(Gulp) Ray Allen Trade Ideas

[Who]

I don't understand your point here. Ray's deal expires in 2010, so Ray's salary will be cut after 2010, either because we just let him walk, or because we resigned him at much less than his current salary. He won't be getting another 18 mill a year deal.

Yes, that's what I meant ... it got a little lost in translation there. That the team needs to cut Ray's salary in order to have any flexibility in future signings. If his contract isn't reduced, then the team would have very little cap flexibility.

Nocioni + Martin = Ray's current contract = no financial flexibility
Martin by himself = Ray after his extension = flexibility

The same idea as in other thread, when I said I'd like a $10-12mil player and an expiring deal, in order to have some cap flexibility. If it's just $20mil straight, that locks the team into a tough financial situation -- that's why I'm not a fan of Noce being in the deal, because I don't think he's good enough to back yourself into a corner for.

[Who]

Either way, I'd love to be able to add Martin as a long term piece of the puzzle moving forward as Rondo, Martin and Perk is an excellent young combo moving forward beyond the Big Three years.

Me too. I'm big fan of Martin's game. He's an incredible scorer. I think he'd be an excellent replacement for Ray Allen.

I hadn't really thought about life after the Big Three, as much as extending the current window, but yeah he'd be great for that period too!

Then make it Thomas in that trade.

Sold! Ray and 1st for Martin and an expiring.

That would be a great trade for Boston.

[nickagneta]

That would be a great trade for Boston.

And for Sacramento too, which is why I think it is a viable trade.

[Who]

That would be a great trade for Boston.

And for Sacramento too, which is why I think it is a viable trade.

I think it's a very bad trade for Sacramento

However, if they got desperate enough (which is possible), they could resort to this type of move.

[nickagneta]

That would be a great trade for Boston.

And for Sacramento too, which is why I think it is a viable trade.

I think it's a very bad trade for Sacramento

However, if they got desperate enough (which is possible), they could resort to this type of move.

But given what they are going through financially, it might be a huge bonanza for them getting out from under Martin's future salary and in my original trade, that of Nocioni, too. It's one of the reasons I had Nocini in my original trade. That and the fact that I like his game a bunch more than you do but everybody looks at players differently so that's cool.

[POBstuntin]

That would be a great trade for Boston.

And for Sacramento too, which is why I think it is a viable trade.

I think it's a very bad trade for Sacramento

However, if they got desperate enough (which is possible), they could resort to this type of move.

But given what they are going through financially, it might be a huge bonanza for them getting out from under Martin's future salary and in my original trade, that of Nocioni, too. It's one of the reasons I had Nocini in my original trade. That and the fact that I like his game a bunch more than you do but everybody looks at players differently so that's cool.

They held on to Noc at the deadline instead of just moving him again because they liked him.  I think it'd be a real tough sell to season ticket holders to trade you're best player and not get any future picks and just expiring money.  I don't know how bad off the maloofs are though and vegas is wayyyy down so it is possible that they just want to clear it out.  I heard rumors of them trying to sell and if thats the case, getting rid of Kevin might be a good move.  Ergo, giving the new owners cap room in 10.  With all the teams clearing cash for 10, I don't know how many free agents are going to want to jump to Sactown but you never know.  I do like the idea a lot though nick, def. plausible and potentially good for both sides so good call. 

[Who]

That would be a great trade for Boston.

And for Sacramento too, which is why I think it is a viable trade.

I think it's a very bad trade for Sacramento

However, if they got desperate enough (which is possible), they could resort to this type of move.

But given what they are going through financially, it might be a huge bonanza for them getting out from under Martin's future salary and in my original trade, that of Nocioni, too. It's one of the reasons I had Nocini in my original trade. That and the fact that I like his game a bunch more than you do but everybody looks at players differently so that's cool.

Giving up a player like Martin who is as young as he is, and is talented as he is, and is on a reasonable contract ...

That's something extreme, and I don't think the Kings are in that place. They're in a bad place, but it's not that bad yet. If things get worse, you never know, it could come to fruition ....

It's one thing to trade guys like Garcia or Udrih, or to trade overpaid guys (Jermaine O'Neal), or to trade top players who have no role to play in the club's future (Ray Allen), or to trade guys who need to be moved in order to facilitate rebuilding (Garnett) ....

