Antonio Daniels on the block???

[laverdad34]

VIA HOOPSWORLD:

"The New Orleans' Hornets may have one more move to make before training camps open in three weeks.

Sitting at roughly $74.9 million in salary commitments, the Hornets seem open to another cash clearing deal. Last month the team liquidated Rasual Butler and his $3.9 million contract, now it seems that Antonio Daniels and his ending $6.6 million contract could be next."

I really like his game. I think he'll be a upgrade for our bench, what do you think?

[JSD]

VIA HOOPSWORLD:

"The New Orleans' Hornets may have one more move to make before training camps open in three weeks.

Sitting at roughly $74.9 million in salary commitments, the Hornets seem open to another cash clearing deal. Last month the team liquidated Rasual Butler and his $3.9 million contract, now it seems that Antonio Daniels and his ending $6.6 million contract could be next."

I really like his game. I think he'll be a upgrade for our bench, what do you think?

I think the Hornets will look for another team to take on Daniels salary and when that doesn't work just buy him out. The Celtics could offer a deal like this: http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=31674.msg576735;topicseen#new but when your asking a player to take a pay-cut you never know.

He would be a great option at backup though.

[Who]

I don't think he's good enough to be an NBA player anymore.

A disgraceful defender, poor shooter ... and only a solid passer + floor general which doesn't come close to making up for his negatives

[Cman]

Apparently Matt Harpring is thinking about retiring.  Can he do something similar to what Derek Fisher did and just agree to leave the team and the contract behind?  If so, then I could see a Daniels for Harpring deal -- it would save NOH a lot of $$$, and Utah could send Eric Maynor to the D-League for a year, use Daniels off the bench.

[Jon]

But what would Boston really offer that they'd take?  If it was Scal and TA, why would they really want to trade an expiring contract for expiring contracts.  Maybe we could sweeten it with a pick, but how valuable are a contender's picks? 

Maybe Walker or Giddens could sweeten the pot, but I question how much value they have too.

[nickagneta]

But what would Boston really offer that they'd take?  If it was Scal and TA, why would they really want to trade an expiring contract for expiring contracts.  Maybe we could sweeten it with a pick, but how valuable are a contender's picks? 

Maybe Walker or Giddens could sweeten the pot, but I question how much value they have too.

The point of any trade with Daniels and New Orleans has nothing to do with expiring for expiring. It has to do with getting salary off the books. In the above referenced trade where Boston sends Scal and Tony and $1MM to NO for Daniels the deal right off the bat cuts over $700,000 off the Hornets books. If with the $1MM they buy out Scal, that gets and $3.4 million off their books while at the same time costing them nothing because the Celtics sent them the million. That gets them a total savings of $4.1 million or so which is in the ballpark they have to get under so they can avoid the luxury tax payments and become eligible for the tax payment redistribution from the league which means millions of incoming capital.

[revcummings]

But what would Boston really offer that they'd take?  If it was Scal and TA, why would they really want to trade an expiring contract for expiring contracts.  Maybe we could sweeten it with a pick, but how valuable are a contender's picks? 

Maybe Walker or Giddens could sweeten the pot, but I question how much value they have too.

The point of any trade with Daniels and New Orleans has nothing to do with expiring for expiring. It has to do with getting salary off the books. In the above referenced trade where Boston sends Scal and Tony and $1MM to NO for Daniels the deal right off the bat cuts over $700,000 off the Hornets books. If with the $1MM they buy out Scal, that gets and $3.4 million off their books while at the same time costing them nothing because the Celtics sent them the million. That gets them a total savings of $4.1 million or so which is in the ballpark they have to get under so they can avoid the luxury tax payments and become eligible for the tax payment redistribution from the league which means millions of incoming capital.

In return the Celtics get the vet. back up point guard, who happens to be 6'4" so he could play the two on D and allow house to play the one, and resign Scal for the min. after he is bought out! Awesome move, wish NO would do it.

That would give us a 2nd unit of House, Daniels, Daniels, Baby, and Sheed!

