Report: Lillard requests trade

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Maybe guys should lose their super-max deal if they get traded. Get put back on a normal max contract. Only get to keep their supermax if they stay with the same team throughout the contract.

I like including some form of leverage here for the team. Not sure what is should be.

[gouki88]

Maybe guys should lose their super-max deal if they get traded. Get put back on a normal max contract. Only get to keep their supermax if they stay with the same team throughout the contract.

How would this work if a guy is traded against his will? Give them all NTC's?

[celticsclay]

Part of me is wondering if Lillard and his agent are playing dirty for a selfish reason that isn't being talked about. They are obviously lowering his trade value by only wanting to go to "Miami". But is Lillard trying to lower his value, so the team that does trade for him, doesn't trade away too much. For instance, Boston may not have to include Jaylen. However, if Lillard didn't narrow his destination to Miami, then maybe Jaylen might have to be included.

You'd need to trade Brown, because you have to send enough salary back. It makes no sense (if even allowed) to let Porzingis go and we definitely don't want to lose Tatum. So it has to be Brown that has to go.
If you're going to make an offer around Brogdon then you have to add 1 or 2 other key players just to match salaries.

Lillard makes 45 million, it isn't a crazy amount.  Brogdon and White basically gets you there.

I'd probably do a Brown for Lillard trade, but I'd rather do something like this

Lillard, Nurkic

for

White, Brogdon, Williams, Pritchard, Kornet, 24 1st, Mem 1st, 26 1st

Have to get some veterans for the bench, but I'm all on board with this team

Starters - Lillard, Brown, Tatum, Porzingis, Nurkic
Rotation - Davison, Hauser, Brissett, Horford
Deep Bench - Walsh, Champagnie, Griffin, Banton

Team needs 2 quality vets for the rotation, but BY FAR the best starting 5 in the sport.

POR said they want 2 players and 4 picks. Not 5 players, most of which don’t fit their timeline or rebuild plan.  I don’t think POR picks up the phone unless Brown if part of the offer.

They are going to have to take filler, which is what Kornet is and Pritchard to a lesser extent.  And LIllard makes a lot of money, so they are going to have to take a huge contract (and likely bad one) or more lesser ones.  White and Williams are in their mid-20's.  They are fine on the timeline.  Brogdon is older, but they can easily flip him for expiring contracts and draft picks.  Probably could just call up the Clippers and do that trade.  I wouldn't let a future 1st be the hold up on Boston's end if they really needed a 4th one, I'd do that.

I like you trade idea and would be excited if it happened, but I’m confused how you think white is in his mid 20’s or fits the timeline fine of scoot. He is 29 and literally 10 years older than scoot (brogdon is also just a year and a half older than white)

I don't want to speak for Moranis but I would guess the mistake stems from the fact that it's only White's fifth year in the NBA?

yes. I thought he was more like 27, but didn't check.  He should still have a good amount of prime left given his experience though.

Yeah, I don’t think he is going to fall off a cliff anytime soon but would be kind of a waste of his career to spend the next 3-4 years on a really long portland team with sharpe and scoot and next years lottery pick developing. He also had a pretty interesting college career which is why he is a bit older than we would guess https://www.celticsblog.com/2023/4/20/23688947/legend-derrick-white-boston-celtics-legend-high-uccs-colorado-springs-boulder-oreos-wisdom-teeth

Hear me out on this question: 
How much of a drop off is DW from DL at the 1?

Ok - I’m not trying to suggest White is comparable to Lillard, but a serious question - how steep is the drop? And for how long?

I am actually pretty psyched to see Derrick start at point.  Great size, great IQ, decent distributor - moves the ball. Hits open looks; can drive, boards great at the position… and defends.  I also think he is a steadying presence on the court, respected and liked.  And durable!  He doesn’t have the generalship presence that Lillard has -  a leap behind there.  And doesn’t have the handle or passing skills - but he has skills. In 3 years DW could be the better player.