But it's a whole other kettle of fish to trade someone like Kevin Martin (in a salary dump). That takes an insane amount of desperation ... and even then, it's just plain stupid.

Still, it's possible Sacramento end up in a worse place and do make that trade. I don't think it's something you could rule out.

[Who]

But given what they are going through financially, it might be a huge bonanza for them getting out from under Martin's future salary and in my original trade, that of Nocioni, too. It's one of the reasons I had Nocioni in my original trade.

The Nocioni trade is better for them but I don't think it starts making sense until Udrih and Garcia are also included on top of Nocioni ... and even then I'd need to see more young talent, or future draft picks or better future draft picks, to call it a worthwhile trade for Sacramento.

[nickagneta]

But given what they are going through financially, it might be a huge bonanza for them getting out from under Martin's future salary and in my original trade, that of Nocioni, too. It's one of the reasons I had Nocioni in my original trade.

The Nocioni trade is better for them but I don't think it starts making sense until Udrih and Garcia are also included on top of Nocioni ... and even then I'd need to see more young talent, or future draft picks or better future draft picks, to call it a worthwhile trade for Sacramento.

Yeah, I think picks would definitely have to go Sactown's way and maybe even some millions for them to use for operating capital. I think they are a lot worse off financially than they are admitting publicly and there are some NoCal papers that have been publishing some pretty doomsday type articles concerning the Kings future in Sacramento and under the Maloofs.

Apparently their production companies are in tough shape, Vegas is hurting big, and now California voters are going conservative crazy when it comes to tax payers picking up the tab anymore. Their proposal for a tax increase to help offset new building plans has been squashed and it doesn't look good that they will get any public money for a new building anywhere in California in the future.

[dlpin]

Here is the thing: if a team is willing to trade young players with reasonable contracts in order to get salary relief, why would they go for Allen and not, say, Jermaine Oneal, or Tmac, or Shaq, or Ben Wallace? All teams with either better draft picks or better young prospects to offer?

A trade being reasonable is different from a trade being the best offer a team can get.

If Kevin Martin was available like that (which I significantly doubt), why would Sacramento go for Ray Allen and not, say, Ben Wallace plus Delonte West (who is an excellent value at 4 mill)? Or Jermaine Oneal plus Mario Chalmers? Or Tmac and a pick or Carl Landry? The fact is that we have neither young prospects we are willing to trade nor valuable draft picks.

[Who]

The problem with the Kings is that dumping Martin gives them no financial relief. Even with Martin on the books, they're about $10mil below the minimum salary cap (75% of the actual cap) in 2010. So they're paying that money one way or another.

The only financial gains they could make are immediate ones, in the 2009/10 season, but for that they'd need to send Martin to a team below the cap.

[Who]

Ray Allen vs other expiring contracts:

(1) If the team wants to win now, in the 2009/10 season, while also cutting their salary going forward ... then Ray Allen has a much larger trade value than other expiring contracts.

(2) If the team doesn't care about it's record in 2009/10, then Ray Allen has no more trade value than any other expiring contract.

[dlpin]

Ray Allen vs other expiring contracts:

(1) If the team wants to win now, in the 2009/10 season, while also cutting their salary going forward ... then Ray Allen has a much larger trade value than other expiring contracts.

(2) If the team doesn't care about it's record in 2009/10, then Ray Allen has no more trade value than any other expiring contract.

Regarding #1: which team is a current title contender that also wants to dump good players to cut salary? I can't think of any, and even if there was one, I don't see any team which wants to win now parting with good players. A team that wants to win now will at most dump prospects and draft picks.

And even in that case, Shaq is still productive, Tmac is still productive.

[Who]

Ray Allen vs other expiring contracts:

(1) If the team wants to win now, in the 2009/10 season, while also cutting their salary going forward ... then Ray Allen has a much larger trade value than other expiring contracts.

(2) If the team doesn't care about it's record in 2009/10, then Ray Allen has no more trade value than any other expiring contract.

Regarding #1: which team is a current title contender that also wants to dump good players to cut salary? I can't think of any, and even if there was one, I don't see any team which wants to win now parting with good players. A team that wants to win now will at most dump prospects and draft picks.

