems to be his best chance.
> ...


Yeah but he has already left a bag of money on the table once before 

I think if someone is willing to work a sign and trade and take him at $7M - $7.5M , he has to take the money - assuming of course Seattle want to play ball on the S and T . Although with the luxury tax cost/benfits as NC as outlined previously , if they were motivated by money more so in this instant given the substantial benefits involved, Seattle would be mad NOT to do a sign and trade of any players to save literally millions.

I agree with your assessment of Fizer and Crawford maybe not being sufficient under a S and T CBA route , and it would help if Seattle got a young big man stud at PF , but where there are millions at stake in savings you never know

Money does funny things to people and their decision making processes


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

3 teams need to be in on this.

It is time for Lewis' agent to get on the phone and work out a 3 team deal.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

FJ_of_Rockaway: Oh; it's #63 is it! :upset: Boy I'll tell ya, I spent alot of time reading that blasted CBA FAQ's and followed the prompts on the desired topic and still got it wrong!

I think the clip you posted makes it clear that the idea won't work. Thanks. 

I always thought the 115% + $100,000 for teams over the cap was just a way to allow trades of roughly equal salaried players but didn't appreciate that it itself was an actual exception.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

Boy, this thread is denser with information than any of my old college textbooks. I sure learned a lot, though. Special thanks goes out to NCBullsFan. After days of thought, I think I have come up with a viable option. Lewis is signed at $7 million but we could manage as high as $7,341,695.

Bulls give: Crawford, ERob, Fizer, and a first rounder (10,699,300)
Bulls get: Lewis (7 mil), Laettner (12,062,500)
salary: up $1,363,200

Cavs get: K. Anderson, E. Thomas, T. Lue (12,660,024)
Cavs give: Hill, Murray, Jamison (11,375,000)
salary: up $1,285,024

Sonics give: Lewis (3.5 mil), K. Anderson (12,685,000)
Sonics get: Jeffries, Hill, Murray (12,054,100)
cap hit: minus 630,900
roster value down to $49,283,396 safely under the luxury tax

Wizards get: JC, ERob, Fizer, Bulls #1, Jamison (11,349,300)
Wizards give: Jeffries, Lue, Thomas, Laettner (9,866,624)
salary: up $1,482,676


A few players had to be added in to match salaries, most notably Laettner. It's not that I especially like him, but now that I think about it, he wouldn't be a bad guy to have on the team. He's a veteran PF, and of course has the Duke ties. I seem to remember hearing Washington wanted to unload his contract anyway, and with us trading ERob, it's not a cap killer.

We'd have to sign another SF (Harpring) and a vet PG.

I hope I picked up enough CBA knowledge from the previous posts to make this work. Salaries are from Hoopshype and are exact. I'm curious to know what you guys think as I spent quite a bit of time on this one. I'm such a dork, I know.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

FJ and anyone else who is following all of this technical detail:

I was aware of Larry ****'s question #63 that you cite in an earlier post. Even though that was already incorporated into my earlier posts, I have updated the post on this thread on the Lewis S&T for Crawford/Fizer, hopefully making things a little more clear. Though I doubt it.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sicky Dimpkins</b>!
> FJ_of_Rockaway: Oh; it's #63 is it! :upset: Boy I'll tell ya, I spent alot of time reading that blasted CBA FAQ's and followed the prompts on the desired topic and still got it wrong!
> 
> I think the clip you posted makes it clear that the idea won't work. Thanks.
> ...


:upset: Sicky, you IGNORAMUS! The trade can be done exactly as posted. Now apologize to NCBullsFan! Oh alright: Sorry.

1. The Bull are NOT taking advantage of the 115% + $100,000 rule! They trade $4.98 mil in salary and use a $3.46 mil TRADE exception which more than covers the $7.5 mil they take back. There is NO NEED for another exception. There is NO combining of exceptions!

2. The Sonic ARE using the 115% + $100,000 rule! It is INCORRECT to say that the Sonic can only except back $4.4 mil for Lewis. This IS his trade value BUT this is DIFFERENT than saying that is the limit the Sonic can accept back for him. The Assigned Player exception APPLIES TO BYC PLAYERS TOO! Therefore the Sonic can accept back: 

($4.4 mil x 1.15) + $100,000 = $5.16 mil., 
which is LESS than the combined salaries($4.98 mil) of JC & MF and therefore NOT a problem.

Assigned player applies to BYC!

The 2nd paragraph under the chart clearly shows an example of teams with BYC players in a trade using the 115% + $100,000(Assigned Player exception).

P.S.: NCBullsFan; I'm wondering if Seattle would recieve a Traded Player exception. Wouldn't that go against the "spirit" of the BYC rule(at least if it went over the limits)? A Traded Player exception of $.18 mil($5.16 mil - $4.98 mil) would fit but I doubt whether my orginal figure of $2.62 mil($7.5 mil - $4.98 mil + $100,000) would. ?
==============================
FJ_of_Rockaway & NCBullsFan: Great work. I felt like a ping pong ball being hit back and forth after each of your posts since my opinion would change about as often. :laugh:


----------



## iavaroni (Aug 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sicky Dimpkins</b>!
> 
> 1. The Bull are NOT taking advantage of the 115% + $100,000 rule! They trade $4.98 mil in salary and use a $3.46 mil TRADE exception which more than covers the $7.5 mil they take back. There is NO NEED for another exception. There is NO combining of exceptions!


A $3.46mil Trade Exception can only be used to accept a player (or players) making $3.46mil or less. You can't use it to "cover the rest".

Since the trade exception can not be used, and the 15% rule doesn't work, this trade does not work.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>iavaroni</b>!
> 
> 
> A $3.46mil Trade Exception can only be used to accept a player (or players) making $3.46mil or less. You can't use it to "cover the rest".
> ...


iavaroni: A third paddle to smack me around?! :laugh:

Seriously: Thank you. Great point/idea.

I think you MAY have something here. I can't find anything that EXPLICITLY supports the simple strong point you made BUT the "more complicated example" given here: 

CBA FAQ'S 4th paragraph #65

DOES seem to imply what you posted is correct. It talks about how a player fit "within" the Traded Player exception. It clearly did NOT simply lump all the players/numbers together and see if it worked in aggregate as the trade proposal on this thread does. 

Use of this exception added to player(s) to "cover the rest" or "make up the difference" or "upgrade": What say you, NC & FJ ? Yes or No. I'm saying No at this point in time. :laugh: Why do I even bother?

Has -iavaroni- done it?! Closure for this idea?!


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Well I still say no as it is hard to get proper clarity as the more i look at the CBA infor as presented by Larry **** there is a hell fo a lot of ambigious and contradictory information in how it is written that can leave some things open for interpretation.

It is not clear enough or ordered enough in its presentation which leaves individual opinions as to where they are


FJ


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwerty123</b>!
> Boy, this thread is denser with information than any of my old college textbooks. I sure learned a lot, though. Special thanks goes out to NCBullsFan. After days of thought, I think I have come up with a viable option. Lewis is signed at $7 million but we could manage as high as $7,341,695.
> 
> Bulls give: Crawford, ERob, Fizer, and a first rounder (10,699,300)
> ...