[hankfinkel]

But what would Boston really offer that they'd take?  If it was Scal and TA, why would they really want to trade an expiring contract for expiring contracts.  Maybe we could sweeten it with a pick, but how valuable are a contender's picks? 

Maybe Walker or Giddens could sweeten the pot, but I question how much value they have too.

The point of any trade with Daniels and New Orleans has nothing to do with expiring for expiring. It has to do with getting salary off the books. In the above referenced trade where Boston sends Scal and Tony and $1MM to NO for Daniels the deal right off the bat cuts over $700,000 off the Hornets books. If with the $1MM they buy out Scal, that gets and $3.4 million off their books while at the same time costing them nothing because the Celtics sent them the million. That gets them a total savings of $4.1 million or so which is in the ballpark they have to get under so they can avoid the luxury tax payments and become eligible for the tax payment redistribution from the league which means millions of incoming capital.

The amount a player is bought out for still counts on a team's payroll.  Scal is going to want the majority of his $3.4, if he even cuts them a deal and takes $2.5 (which would be a big cut and probably only happen if Scal knew he could get a vet min contract back in Boston or elsewhere), that money still counts on the Hornets payroll.  So in a straight trade with Boston, New Orleans is not going to save the roster money you outline.

The Boston/New Orleans works better if a third team that is under the cap can absorb at least one of the Cs outgoing salaries so it never hits the Hornets books.

[Edgar]

I like

Arroyo, House, Daniels, Sheed and BBD

undersized but
thats better than

at least 5 starting lineups in this league.

[nickagneta]

But what would Boston really offer that they'd take?  If it was Scal and TA, why would they really want to trade an expiring contract for expiring contracts.  Maybe we could sweeten it with a pick, but how valuable are a contender's picks? 

Maybe Walker or Giddens could sweeten the pot, but I question how much value they have too.

The point of any trade with Daniels and New Orleans has nothing to do with expiring for expiring. It has to do with getting salary off the books. In the above referenced trade where Boston sends Scal and Tony and $1MM to NO for Daniels the deal right off the bat cuts over $700,000 off the Hornets books. If with the $1MM they buy out Scal, that gets and $3.4 million off their books while at the same time costing them nothing because the Celtics sent them the million. That gets them a total savings of $4.1 million or so which is in the ballpark they have to get under so they can avoid the luxury tax payments and become eligible for the tax payment redistribution from the league which means millions of incoming capital.

The amount a player is bought out for still counts on a team's payroll.  Scal is going to want the majority of his $3.4, if he even cuts them a deal and takes $2.5 (which would be a big cut and probably only happen if Scal knew he could get a vet min contract back in Boston or elsewhere), that money still counts on the Hornets payroll.  So in a straight trade with Boston, New Orleans is not going to save the roster money you outline.

The Boston/New Orleans works better if a third team that is under the cap can absorb at least one of the Cs outgoing salaries so it never hits the Hornets books.

Actually neither one of us are right but I am more right than not. Per Larry Coon's Salary Cap FAQ

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

60. How do buy-outs affect a team's salary cap?

The agreed-upon buy-out amount (see question number 59) is included in the team salary instead of the salary called for in the contract. If the player had more than one season left on his contract, then the buy-out money is distributed among those seasons in proportion to the original salary. For example, say a player had three seasons remaining on his contract, with salaries of $10 million, $11 million and $12 million. The player and team agree to a buyout of $15 million. The $15 million is therefore charged to the team salary over the three seasons. Since the original contract had $33 million left to be paid, and $10 million is 30.3% of $33 million, 30.3% of the $15 million buyout, or $4.545 million, is included in the team salary in the first season following the buyout. Likewise, 33.33% of $15 million, or $5 million, is included in the team salary in the second season, and 36.36% of $15 million, or $5.455 million, is included in the team salary in the third season.

The distribution of the buy-out money is a matter of individual negotiation. Changing the number of years in which the money is paid does not change the number of years in which the team's team salary is charged. In the above example in which the player's contract is bought out with three seasons remaining, the buyout amount is always charged to the team salary over three seasons. It does not matter if the player is actually paid in a lump sum or over 20 years (a spread provision).

