financial constraints and S&T

[Cman]

I've got to believe that the owners are operating under financial constraints because of (a) the economy and (b) the fact that the Cs already have one of the highest team salaries. 

It seems to me that the only realistic way to add depth without going significantly above the current team salary is by trading Ray Allen.

- Along these lines, there is an option that has been little discussed on this board, and that is going after one of the big name FAs via sign and trade with Ray Allen's contract.

-- For *illustration* purposes: S&T with Toronto that sends Ray Allen to Toronto in exchange for Shawn Marion (signed to $10/yr for 3 yrs) + Reggie Evans + Marcus Banks.
-Why for Cs? get a top tier talent (Marion) plus two bench players in positions of need.
-Why for Toronto? Clear cap space (Evans and Banks still have a couple years remaining) for next summer when Toronto hopes to lure someone good to play alongside Bosh...

- Just to be clear, the point of the post is not the suggested trade above, which was for illustration purposes only (in fact, I wouldn't do the trade if I were Boston).  The point of the post is to think seriously about financial constraints and ways the Cs might improve while not adding much to the team salary.

[ssspence]

i believe s&t's can't be packaged. so it would have to be ray (and whoever) for one guy.

[Cman]

i believe s&t's can't be packaged. so it would have to be ray (and whoever) for one guy.

I don't believe that is correct.  Recall the Antoine Walker S&T with Miami was a five team, 13 player deal.  Celts got back two players, a trade exemption and the rights to another player.

[wdleehi]

If the Celtics are willing to use the MLE (like they have seem to be saying), then this is unnecissary.

[ssspence]

i believe s&t's can't be packaged. so it would have to be ray (and whoever) for one guy.

I don't believe that is correct.  Recall the Antoine Walker S&T with Miami was a five team, 13 player deal.  Celts got back two players, a trade exemption and the rights to another player.

but he was the only guy traded from the Celts. that's my point. i could be wrong, but i believe we couldn't package glen davis with say giddens in a s&t. likewise, if you want to s&t for marion, he can't be packaged with other raptors.

[paintitgreen]

I think you can do that, but somebody with more CBA knowledge will have to weigh in.

As for that trade - yuck. Shawn Marion is not a top tier talent. And who's your shooting guard? If we trade Ray, it'd better be for somebody a hell of a lot better than Shawn Marion. 

[Cman]

i believe s&t's can't be packaged. so it would have to be ray (and whoever) for one guy.

I don't believe that is correct.  Recall the Antoine Walker S&T with Miami was a five team, 13 player deal.  Celts got back two players, a trade exemption and the rights to another player.

but he was the only guy traded from the Celts. that's my point. i could be wrong, but i believe we couldn't package glen davis with say giddens in a s&t. likewise, if you want to s&t for marion, he can't be packaged with other raptors.

Good question. 

By my reading (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm -- see #87) it is okay to do a S&T with multiple players from either team. 

An example given is the Pau Gasol trade in which the Lakers did a S&T with Aaron McKie and included him along with Kwame Brown and J. Crittenton for Pau Gasol.

[Roy Hobbs]

i believe s&t's can't be packaged. so it would have to be ray (and whoever) for one guy.

S & T's can be packaged; we signed, traded, and packaged Chris Mihm with Chucky Atkins (and originally Marcus Banks) for Gary Payton.

[Cman]

As for that trade - yuck. Shawn Marion is not a top tier talent. And who's your shooting guard? If we trade Ray, it'd better be for somebody a hell of a lot better than Shawn Marion. 

Please see below.

Just to be clear, the point of the post is not the suggested trade above, which was for illustration purposes only (in fact, I wouldn't do the trade if I were Boston).  The point of the post is to think seriously about financial constraints and ways the Cs might improve while not adding much to the team salary.

Let me try another: Ray Allen + Scal + TA to Houston for TMac + Ron Artest (S&T).  Again, not sure I would do it.  I guess the problem is that Ray's contract is so big it is hard to find workable deals.... but the whole point of this exercise was to raise the possibility.

