Is There Actually a Way to Trade for Davis Now without Losing Kyrie?

[Monkhouse]

Seriously, guys. I don't think some of you are understanding the purpose of the thread.

It's problem with rules and numbers that the Cs cannot trade for Davis now. I'm trying to figure out a way around the rules.

It would only be a "pipedream" if I actually dreamed about getting Davis. As I've stated multiple times, I'm not sure I even want him.

I'm just trying to show that there is a viable path, even if it is unlikely.

'Cause you're hot then you're cold
You're yes, then you're no
You're in, then you're out
You're up, then you're down
You're wrong when it's right

Anyways in all seriousness, sure there are ways that we could obtain Davis, but why would the Pelicans do that? They wager to garner far more options in the off-season rather than dealing AD now, which probably would be hard to do, and only some select teams could comparatively trade for AD.

[Monkhouse]

Renegotiation, opt out at year 10 and resign
18-19 30
19-20 32.4
20-21 34.8
21-22 41.6 (new contract as 10 year vet)
22-23 44.9
23-24 48.2

Total 231.9 million

No renogitation, opt out in summer of 19 and resign 4 year max
18-19 20.1
19-20 32.4
20-21 35
21-22 37.6
22-23 40.2
23-24 42.8

Total: 207.9 million.

Kyrie would make 24 million more if he opted out now.

Players prefer to be locked in and so would Ainge. Because if he goes with number one, you know how many self loathing and self depreciating posts would come out of the wood works? Anyways, this is all moot.. renegotiating a contract does not remove Rose rule, which is the point of this thread, right?..

Some players prefer being locked in. Kyrie would be given two more years, and then potentially more money after that in his age 30 season.

Your question about the rose rule is the question I struggle with. I can't find anything about whether a renegotiated contract is considered a new contract or not. I mean, it would include different dollar amounts, years, potential bonus/incentives, etc. Wouldn't that be considered a new contract?

I would think the NBA office would be able to arbitrate that rule before anything was done. But as of now, I can't find anywhere that says it is still the same contract, and it logically makes more sense that it is considered a new contract that supersedes the old.

Well same here, I've been trying to research it, but haven't found anything to no avail. My understanding is that restructuring or re-negotiating a contract does not change it. It just adds additional years to the original contract.

If that was the case, I'm pretty sure half of the cap analysts and pundits on here or Celtics reddit would've mentioned it by now.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Seriously, guys. I don't think some of you are understanding the purpose of the thread.

It's problem with rules and numbers that the Cs cannot trade for Davis now. I'm trying to figure out a way around the rules.

It would only be a "pipedream" if I actually dreamed about getting Davis. As I've stated multiple times, I'm not sure I even want him.

I'm just trying to show that there is a viable path, even if it is unlikely.

'Cause you're hot then you're cold
You're yes, then you're no
You're in, then you're out
You're up, then you're down
You're wrong when it's right

Anyways in all seriousness, sure there are ways that we could obtain Davis, but why would the Pelicans do that? They wager to garner far more options in the off-season rather than dealing AD now, which probably would be hard to do, and only some select teams could comparatively trade for AD.

Lol. I agree. There are human factors that limit this: is CBS ok with trading Hayward? Would the Kings take Hayward on? Would the Nuggets be willing to spend extra money? Would Kyrie be willing to renegotiate? Would the Pelicans be willing to make the trade now so the Cs can go on a title run?

Right now, we are hampered by more than human factors. We are hampered by cold, hard rules and numbers. I was trying to figure that part out.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Renegotiation, opt out at year 10 and resign
18-19 30
19-20 32.4
20-21 34.8
21-22 41.6 (new contract as 10 year vet)
22-23 44.9
23-24 48.2

Total 231.9 million

No renogitation, opt out in summer of 19 and resign 4 year max
18-19 20.1
19-20 32.4
20-21 35
21-22 37.6
22-23 40.2
23-24 42.8

Total: 207.9 million.

Kyrie would make 24 million more if he opted out now.

Players prefer to be locked in and so would Ainge. Because if he goes with number one, you know how many self loathing and self depreciating posts would come out of the wood works? Anyways, this is all moot.. renegotiating a contract does not remove Rose rule, which is the point of this thread, right?..