So under my scenario the only thing that counts for the salary cap is the amount of the buyout or $1 million. So the Hornets would save $687,000 in salary due to the difference between Daniels' salary and the combined salary of Allen and Scal and they would save $2.413 million of the money not paid to Scal due to the $1 million buyout for a total savings of $3.1 million.

Not an ideal scenario for NO. My guess is they will try to trade Daniels to someone who has a non-guaranteed contract over $4 million and another player and then just cut the non-guaranteed player to save the money. That's if they can find something like that or if someone with a big enough trade exception won't trade with them.

[hankfinkel]

But what would Boston really offer that they'd take?  If it was Scal and TA, why would they really want to trade an expiring contract for expiring contracts.  Maybe we could sweeten it with a pick, but how valuable are a contender's picks? 

Maybe Walker or Giddens could sweeten the pot, but I question how much value they have too.

The point of any trade with Daniels and New Orleans has nothing to do with expiring for expiring. It has to do with getting salary off the books. In the above referenced trade where Boston sends Scal and Tony and $1MM to NO for Daniels the deal right off the bat cuts over $700,000 off the Hornets books. If with the $1MM they buy out Scal, that gets and $3.4 million off their books while at the same time costing them nothing because the Celtics sent them the million. That gets them a total savings of $4.1 million or so which is in the ballpark they have to get under so they can avoid the luxury tax payments and become eligible for the tax payment redistribution from the league which means millions of incoming capital.

The amount a player is bought out for still counts on a team's payroll.  Scal is going to want the majority of his $3.4, if he even cuts them a deal and takes $2.5 (which would be a big cut and probably only happen if Scal knew he could get a vet min contract back in Boston or elsewhere), that money still counts on the Hornets payroll.  So in a straight trade with Boston, New Orleans is not going to save the roster money you outline.

The Boston/New Orleans works better if a third team that is under the cap can absorb at least one of the Cs outgoing salaries so it never hits the Hornets books.

Actually neither one of us are right but I am more right than not. Per Larry Coon's Salary Cap FAQ

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

60. How do buy-outs affect a team's salary cap?

The agreed-upon buy-out amount (see question number 59) is included in the team salary instead of the salary called for in the contract. If the player had more than one season left on his contract, then the buy-out money is distributed among those seasons in proportion to the original salary. For example, say a player had three seasons remaining on his contract, with salaries of $10 million, $11 million and $12 million. The player and team agree to a buyout of $15 million. The $15 million is therefore charged to the team salary over the three seasons. Since the original contract had $33 million left to be paid, and $10 million is 30.3% of $33 million, 30.3% of the $15 million buyout, or $4.545 million, is included in the team salary in the first season following the buyout. Likewise, 33.33% of $15 million, or $5 million, is included in the team salary in the second season, and 36.36% of $15 million, or $5.455 million, is included in the team salary in the third season.

The distribution of the buy-out money is a matter of individual negotiation. Changing the number of years in which the money is paid does not change the number of years in which the team's team salary is charged. In the above example in which the player's contract is bought out with three seasons remaining, the buyout amount is always charged to the team salary over three seasons. It does not matter if the player is actually paid in a lump sum or over 20 years (a spread provision).

So under my scenario the only thing that counts for the salary cap is the amount of the buyout or $1 million. So the Hornets would save $687,000 in salary due to the difference between Daniels' salary and the combined salary of Allen and Scal and they would save $2.413 million of the money not paid to Scal due to the $1 million buyout for a total savings of $3.1 million.

Not an ideal scenario for NO. My guess is they will try to trade Daniels to someone who has a non-guaranteed contract over $4 million and another player and then just cut the non-guaranteed player to save the money. That's if they can find something like that or if someone with a big enough trade exception won't trade with them.

You're only more right if Scal's head injury is worse than we thought and he actually agrees to give up $2.4M in salary.  There were 2 parts to my response:

1) Correcting the objective misunderstanding about how buyouts count against the team salary totals.

