How To Make A Harrison Barnes Trade Work?

[RodyTur10]

What exactly is the Kings’ motivation to trade Barnes? Their record is similar to ours. I assume they’re trying to get better as well. To make the playoffs. Who replaces him in their starting lineup ?

Age profile does not fit that of their young talent, and he’s on a long deal worth significant money

I didn't realize his contract went out that far. So I guess that's the argument, fair enough.

Buddy Hield is same age, and on a longer bad contract. Would think Kings which prefer to move him than Barnes, especially given how this Haliburton kid is playing for them. Seems they are destined to start Haliburton and Fox as their guards, and don't think Buddy will take kindly to that when it happens.

I think Hield would fit well with us. Tatum, in particular, draws a crowd when he touches the ball. It’s a shame we don’t have enough shooting on the floor (eg Teague, TT, Javonte, etc.) to capitalize

Buddy Hield is a good example of a buy-low candidate. He's a misfit to the Kings roster and overpaid.
I don't see many competition for him. There's not going to be rebuilding team with cap space who'll give up value for Hield. The only teams I can see being interested in trading for Hield (where Sacramento doesn't give up assets themselves) are: Miami (Dragic + Iguodala + picks), Dallas (Johnson + Powell + picks) and maybe Indiana (Levert + picks).

With our TPE we can help the Kings to get 85/4 of their payroll. Even getting Thompson in return saves them a lot of money. A minor asset adding to the deal could do the trick. Hield could work great of Brown and Tatum, even if Stevens doesn't have a history of running sets for shooters. The problem I see with Hield is his defense next to Walker. Smart/Hield is simply a better backcourt in my opinion.

It all comes down to building around Brown and Tatum, and that's a puzzle with some good players on the team that don't really fit. Which is a bit amusing since 2 complementary two-way-wings is about the easiest basis to build around in theory, but the Clippers struggled mightily last year with George and Leonard.

We need to make other moves if we want to acquire Hield. If we don't, then we're probably better off with Barnes even if that means we have to give up more assets.

[todd_days_41]

Thompson + Edwards + #1

for

Barnes + Whiteside?

Not enough

It will take similar to Holiday return

Unlikely.

[todd_days_41]

Whatever the exact numbers are, the bottom line is that we would need to clear $8M-$9M in order to bring in Barnes at $22M and stay below the tax threshold.  I don't think you can do it without hurting the team in other areas.  I think there are better options than Barnes out there that we can get and stay within the $13M to $15M range added salary, meaning we stay below the tax threshold.

Remember, you can't combine the TPE with other players. We can't for example send them Thompson and take back Barnes unless it is separate deals somehow.  They would have to be able to absorb Thompson as a stand alone deal.  Maybe they have some of their own TPE or something, I don't know.

If we had to move $2M or $3M to bring in someone making $15M or $16M, that we can probably do in a separate deal without hurting the team much.  Moving $9M is a lot harder.

Actually, you can. By trading Barnes to us, they create their own sizable TPE (worth Barnes' contract amount this season) that they can easily absorb Thompson into - still giving them ~$13M in TPE to use this offseason if they so desire.

Yeah, the “can’t combine the TPE with players” rule is commonly misunderstood.  The rule is that you cannot aggregate the TPE with player salary to bring back a larger salary in the trade.

Also, something that I did not know until the Paul Pierce trade with Brooklyn: The trade can be broken down separately from each teams point of view.  It’s a weird rule, but one that is on the books.

So if I understand, as long one doesn't use a player to augment the TPE from a total salary perspective, it's ok.

For example, the Cs could trade Thompson + the TPE + picks for Barnes, and it'd work. The result to the TPE would be that ~$13MM would be shaved off (the difference between Thompson and Barnes' salaries), and so the Cs would still have a ~$15.5M TPE left from the Hayward trade.

That right?