Some players prefer being locked in. Kyrie would be given two more years, and then potentially more money after that in his age 30 season.

Your question about the rose rule is the question I struggle with. I can't find anything about whether a renegotiated contract is considered a new contract or not. I mean, it would include different dollar amounts, years, potential bonus/incentives, etc. Wouldn't that be considered a new contract?

I would think the NBA office would be able to arbitrate that rule before anything was done. But as of now, I can't find anywhere that says it is still the same contract, and it logically makes more sense that it is considered a new contract that supersedes the old.

Well same here, I've been trying to research it, but haven't found anything to no avail. My understanding is that restructuring or re-negotiating a contract does not change it. It just adds additional years to the original contract.

If that was the case, I'm pretty sure half of the cap analysts and pundits on here or Celtics reddit would've mentioned it by now.

Yes, but the problem that needed solved wasn't just that. It was that the Cs would need to be under the cap in order to renegotiate to give Irving a raise. The only way to do that is by trading a big contract while getting little money back. The only way to do that is if the Kings (under the cap by 11 million) could send two big contracts into the Nuggets 13 million and 12 million dollar trade exemptions.

And by the way, if we did all that, the trade with the Kings would generate a large trade exemptions (over 30 million) that could be used to take on a bad contract or two with players that could help with the title run.

[NKY fan]

Renegotiation, opt out at year 10 and resign
18-19 30
19-20 32.4
20-21 34.8
21-22 41.6 (new contract as 10 year vet)
22-23 44.9
23-24 48.2

Total 231.9 million

No renogitation, opt out in summer of 19 and resign 4 year max
18-19 20.1
19-20 32.4
20-21 35
21-22 37.6
22-23 40.2
23-24 42.8

Total: 207.9 million.

Kyrie would make 24 million more if he opted out now.

Players prefer to be locked in and so would Ainge. Because if he goes with number one, you know how many self loathing and self depreciating posts would come out of the wood works? Anyways, this is all moot.. renegotiating a contract does not remove Rose rule, which is the point of this thread, right?..

Some players prefer being locked in. Kyrie would be given two more years, and then potentially more money after that in his age 30 season.

Your question about the rose rule is the question I struggle with. I can't find anything about whether a renegotiated contract is considered a new contract or not. I mean, it would include different dollar amounts, years, potential bonus/incentives, etc. Wouldn't that be considered a new contract?

I would think the NBA office would be able to arbitrate that rule before anything was done. But as of now, I can't find anywhere that says it is still the same contract, and it logically makes more sense that it is considered a new contract that supersedes the old.

Well same here, I've been trying to research it, but haven't found anything to no avail. My understanding is that restructuring or re-negotiating a contract does not change it. It just adds additional years to the original contract.

If that was the case, I'm pretty sure half of the cap analysts and pundits on here or Celtics reddit would've mentioned it by now.

Yes, but the problem that needed solved wasn't just that. It was that the Cs would need to be under the cap in order to renegotiate to give Irving a raise. The only way to do that is by trading a big contract while getting little money back. The only way to do that is if the Kings (under the cap by 11 million) could send two big contracts into the Nuggets 13 million and 12 million dollar trade exemptions.

And by the way, if we did all that, the trade with the Kings would generate a large trade exemptions (over 30 million) that could be used to take on a bad contract or two with players that could help with the title run.

You have to renounce any trade or other exceptions to get under the salary cap and have cap space.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Renegotiation, opt out at year 10 and resign
18-19 30
19-20 32.4
20-21 34.8
21-22 41.6 (new contract as 10 year vet)
22-23 44.9
23-24 48.2

Total 231.9 million

No renogitation, opt out in summer of 19 and resign 4 year max
18-19 20.1
19-20 32.4
20-21 35
21-22 37.6
22-23 40.2
23-24 42.8

Total: 207.9 million.

Kyrie would make 24 million more if he opted out now.

Players prefer to be locked in and so would Ainge. Because if he goes with number one, you know how many self loathing and self depreciating posts would come out of the wood works? Anyways, this is all moot.. renegotiating a contract does not remove Rose rule, which is the point of this thread, right?..

Some players prefer being locked in. Kyrie would be given two more years, and then potentially more money after that in his age 30 season.