2) Contending that no way Scal only accepts $1M of his $3.4M salary for a buyout.  Why would he do that favor for a team he has no connection or loyalty to?  He might accept some buyout to play with a contender, but not that much. No player ever gives up 70% of his salary, and a player like Scal would be stupid to give up any more than the vet minimum for his length of service (probably around $1.2M), and only if he has a guaranteed signing some place else like back in Boston. Best case scenario for New Orleans is Scal takes $2.2M buyout knowing he can get vet min elsewhere, and more likely Scal let's them chop only a few hundred thousand off so he can go play with a contender.

So best case, but unlikely, scenario overall, NO saves $1.9M (the $687,000 difference and $1.2M in Scal's buyout, if Scal decides to be very kind); more likely they save about $1.1M (the $687,000 difference and $400,000 in what Scal would likely consider for a buyout). This $1M-$2M savings still leaves them well above the lux tax line and is substantially lowe than your original $4.1M or your revised $3.1.

NO does not have a lot of options here.  Most sizable contracts that had options for 2009-10, had to be decided over the summer.  There's few if any nonguaranteed deals out there, and most teams would like to just save the cash themselves.  They more likely have to hope OKC would be willing to take some salary and get money and draft picks for their trouble, as they may be the lone team under the cap enough if Iverson goes to Memphis.  Not too many teams looking to move abig trade exception either to take on a big salary.  To get under the lux tax line they may need several moves with smaller gains such as this to achieve that.

[nickagneta]

But what would Boston really offer that they'd take?  If it was Scal and TA, why would they really want to trade an expiring contract for expiring contracts.  Maybe we could sweeten it with a pick, but how valuable are a contender's picks? 

Maybe Walker or Giddens could sweeten the pot, but I question how much value they have too.

The point of any trade with Daniels and New Orleans has nothing to do with expiring for expiring. It has to do with getting salary off the books. In the above referenced trade where Boston sends Scal and Tony and $1MM to NO for Daniels the deal right off the bat cuts over $700,000 off the Hornets books. If with the $1MM they buy out Scal, that gets and $3.4 million off their books while at the same time costing them nothing because the Celtics sent them the million. That gets them a total savings of $4.1 million or so which is in the ballpark they have to get under so they can avoid the luxury tax payments and become eligible for the tax payment redistribution from the league which means millions of incoming capital.

The amount a player is bought out for still counts on a team's payroll.  Scal is going to want the majority of his $3.4, if he even cuts them a deal and takes $2.5 (which would be a big cut and probably only happen if Scal knew he could get a vet min contract back in Boston or elsewhere), that money still counts on the Hornets payroll.  So in a straight trade with Boston, New Orleans is not going to save the roster money you outline.

The Boston/New Orleans works better if a third team that is under the cap can absorb at least one of the Cs outgoing salaries so it never hits the Hornets books.

Actually neither one of us are right but I am more right than not. Per Larry Coon's Salary Cap FAQ

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

60. How do buy-outs affect a team's salary cap?

The agreed-upon buy-out amount (see question number 59) is included in the team salary instead of the salary called for in the contract. If the player had more than one season left on his contract, then the buy-out money is distributed among those seasons in proportion to the original salary. For example, say a player had three seasons remaining on his contract, with salaries of $10 million, $11 million and $12 million. The player and team agree to a buyout of $15 million. The $15 million is therefore charged to the team salary over the three seasons. Since the original contract had $33 million left to be paid, and $10 million is 30.3% of $33 million, 30.3% of the $15 million buyout, or $4.545 million, is included in the team salary in the first season following the buyout. Likewise, 33.33% of $15 million, or $5 million, is included in the team salary in the second season, and 36.36% of $15 million, or $5.455 million, is included in the team salary in the third season.

The distribution of the buy-out money is a matter of individual negotiation. Changing the number of years in which the money is paid does not change the number of years in which the team's team salary is charged. In the above example in which the player's contract is bought out with three seasons remaining, the buyout amount is always charged to the team salary over three seasons. It does not matter if the player is actually paid in a lump sum or over 20 years (a spread provision).

So under my scenario the only thing that counts for the salary cap is the amount of the buyout or $1 million. So the Hornets would save $687,000 in salary due to the difference between Daniels' salary and the combined salary of Allen and Scal and they would save $2.413 million of the money not paid to Scal due to the $1 million buyout for a total savings of $3.1 million.