[Michael Anthony]

What about Varejao?

[PosImpos]

What about Varejao?

How about not?

[paintitgreen]

As for that trade - yuck. Shawn Marion is not a top tier talent. And who's your shooting guard? If we trade Ray, it'd better be for somebody a hell of a lot better than Shawn Marion. 

Please see below.

Just to be clear, the point of the post is not the suggested trade above, which was for illustration purposes only (in fact, I wouldn't do the trade if I were Boston).  The point of the post is to think seriously about financial constraints and ways the Cs might improve while not adding much to the team salary.

Let me try another: Ray Allen + Scal + TA to Houston for TMac + Ron Artest (S&T).  Again, not sure I would do it.  I guess the problem is that Ray's contract is so big it is hard to find workable deals.... but the whole point of this exercise was to raise the possibility.

I get you now, sorry I missed that part (though you still called him a "top tier talent" and I stand by disagreeing with that).

As for the last part, I don't think the problem is that Ray's contract is so big. The problem with trading Ray, to me, is that he's not just a big expiring contract like Zydrunas Ilgauskas or Ben Wallace or Jermaine O'Neal or Larry Hughes. He's a big expiring contract who's an All Star and essential starter on one of the five best teams in the NBA, so we have to replace the value he gives us. But he doesn't give the same value to most other teams because they're not going to be competitive in the short term so what do they need with Ray Allen?

For another team to give up a max player who's better than Ray (and if you're giving up Ray, don't you want to get better in return?), they want some young piece of value in return. I don't think Vince is better than Ray, but New Jersey wanted some young piece - Courtney Lee - in addition to expiring contracts. So they would've wanted Ray and somebody like Perk to give up Carter. We're already giving up a key starter whose production we have to replace - we don't want to give up anything else.

For example, Milwaukee's in rebuilding mode. Let's say they're willing to give up Michael Redd. Getting Ray back for them is just about expiring money. Not only will they want you to take on another contract (Redd has a player option next summer and expires in 2011 anyway so it's not a ton of savings) like Gadzuric ($14 mil for the next two years) but they want a good prospect for their younger (though turning 30 this summer) All Star caliber shooting guard. Given that Redd might replace Ray's stats, but also might be injured for the entire season, and we add on a whole bunch of salary in Gadzuric, why would we give up a guy like Perk (which is what I bet Milwaukee would want) too? We downgrade at center and are rolling the dice at 2 guard and paying a whole bunch of money to do it. Why?

Most reasonable trades involving Ray unfold along those lines. To make it attractive to the other team, we have to give them young talent. Our young talent consists solely of Perk and Rondo. So we'd have to get back enough to replace two starters, and other teams are not giving up that kind of quality for a package that is, in their eyes, one young non-All Star player and expiring money. It just doesn't work out.

That's why the most logical thing to do with Ray, to me, is to find out if he'd take a 2 or 3 year deal at about $10 mil a year. If he would (and I think that's a fair price) then you get 2-3 more good years out of Ray, then in the summer of 2011 or 2012, he's a $10.5-11 mil expiring contract to be included in a trade but at that point, you're not trying to replace his production anymore. You're only using him for salary space.

I understand the whole trade him while he still has more playing value argument, but let's face the facts. Right now, this is a league with about 6 teams willing to pay for talent (Bos, Cle, Orl, LAL, SA, Dal). There are another half dozen or so teams that are looking to improve, but not giving away assets (Den, Hou, Wash, Det, Port, Atl, Uta) and a whole bunch of teams just selling. To those selling teams, they're not looking to be competitive in the next 2-3 years, so to them, Ray Allen is just expiring money and they want some young assets. We're not gonna deal Ray to one of the 5 other buyer teams, so it really comes down to those half dozen or so neutral teams who might give you value for him. But they're certainly not handing away players for financial reasons (i.e., Detroit laughing off Ray and Rondo for Stuckey, Rip, Prince, even when that arguably doesn't help us).