[wdleehi]

Whatever the exact numbers are, the bottom line is that we would need to clear $8M-$9M in order to bring in Barnes at $22M and stay below the tax threshold.  I don't think you can do it without hurting the team in other areas.  I think there are better options than Barnes out there that we can get and stay within the $13M to $15M range added salary, meaning we stay below the tax threshold.

Remember, you can't combine the TPE with other players. We can't for example send them Thompson and take back Barnes unless it is separate deals somehow.  They would have to be able to absorb Thompson as a stand alone deal.  Maybe they have some of their own TPE or something, I don't know.

If we had to move $2M or $3M to bring in someone making $15M or $16M, that we can probably do in a separate deal without hurting the team much.  Moving $9M is a lot harder.

Actually, you can. By trading Barnes to us, they create their own sizable TPE (worth Barnes' contract amount this season) that they can easily absorb Thompson into - still giving them ~$13M in TPE to use this offseason if they so desire.

Yeah, the “can’t combine the TPE with players” rule is commonly misunderstood.  The rule is that you cannot aggregate the TPE with player salary to bring back a larger salary in the trade.

Also, something that I did not know until the Paul Pierce trade with Brooklyn: The trade can be broken down separately from each teams point of view.  It’s a weird rule, but one that is on the books.

So if I understand, as long one doesn't use a player to augment the TPE from a total salary perspective, it's ok.

For example, the Cs could trade Thompson + the TPE + picks for Barnes, and it'd work. The result to the TPE would be that ~$13MM would be shaved off (the difference between Thompson and Barnes' salaries), and so the Cs would still have a ~$15.5M TPE left from the Hayward trade.

That right?

No.   Each team basically sets the rules of their trade.

I think the Celtics cost of the TPE would equal the Barnes contract.   Then Thomas is traded away in a "separate" trade(creating a new TPE for the Celtics at his contract value)

For the Kings, I think they trade Thomas for Barnes and it creates a TPE for them equal to the difference in the contract values.

But I could be wrong

[Moranis]

I don't think Boston is acquiring Barnes for cast offs and 1 late 1st.  I know Sacramento has historically been pretty stupid, but I just don't see them being that stupid.  I think it will take some real value like multiple 1st's or some actual young players for Sacramento to even listen. 

I think someone like Nesmith might be appealing to the Kings.  So I could see Nesmith being the base of a Barnes trade.  I'd be fine with that. 

Barnes for Nesmith and the 21 1st

I think that makes more sense for the Kings assuming of course they like Nesmith as it gives them a rookie on a mid-1st contract and a 1st round pick.  Huge salary savings.  For Boston, Barnes would be a nice fit next to Tatum and Brown and has a descending contract so the burden lessons every year.  Not sure Barnes puts Boston into true contender status, but he certainly puts the team closer to that level and is probably the best player available without breaking the bank (and frankly may be the best player available period).

[Silas]

I don't think Boston is acquiring Barnes for cast offs and 1 late 1st.  I know Sacramento has historically been pretty stupid, but I just don't see them being that stupid.  I think it will take some real value like multiple 1st's or some actual young players for Sacramento to even listen. 

I think someone like Nesmith might be appealing to the Kings.  So I could see Nesmith being the base of a Barnes trade.  I'd be fine with that. 

Barnes for Nesmith and the 21 1st

I think that makes more sense for the Kings assuming of course they like Nesmith as it gives them a rookie on a mid-1st contract and a 1st round pick.  Huge salary savings.  For Boston, Barnes would be a nice fit next to Tatum and Brown and has a descending contract so the burden lessons every year.  Not sure Barnes puts Boston into true contender status, but he certainly puts the team closer to that level and is probably the best player available without breaking the bank (and frankly may be the best player available period).

Speaking of Nesmith, what happened against Sac?  I saw him on the bench, but no playing time.

[todd_days_41]

Whatever the exact numbers are, the bottom line is that we would need to clear $8M-$9M in order to bring in Barnes at $22M and stay below the tax threshold.  I don't think you can do it without hurting the team in other areas.  I think there are better options than Barnes out there that we can get and stay within the $13M to $15M range added salary, meaning we stay below the tax threshold.