Your question about the rose rule is the question I struggle with. I can't find anything about whether a renegotiated contract is considered a new contract or not. I mean, it would include different dollar amounts, years, potential bonus/incentives, etc. Wouldn't that be considered a new contract?

I would think the NBA office would be able to arbitrate that rule before anything was done. But as of now, I can't find anywhere that says it is still the same contract, and it logically makes more sense that it is considered a new contract that supersedes the old.

Well same here, I've been trying to research it, but haven't found anything to no avail. My understanding is that restructuring or re-negotiating a contract does not change it. It just adds additional years to the original contract.

If that was the case, I'm pretty sure half of the cap analysts and pundits on here or Celtics reddit would've mentioned it by now.

Yes, but the problem that needed solved wasn't just that. It was that the Cs would need to be under the cap in order to renegotiate to give Irving a raise. The only way to do that is by trading a big contract while getting little money back. The only way to do that is if the Kings (under the cap by 11 million) could send two big contracts into the Nuggets 13 million and 12 million dollar trade exemptions.

And by the way, if we did all that, the trade with the Kings would generate a large trade exemptions (over 30 million) that could be used to take on a bad contract or two with players that could help with the title run.

You have to renounce any trade or other exceptions to get under the salary cap and have cap space.

Interesting. Are you sure on that? I know cap holds, count against the cap, but do exceptions?

[Bobshot]

Maybe it's a moot question, because the behavior of Davis' agent has pretty much assured the Pelicans won't trade Davis before the Feb 7th deadline--at least to the Lakers. NO has everything to gain to wait for the post season, and perhaps the lottery, to see who is drafting where.

In the post season, perhaps Davis will say he only wants to play for the Lakers. Most likely done through the Lakers friendly media. As we have seen with Leonard and George, that is no guarantee he winds up with the Lakers.

In the end, the Pelicans will do what's best for the Pelicans.

[NKY fan]

Renegotiation, opt out at year 10 and resign
18-19 30
19-20 32.4
20-21 34.8
21-22 41.6 (new contract as 10 year vet)
22-23 44.9
23-24 48.2

Total 231.9 million

No renogitation, opt out in summer of 19 and resign 4 year max
18-19 20.1
19-20 32.4
20-21 35
21-22 37.6
22-23 40.2
23-24 42.8

Total: 207.9 million.

Kyrie would make 24 million more if he opted out now.

Players prefer to be locked in and so would Ainge. Because if he goes with number one, you know how many self loathing and self depreciating posts would come out of the wood works? Anyways, this is all moot.. renegotiating a contract does not remove Rose rule, which is the point of this thread, right?..

Some players prefer being locked in. Kyrie would be given two more years, and then potentially more money after that in his age 30 season.

Your question about the rose rule is the question I struggle with. I can't find anything about whether a renegotiated contract is considered a new contract or not. I mean, it would include different dollar amounts, years, potential bonus/incentives, etc. Wouldn't that be considered a new contract?

I would think the NBA office would be able to arbitrate that rule before anything was done. But as of now, I can't find anywhere that says it is still the same contract, and it logically makes more sense that it is considered a new contract that supersedes the old.

Well same here, I've been trying to research it, but haven't found anything to no avail. My understanding is that restructuring or re-negotiating a contract does not change it. It just adds additional years to the original contract.

If that was the case, I'm pretty sure half of the cap analysts and pundits on here or Celtics reddit would've mentioned it by now.

Yes, but the problem that needed solved wasn't just that. It was that the Cs would need to be under the cap in order to renegotiate to give Irving a raise. The only way to do that is by trading a big contract while getting little money back. The only way to do that is if the Kings (under the cap by 11 million) could send two big contracts into the Nuggets 13 million and 12 million dollar trade exemptions.

And by the way, if we did all that, the trade with the Kings would generate a large trade exemptions (over 30 million) that could be used to take on a bad contract or two with players that could help with the title run.

You have to renounce any trade or other exceptions to get under the salary cap and have cap space.

Interesting. Are you sure on that? I know cap holds, count against the cap, but do exceptions?