Qwerty 

I thought you deserved a response to your post that you put quite a lot of work into 

I like it from Cleveland, Seattle's and Chicago's perspective but I think it could be hard to digest for Washington 

I also think the Bulls pick to Washington has to be substituted with a pick from Cleveland ( heavily protected ) 

Wash go up in salary by $1.5M when they are entering a period of being significantly under the CAP . I don't think Harold Jamison needs to go there which should cut that back to say $850K that they go up in salary by in doing the trade . This differential is essentially the difference in ERob and L8's salary but ERob has an extra year on his contract 

Is it worth it to get Craw who MJ covets at the expense of JJ? Does the acquisition of Larry Hughes block the desire of acquiring Jamal Crawford ? What about Fizer as PF back up behind Kwame ? Will this be seen as necessary if they resign Popeye who they may covet more ? And what of the logjam in having Kwame , Marcus and Popeye as the 3 PF's on the roster ? Are they too thin at SF with the unrelaible health of ERob ? Are they too thin at center with L8 gone who can play some there and Etan Thomas who can also play some there whereas Marcus and Popeye can't ??

In short , I think it was a very good effort but there are too many question marks and doubts I would think from Washington's point of view .


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

> Qwerty
> 
> I thought you deserved a response to your post that you put quite a lot of work into
> 
> ...


Thanks very much for your attention, F. Jerzy. I knew Washington would be the hardest to convince on this deal, but I really wanted to come up with something that didn't rely on a traded player exception. It can be done! I hope JK finds a way to do it, and Lewis's ultimatum and subsequent extension on his timeframe only bodes well for the Bulls as Seattle must grow more and more open to a S&T as days go by.

As for fixing up the trade, I wonder if Washington and Orlando could get together.

Wash gets: M. Miller, DeClercq (5,946,240)
Wash gives: Fizer, Whitney (5,930,580)
salary: down $15,660

Orlando gets: Fizer, Whitney
Orlando gives: Miller, DeClercq
salary: up $15,660

Orlando might even want to give away another of their stockpile of future first rounders as well. Whitney and DeClercq have team options next year, so there are no long term cap ramifications.

Orlando would get size and a backup PG.
Washington frees up more space for Crawford, and bolsters the 3 spot where Miller can play some point forward like they envisioned Jeffries doing.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Good work Qwerty

I really like this amendment


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

In fact I think that deserves a double thumbs up 

If Wash can get Crawford and Miller and a solid back up defender in DeClerq it would be awfully tempting to do even if it meant taking on ERob 

Its a good deal and a wash for Orlando as well where they address positional needs


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

Thanks a lot! I have to admit it feels good seeing the light at the end of the tunnel on this one.

Washington would give up Jeffries, Laettner, Whitney, Thomas, and Lue for JC, Miller, ERob, DeClrecq, Jamison and up to 2 first round picks, which is a fabulous return for basically just Jeffries.

Washington lineup:
JC | Hughes | Dixon
Hamilton | MJ | H. Davis
Miller | ERob
Brown | Jones | Jamison
Haywood | White |DeClrecq


----------



## iavaroni (Aug 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sicky Dimpkins</b>!
> 
> I think you MAY have something here. I can't find anything that EXPLICITLY supports the simple strong point you made BUT the "more complicated example" given here:
> 
> ...


The reason the trade exception can only be used to accept players that fit within it is because techinally, the exception is part of an earlier trade.

The trade exception is created when you trade away one player and receive less trade value in return. You get to use the difference in trade value (+$100K) at a future date (up to a year). So when you accept a player with the trade exception, it is actually part of the original trade which the exception was created.

Example:
The Bulls sign-n-trade Best for ($4mil) to the Clippers for a future pick. The Bulls receive a $4.1mil trade exception.

Later the Bulls trade a future pick to the Sixers for Matt Harpring ($3mil) in a sign-n-trade. 

Technically, Harpring is part of the Best trade from before. Since his trade value fits within the trade exception, the trade works.

You can't use the exception to add to $3mil in salaries to accept Lewis @ $7mil because Lewis' salary does not work in the original Best trade. 

Larry C's FAQ is great, but it doesn't go into great detail because there are way too many details and they are really boring. The normal NBA fan would cross his eyes and pass out if he read a DETAILED account of the CBA. I'm assuming Larry wants his FAQ to be legible to most people.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

Simpleton Sicky commends you iavaroni !
I actually go cross eyed and pass out with the simplfied version of the CBA FAQ's. :laugh:

I sure wish the dynamic duo of NC & FJ would register their input.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

*Using a Traded Player Exception*

I am not sure what the confusion is.

In read this:
http://www.members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#65

I believe the traded player exception most certainly can be used to make up the difference between salaries. You need to treat the traded player exception as an entity of value of the the total amount. Because it is an exception it may not be used in conjuction with another exception to obtain one player. This means you can't use the 115% + 100K because that is an exception for teams over the cap.

An exception can be used and they are very clear that they can be used in trades but not in conjunction with other exceptions. This implies that it indeed can be used to "make up the difference". The obvious example is what we have talked about, using the assigned exception with a trade exception.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*I think Iavaroni is right!*

Iavaroni, FJ, and Sicky:

Well, I decided to take a look at the CBA rather than Larry ****'s FAQ about the CBA, and my impression is that Iavaroni is right.

The Lewis S&T using a traded player exception to increase the salary offer above $5.8M will not work, but there is a way to get around this (I think) that I detail below.

Reading through Larry's explanation of the CBA can leave people like me (and BCH) with the impression that traded player exceptions are much more valuable than they really are. However, reading through the actual CBA, I now agree with Iavaroni and (I think) FJ.

http://www.nbpa.com/cba/articleVII.html

Traded player exceptions (a term not really used in the CBA) can be used to acquire "replacement players" worth up to the amount of the exception.

A traded player exception cannot be used to make up the salary difference of players in a trade after the original trade creating the traded player exception. (This was my mistake. I think Larry's explanation is a little imprecise here.)

In other words, my reading of the CBA suggests that a traded player exception is not like a gift certificate that you can combine with cash to buy something worth more than the original gift certificate. It is like a gift certificate that you CAN'T combine with cash. This makes it far less valuable.

*A Way to Still Get the Trade Done*

However, if we simultaneously trade with Seattle and S&T Best to a team under the salary cap or with a traded player exception (i.e. Miami), we could offer Lewis more than $5.8M in a S&T for Crawford and Fizer.

That might be part of the reason why there has been no S&T for Best.

It would be interesting to see what Iavaroni and others has to say about this interpretation. It looks like I have met my match with Iavaroni.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I have not read the CBA, just ****'s FAQ.

When I get a chance, I will read it and give my interpretation, but **** isn't necessarily ambiguous in his approach to this in my opinion. His work on the FAQ is well known and something like this would have been cleared up, I believe, if he incorrectly interpreted it.

Maybe I am just careless, which is possible, because I really have not devoted more than 5 consecutive minutes to this yet.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

*section 5: h(2)(ii)*

(ii) If a Team's assignment of a Traded Player and acquisition of one or more Replacement Players do not occur simultaneously, then the post-assignment Salary or aggregate Salaries of the Replacement Player(s) for the Salary Cap Year in which the Replacement Player(s) are acquired may not exceed 100% of the pre-assignment Salary (or Base Year Compensation, if applicable) of the Traded Player at the time the Traded Player's Contract
was assigned, plus $100,000. 