I am no rush to trade white and as I pointed out with the age thing I think it is highly unlikely portland wants him so this is all moot. That being said for the next two years I think Lilliard would be a big upgrade for playoff basketball. He is obviously a much better ball handler than jaylen or tatum so that alone would eliminate some late game turnovers that have doomed us the last two playoffs. Then in this proposed scenario it seems like it would be impossible to guard brown tatum Lilliard Horford and porzingas at the end of a game. There is no smart out there to double off of and most teams don’t have three elite defenders to guard tatum brown and Lilliard. The for how long part is tougher because I honestly think Lilliard will only be an all star the next two seasons.

[Who]

Maybe guys should lose their super-max deal if they get traded. Get put back on a normal max contract. Only get to keep their supermax if they stay with the same team throughout the contract.

For that to work I guess they'd need a no trade clause attached to it or some such.

How would this work if a guy is traded against his will? Give them all NTC's?

Yeah, I had not thought of that. You guys are right. They'd need no trade clauses to protect their own interests. I'd be fine with that. NTC as part of the supermax offer.

It would give both player and team more stability / security.

[jpotter33]

Maybe guys should lose their super-max deal if they get traded. Get put back on a normal max contract. Only get to keep their supermax if they stay with the same team throughout the contract.

For that to work I guess they'd need a no trade clause attached to it or some such.

How would this work if a guy is traded against his will? Give them all NTC's?

Yeah, I had not thought of that. You guys are right. They'd need no trade clauses to protect their own interests. I'd be fine with that. NTC as part of the supermax offer.

It would give both player and team more stability / security.

So it would be both:

1) the team cannot trade the player without his permission; and

2) the player’s salary would revert to a regular max if traded.

Interesting. I’d be down for that, as it provides protection for both sides. I bet there’s some unforeseen consequences to that, though.

[Kernewek]

I think it’s an interesting thought experiment, so I have a couple of questions for the posters above:

If a player who is on one of these neo supermax-lite deal - i.e. is a supermax player who waives their NTC and is traded - should that player continue to count toward the 2 designated veterans per team cap?

So, right now, the Celtics cannot trade for Dame because ostensibly we want to give Tatum and Brown the super max. under your proposed situation, once he’s traded, that’s no longer the case.

Two: is his contract value the new contract or the original contract for cap and trade purposes?

[Muzzy66]

Maybe guys should lose their super-max deal if they get traded. Get put back on a normal max contract. Only get to keep their supermax if they stay with the same team throughout the contract.

For that to work I guess they'd need a no trade clause attached to it or some such.

How would this work if a guy is traded against his will? Give them all NTC's?

Yeah, I had not thought of that. You guys are right. They'd need no trade clauses to protect their own interests. I'd be fine with that. NTC as part of the supermax offer.

It would give both player and team more stability / security.

So it would be both:

1) the team cannot trade the player without his permission; and

2) the player’s salary would revert to a regular max if traded.

Interesting. I’d be down for that, as it provides protection for both sides. I bet there’s some unforeseen consequences to that, though.

Yeah, I would be good with that too.  Good solution I think.  This would be like kids to a marriage - if the player things the grass is greener on the other side, this gives them a strong incentive to at least try their best to resolve any issues they have and make things work rather than just chucking a hissy-fit and demanding a trade the moment they seek greener pastures.

[Celtics2021]

I think it’s an interesting thought experiment, so I have a couple of questions for the posters above:

If a player who is on one of these neo supermax-lite deal - i.e. is a supermax player who waives their NTC and is traded - should that player continue to count toward the 2 designated veterans per team cap?

So, right now, the Celtics cannot trade for Dame because ostensibly we want to give Tatum and Brown the super max. under your proposed situation, once he’s traded, that’s no longer the case.

Two: is his contract value the new contract or the original contract for cap and trade purposes?