[Jon]

As for that trade - yuck. Shawn Marion is not a top tier talent. And who's your shooting guard? If we trade Ray, it'd better be for somebody a hell of a lot better than Shawn Marion. 

Please see below.

Just to be clear, the point of the post is not the suggested trade above, which was for illustration purposes only (in fact, I wouldn't do the trade if I were Boston).  The point of the post is to think seriously about financial constraints and ways the Cs might improve while not adding much to the team salary.

Let me try another: Ray Allen + Scal + TA to Houston for TMac + Ron Artest (S&T).  Again, not sure I would do it.  I guess the problem is that Ray's contract is so big it is hard to find workable deals.... but the whole point of this exercise was to raise the possibility.

I get you now, sorry I missed that part (though you still called him a "top tier talent" and I stand by disagreeing with that).

As for the last part, I don't think the problem is that Ray's contract is so big. The problem with trading Ray, to me, is that he's not just a big expiring contract like Zydrunas Ilgauskas or Ben Wallace or Jermaine O'Neal or Larry Hughes. He's a big expiring contract who's an All Star and essential starter on one of the five best teams in the NBA, so we have to replace the value he gives us. But he doesn't give the same value to most other teams because they're not going to be competitive in the short term so what do they need with Ray Allen?

For another team to give up a max player who's better than Ray (and if you're giving up Ray, don't you want to get better in return?), they want some young piece of value in return. I don't think Vince is better than Ray, but New Jersey wanted some young piece - Courtney Lee - in addition to expiring contracts. So they would've wanted Ray and somebody like Perk to give up Carter. We're already giving up a key starter whose production we have to replace - we don't want to give up anything else.

For example, Milwaukee's in rebuilding mode. Let's say they're willing to give up Michael Redd. Getting Ray back for them is just about expiring money. Not only will they want you to take on another contract (Redd has a player option next summer and expires in 2011 anyway so it's not a ton of savings) like Gadzuric ($14 mil for the next two years) but they want a good prospect for their younger (though turning 30 this summer) All Star caliber shooting guard. Given that Redd might replace Ray's stats, but also might be injured for the entire season, and we add on a whole bunch of salary in Gadzuric, why would we give up a guy like Perk (which is what I bet Milwaukee would want) too? We downgrade at center and are rolling the dice at 2 guard and paying a whole bunch of money to do it. Why?

Most reasonable trades involving Ray unfold along those lines. To make it attractive to the other team, we have to give them young talent. Our young talent consists solely of Perk and Rondo. So we'd have to get back enough to replace two starters, and other teams are not giving up that kind of quality for a package that is, in their eyes, one young non-All Star player and expiring money. It just doesn't work out.

That's why the most logical thing to do with Ray, to me, is to find out if he'd take a 2 or 3 year deal at about $10 mil a year. If he would (and I think that's a fair price) then you get 2-3 more good years out of Ray, then in the summer of 2011 or 2012, he's a $10.5-11 mil expiring contract to be included in a trade but at that point, you're not trying to replace his production anymore. You're only using him for salary space.

I understand the whole trade him while he still has more playing value argument, but let's face the facts. Right now, this is a league with about 6 teams willing to pay for talent (Bos, Cle, Orl, LAL, SA, Dal). There are another half dozen or so teams that are looking to improve, but not giving away assets (Den, Hou, Wash, Det, Port, Atl, Uta) and a whole bunch of teams just selling. To those selling teams, they're not looking to be competitive in the next 2-3 years, so to them, Ray Allen is just expiring money and they want some young assets. We're not gonna deal Ray to one of the 5 other buyer teams, so it really comes down to those half dozen or so neutral teams who might give you value for him. But they're certainly not handing away players for financial reasons (i.e., Detroit laughing off Ray and Rondo for Stuckey, Rip, Prince, even when that arguably doesn't help us).