Here is my interpretation. It is consistent with ****'s FAQ and with what I have said earlier.

In reading this section I still contend that when a player is traded 
and the replacement player is not obtained simultaenuosly, the Traded Player Exception comes into play. Obviously to get this to happen is difficult but when it does the exception is created.

This exception can be used to acquire one or more players whith an aggregate salary equal to the Traded Player Exception. However this exception can be traded as well. It has a value that is distinct and when combined with the value of another existing contract. Think of it applying after the fact to a trade where salary must be met. THis is the reason why the 115% + 
100k exception cannot be applied as well , because it is in reality the same exception with the 115% rule only coming into effect when the Traded Player and Acquired Player are simultaneously involved in the trade.

I don't think adding the exception received in a non-simultaneous 
Assigned Player exception is precluded by the CBA.

The easiest way to explain is to think of the Traded Player exception as an amorphous contract up to a certain dollar value. It can be used to obtain a player, but its value cannot be exceeded. It's value is set as the difference in a trade +100k. The rules of the exception remain in tact when used in conjuction with being added to a traded player to obtain a higher salaried player because the value of the exception is never exceeded.

This is just how I am reading it.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

NCBullsFan: It seems to me that iavaroni's point is the only flaw. I think you addressed FJ_of_Rockaway's concerns satisfactorily 

I think that the simultaneous trade idea you now propose works. It seems like BYC 101 to me :laugh: . Very much like the example given here:

3rd team w/cap space or EXCEPTION to the rescue!

except that an exception is used in place of cap space.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

OK 

Where I was wrong initially was on not applying the 115% extension to Rashard's BYC salary which meant that Seattle could have accepted Fizer and Crawford and made it work from their end 

This was the main initial basis of my different position with NC why the trade couldnt work 

NC has mentioned the "imprecise" wording of FAQ which as I have stated earlier is ambigiously written and not properly self contained on a consistent basis when information on a particular topic is being delivered. For example you can read text that says the most most amount of money a team can take back for their BYC player is his previous year's salary or half his new salary whichever is the greater ( and even has tables with nomonal figures given in the example to illustrate ) and then elsewhere they talk about assigned exceptions also applying to BYC players , which makes it easy to miss if you have alredy read something which is presented in a literal sense, quite differently

Anyway....

I was consistent with iavaroni's point back on page 2 of this thread on the 3/8 when I posted that itwas my belief that you could only use a trade exception in a direct sign and trade - not as a tack on as it was being attempted to be used as inthis instance

If anything , and with all due respect to iavaroni in not taking credit away for his concise ( and in my opinion ) correct post , I had posted as to this position 4 - 5 days ago on page 2 of this thread , therefore, his post affirms my earlier stated position

I posted that I had taken a very literal interpretation of the traded player exception onlybeing able to be used directly in a signand trade - not doing a sign and trade and making up the difference in its retention by Chi as you had proposed NC.

This and the salary back by the Supes ( assigned exceptions on BYC players that you were right on ) were the cornerstones of where our different understandings lay.

So for the fact that iavaroni affirms my earlier position and with ( I think ) a general acceptance/clarity/resolution on that point , I still say that my understanding of who a deal could be worked still gets down to the position I have consistently maintained which is :


1. Try and acquire a trade exception with Best to Miami 

2. Deal Crawford for a young big man ( Randolph, Magliore, Nene , Wilcox - say Randolph ) 

3. Deal Randolph and trade exception ( around $4.4M in value ) to Seattle 

4. Sign Shard for $7M

5. ERob for Ward standing offer if Knick acquire Cassell or Van Exel


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

FJ_of_Rockaway: I re-read page 2 and I understand what you meant NOW. I was wrong (again). Sorry.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

You all realize that Ivaroni (first name, possibly "Marc") is the assistant coach for the Phoenix Suns. Which may be just one reason why he seems to know the CBA so well. While I am not claiming that the individual who calls himself "Ivaroni" on this board and the assistant coach for the Suns are one in the same, I can't rule out the possibility either. One might wonder why a coach of an NBA team is spending time reading, much less replying to, posts on this board. To which my only answer is, "No one knows whats motivates us to do the things we do. We just do em.". Perhaps he's checking up on fellow alum, Roger Mason Jr? Perhaps he wants to get the lay persons' opinion on some of the Bulls players. Which pretty much rules out us ever trading ERob to the Suns. 

In any event, he seems to be the most knowledgable about the CBA, so whether he's Coach Ivaroni or Bob Ivaroni the Used Car Sales Man, I'm going to believe him until he proves unworthy of my trust.

Sorry Coach, if I outted ya.


----------



## iavaroni (Aug 5, 2002)

NC: A simultaneous trade would work. By adding Best's trade value to the equation, the Bulls have plenty of leeway to accept Lewis. Liks Sicky said, you're using Miami's "cap room" to help facilitate a BYC trade.

BCH: A trade exception can not be traded because no exceptions can be "traded". Exceptions can only be used to accept a player to your roster. They can't be "transferred" to another team.

Also, the trade exception can not be combined with the value of an existing contract because thecnically, the trade exception is part of an earlier trade. You can't use the "leftovers" from an earlier trade to expand the 15% rule of a current trade.

FJ: Feel free to take credit. The only reason I posted is that it looked like your post was buried.

Michael: LOL. Let's just say I'm much closer to Bob Iavaroni than Marc. So if you want to trust a used car salesman, go right ahead.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

iavaroni,

You are missing the point. The 15% rule is basically the same exception. I am not saying you can combine them, you can use one or the other, the 115% + 100k, or the delayed difference + 100k (the Traded Player Exception). You are correct in saying it is part of an earlier trade but I dont believe it indicates that another player on your team can't be a part of this continued trade. If the exception is used to obtain 1 player then in effect the exception is "traded" though it is just a case where it is a new exception created for another team.

I am viewing it as a delayed trade that involves more salary in the form of an additional player. ****'s FAQ supports this and the subsection I posted does not necessarily preclude it.


----------



## iavaroni (Aug 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> iavaroni,
> 
> You are missing the point. The 15% rule is basically the same exception. I am not saying you can combine them, you can use one or the other, the 115% + 100k, or the delayed difference + 100k (the Traded Player Exception).


I agree. you can use one or the other. In the original trade proposal, Lewis' salary didn't fit within the trade exception, so another exception had to be used. Since the 15% rule and the minimum salary exception don't work and the Bulls don't have a disabled player exception, the trade fails.



> You are correct in saying it is part of an earlier trade but I dont believe it indicates that another player on your team can't be a part of this continued trade.


A trade exception is created when ONE player is trade and less value is accepted in return. If more than one player is combined and traded away, there is no exception. By adding a player to continue the the original trade, you would nullify the original trade exception.



> If the exception is used to obtain 1 player then in effect the exception is "traded" though it is just a case where it is a new exception created for another team.


"In effect" and "In actuality" are two different things. In actuality, teams can not transfer a trade exception from one to another. New exceptions can be created, though. The new exceptions are rarely the same amount as the original exception and they will have different expiration dates.



> I am viewing it as a delayed trade that involves more salary in the form of an additional player. ****'s FAQ supports this and the subsection I posted does not necessarily preclude it.