Not an ideal scenario for NO. My guess is they will try to trade Daniels to someone who has a non-guaranteed contract over $4 million and another player and then just cut the non-guaranteed player to save the money. That's if they can find something like that or if someone with a big enough trade exception won't trade with them.

You're only more right if Scal's head injury is worse than we thought and he actually agrees to give up $2.4M in salary.  There were 2 parts to my response:

1) Correcting the objective misunderstanding about how buyouts count against the team salary totals.

2) Contending that no way Scal only accepts $1M of his $3.4M salary for a buyout.  Why would he do that favor for a team he has no connection or loyalty to?  He might accept some buyout to play with a contender, but not that much. No player ever gives up 70% of his salary, and a player like Scal would be stupid to give up any more than the vet minimum for his length of service (probably around $1.2M), and only if he has a guaranteed signing some place else like back in Boston. Best case scenario for New Orleans is Scal takes $2.2M buyout knowing he can get vet min elsewhere, and more likely Scal let's them chop only a few hundred thousand off so he can go play with a contender.

So best case, but unlikely, scenario overall, NO saves $1.9M (the $687,000 difference and $1.2M in Scal's buyout, if Scal decides to be very kind); more likely they save about $1.1M (the $687,000 difference and $400,000 in what Scal would likely consider for a buyout). This $1M-$2M savings still leaves them well above the lux tax line and is substantially lowe than your original $4.1M or your revised $3.1.

NO does not have a lot of options here.  Most sizable contracts that had options for 2009-10, had to be decided over the summer.  There's few if any nonguaranteed deals out there, and most teams would like to just save the cash themselves.  They more likely have to hope OKC would be willing to take some salary and get money and draft picks for their trouble, as they may be the lone team under the cap enough if Iverson goes to Memphis.  Not too many teams looking to move abig trade exception either to take on a big salary.  To get under the lux tax line they may need several moves with smaller gains such as this to achieve that.

Well, if you actually took the time to read the thread I referenced where this trade was discussed:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=31674.msg576735;topicseen#new

Boston sends Tony Allen and Brian Scalabrine and $1 million

New Orleans sends Antonio Daniels


New Orleans then uses the $1 million to buy Scalabrine out of his $3.4 million contract. This then eliminates almost $4 million off their books, which is the main reason for the trade, and gets them really close to being under the luxury tax which is a huge concern for them. It also adds Allen, a defensive 2 to have behind the defensively challenged Peja Stojakovic, while adding no long term salary. With Darren Collison signed, he could be Paul's backup for the 10 minutes a game or so that CP3 needs a breather, so they don't miss Daniels that much.

Then after 30 days Boston resigns Scal to a veteran minimum contract for $1.18 million. Scal only takes a $1 million  hit off his salary and Boston retains him for the season and in essence trades Tony for Antonio Daniels, a more than competent veteran back up PG.

This helps both teams while allowing Boston to corner the market on Daniels' and being able to use Marquis as a wing primarily which is where he is really needed.

you will have seen that I already had addressed why Scal would give up his salary. It would be to come back in 30 days to Boston at the vet minimum of $1.18 million thereby keeping his ability to be with the C's for another title run and only losing about a third of his salary of about $1.3 million. Would he agree to this? If given the choice of this or maybe being traded to Sacramento or Golden State or some other horrible location with no chance of returning, I think he could be persuaded.

And of course if Scal isn't for this ahead of time, the deal doesn't go through. But, you let him know he will not be finishing the year out here and that he will be traded and if he wants to return if that team works a buyout with him, he can forget it. No hard feelings, business is business as Scal should know because he mucked up the trade for Daniels.

Is that a cold way of doing things, maybe. But it forces Scal to decide what is more important to him, his million dollars or his peace of mind knowing that for the rest of the year he will not need to upend his family, move, not know where he is going to end up or when and if he ever see the winning side of basketball ever again. I think you would be surprised what peace of mind is worth to some people who have lived in the same place for 5 years and on the same coast for a decade.

[paintitgreen]

As much as he may not want to go to Sacramento or Golden State, you're basically asking Scalabrine to pay more than a million dollars to play on the Celtics. That will not happen.