Yes I’m positive about this. The only exception a team with cap space that uses all of its cap space is the so called room exception... which you probably have heard of already... it’s name is misleading but it means that the team that used to had room under the cap but no more after all their signings ... and can go above the cap with that room exception which is smaller than the MLE. The amount of this room exception is used to determine the hard cap on teams that have already used the MLE (which is another weird rule)

[LarBrd33]

give me the update on this... where are we landing?  I assume there's nothing we can do to kyrie's contract this year to waive the Rose rule limitation.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Yes I’m positive about this. The only exception a team with cap space that uses all of its cap space is the so called room exception... which you probably have heard of already... it’s name is misleading but it means that the team that used to had room under the cap but no more after all their signings ... and can go above the cap with that room exception which is smaller than the MLE. The amount of this room exception is used to determine the hard cap on teams that have already used the MLE (which is another weird rule)

Thanks for the info. Thanks for your support earlier too.

It's a creative solution, however unlikely. It's the type of crazy, multi-faceted, could-blow-up-in-your-face, probably-never-would-work trade that Daryl Morey would do.

Not one Ainge would do.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

give me the update on this... where are we landing?  I assume there's nothing we can do to kyrie's contract this year to waive the Rose rule limitation.

Well, it is possible to get under the cap enough to renegotiate Kyrie's contract, but the question is whether or not Kyrie's renegotiated contract would still be considered a rose-rule contract or not.

I can't find anything on it. It makes sense to me that the renegotiated contract with new dollar amounts, years, and incentives would supersede the old one, but others disagree.

For instance, an extension would potentially be considered part of the original contract, because it is simply an extension, but it is recognized as a new contract in the CBA. I would think a renegotiation would be the same.

[Monkhouse]

Yes I’m positive about this. The only exception a team with cap space that uses all of its cap space is the so called room exception... which you probably have heard of already... it’s name is misleading but it means that the team that used to had room under the cap but no more after all their signings ... and can go above the cap with that room exception which is smaller than the MLE. The amount of this room exception is used to determine the hard cap on teams that have already used the MLE (which is another weird rule)

Thanks for the info. Thanks for your support earlier too.

It's a creative solution, however unlikely. It's the type of crazy, multi-faceted, could-blow-up-in-your-face, probably-never-would-work trade that Daryl Morey would do.

Not one Ainge would do.

It's easy to say that, but one has a championship, and a bright future, while the other is literally on threads praying that their injured supermax PG can stay healthy, while they have a 3-4 year limited window.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Yes I’m positive about this. The only exception a team with cap space that uses all of its cap space is the so called room exception... which you probably have heard of already... it’s name is misleading but it means that the team that used to had room under the cap but no more after all their signings ... and can go above the cap with that room exception which is smaller than the MLE. The amount of this room exception is used to determine the hard cap on teams that have already used the MLE (which is another weird rule)

Thanks for the info. Thanks for your support earlier too.

It's a creative solution, however unlikely. It's the type of crazy, multi-faceted, could-blow-up-in-your-face, probably-never-would-work trade that Daryl Morey would do.

Not one Ainge would do.

It's easy to say that, but one has a championship, and a bright future, while the other is literally on threads praying that their injured supermax PG can stay healthy, while they have a 3-4 year limited window.

That is true. That's probably why Ainge wouldn't do it but Morey would. It's a risky move that involves losing a lot of assets and depth. In a sense, you lose the trade.

[Monkhouse]

Yes I’m positive about this. The only exception a team with cap space that uses all of its cap space is the so called room exception... which you probably have heard of already... it’s name is misleading but it means that the team that used to had room under the cap but no more after all their signings ... and can go above the cap with that room exception which is smaller than the MLE. The amount of this room exception is used to determine the hard cap on teams that have already used the MLE (which is another weird rule)

Thanks for the info. Thanks for your support earlier too.

It's a creative solution, however unlikely. It's the type of crazy, multi-faceted, could-blow-up-in-your-face, probably-never-would-work trade that Daryl Morey would do.

Not one Ainge would do.

It's easy to say that, but one has a championship, and a bright future, while the other is literally on threads praying that their injured supermax PG can stay healthy, while they have a 3-4 year limited window.

That is true. That's probably why Ainge wouldn't do it but Morey would. It's a risky move that involves losing a lot of assets and depth. In a sense, you lose the trade.

Hot take, but while Morey has made some exceptional moves in the past, I firmly believe he will be in the hot seat in about 2 or 3 years if the furthest they ever get is the WCF two years ago.

[bopna]

If there was a way, they would have done it already.