It is precluded by the difference between "A" player and "ONE OR MORE" players as written in the CBA.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Well. What you say makes sense. Can't argue with that.


----------



## Potatoe (Jun 17, 2002)

Holy Cow,,,

You guys need a new hobby

(smile)

Me poor head!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*What a board.*

Potatoe, it sure says something about the folks who frequent this board that the #4 (Rashard Lewis) and #12 (Complete Free Agent Analysis) threads in terms of total views have evolved into technical discussions of CBA rules. It is surprising to say the least that so many people find these esoteric discussions interesting.

Iavaroni, congratulations on getting BCH to come around to your viewpoint. Like many of the rest of us, especially me, it usually takes a sledgehammer over the head to get us to change our minds. Sorry, FJ, that hitting me over the head with just a hammer didn't quite do the trick.

And also, Iavaroni, don't be too surprised that folks are wondering about you. When you come on a board like this and post just a couple of times about technical CBA points that go beyond the CBA Bible, Larry ****'s FAQ, lots of folks are going to wonder who you are. I know that I am curious, especially since you are one of the very few who have declined the option to receive private messages.

But please don't let our curiosity keep you from poking your head around here every once in awhile. You have no obligation to tell us anything about yourself.

For those of us who are trying to learn about the technical details of the CBA, having folks like Iavaroni, Sicky, FJ, and BCH around is great. Thanks to all of you.

But all in all, I think this discussion probably is nothing more than an academic exercise. Unless Krause is able to unload Robinson, I seriously doubt that he is willing to spend more than $5.8M to get Lewis in a S&T.

That viewpoint makes some sense, but if Crawford and Fizer were traded for Lewis, it is possible that keeping Robinson might make more sense. I would play Lewis at the 3 and 4 and Rose at the 1, 2, and 3. Even allowing for plenty of playing time for Hassell at the 2, I think Robinson could see plenty of playing time at 2 and 3. Here is a possible rotation, assuming no additional significant free agent signings.

I will assume that Mason, Baxter, Hoiberg, and Bagaric don't play much, except when players are injured.

PG: Williams (33), Rose (15)
SG: Rose (14), Hassell (27), Robinson (7)
SF: Lewis (21), Robinson (19), Rose (8)
PF: Chandler (22), Lewis (16), Blount (10)
C: Curry (30), Blount (10), Chandler (8) 

With a lot of players who can play multiple positions, this line-up should also be able to adjust when the inevitable injuries hit.

For example, suppose Robinson and Lewis got hurt. Our rotation would look like this. It wouldn't be great, but we could get by.

PG: Williams (37), Mason (11)
SG: Hassell (33), Hoiberg (15)
SF: Rose (38), Hassell (5), Blount (5)
PF: Chandler (26), Baxter (15), Blount (7)
C: Curry (32), Blount (10), Chandler (6)


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

my god, what a thread!!!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

If Bob Iavaroni can play SF, sign him up!

;-)


----------



## SS_Solid_Snake (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> my god, what a thread!!!


I know, these are the hardest of hardcore fans! Now exuse me, as my head continues to spin...


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Full credit to everyone who participated on this thread 

Such threads are contributory to the goodwill that is invested in improving our knowledge of the game we all love

Well done guys


----------



## HJHJR (May 30, 2002)

*Lewis to Chicago kept alive by The Herald*

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/main_story.asp?intID=37481142


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Lewis to Chicago kept alive by The Herald*



> Originally posted by <b>HJHJR</b>!
> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/main_story.asp?intID=37481142


as much as I like the sound of this article, the fear of the "unknowns" of both Crawford AND Fizer are scary. We really have not seen either of them in a setting that is one, well orchestrated(through coaching and/or chemistry) and two, condusive to their prognosticated potentials(Based on the situations they have been thrown into games, these guys have NOT had enough time together to give me any idea of how they might co-exist). For that matter, EROB, without full disclosure of his toe condition, COULD even be too much to give up on, yet. NO ONE has seen them with the current stable of studs the Bulls have for more than a few meaningless summer games. This Bulls team COULD be something VERY special IF all the pieces work out.

I think if there were a way to trade Fizer/EROB and Bagaric for Lewis and say vitaly, it would be a pill easier to swallow. heck, I would even throw in hoiberg!!! lol

Besides, anyone remember the comment Brent Barry said as he departed? quote... "They are trying to make chicken salad here with a bunch of chicken (Bleep!)" end of quote. 

I say, lets keep what we have and let dallas continue to rebuild and load up just as portland did....they will meet with the same results. complete failure. I am surprised that players keep signing with dallas...another indication that all this league's players are concerned with is the money.....NOT championships. It has to be VERY difficult to give all the players all the playing time and money they demand....sooner or later.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Boy, this nonsense just won't die.

Lewis is a free agent and will not come to Chicago unless he wants to, NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF CRAZY SIGN AND TRADE DEAL SEATTLE MAY COME UP WITH. He can sign wherever he wants for the mid-level exemption and tell everyone else including Seattle to kiss his behind.

I just don't see him wanting to, and I just don't see Krause as wanting him. 

This is just a case of a sportswriter who has to meet a deadline and is concocting some kind of fantasy trade he thinks will help the Bulls. He should post his fantasy trades on this forum, not in the Daily Herald.

Lewis is going to get the most money in Seattle. He is turning down about 9 million per year to stay in Seattle. He wants more. There is no way he is worth that much money, let alone more. The market has dried up Rashard, no one has money to offer you so you can threaten the Sonics that you will walk. You are saying that 60 million for 7 years isn't enough, so if Seattle doesn't increase the offer you will sign with Dallas for 15 million, 45 million less. Something sounds stupid about that bluff. If I were a poker player I would say go to Dallas, punk. If he signed with Dallas for that amount he is throwing so much money away it is stupid. And when the deal with Dallas would expire he better be producing, or Cuban will let him walk. Even if Cuban signed him to a max contract after 3 years he would still be losing loads.

The situation with the threat of luxury tax and the current salary cap has made it impossible for the players to bluff, or use another team as leverage to try and get more money (like Krause was used and abused by every free agent available a few years ago).

Rashard, you have no options. Shut up and sign your contract before Seattle tells you to take a hike. 

And Bulls fans, forget him. He is not worth 10 million a year and the implications of that ridiculous salary towards our cap.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sinkingship</b>!
> Lewis is a free agent and will not come to Chicago unless he wants to, NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF CRAZY SIGN AND TRADE DEAL SEATTLE MAY COME UP WITH. He can sign wherever he wants for the mid-level exemption and tell everyone else including Seattle to kiss his behind.


True



> I just don't see him wanting to,


I've got to think that Seattle would be much more willing to do a sign and trade with us rather than the Texas teams. Assuming they liked E-Rob, this could also enable them to pawn off a big bad contract of their own - Booth or Potapenko Therefore, we have a shot. Lewis gets the most $$$ and does not have to stay with an organization that he feels dissed him.



> and I just don't see Krause as wanting him.
> 
> And Bulls fans, forget him. He is not worth 10 million a year and the implications of that ridiculous salary towards our cap.


This trade solves a lot of problems for us. 

Will we have enough $$$, love and playing time for Fizer and Crawford? Will E-Rob be healthy and worth his big contract? How can we win with so many players that have not proven themselves in the NBA?

