Easy Peezy: Get Mike Miller

[ssspence]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop

As I've posted on another thread, I'm not sure why the Cs don't target Miller more readily. They can provide this $2.6mil in relief easily:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yg37zl3

If the Wiz want, we can take Boykins from them for one of our trade exceptions to take a few bucks and a roster spot. Or they just cut him., along with Crittendon and Singleton or Ross.
 
We probably give them something additional (cash, a pick maybe), but nonetheless i think this would make a huge difference to our bench.

[Fafnir]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop

As I've posted on another thread, I'm not sure why the Cs don't target Miller more readily. They can provide this $2.6mil in relief easily:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yg37zl3

If the Wiz want, we can take Boykins from them for one of our trade exceptions to take a few bucks and a roster spot. Or they just cut him., along with Crittendon and Singleton or Ross.
 
We probably give them something additional (cash, a pick maybe), but nonetheless i think this would make a huge difference to our bench.

9.78 - 8.04 = 1.74

The need to shed more to get under the luxury tax, that would be the only reason for them trade Miller who is already expiring. They'd have to send out more salary for it to work, or take less back.

[ssspence]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop

As I've posted on another thread, I'm not sure why the Cs don't target Miller more readily. They can provide this $2.6mil in relief easily:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yg37zl3

If the Wiz want, we can take Boykins from them for one of our trade exceptions to take a few bucks and a roster spot. Or they just cut him., along with Crittendon and Singleton or Ross.
 
We probably give them something additional (cash, a pick maybe), but nonetheless i think this would make a huge difference to our bench.

9.78 - 8.04 = 1.74

The need to shed more to get under the luxury tax, that would be the only reason for them trade Miller who is already expiring. They'd have to send out more salary for it to work, or take less back.

The concept was the point. They take Boykins and manage the particulars -- Williams in exchange for Walker for example. The savings is then provided.

[Fafnir]

What was your concept? That we can trade for Mike Miller? We can trade for LeBron James, doesn't mean the other team has a reason to do the deal.

Any trade with Washington has to be targeted at getting them under the tax line. That's not a particular, that's the reason they make the deal!

[ssspence]

Isn't there a rule against antagonistic posting, Fafnir? The concept is trading for Miller while supplying lux tax relief thru expiring deals.

1) Cs trade for Boykins in exchange for a trade exception;

2) Cs trade Scal, Eddie, JR, Williams and a pick for Miller.

I don't work at the NBA offices, so I'm not sure of the precise Wiz salary structure. Want me to take Giddens and Walker out and add TA in to precision the numbers? The concept is the concept.

It'd be great if you'd suggest support or lack there of -- straight up. Police may be required elsewhere.

[Fafnir]

Isn't there a rule against antagonistic posting, Fafnir?

If you have a problem with any post, including one by a moderator, report it. I was pointing out that your trade idea doesn't make much sense. Washington needs a reason to make the deal.

The concept is trading for Miller while supplying lux tax relief thru expiring deals.

Mike Miller is already an expiring contract so just sending them different expiring deals doesn't help Washington, luxury tax relief for this year isn't something expiring contracts supply.

Usually tax/cap relief is for future years because unless the team you're trading with has cap room or a large exception you are always taking roughly the same amount of salary back.

In this case, trading Miller (an expiring contract) for other expiring deals only makes sense if the Wizards take back less salary overall. The reduced salary needs to get them under the tax line for it to save them a significant amount of money.

Your original trade doesn't save them enough money, we'd have to take back more salary without sending much more back for it to work. I'm not sure taking Boykins or another low salaried player would save them enough. There are still roster cap holds to consider, also veteran's minimum players have a lot of special rules with their deals.

If your trade idea doesn't provide the specifics of how we provide them tax relief, it isn't a feasible trade proposal.

[xmuscularghandix]

Isn't there a rule against antagonistic posting, Fafnir? The concept is trading for Miller while supplying lux tax relief thru expiring deals.

1) Cs trade for Boykins in exchange for a trade exception;

2) Cs trade Scal, Eddie, JR, Williams and a pick for Miller.

I don't work at the NBA offices, so I'm not sure of the precise Wiz salary structure. Want me to take Giddens and Walker out and add TA in to precision the numbers? The concept is the concept.

It'd be great if you'd suggest support or lack there of -- straight up. Police may be required elsewhere.

The only problem is that The Wizards are rebuilding and Miller is already an expiring contract, they have no reason to just deal him. Especially when their focus is on moving bigger and much less attractive contracts IE Jamison's.

And unless they agreed to buyout any of those guys, it wouldn't be a very good more for a team over the cap to trade 4 contracts for 1.