Remember, you can't combine the TPE with other players. We can't for example send them Thompson and take back Barnes unless it is separate deals somehow.  They would have to be able to absorb Thompson as a stand alone deal.  Maybe they have some of their own TPE or something, I don't know.

If we had to move $2M or $3M to bring in someone making $15M or $16M, that we can probably do in a separate deal without hurting the team much.  Moving $9M is a lot harder.

Actually, you can. By trading Barnes to us, they create their own sizable TPE (worth Barnes' contract amount this season) that they can easily absorb Thompson into - still giving them ~$13M in TPE to use this offseason if they so desire.

Yeah, the “can’t combine the TPE with players” rule is commonly misunderstood.  The rule is that you cannot aggregate the TPE with player salary to bring back a larger salary in the trade.

Also, something that I did not know until the Paul Pierce trade with Brooklyn: The trade can be broken down separately from each teams point of view.  It’s a weird rule, but one that is on the books.

So if I understand, as long one doesn't use a player to augment the TPE from a total salary perspective, it's ok.

For example, the Cs could trade Thompson + the TPE + picks for Barnes, and it'd work. The result to the TPE would be that ~$13MM would be shaved off (the difference between Thompson and Barnes' salaries), and so the Cs would still have a ~$15.5M TPE left from the Hayward trade.

That right?

No.   Each team basically sets the rules of their trade.

I think the Celtics cost of the TPE would equal the Barnes contract.   Then Thomas is traded away in a "separate" trade(creating a new TPE for the Celtics at his contract value)

For the Kings, I think they trade Thomas for Barnes and it creates a TPE for them equal to the difference in the contract values.

But I could be wrong

But then SAC has to send us more salary to make matching rules work in exchange for Thompson in said separate deal, no? That seems off.

[todd_days_41]

I don't think Boston is acquiring Barnes for cast offs and 1 late 1st.  I know Sacramento has historically been pretty stupid, but I just don't see them being that stupid.  I think it will take some real value like multiple 1st's or some actual young players for Sacramento to even listen. 

I think someone like Nesmith might be appealing to the Kings.  So I could see Nesmith being the base of a Barnes trade.  I'd be fine with that. 

Barnes for Nesmith and the 21 1st

I think that makes more sense for the Kings assuming of course they like Nesmith as it gives them a rookie on a mid-1st contract and a 1st round pick.  Huge salary savings.  For Boston, Barnes would be a nice fit next to Tatum and Brown and has a descending contract so the burden lessons every year.  Not sure Barnes puts Boston into true contender status, but he certainly puts the team closer to that level and is probably the best player available without breaking the bank (and frankly may be the best player available period).

Can Boston add Nesmith to a deal of the TPE plus pick(s) in a single transaction? Sorry, I'm rusty on these TPE bits....

[Roy H.]

Whatever the exact numbers are, the bottom line is that we would need to clear $8M-$9M in order to bring in Barnes at $22M and stay below the tax threshold.  I don't think you can do it without hurting the team in other areas.  I think there are better options than Barnes out there that we can get and stay within the $13M to $15M range added salary, meaning we stay below the tax threshold.

Remember, you can't combine the TPE with other players. We can't for example send them Thompson and take back Barnes unless it is separate deals somehow.  They would have to be able to absorb Thompson as a stand alone deal.  Maybe they have some of their own TPE or something, I don't know.

If we had to move $2M or $3M to bring in someone making $15M or $16M, that we can probably do in a separate deal without hurting the team much.  Moving $9M is a lot harder.

Actually, you can. By trading Barnes to us, they create their own sizable TPE (worth Barnes' contract amount this season) that they can easily absorb Thompson into - still giving them ~$13M in TPE to use this offseason if they so desire.

Yeah, the “can’t combine the TPE with players” rule is commonly misunderstood.  The rule is that you cannot aggregate the TPE with player salary to bring back a larger salary in the trade.