Lewis at 7 years and $70 million makes me a lot more comfortable than eRob at 1/2 the salary. And we have a defined starting lineup with few lottery picks or guys with big contracts on the bench.

Jerry, make the call!


----------



## TJ (Jul 23, 2002)

Did anyone else get this take on Lewis? Sounds 
like we should happy with ours guys according to 
Mike Kahn. I am not so sure. But 7yr/70M would be
about right for Rashard. Any higher would be 
a bad deal.


http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/5602359


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Lewis/Barry for Crawford/Fizer/Robinson is not Nonsense!*



> Originally posted by <b>sinkingship</b>!
> Lewis is a free agent and will not come to Chicago unless he wants to, NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF CRAZY SIGN AND TRADE DEAL SEATTLE MAY COME UP WITH. He can sign wherever he wants for the mid-level exemption and tell everyone else including Seattle to kiss his behind.
> 
> I just don't see him wanting to.


Call me crazy, but I think that Lewis might just think a $60M-$70M S&T deal with us is better than signing for the mid-level exception with one of the Texas teams.


> I just don't see Krause as wanting him.


I think you might be right about this one. Krause has never seems to show much interest in Lewis, although some of our back-channel sources occasionally suggest otherwise.


> Lewis is going to get the most money in Seattle.


But the S&T deal mentioned in the McGraw article gets him more guaranteed money than the Seattle offer. Seattle may not be able to go a penny higher without risking losing perhaps $18M for crossing over the luxury tax threshold. 


> And Bulls fans, forget him. He is not worth 10 million a year and the implications of that ridiculous salary towards our cap.


Yes, he is not worth $10M a year, but if we are able to unload Robinson's contract, he might just be.

Let's make a few assumptions so that we can compare apples and apples on the Lewis/Barry for Crawford/Fizer/Robinson trade.

Assume that Lewis signs for the maximum that the McGraw deal can offer - 7 years and $70M)

Assume that we pick up the options on Crawford and Fizer and that in 2004-2005, they sign five-year contracts starting at $5M and $4M with 10% raises. (This is probably too low unless they turn out to be players we don't want to keep.)

2002-2003 Lewis & Barry ($12.4M) vs. Crawford, Fizer, and Robinson ($10.7M)
2003-2004 Lewis & Barry ($13.6M) vs. Crawford, Fizer, and Robinson ($12.5M)
2004-2005 Lewis ($9.1M) vs. Crawford, Fizer, and Robinson ($15.7M)
2005-2006 Lewis ($10.1M) vs. Crawford, Fizer, and Robinson ($17.1M)
2006-2007 Lewis ($11M) vs. Crawford & Fizer ($10.8M)
2007-2008 Lewis ($11.9M) vs. Crawford & Fizer ($11.7M)
2008-2009 Lewis ($12.8M) vs. Crawford & Fizer ($12.6M)

Overall Lewis & Barry ($80.9M) vs. Crawford, Fizer, and Robinson ($91.1M)

So overall this trade would save us more than $10M over 7 years. Of course, we get Robinson for two more years than Barry, but is that worth $10M? I think we can afford this trade.

And since it makes Lewis richer than any other proposed deal, the stumbling block would be Seattle. Would they prefer this deal to simply losing Lewis to Dallas? Perhaps.


----------



## local_sportsfan (Jul 24, 2002)

I think the whole point with Lewis signing with the Mavs is that Cuban offered him a huge contract after the 3 years at the exception. In addition, Cuban treats his team like royalty, so that helps too.

In reference to the supposed trade, I think Seattle would be dumb as hell to turn that one down. IMO Chicago would be giving up too much. Crawford and Fizer were picked very high in 2000 draft, and it would seem too early to give up on them already. Lewis is not an elite player...most of his offense comes off open shots created by Payton and Barry. Can he get those same open looks in Chitown? I doubt it.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

The only reason I don't think Chicago would be giving up too much is b/c we are trading probable bench players for a starter. Crawford, Fizer and Robinson might become star players but they might not. A trade like this would solidify any questions about roles.

Starters

G - Williams
G - Rose
F - Lewis
F - Chandler
C - Curry

bench: Hassell, Blount, Baxter, Dali, Mason, Hoiberg, Hardaway? Ham?

As opposed to

G - Williams
G - Rose or Crawford or Robinson?
F - Robinson? Rose?
F - Chandler? Fizer
C - Curry

bench: Fizer, Baxter, Blount, Dali 

I really like the idea of clear roles and a starting five that causes a little fear in opponents. The way it stands now is really confusing. I know competition for minutes is good but it can also be a problem for young guys. And how much better is Crawford going to get playing in such a crowded backcourt? Is he going to prove his value sliding in both guard positions while the Bulls try and pimp Williams, keep Rose happy and make Robinson earn his paycheck?

I don't think we're giving up too much at all. Unless the guys mentioned in the trade were are starters for the future, which I don't believe they are, then why not shore up our atarting five for a good 4 years? I also like the idea of our reserves being veterand instead of more young guys.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

The biggest problem with this deal is that if Seattle is trying to avoid the luxury tax or as much of it as possible, why would they want a sign and trade in which they would be taking in as much money as they would have given Lewis.

They have the market to themselves since no team other than the Clippers is capable of making Lewis a real offer so it is hardball time.

One possibility is for Seattle to sign him to a one year deal, Kenny Anderson's salary goes off the books next year and then give him a long term deal. The problem is that other teams will be able to offer Lewis good money.

Lewis is not a max player or close in my book, but he is real good and real young. My biggest problem with him is that he averages less than 2 assists a games. The Bulls under Krause have always placed an emphasis on players who are good at distributing the ball, especially at the 1-2 and 3 spots on the floor, but even the power fowards and centers in our glory days could pass. With Curry and Chandler at the 4 and 5, I'm not sure we can afford a below average passer at the 3.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>local_sportsfan</b>!
> I think the whole point with Lewis signing with the Mavs is that Cuban offered him a huge contract after the 3 years at the exception. In addition, Cuban treats his team like royalty, so that helps too.
> 
> In reference to the supposed trade, I think Seattle would be dumb as hell to turn that one down. IMO Chicago would be giving up too much. Crawford and Fizer were picked very high in 2000 draft, and it would seem too early to give up on them already. Lewis is not an elite player...most of his offense comes off open shots created by Payton and Barry. Can he get those same open looks in Chitown? I doubt it.


Just to clarify some things. In this potential trade scenario, the Bulls are NOT giving up too much. Where a person is drafted (ie draft slot) has nothing to do with his present value in the NBA. So we can't blindly say we're acquiring a '98 2nd round draft pick for two '00 lottery picks. That's garbage. And if you ask any real NBA fan, the 2000 draft was one of the worst in recent memory.

Fizer doesn't really have a long term future with the Bulls. At best, he's a 6th man and Chris Gatling journeyman type. Of course I want to see this guy rebound and play better defense. But with Chandler on board, Fizer will be shown the exit once his contract is up. Eddie Robinson is our current SF/SG possiblity, but will have a hard time beating out Hassell for minutes on the other swing position alongside Jalen. Crawford is our big chip in this potential deal, but hasn't proven yet in the NBA he is starter material, yet.

If we didn't have to worry about salaries (or Seattle for that matter) then this trade would be a good one. Trading 3 role players for a young established star is a good trade. And only Crawford has the potential of the three to be really good.

