How can the Celtics improve - we have no one to trade and no cap space?

[Roy Hobbs]

I agree about the timing. That's exactly why I wouldn't wait on a decision by Davis. I'd immediately offer McDyess a contract and make him my first big off the bench; then I'd contact a good wing backup (e.g. Hill) and I'd go from there.

I 100% agree.

[nickagneta]

Here's the thing about the timing issue. We all agree they have to act fast but in a buyer's market where very few teams will offer more than the MLE, maybe the agents for the free agents wait looking for the big offer.

I agree acting fast is the way to go but the atmosphere might make it play out differently at which point the Baby situation becomes much stickier.

[Roy Hobbs]

See I think we are nuts to just let Baby go. If he signs for more than what we want elsewhere I think Danny needs to play a game of Chicken with that team and try to force a sign and trade.  It's a great way to fill a hole elsewhere. Of course, the caveat there is that he has to be willing to match that offer.

Base Year Compensation rules make it pretty tough to pull off a sign and trade for BBD.  For instance, if BBD signs for $4.0 million in his first year, there is *no* 1-for-1 trade that could be made for him under BYC rules.  There may be some wiggle room by including a minimum salary player, but there's not much.

By example: 

Let's say BBD signs for $4 million in the first year, and we want to trade him to Chicago (just chosen randomly).

For BYC purposes, BBD's salary counts as a $2 million salary going to Chicago.  To fit within trade rules, the most salary Chicago can send us is 125% of that amount, plus $100k.  That amounts to $2.6 million.

Does that mean we can acquire a player making $2.6 million, then?  No.  The trade has to work from our end, too, and from our end, we have to count BBD's entire $4 million salary.  The absolute least amount we could trade a $4 million salary for is $3.12 million.  As you see, that's still more than the $2.6 million Chicago can send out.

Now, one way around this would be to include a minimum salary player, because minimum salary players don't have to be counted as incoming salary in a trade.  However, as you can see, it's fairly complicated (and I probably made it even more so with a confusing explanation).

[nickagneta]

See I think we are nuts to just let Baby go. If he signs for more than what we want elsewhere I think Danny needs to play a game of Chicken with that team and try to force a sign and trade.  It's a great way to fill a hole elsewhere. Of course, the caveat there is that he has to be willing to match that offer.

Base Year Compensation rules make it pretty tough to pull off a sign and trade for BBD.  For instance, if BBD signs for $4.0 million in his first year, there is *no* 1-for-1 trade that could be made for him under BYC rules.  There may be some wiggle room by including a minimum salary player, but there's not much.

By example: 

Let's say BBD signs for $4 million in the first year, and we want to trade him to Chicago (just chosen randomly).

For BYC purposes, BBD's salary counts as a $2 million salary going to Chicago.  To fit within trade rules, the most salary Chicago can send us is 125% of that amount, plus $100k.  That amounts to $2.6 million.

Does that mean we can acquire a player making $2.6 million, then?  No.  The trade has to work from our end, too, and from our end, we have to count BBD's entire $4 million salary.  The absolute least amount we could trade a $4 million salary for is $3.12 million.  As you see, that's still more than the $2.6 million Chicago can send out.

Now, one way around this would be to include a minimum salary player, because minimum salary players don't have to be counted as incoming salary in a trade.  However, as you can see, it's fairly complicated (and I probably made it even more so with a confusing explanation).

That's more confusing than a Red Lobster analogy.

So basically a sign and trade for Baby needs to include more players so that you can bridge the gap between the two incoming and outgoing salaries.

Example we sign and trade baby at $4 million but he counts for $2 million. If we include Scal and Tony so that's $7.9 going out but we have to bring in 125% - $100,000 minimum of $9.9 million Or $7.9 million.

Is that right?

[Chris]

See I think we are nuts to just let Baby go. If he signs for more than what we want elsewhere I think Danny needs to play a game of Chicken with that team and try to force a sign and trade.  It's a great way to fill a hole elsewhere. Of course, the caveat there is that he has to be willing to match that offer.