Also, something that I did not know until the Paul Pierce trade with Brooklyn: The trade can be broken down separately from each teams point of view.  It’s a weird rule, but one that is on the books.

So if I understand, as long one doesn't use a player to augment the TPE from a total salary perspective, it's ok.

For example, the Cs could trade Thompson + the TPE + picks for Barnes, and it'd work. The result to the TPE would be that ~$13MM would be shaved off (the difference between Thompson and Barnes' salaries), and so the Cs would still have a ~$15.5M TPE left from the Hayward trade.

That right?

No.   Each team basically sets the rules of their trade.

I think the Celtics cost of the TPE would equal the Barnes contract.   Then Thomas is traded away in a "separate" trade(creating a new TPE for the Celtics at his contract value)

For the Kings, I think they trade Thomas for Barnes and it creates a TPE for them equal to the difference in the contract values.

But I could be wrong

But then SAC has to send us more salary to make matching rules work in exchange for Thompson in said separate deal, no? That seems off.

No. From Sacramento’s point of view, the trade is Barnes for Thompson. That works for them, because the team is always allowed to send out more salary than it takes in.

From Boston’s points of view, there are two separate transactions. The first is Barnes is traded into the TPE. The second is that Thompson is traded to Sacramento for nothing. A team can always trade more salary than it is taking in.

It’s strange that the same trade is allowed to go through from separate points of view, but the rules allow that.

[todd_days_41]

Whatever the exact numbers are, the bottom line is that we would need to clear $8M-$9M in order to bring in Barnes at $22M and stay below the tax threshold.  I don't think you can do it without hurting the team in other areas.  I think there are better options than Barnes out there that we can get and stay within the $13M to $15M range added salary, meaning we stay below the tax threshold.

Remember, you can't combine the TPE with other players. We can't for example send them Thompson and take back Barnes unless it is separate deals somehow.  They would have to be able to absorb Thompson as a stand alone deal.  Maybe they have some of their own TPE or something, I don't know.

If we had to move $2M or $3M to bring in someone making $15M or $16M, that we can probably do in a separate deal without hurting the team much.  Moving $9M is a lot harder.

Actually, you can. By trading Barnes to us, they create their own sizable TPE (worth Barnes' contract amount this season) that they can easily absorb Thompson into - still giving them ~$13M in TPE to use this offseason if they so desire.

Yeah, the “can’t combine the TPE with players” rule is commonly misunderstood.  The rule is that you cannot aggregate the TPE with player salary to bring back a larger salary in the trade.

Also, something that I did not know until the Paul Pierce trade with Brooklyn: The trade can be broken down separately from each teams point of view.  It’s a weird rule, but one that is on the books.

So if I understand, as long one doesn't use a player to augment the TPE from a total salary perspective, it's ok.

For example, the Cs could trade Thompson + the TPE + picks for Barnes, and it'd work. The result to the TPE would be that ~$13MM would be shaved off (the difference between Thompson and Barnes' salaries), and so the Cs would still have a ~$15.5M TPE left from the Hayward trade.

That right?

No.   Each team basically sets the rules of their trade.

I think the Celtics cost of the TPE would equal the Barnes contract.   Then Thomas is traded away in a "separate" trade(creating a new TPE for the Celtics at his contract value)

For the Kings, I think they trade Thomas for Barnes and it creates a TPE for them equal to the difference in the contract values.

But I could be wrong

But then SAC has to send us more salary to make matching rules work in exchange for Thompson in said separate deal, no? That seems off.

No. From Sacramento’s point of view, the trade is Barnes for Thompson. That works for them, because the team is always allowed to send out more salary than it takes in.

From Boston’s points of view, there are two separate transactions. The first is Barnes is traded into the TPE. The second is that Thompson is traded to Sacramento for nothing. A team can always trade more salary than it is taking in.

It’s strange that the same trade is allowed to go through from separate points of view, but the rules allow that.