This trade is probably NOT going to happen. But at some point, we need to gain veteran experience (preferably young at that) to take this team to the next level. A Lewis trade would do just that.

VD


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

With Payton and Anderson going off the books next year, this year is the only year that the Sonics are in serious danger of going over the luxury tax threshold and this S&T deal would save them $1.7M this year.

I think that Seattle is offering Lewis everything that they can and stay under the threshold, so I don't see them budging. This S&T puts them about $500K lower than what they what they are now offering Lewis. The $70M deal puts them about $1.1M higher than what they now offering Lewis and most likely over the luxury tax threshold, thereby costing them maybe $18M.


----------



## TJ (Jul 23, 2002)

Would Krause have to throw in a draft pick to seal this deal? Sounds like he would.


But I think the main stumbling block will be
Lewis himself. I have yet to see anything out of the Seattle papers that he is interested in Chicago. I do not think he wants to come here and this deal will never be consumated. If the Bulls and Krause really wanted him, then they would have to do some recruiting. Has not yet happen and most likely will
not happen.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

NCBullsFan, thanks for the post, you really know your stuff. I did not realize the effect of the $1.7 mil difference when I first read it.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*This has been the Bulls woes for some time now...*



> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> The only reason I don't think Chicago would be giving up too much is b/c we are trading probable bench players for a starter. Crawford, Fizer and Robinson might become star players but they might not. A trade like this would solidify any questions about roles.
> 
> I really like the idea of clear roles and a starting five that causes a little fear in opponents. The way it stands now is really confusing.


The Bulls, for some time now, have not had a "starting five" per say. It seemed like every game, especially with floyd at the helm, there were a different mix of players/positions each time. The Bulls and other teams need to be aware of who the starters are. Sure, it helps other teams to plan a defense, but it gives confidence to the starters knowing each game, as long as they produce and try hard, they will be starting the games. In addition, it will force the bench players to compete for starting jobs. I think the trade for Lewis would be a good thing, all things considered now. Good post Lizzy.


----------



## local_sportsfan (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Just to clarify some things. In this potential trade scenario, the Bulls are NOT giving up too much. Where a person is drafted (ie draft slot) has nothing to do with his present value in the NBA. So we can't blindly say we're acquiring a '98 2nd round draft pick for two '00 lottery picks. That's garbage. And if you ask any real NBA fan, the 2000 draft was one of the worst in recent memory.
> ...


For the most part I agree with you...I guess we just disagree on just how good Lewis is. I also think the Bulls would lose ALOT if they traded for Lewis...not only would they lose 2 (maybe 3) potentially good players for just one good player, but they'd also lose caproom. Too much if you ask me.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> With Payton and Anderson going off the books next year, this year is the only year that the Sonics are in serious danger of going over the luxury tax threshold and this S&T deal would save them $1.7M this year.


I don't follow this NC 


If Shard accepts Seattle's $60M 7 year deal this would have him starting at roughly $6M with 10% increases. Brent Barry earns $5.05M . That's $11.05M that they pay these two guys this year 

By doing the sign and trade and accepting Crawford, Fizer and ERob back totals $10.7M

Differential = $300K in Seattle's favour 






> I think that Seattle is offering Lewis everything that they can and stay under the threshold, so I don't see them budging. This S&T puts them about $500K lower than what they what they are now offering Lewis. The $70M deal puts them about $1.1M higher than what they now offering Lewis and most likely over the luxury tax threshold, thereby costing them maybe $18M.


Bingo


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

*The Gary Payton factor*

10 days ago on page 3 of this thread , I briefly skimmed over the issue of how these negotiations with Rashard Lewis impact upon Gary Payton .

How Seattle management ultimately play this with Rashard could provide a valuable insight into the immediate future of Gary Payton.

The Glove has had a torrid and tender relationship with Management over the years. If Management push ( or is that pull?) the envelope with Rashard and Rashard does the runner to the Mavericks for their mid level exception , or alternatively , if Rashard and Bulls Management can manage to get together on the rebound ( pun intended ) and convince Seattle Management on a sign and trade with young talents in Crawford and Fizer , then expect The Glove to be very very unhappy 

Unhappy and demanding a trade . Not because of any emotive attachment to Rashard and issues of solidarity but because they would have left him , The Glove , with young unproven talent and no reliable vets - which means in the Wild Wild West , sayonara Sonics come the end of April 

It would be a message to The Glove that Management are committed to young talent , building through the draft and 2nd tier free agency where there is good bang for the buck and that cap room is coveted - not a 34 year old b*tchy point guard that talks far too much in the 3rd person when talking about how love for The Glove equals big booty from above.

The solution : deal The Glove. Quickly . Before he stews and festers and you got to deal with collateral PR damage ahead of next year's free agency.

Here is a quick breakdown of the reality of Seattle's cap/luxury tax position :




*They currently have 11 players at $52.3M ( counting Shard's opening year value of $6M on his new $60M contract if he executes

*They are already over the luxury tax before they add 3 or 4 players to round out their roster - The Cost ? Between $18M - $20M next season

*Next year they have $26.4M for 8 players - a 1st and 2nd round draft pick that will probably take them to around $30M in commited salary for 10 players.

*By letting Shard walk for nothing now and possibly doing the same with Payton next year as well as renouncing free agents like Kenny Anderson to preserve the cap room , they will have around $12M to spend on free agents and 5 roster spots to fill.



*Seattle Management's agenda could all be about avoiding the luxury tax limit now and trim overall payroll costs to the tune of $18M AS WELL AS getting $12M in cap space after we renounce free agents next summer and be a moderate player in next summer's market.* 


*The Issues * 

1. Shard wants money now which is not in sync with where Seattle are under the luxury tax limit 

2. Seattle do not want to pay him the money or perhaps are secretly wishing he goes away either for no compensation or in a sign and trade where they can get a substantial "credit" back that allows them to stay under the limit and sign a couple of cheap scrubs to fill out the roster

3. The Glove is sensitive and wants to be on a winner and does not want to be lone banana 

If Seattle management let Rashard walk for nothing , they may meet more objectives than meets the eye. Firstly they will have absolutely nothing to worry about in terms of luxury tax penalties this year and secondly , they can try and put the right spin on it to the Glove and keep him happy for the remainder of this season by saying;

_ " Well Glove , if we had of resigned Shard it would have cost us an extra $18M and this forfeiture would have precluded us from going into the free agent market next year and getting you some help yada yada yada"_ 

If you can keep The Glove quiet for the year and then sign and trade him at seasons end preferably on to a winner ( that should still keep him quiet ) you get talent back and you still have cap room and hopefully PR in tact to make a modest play in next year's free agent class.

If however Rashard wants to be signed and traded to get the most amount of money he can and if Chicago have got the part of a package which may interest Seattle , then you have young talent ( still to be properly proven ) coming back to Seattle which unambigiously says to Glove : 

_"Look we can't wait for your whiny primadonna a$$ to be outta here as we have clearly made a choice of going with youth and the obligatory vet or two in a trade , draft and 2nd tier free agents in our mix. Thanks for the memories Glove but because we want to send you away with your mouth closed , we're sending you to New York with Vitaly Potapenko for Latrell Sprewell and Othella Harrington. Enjoy playing with Antonio McDyess , Kurt Thomas and Alan Houston . Give my regards to Broadway.Bye Bye" _

So there you both scenarios which are largely dependent on which direction Seattle Management want to go in and how the Glove reacts.