I agree.  I just don't think we're going to get fair value for Ray and still stay competitive.  I also love the idea of extending him two years.  Personally, I'd like to see KG, PP, and Ray all expire at the same time (2 year extension for Ray, 1 year for Paul).  That way, come the the 2011-2012 the C's will have a ton of options.  They'll either have 3 large expiring contracts to trade away before or during the season if they see fit OR they will be able (if they're careful with the length of contracts they give everyone else on the roster), be able to pretty much just have Rondo and Perk on the roster with 30+ million worth of cap space. 

I think that idea keeps us competitive now and gives us an excellent chance to restock scorers around Rondo and Perk soon after the Big Three retire. 

[Cman]

For another team to give up a max player who's better than Ray (and if you're giving up Ray, don't you want to get better in return?), they want some young piece of value in return.

TP for a long but well argued post. 

I don't think we disagree about much.  In an ideal world, yes I would love to (1) extend Ray's contract (2) bring in more players who really complement the existing core and extend the window and (3) trade Ray only if the Cs get more value in return. 

The issue is that we need to consider the possibility that the Cs are limited financially in terms of what they can do.  In other words, consider the possibility that the Cs won't dip much into the MLE to bring a FA aboard.  Will they or won't they?  I don't know, and no one on here knows, nor will we until all is said and done with the summer's FA crop.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the Cs cannot use the MLE.  Okay, now how do we improve the team? 
(1) We could sign players to the vet min (ie: let's start debating Doleac vs. Rasho)
(2) We could try to package TA+Scals for a player on another team
(3) We could try to package Ray for a player or players on another team.

I think seriously considering (1)-(3) is worthwhile from a fan's perspective (I have no doubt management spends a lot of time on this) because it is a way to manage expectations and because I think it more closely approximates reality.

EDIT:  Of course, I would love it if it turns out management is willing and able to dip into MLE and can split it between Zaza Pachulia and A. Parker/ G. Hill. 

[Jon]

For another team to give up a max player who's better than Ray (and if you're giving up Ray, don't you want to get better in return?), they want some young piece of value in return.

TP for a long but well argued post. 

I don't think we disagree about much.  In an ideal world, yes I would love to (1) extend Ray's contract (2) bring in more players who really complement the existing core and extend the window and (3) trade Ray only if the Cs get more value in return. 

The issue is that we need to consider the possibility that the Cs are limited financially in terms of what they can do.  In other words, consider the possibility that the Cs won't dip much into the MLE to bring a FA aboard.  Will they or won't they?  I don't know, and no one on here knows, nor will we until all is said and done with the summer's FA crop.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the Cs cannot use the MLE.  Okay, now how do we improve the team? 
(1) We could sign players to the vet min (ie: let's start debating Doleac vs. Rasho)
(2) We could try to package TA+Scals for a player on another team
(3) We could try to package Ray for a player or players on another team.

I think seriously considering (1)-(3) is worthwhile from a fan's perspective (I have no doubt management spends a lot of time on this) because it is a way to manage expectations and because I think it more closely approximates reality.

EDIT:  Of course, I would love it if it turns out management is willing and able to dip into MLE and can split it between Zaza Pachulia and A. Parker/ G. Hill. 

Assuming that the C's can't get quality free agents, whether it's due to money or simply no one wanting to come here, one solution that hasn't been talked about much is simply regulating the starters minutes in the regular season, even if it's at the cost of some Ws. 

For all the talk we've been having about a bench, when it really comes down to it in the playoffs, all the starters are probably going to play close to 40 minutes anyway.  So in terms of talent, we're talking about a whopping 40 out of 240 minutes in a game (48 X 5) for these bench players.  Their real value is going to be in the regular season in allowing Doc to rest the starters so that they're ready to play big minutes in the playoffs. 

But what if we don't have a good bench and we still limit all the starters to 32 mpg next season? 

Even if we're looking at a stellar backup rotation of House, Giddens, Walker, Scal, and a random 7-footer, we're still going to win at least 55 games and get (at worst) the 3 seed. 

And if the starters are are well-rested, the 3 seed, and can play 40 mpg come playoff time on fresh legs, is it really going to kill us if our bench is subpar? 

A little, but maybe not as dramatically as we might think.