And even in that case, Shaq is still productive, Tmac is still productive.

(1) McGrady doesn't have trade value until he proves his health, and proves he can regain his previous level of performance. Shaq does though, absolutely, he's coming off a very good season. Jermaine O'Neal is a guy who has some trade value as a player, but a lot less than Ray would have.

(2) It's not solely contenders. It can be playoff teams in general, and also a team like NY who is trying to win now without effecting their 2010 money. Milwaukee is another type of team, a team who may want to cut their long term money (say Michael Redd), but are trying to be as competitive as possible at the same time.

That's four types of teams -- contenders, some playoff teams, 2010 orientated teams, and teams looking to cut costs while remaining competitive -- not just contenders.

(3) It is a limited market (both because of the teams, and the level of talent needed in return to make it worthwhile) and there may be nothing worthwhile there. There's no guarantee that there will be quality offers there. After Danny Ainge explores the trade market, there's a high likelihood that there's nothing there.

(4) Most of the Ray Allen trade ideas will be possibilities rather than certainties, teams which may consider it -- like the Josh Howard and Dallas or the Martin and Sacramento idea above -- I think there will be very few ones that you look at and say that will definitely be on the table.

[nickagneta]

Ray Allen vs other expiring contracts:

(1) If the team wants to win now, in the 2009/10 season, while also cutting their salary going forward ... then Ray Allen has a much larger trade value than other expiring contracts.

(2) If the team doesn't care about it's record in 2009/10, then Ray Allen has no more trade value than any other expiring contract.

Regarding #1: which team is a current title contender that also wants to dump good players to cut salary? I can't think of any, and even if there was one, I don't see any team which wants to win now parting with good players. A team that wants to win now will at most dump prospects and draft picks.

And even in that case, Shaq is still productive, Tmac is still productive.

(1) McGrady doesn't have trade value until he proves his health, and proves he can regain his previous level of performance. Shaq does though, absolutely, he's coming off a very good season. Jermaine O'Neal is a guy who has some trade value as a player, but a lot less than Ray would have.

(2) It's not solely contenders. It can be playoff teams in general, and also a team like NY who is trying to win now without effecting their 2010 money. Milwaukee is another type of team, a team who may want to cut their long term money (say Michael Redd), but are trying to be as competitive as possible at the same time.

That's four types of teams -- contenders, some playoff teams, 2010 orientated teams, and teams looking to cut costs while remaining competitive -- not just contenders.

(3) It is a limited market (both because of the teams, and the level of talent needed in return to make it worthwhile) and there may be nothing worthwhile there. There's no guarantee that there will be quality offers there. After Danny Ainge explores the trade market, there's a high likelihood that there's nothing there.

(4) Most of the Ray Allen trade ideas will be possibilities rather than certainties, teams which may consider it -- like the Josh Howard and Dallas or the Martin and Sacramento idea above -- I think there will be very few ones that you look at and say that will definitely be on the table.

And I think a type of team that you neglected to add is a team that has serious financial problems who might need to dump long term contracts due specifically to those financial concerns. Sacramento and Atlanta and maybe New Orleans fit that bill where because of ownership concerns, financial stability of the ownership or the possibility of ownership sale teams might want to dump as much long term contractual obligations as possible and get salary as low as possible.

That's where Ray becomes more important as an expiring $20 million and less so as a player. Only Shaq has a contract that is bigger that is expiring at the end of next year. Given that no one knows for sure just how bad off Sactown, New Orleans and Atlanta might be, my trade proposal is based primarily on the Maloofs having bigger fiscal problems than they are letting on.

The Sacramento Bee and a couple northern California newspapers have run articles that have been quoting sources as saying that the Maloofs are listening to offers to sell and/or move the team. California just voted down 4 propositions where tax payers were going to be taxed more to make way for more government spending. The Maloofs bill looking for public money to build a new arena has crashed and burned. They are in a tiny market and horrible building. And their production companies and Vegas in general, where they own a casino, is hurting.

They might need to make the franchise much more enticing to buy or move by getting out from under long term contracts and give themselves or some other ownership as much future financial flexibility as possible. Hence, my trade proposal.