Base Year Compensation rules make it pretty tough to pull off a sign and trade for BBD.  For instance, if BBD signs for $4.0 million in his first year, there is *no* 1-for-1 trade that could be made for him under BYC rules.  There may be some wiggle room by including a minimum salary player, but there's not much.

By example: 

Let's say BBD signs for $4 million in the first year, and we want to trade him to Chicago (just chosen randomly).

For BYC purposes, BBD's salary counts as a $2 million salary going to Chicago.  To fit within trade rules, the most salary Chicago can send us is 125% of that amount, plus $100k.  That amounts to $2.6 million.

Does that mean we can acquire a player making $2.6 million, then?  No.  The trade has to work from our end, too, and from our end, we have to count BBD's entire $4 million salary.  The absolute least amount we could trade a $4 million salary for is $3.12 million.  As you see, that's still more than the $2.6 million Chicago can send out.

Now, one way around this would be to include a minimum salary player, because minimum salary players don't have to be counted as incoming salary in a trade.  However, as you can see, it's fairly complicated (and I probably made it even more so with a confusing explanation).

That's more confusing than a Red Lobster analogy.

So basically a sign and trade for Baby needs to include more players so that you can bridge the gap between the two incoming and outgoing salaries.

Example we sign and trade baby at $4 million but he counts for $2 million. If we include Scal and Tony so that's $7.9 going out but we have to bring in 125% - $100,000 minimum of $9.9 million Or $7.9 million.

Is that right?

So essentially, with those numbers, the C's could bring in a contract(s) worth between 7.325 million and 9.975 million.  I think that's right, based on how I understand it.

[nickagneta]

I think in that example the Celtics would have to bring in salaries that would be no higher or lower than $7.9 million. I think that would be the perfect balancing point for minimum amount C's would have to include going out and for them to have coming in, if I understand Roy.

[nickagneta]

I think it's time for Salary Cap Situations and FAQ: 2009 Edition

Roy...

You there Roy....

Ummmm Roy.....

Sorry, Roy I know it's a lot easier to say it than to do it. That thread must take hours and hours.

[Roy Hobbs]

I think it's time for Salary Cap Situations and FAQ: 2009 Edition

Roy...

You there Roy....

Ummmm Roy.....

Sorry, Roy I know it's a lot easier to say it than to do it. That thread must take hours and hours.

I'm working on it.  The tough part is that it's hard to write without having the actual salary cap / luxury tax / MLE numbers.  However, it's in the process of being written, and questions such as the above (related to BYC and sign-and-trades) will be on there.

[angryguy77]

I think it's time for Salary Cap Situations and FAQ: 2009 Edition

Roy...

You there Roy....

Ummmm Roy.....

Sorry, Roy I know it's a lot easier to say it than to do it. That thread must take hours and hours.

I'm working on it.  The tough part is that it's hard to write without having the actual salary cap / luxury tax / MLE numbers.  However, it's in the process of being written, and questions such as the above (related to BYC and sign-and-trades) will be on there.

Just make them up, we wont know the differenc

[boscel33]

I think the improvments will come from within.  Like many of us do with the Pats Commander in Chief (BB), I have faith in Danny's ability to draft.  He has done very well in the late 1st and 2nd rounds getting talent.  I was one of the few who liked him trading up to get Rondo years back.  This year, it comes down to Giddens and Walker.  We all know the talent is there for Walker (when healthy).  The question is Giddens?  I think we could have something there.  He's a 6'5" SG who in the last year of college, raised his shooting percentage. he can shoot the three, rebounds OK, and can fly (lost a dunk contest to Lebron).

I say, the improvements will be the maturation of both of these players along with an MLE guy.

[gar]

I agree about the timing. That's exactly why I wouldn't wait on a decision by Davis. I'd immediately offer McDyess a contract and make him my first big off the bench; then I'd contact a good wing backup (e.g. Hill) and I'd go from there.