I personally think that Seattle Management have to go in a direction of getting some value back on Rashard and The Glove rather than let them walk for nothing as having $30M committed for 10 players with $12M to spend in the 2003 free agency class when you have just let your two best players go won't exactly have your top free agents whoring themselves to Seattle. At best they will get bang for the buck good role playing 2nd tier types who overvalued themselves and are pi$$ed that they could'nt get the money elsewhere .

The alternative is :

*- A tweaking of Mike McGraw's trade suggestion* 

Seattle trades :

Gary Payton
Rashard Lewis
Brent Barry
Vitaly Potapenko 

= $26.4M approx

Seattle receives :

Jamal Crawford 
Charlie Ward ( instead of ERob ) 
Othella Harrington
Marcus Fizer
Latrell Sprewell

=$25.7 approx

_ This gives Seattle a saving of $700K and 12 players at $50.6M. This allows them to fill out their roster with a couple of scrubs and avoid the luxury tax limit. Next year they have around $43M for 11 players with Kenny's salary coming off the books with a couple of draft picks ( 1st and 2nd round ) that will see them at around $46M for 13 players. They would probably have around $6M in exceptions ( mid level and vet ) to acquire two pretty good players from the 2003 free agents class and round out their roster which is retooled and luxury tax friendly with a good mix of young talent and vets at OK cost within a year. Not too bad.

James/Booth/Drobjnak
Harrington/Fizer
Sprewell/Radmanovic
Mason/Forte
Anderson/Crawford/Ward _

New York trades :

Latrell Sprewell
Charlie Ward
Othella Harrington

=$20.75M approx

New York receives :

Gary Payton 
Vitaly Potapenko
Eddie Robinson

=$24.2M approx

_ Very strong starting 5 of Payton ,Houston, ERob , McDyess and Thomas with backups Eisley/Frank Williams, S.Anderson, Postell , Spoon, Doleac and Knight. This team could compete big in the East_

Chicago trades :

Jamal Crawford
Marcus Fizer 
Eddie Robinson 

= $10.7M

Chicago receives :

Rashard Lewis
Brent Barry

=$12M

_

Curry/Blount/Bagaric
Chandler/ Baxter/ Najera 
Lewis / Hassell / W.Williams
Rose/Barry//Hoiberg
J.Williams/Best ( resigned ) Mason_

That would leave us with two spots on the roster to fill that I would advocate going after Eduardo Najera as first priority who is more of a 3 to 4 with his size instead of a perimeter swingman - rather he is more a forward swingman who defends, hustles and crashed the board ( cheaper option than Harpring perhaps ? ) and the last spot would be a shooter I seek - either a vet like Walt Williams on a short term deal or a young guy I have consistently championed as being a Pat Garrity type waiting to be discovered in Dan Langhi . Probably go with Walt though to keep Jalen Rose happy

And that Ladies and Gentlemen is your Chicago Bulls.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

That was a hell of a lot of research and thought to come up with that one. Well done.

Looks great, although the chances of that one actually happening are about the same as Krause fitting into a size 32 waist pair of pants.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

FJ, that was a tremendous amount of work on that post, but the bottom line is that if I was Seattle and I had to pick between Brent Barry and Latrell Sprewell (ignoring their salaries), I would pick Barry. He was INCREDIBLY productive last year, which is why I think there is no chance that we get him in a Lewis trade, unless Seattle decides to go young. In that case, they also will have no interest in Sprewell.

Sprewell, like Robinson, probably has negative trade value around the league, because he simply makes so much more than he is worth. Hassell and Mercer usually outplayed him last year.

I would let Lewis and Payton walk and take my chances in the FA market before I would accept that trade if I was Seattle.

I go back and forth on this, but I suspect our best chance is Fizer & Crawford for Lewis with a trade of Robinson to a third team for someone earning $5M, thereby making it possible for us to offer Lewis $70M is our best chance. I don't think Seattle is interested in Robinson, even if we take one of their overpriced players (Potapenko or Booth).

And on my earlier post, when I said that Seattle would save $1.7M, that was just the difference between signing Lewis starting at $7.31M (assuming that was the only offer he would take) vs. going through with the trade. Like you mentioned, it is only a $500K savings relative to what they are currently offering him.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

NC 

Its not really about Barry and Spree in the practical reality of it all if such a trade such as this were ever to occur ( which for the record I do not believe it would - I just enjoy these mental ping pong exchanges :lol: ) 

The guts of my post was that any trade of Rashard for young talent sends a message to the Glove that there is no love and no payday booty from above - so off he can shove 

Meaning that how they choose to deal with Rashard could produce a significant ripple effect which triggers Gary Payton's exit and ultimately , triggers Brent Barry's exit when his contract is up the year after . 

I mean would Brent really want to be sole banana without Rashard and the Glove if Shard's exit also triggers Payton's exit this season or at season's end. I would'nt think so . And Brent, whilst having two excellent years in Seattle is not a leader. He was not the saviour the Clips hoped he would be given his pedigree and he had problems in Chicago without any proper structure surrounding him . Brent is perfect in a system where he the 3rd option . In fact , I think he is the ultimate 3rd option or 6th man type with where he sits right now. He is a super role player but not a frontline leader star type. He has wilted when he has had to assume those types of roles historically.

So with Option A being letting Glove and Shard walk for zip , effectively , deep down , Seattle Management have to be resigned to the fact that with this support structure gone , Brent will go to a better situation for himself when his contract is up. 

Option A means they want to play in free agency where as I have previously outlined you cannot really control your destiny , and where , even they may have nominally more money than say exception route by virtue of being over the cap ( say $6M extra ) they have to spread that money further ( $12M over 5 players going the free agency route as opposed to $6M for 2 going the exception route ) 

Option B in going the sign and trade route means you take control of your destiny now with some certainty as to where you 
going which is young talent and proven vets in a nice mix and building through the draft and with 2nd tier free agents. I beleive that I can successfully argue that under Option A and $12M to spend next year across 5 players they are only going to get 2nd tier types - the same as what they would get likely in spending $6M over 2 players. The benefit with Option 2 is that there are less variables in free agency by virtue of having less places to fill in free agency ( 2 as opposed to 5 ) and you get to employ all 3 avenues of rebuilding - Sign and Trade, Draft, and Free Agency. Under Option A you are only limiting yourself to the muddy waters of free agency and draft which you really can't control.

That, to me , is why Option B makes more sense if I'm the GM of the Sonics

What I was doing in my post from yesterday was merely expanding and tweaking Mike McGraw's trade scenario to include New York for the benefits / compulsions / outlines that a Rashard Lewis exit may trigger

I merely swapped Charlie Ward for ERob going to Seattle - so if anything of Fizer and Crawford were supposed to equal Lewis and ERob, Brent Barry , I subbed in a tough defensive no turnover point guard in Charlie Ward to mentor and back Jamal Crawford up for the next 2 years ( Ward is a free agent in 2004 ) To me that is more valuable in protecting the investment and where it has been made ( in Crawford ) than worrying about 3rd banana Barry whose production I think would suffer and resemble more his Chicago and Clipper sojourns .