I could see it working out for New Orleans. They save $687K in salary, $1.375M with the tax implications, right off the bat. The $1 mil payment means they make $2.374M. Now, while Scal wouldn't take $1 mil in a buyout, maybe he takes $2.2 or so since a new veteran's minimum contract will result in him making about $1.3 mil so he doesn't lose any money in the deal. If New Orleans did that, they'd save another $1.213 mil in salary, $2.426 with the tax. That brings their savings to $4.8 mil to swap TA for Daniels. ($1.9 mil salary savings, $1.9 mil luxury tax savings, $1 mil cash). Plus, they'd have an easier time getting somebody to accept TA's $2.5 mil contract than Daniels' $6.6 mil. They could send it elsewhere and pay the salary, and still save $2.5 mil in luxury payments, bringing their potential savings to $7.3 million by making this deal.

Of course, we're taking on similar money. $2.374 mil between Daniels' additional salary and the $1 million to New Orleans. If they resign Scalabrine to the minimum, they add another $2 mil or so in salary and tax. So would the Celtics bother spending $4.5 mil to bring in Daniels instead of TA?

That's why I think them including Julian Wright and us including JR Giddens makes more sense. NO would actually save more money that way, and we'd at least get a younger player with potential to justify the $5 mil or so in extra spending.

[ssspence]

As much as he may not want to go to Sacramento or Golden State, you're basically asking Scalabrine to pay more than a million dollars to play on the Celtics. That will not happen.

I could see it working out for New Orleans. They save $687K in salary, $1.375M with the tax implications, right off the bat. The $1 mil payment means they make $2.374M. Now, while Scal wouldn't take $1 mil in a buyout, maybe he takes $2.2 or so since a new veteran's minimum contract will result in him making about $1.3 mil so he doesn't lose any money in the deal. If New Orleans did that, they'd save another $1.213 mil in salary, $2.426 with the tax. That brings their savings to $4.8 mil to swap TA for Daniels. ($1.9 mil salary savings, $1.9 mil luxury tax savings, $1 mil cash). Plus, they'd have an easier time getting somebody to accept TA's $2.5 mil contract than Daniels' $6.6 mil. They could send it elsewhere and pay the salary, and still save $2.5 mil in luxury payments, bringing their potential savings to $7.3 million by making this deal.

Of course, we're taking on similar money. $2.374 mil between Daniels' additional salary and the $1 million to New Orleans. If they resign Scalabrine to the minimum, they add another $2 mil or so in salary and tax. So would the Celtics bother spending $4.5 mil to bring in Daniels instead of TA?

That's why I think them including Julian Wright and us including JR Giddens makes more sense. NO would actually save more money that way, and we'd at least get a younger player with potential to justify the $5 mil or so in extra spending.

New Orleans is not going to dump Julian Wright for junk. trade idea after idea has him as a toss in from NOH and it really needs to end.

[hankfinkel]

Well, if you actually took the time to read the thread I referenced where this trade was discussed:

Read the details of the trade originally, understood your premise, but just think it is flawed (even after correcting for the original buyout error assumption - taking the whole salary off the books) because it hinges on a 70% buyout of the original contract, and an overall loss to the player of 35% of the salary even if he gets a vet min elsewhere.  In your scenario Scal ends up with $2.2M of his $3.4M and while he may want to "play" for a contender (not like he's going to see substantial minutes on many contending teams) and may like to not relocate from Boston, there is little chance he gives up that much cash IMO.  He has the leverage because he holds the guaranteed contract, if teams want to save some  cash they have to make a pretty favorable deal for the player.  This is Scal's last big payday, he's a minimum guy from now on.  No matter what the motivation, he's going to recoup almost all of that $3.4M.

The Hornets definitely could save money on a TA/Scal for Daniels trade (beyond just the difference amount) if Scal does a reasonable buyout, I just think the savings are less than you think.  Obviously, neither of us know what Scal's absolute motivations are, but I think he can probably have both near his full $3.4M and his freedom (or at least a promise to come back to Boston) if he, and his agent, play their cards right.