Agreed.  The C's need to move quickly this offseason, and be aggressive.  They can wait Davis out, and let him test the market. 

I am sure they will put the word out that they are willing to match offers, whether it is true or not, hoping that teams will shy away from giving him an offer sheet, and possibly pushing them to engage the C's in sign and trade talks, but there is absolutely no reason for them to wait to do anything else until they deal with Davis.  This is very different than the Posey situation, since they needed to use the MLE to sign him.  Since Baby has early bird rights, the C's can wait him out, and use the MLE elsewhere (which may also put them in a better negotiating position, if they get someone like McDyess or Sheed).

Unfortunately Danny said in an interview lately that he was going to focus on the draft and then see how things shale out from there. Makes no sense to me; but that is what he said.

[nickagneta]

I think the improvments will come from within.  Like many of us do with the Pats Commander in Chief (BB), I have faith in Danny's ability to draft.  He has done very well in the late 1st and 2nd rounds getting talent.  I was one of the few who liked him trading up to get Rondo years back.  This year, it comes down to Giddens and Walker.  We all know the talent is there for Walker (when healthy).  The question is Giddens?  I think we could have something there.  He's a 6'5" SG who in the last year of college, raised his shooting percentage. he can shoot the three, rebounds OK, and can fly (lost a dunk contest to Lebron).

I say, the improvements will be the maturation of both of these players along with an MLE guy.

The problem with Giddens might not be his skills or physical attributes. He just might not have it where having it is most important, the brain.

I guess we will find out next year.

[Chris]

I agree about the timing. That's exactly why I wouldn't wait on a decision by Davis. I'd immediately offer McDyess a contract and make him my first big off the bench; then I'd contact a good wing backup (e.g. Hill) and I'd go from there.

Agreed.  The C's need to move quickly this offseason, and be aggressive.  They can wait Davis out, and let him test the market. 

I am sure they will put the word out that they are willing to match offers, whether it is true or not, hoping that teams will shy away from giving him an offer sheet, and possibly pushing them to engage the C's in sign and trade talks, but there is absolutely no reason for them to wait to do anything else until they deal with Davis.  This is very different than the Posey situation, since they needed to use the MLE to sign him.  Since Baby has early bird rights, the C's can wait him out, and use the MLE elsewhere (which may also put them in a better negotiating position, if they get someone like McDyess or Sheed).

Unfortunately Danny said in an interview lately that he was going to focus on the draft and then see how things shale out from there. Makes no sense to me; but that is what he said.

Of course he is.  The Draft is on June 25th, and Free Agency doesn't start until July I believe. 

The Draft will not stand in the way of Free Agency.

[cordobes]

I agree about the timing. That's exactly why I wouldn't wait on a decision by Davis. I'd immediately offer McDyess a contract and make him my first big off the bench; then I'd contact a good wing backup (e.g. Hill) and I'd go from there.

Agreed.  The C's need to move quickly this offseason, and be aggressive.  They can wait Davis out, and let him test the market. 

I am sure they will put the word out that they are willing to match offers, whether it is true or not, hoping that teams will shy away from giving him an offer sheet, and possibly pushing them to engage the C's in sign and trade talks, but there is absolutely no reason for them to wait to do anything else until they deal with Davis.  This is very different than the Posey situation, since they needed to use the MLE to sign him.  Since Baby has early bird rights, the C's can wait him out, and use the MLE elsewhere (which may also put them in a better negotiating position, if they get someone like McDyess or Sheed).

Unfortunately Danny said in an interview lately that he was going to focus on the draft and then see how things shale out from there. Makes no sense to me; but that is what he said.

Don't take him so literally. The draft is in June and the free-agency season only starts in July, that's basically what he's saying.

edit: oh, Chris said it first.

[gar]

I guess I was surprised that he seemed so focused on the draft. Perhaps he was blowing off the question with a pat answer; but still surprised that he did not acknowledge other options more prominently.