But then couldn't any team circumvent the CBA any time? 'Hey, we'll just do two separate deals where you trade me your guy for nothing because i can always trade more than i'm taking in."? Or does SAC have to have cap space after the Barnes salary is subtracted from their books to take Thompson's $9MM?

[Moranis]

Whatever the exact numbers are, the bottom line is that we would need to clear $8M-$9M in order to bring in Barnes at $22M and stay below the tax threshold.  I don't think you can do it without hurting the team in other areas.  I think there are better options than Barnes out there that we can get and stay within the $13M to $15M range added salary, meaning we stay below the tax threshold.

Remember, you can't combine the TPE with other players. We can't for example send them Thompson and take back Barnes unless it is separate deals somehow.  They would have to be able to absorb Thompson as a stand alone deal.  Maybe they have some of their own TPE or something, I don't know.

If we had to move $2M or $3M to bring in someone making $15M or $16M, that we can probably do in a separate deal without hurting the team much.  Moving $9M is a lot harder.

Actually, you can. By trading Barnes to us, they create their own sizable TPE (worth Barnes' contract amount this season) that they can easily absorb Thompson into - still giving them ~$13M in TPE to use this offseason if they so desire.

Yeah, the “can’t combine the TPE with players” rule is commonly misunderstood.  The rule is that you cannot aggregate the TPE with player salary to bring back a larger salary in the trade.

Also, something that I did not know until the Paul Pierce trade with Brooklyn: The trade can be broken down separately from each teams point of view.  It’s a weird rule, but one that is on the books.

So if I understand, as long one doesn't use a player to augment the TPE from a total salary perspective, it's ok.

For example, the Cs could trade Thompson + the TPE + picks for Barnes, and it'd work. The result to the TPE would be that ~$13MM would be shaved off (the difference between Thompson and Barnes' salaries), and so the Cs would still have a ~$15.5M TPE left from the Hayward trade.

That right?

No.   Each team basically sets the rules of their trade.

I think the Celtics cost of the TPE would equal the Barnes contract.   Then Thomas is traded away in a "separate" trade(creating a new TPE for the Celtics at his contract value)

For the Kings, I think they trade Thomas for Barnes and it creates a TPE for them equal to the difference in the contract values.

But I could be wrong

But then SAC has to send us more salary to make matching rules work in exchange for Thompson in said separate deal, no? That seems off.

No. From Sacramento’s point of view, the trade is Barnes for Thompson. That works for them, because the team is always allowed to send out more salary than it takes in.

From Boston’s points of view, there are two separate transactions. The first is Barnes is traded into the TPE. The second is that Thompson is traded to Sacramento for nothing. A team can always trade more salary than it is taking in.

It’s strange that the same trade is allowed to go through from separate points of view, but the rules allow that.

But then couldn't any team circumvent the CBA any time? 'Hey, we'll just do two separate deals where you trade me your guy for nothing because i can always trade more than i'm taking in."? Or does SAC have to have cap space after the Barnes salary is subtracted from their books to take Thompson's $9MM?

Sacramento trading Barnes to Boston creates a TPE.  They would then acquire Thompson (or whatever from Boston) by using the TPE that was just created by trading Barnes.

[footey]

I don't think Boston is acquiring Barnes for cast offs and 1 late 1st.  I know Sacramento has historically been pretty stupid, but I just don't see them being that stupid.  I think it will take some real value like multiple 1st's or some actual young players for Sacramento to even listen. 

I think someone like Nesmith might be appealing to the Kings.  So I could see Nesmith being the base of a Barnes trade.  I'd be fine with that. 

Barnes for Nesmith and the 21 1st

I think that makes more sense for the Kings assuming of course they like Nesmith as it gives them a rookie on a mid-1st contract and a 1st round pick.  Huge salary savings.  For Boston, Barnes would be a nice fit next to Tatum and Brown and has a descending contract so the burden lessons every year.  Not sure Barnes puts Boston into true contender status, but he certainly puts the team closer to that level and is probably the best player available without breaking the bank (and frankly may be the best player available period).