They got rid of the supermax limit per team in the new CBA.  The second apron is powerful enough.

[Who]

I think it’s an interesting thought experiment, so I have a couple of questions for the posters above:

If a player who is on one of these neo supermax-lite deal - i.e. is a supermax player who waives their NTC and is traded - should that player continue to count toward the 2 designated veterans per team cap?

So, right now, the Celtics cannot trade for Dame because ostensibly we want to give Tatum and Brown the super max. under your proposed situation, once he’s traded, that’s no longer the case.

Two: is his contract value the new contract or the original contract for cap and trade purposes?

Makes the most sense to me that Lillard would count at the lower max figure both in terms of trade equivalent value and also for the salary cap.

And therefore not count as a designated player anymore. Oh, the post above, says they got rid of that number of designated players rule in this new CBA.

[Kernewek]

I think it’s an interesting thought experiment, so I have a couple of questions for the posters above:

If a player who is on one of these neo supermax-lite deal - i.e. is a supermax player who waives their NTC and is traded - should that player continue to count toward the 2 designated veterans per team cap?

So, right now, the Celtics cannot trade for Dame because ostensibly we want to give Tatum and Brown the super max. under your proposed situation, once he’s traded, that’s no longer the case.

Two: is his contract value the new contract or the original contract for cap and trade purposes?

They got rid of the supermax limit per team in the new CBA.  The second apron is powerful enough.

Correct, but I would put it to you that the power of the second apron is diminished somewhat by lowering the contract value from a supermax to a 'regular max'.

If we take the position that the best players in the league are the players who will get this contract, then getting more player for less from the team perspective (because you are paying less for a better player once they're traded), there needs to be an alternative lever. Otherwise you have Kevin Durant signing the supermax and then sitting out until he can be traded to whatever team just won an NBA championship.

There's also the reality of a no trade clause that we haven't touched on - NTC's stay with the contract, so even if we accept this restructuring we have to keep in mind that these neo-supermax players are going to continue to have 100% control over their destiny in the league after they're traded. Since the theme of the thread from most posters is one advocating for less player empowerment, it's probably something to consider, since people seem to be assuming they evaporate or something after a trade is in place.

[Moranis]

I think it’s an interesting thought experiment, so I have a couple of questions for the posters above:

If a player who is on one of these neo supermax-lite deal - i.e. is a supermax player who waives their NTC and is traded - should that player continue to count toward the 2 designated veterans per team cap?

So, right now, the Celtics cannot trade for Dame because ostensibly we want to give Tatum and Brown the super max. under your proposed situation, once he’s traded, that’s no longer the case.

Two: is his contract value the new contract or the original contract for cap and trade purposes?

They got rid of the supermax limit per team in the new CBA.  The second apron is powerful enough.

Correct, but I would put it to you that the power of the second apron is diminished somewhat by lowering the contract value from a supermax to a 'regular max'.

If we take the position that the best players in the league are the players who will get this contract, then getting more player for less from the team perspective (because you are paying less for a better player once they're traded), there needs to be an alternative lever. Otherwise you have Kevin Durant signing the supermax and then sitting out until he can be traded to whatever team just won an NBA championship.

There's also the reality of a no trade clause that we haven't touched on - NTC's stay with the contract, so even if we accept this restructuring we have to keep in mind that these neo-supermax players are going to continue to have 100% control over their destiny in the league after they're traded. Since the theme of the thread from most posters is one advocating for less player empowerment, it's probably something to consider, since people seem to be assuming they evaporate or something after a trade is in place.

Lillard signed a max contract not a supermax.  He is a 10 year vet so his max is 35%. He didn't get it early, thus not a supermax.

[Kernewek]

Fair point, but given that we're talking about a contract that doesn't exist perhaps I should have called him MegaStarPlayer5000

[gouki88]

Fair point, but given that we're talking about a contract that doesn't exist perhaps I should have called him MegaStarPlayer5000

I want that guy!