The whole issue of Spree is more aligned to Payton than it is to Barry . In my scenario they can lose Payton for nothing or get back Spree for 3 years . And yeah he maybe overpaid but if they reup Payton he probably will be as well in a short period of time . Like Payton , Spree plays D , brings energy and hustle and still is a 20ppg scorer ( actually 19.4ppg last year shooting 39% at 3 ) 

Spree replaces the leadership you lose with Payton and that Brent Barry could never give you .

Bear in mind that in doing the trade , Seattle would have around $43M committed in 13 players ( next year's first and second round picks included ) and around $6M to spend next summer in free agency which would give them

1. Young talent now ( Crawford, Fizer and Harrington )
2. A lottery pick next year (they will likely miss the playoffs if they do the trade but are marginally good enough to miss the lottery if theydo not do the trade )
3. A nucleus of young talent that is retained ( James, Mason and Radmanovic ) 
4.Dependable defensive orientated vets in Spree and Ward for 3 years and 2 years respectively
5.Good chance to get someone of quality at $4.7M at the MLE in next year's free agnecy and at $1.4M at vets exception
6. Avoid the luxury tax this year and thereafter
7.Avoid bad PR collateral damage from Shard and Glove that may prejudice their positioning in next year's free agency 

I think it is the obvious smart move for Seattle to make where everyone comes out a winner.



People have to start to think in different terms in what nominally on the surface seem like lopsided trades ( in terms of any suggestion of the Sonics getting raped ) It is a good business deal to make for Seattle that minimises risk as compared to Option A that you seem to favour ( taking chances in free agency only ) If people can divorce themselves from the hype of equivalency in trades which rarely override other compulsions to deal - it is a deal that should be done that benefits everybody


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Sorry, FJ, for not responding earlier, but my point really is pretty pedestrian. I can't see how Sprewell has any value on a team that is rebuilding, and Seattle would be rebuilding under either of these scenarios.

Building on the future, I would play Mason and Radmanovic ahead of Sprewell, in which case Sprewell become a very expensive bench decoration. With Payton's salary, I suspect they could land a Jonathan Bender or Quentin Richardson or Rip Hamilton and still have plenty of money left over. All would be better options that Sprewell.

And this deal really isn't about getting Crawford or Fizer. If the Sonics really wanted Crawford & Fizer, they could pull back their current offer to Lewis and tell him to take a S&T to Chicago for $56M over 7 years or go to Dallas. I bet he would come to Chicago in that case.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

The fact is is that anyone as mediocre as what the Sonics are that are a fringe playoff team and who stand to forfeit $18M , need to break it up and start over . If they were a better team with Shard and Glove and were legit contenders they would not worry about

They would not worry about it either if they were still so far gone like the Bucks an Miami , and still average , where they no chance of escaping the luxury tax...... but the point is the Supes likely have an out and an economic value to capture if they want it .

They would still need vets for some balance and Spree is still a 20 ppg scorer something that Des and Vlad are not yet. Des and Vlad would still get plenty of playing time in a core 3 man rotation

Plus Spree is bums on seats. Volatile yes but a big identity and a turnstile clicker.

My whole point was that if Shard goes now , then do they really want to put up with Payton's moaning and groaning for the whole season , mismanage him and risk getting dissed in FA - if they put Glove on a winner now , they get viewed favourably by players and agents alike , Glove shuts his mouth and everyone is happy and they still have $6M to spend next year on 2 players.

Additionally , Clips woulnt want Payton anyway now they have Dre and I doubt they wanted him before at his price tag. With the Clips ponying up for their young studs why pay Payton and lose Q in the process . Could not see it happening from both camps

It is for the reason that Glove would not want to be on an up and comer why I could not see him in Washington or Indiana.

Washington do not have anything they would be prepared to give that Seattle do not already have and if Rip gets around $ $9M you would probably have to throw Jahidi in to the mix as well when the Supes already have James,Booth and Drobjnak

Indy - maybe . But unless Jon Bender has an above average year where he needs to produce 15 and 6 and defend I could not see it . Bender, if he produces this will likely be around $7M - so you would probably have to throw Croshere into that mix to make it work and I cannot see the Supes wearing Croshere

So if it is Jahidi / L8'ner or Croshere that have to be thrown in on the basis that Rip and Bender are not or likely will be not max players , then the Supes have to view Spree with Glee

Basically, if you really break it down , New York or Philly are about the only logical spots for Glove to go if he wants veteran teams and a chance to play for a ring - and if he wants a chance to play for a ring he has gotta come East

You know the NY deal in the 3 way as I have outlined

The alternative if they want to go Option A and play in FA ( if they let Shard walk and Glove is pi$$ed and wants to be traded ) is to do the deal with Philly whereby :

Philly gives up : Derrick Coleman and Eric Snow for $13.5M

Philly receives : Glove 

*Philly
McCulloch
Van Horn
McKie
Iverson
Payton
*

Key Reserves:

Dalembert
M.Bryant
Monty Williams
Buckner

The trade may seem inequitable but hey so did the Pip and Roy Rogers trade when we were doing a favour for Pip and buying GAp position to go into FA. Same deal here in this scenario 

So again back to what is the best option to take for the Supes ..

Do you want Eric Snow but no Crawford and Fizer ?

Do you want to keep Brent "3rd banana" Barry with no Glove and Shard when his effectiveness will likely deteriorate ?

For me , its still a far cleaner scenario that works on balance to get young talent ( Fizer and Craw ) vets ( Ward and Spree ) likely lottery position , and still with $6M to spend on two players in next year's free agency with franchise being viewed favourably because they helped look after Shard and Glove's best interests while looking after their own interests which borne more out of fiscal prudence. You have a young exciting crew with two proven vets ( who actually still can D up )

If their young talent matured over the next 2 years when Ward is gone and Spree has 1 year left , a starting 5 and 6th man of :

*

James
Harrington
Radmanovic
Mason
Crawford

Fizer ( 6th ) *

is a pretty impressive accumulation of young talent and a nicely balanced nucleus. Of course they all have to develop and prove themselves but they by then they will all be 3 - 5 year veterans and still young to stay together for awhile

Add another couple of 1st rounders to that - one of then likely a lottery and a couple of vet free agents and that's a nice mix at the right price

I like it .


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> And this deal really isn't about getting Crawford or Fizer. If the Sonics really wanted Crawford & Fizer, they could pull back their current offer to Lewis and tell him to take a S&T to Chicago for $56M over 7 years or go to Dallas. I bet he would come to Chicago in that case.


Yeah but if he did they are right back to square one which is atthe heart of my argument which is the Glove being b*tchy being caught in a rebuilding effort .. so work the logical 3rd team which is New York


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Well I guess it is finally a dead issue now that we have signed Donyell

Rashard will have to go back to the Sonics and cop a rogering 

He knows that Dallas is not a great situation for him basketball wise with Dirk , FinDog and Nash the big 3 offensive weapons

He would get even less opportunity in Houston .

Take it like a man Rashard and if the Sonics dictate the price you can always still have some control over your destiny by keeping the term short - you should have just rolled over your player's option at $5M and gone to the market with another year's of production in the bin rather than try and take those chips off the table before you haev accumulated them


----------