I agree. I think it is unrealistic to expect not to give up one of Nesmith or Romeo plus at least one first round pick, and may have to include another first rounder to get it done, frankly. 

[colincb]

The luxury tax calculation is more than just team salaries

How do you mean?

Luxury tax is determined by actual payroll.  That includes incentives, bonuses, etc.  However, I don’t believe there is anything other than salary included.

Also, keep in mind that Hoopshype, Sportrac, Keith Smith, etc., are all using estimates.

See CBA FAQ Q.18

Back to the main issue, I doubt you can get Barnes cheaply. SAC is good enough to stay in the hunt for a chance to get into the playoff via play-in and that would be an incentive not to dump salary for a late first. Barnes is their top mpg player right now.

[keevsnick]

Whatever the exact numbers are, the bottom line is that we would need to clear $8M-$9M in order to bring in Barnes at $22M and stay below the tax threshold.  I don't think you can do it without hurting the team in other areas.  I think there are better options than Barnes out there that we can get and stay within the $13M to $15M range added salary, meaning we stay below the tax threshold.

Remember, you can't combine the TPE with other players. We can't for example send them Thompson and take back Barnes unless it is separate deals somehow.  They would have to be able to absorb Thompson as a stand alone deal.  Maybe they have some of their own TPE or something, I don't know.

If we had to move $2M or $3M to bring in someone making $15M or $16M, that we can probably do in a separate deal without hurting the team much.  Moving $9M is a lot harder.

Actually, you can. By trading Barnes to us, they create their own sizable TPE (worth Barnes' contract amount this season) that they can easily absorb Thompson into - still giving them ~$13M in TPE to use this offseason if they so desire.

Yeah, the “can’t combine the TPE with players” rule is commonly misunderstood.  The rule is that you cannot aggregate the TPE with player salary to bring back a larger salary in the trade.

Also, something that I did not know until the Paul Pierce trade with Brooklyn: The trade can be broken down separately from each teams point of view.  It’s a weird rule, but one that is on the books.

So if I understand, as long one doesn't use a player to augment the TPE from a total salary perspective, it's ok.

For example, the Cs could trade Thompson + the TPE + picks for Barnes, and it'd work. The result to the TPE would be that ~$13MM would be shaved off (the difference between Thompson and Barnes' salaries), and so the Cs would still have a ~$15.5M TPE left from the Hayward trade.

That right?

No.   Each team basically sets the rules of their trade.

I think the Celtics cost of the TPE would equal the Barnes contract.   Then Thomas is traded away in a "separate" trade(creating a new TPE for the Celtics at his contract value)

For the Kings, I think they trade Thomas for Barnes and it creates a TPE for them equal to the difference in the contract values.

But I could be wrong

But then SAC has to send us more salary to make matching rules work in exchange for Thompson in said separate deal, no? That seems off.

No. From Sacramento’s point of view, the trade is Barnes for Thompson. That works for them, because the team is always allowed to send out more salary than it takes in.

From Boston’s points of view, there are two separate transactions. The first is Barnes is traded into the TPE. The second is that Thompson is traded to Sacramento for nothing. A team can always trade more salary than it is taking in.

It’s strange that the same trade is allowed to go through from separate points of view, but the rules allow that.

In general what you describe works just fine, but now that i think about it I'm not sure it works in this case because Boston can't absorb Barnes outright due to the hard cap without FIRST sending out salary. Or maybe I'm wrong.

[jambr380]

Speaking of Nesmith and a 1st as the principle of a deal. Would it make more sense to offer that to ATL and see if they bite on a Collins trade? I guess it really depends if they intend on matching any contract offer in RFA, but doing that would actually allow the Cs to keep the entire TPE for this offseason.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have Barnes here, but it would pretty much require shedding Thompson in order to do stay under the tax (a pre-requisite as far as I'm concerned). I also consider Collins the best player reasonably available with potential to grow into an All-Star.