[Lucky17]

I mentioned Sheridan's post in this thread:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=35337.0

Because incoming and outgoing salaries must fall within a specific range, the Wizards can't get under the tax by trading Miller alone. They would need to get involved in a larger deal.

The deals you describe come close, ssspence, but don't quite get Washington to the $2.6 million mark.

EDIT: I just reworked a deal of Miller for Scal, Giddens, Williams, and Tony Allen that works via the trade checker, and saves Washington $2 mil.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yfpt4rx

So that deal, couple with Boykins for a trade exception, does work after all.

[Fafnir]

I mentioned Sheridan's post in this thread:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=35337.0

Because incoming and outgoing salaries must fall within a specific range, the Wizards can't get under the tax by trading Miller alone. They would need to get involved in a larger deal.

The deals you describe come close, ssspence, but don't quite get Washington to the $2.6 million mark.

This is exactly what I was saying, this trade doesn't work because Washington isn't giving up an asset (Miller) unless it gets them under the tax.

[ssspence]

Isn't there a rule against antagonistic posting, Fafnir?

If you have a problem with any post, including one by a moderator, report it. I was pointing out that your trade idea doesn't make much sense. Washington needs a reason to make the deal.

The concept is trading for Miller while supplying lux tax relief thru expiring deals.

Mike Miller is already an expiring contract so just sending them different expiring deals doesn't help Washington, luxury tax relief for this year isn't something expiring contracts supply.

Usually tax/cap relief is for future years because unless the team you're trading with has cap room or a large exception you are always taking roughly the same amount of salary back.

In this case, trading Miller (an expiring contract) for other expiring deals only makes sense if the Wizards take back less salary overall. The reduced salary needs to get them under the tax line for it to save them a significant amount of money.

Your original trade doesn't save them enough money, we'd have to take back more salary without sending much more back for it to work. I'm not sure taking Boykins or another low salaried player would save them enough. There are still roster cap holds to consider, also veteran's minimum players have a lot of special rules with their deals.

If your trade idea doesn't provide the specifics of how we provide them tax relief, it isn't a feasible trade proposal.

Wrong. As pointed out in the article, if the Wiz subtract $2.6mil in salary relief this year, they  get under the lux tax and receive the accoridng benefits.

We've seen this example already with the Hornets trades this year. As I've mentioned there are a variety of ways the Cs can perform a deal that provides that $2,6mil. Are we clear? It's OK to let go of the wheel ever so slightly.....

[Lucky17]

There is one other thing they could do.

I believe Quintin Ross is on a minimum-level contract, and as such, wouldn't require Washington to take back salary.

So Boston could absorb Boykins via a trade exception, acquire Miller with a slew of expiring contracts, and then in a separate side deal (because he cannot be combined with other players in a deal for another 60 days), trade a draft pick or rights to another player for Ross.

Those combined deals would get Washington under the luxury tax threshold.

[Fafnir]

Wrong. As pointed out in the article, if the Wiz subtract $2.6mil in salary relief this year, they  get under the lux tax and receive the accoridng benefits.

We've seen this example with the NOH squad this year. Are we clear?

What am I wrong about? That's a pretty big post and your response is simply, "wrong".

Where does your proposed trade shed 2.6 million in salary? I see 1.7, if you add it Boykins (which your original post does not make part of the trade) it is still not 2.6.

[xmuscularghandix]

I mentioned Sheridan's post in this thread:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=35337.0

Because incoming and outgoing salaries must fall within a specific range, the Wizards can't get under the tax by trading Miller alone. They would need to get involved in a larger deal.

The deals you describe come close, ssspence, but don't quite get Washington to the $2.6 million mark.

This is exactly what I was saying, this trade doesn't work because Washington isn't giving up an asset (Miller) unless it gets them under the tax.

It would literally be like Danny saying "Yo Wiz GM, do you want to do me a solid? Please?"

[Fafnir]

There is one other thing they could do.

I believe Quintin Ross is on a minimum-level contract, and as such, wouldn't require Washington to take back salary.

So Boston could absorb Boykins via a trade exception, acquire Miller with a slew of expiring contracts, and then in a separate side deal (because he cannot be combined with other players in a deal for another 60 days), trade a draft pick or rights to another player for Ross.

Those combined deals would get Washington under the luxury tax threshold.

Yeah, Ross has a minimum deal so we could give up a heavily protected 2nd round pick to get Washington under the tax.

So it'd be three separate trades to make it work? Weird....

1. Mike Miller for expirings

2. Earl Boykins via trade exception

3. Quinton Ross for a protected 2nd round pick

[xmuscularghandix]

There is one other thing they could do.

I believe Quintin Ross is on a minimum-level contract, and as such, wouldn't require Washington to take back salary.

So Boston could absorb Boykins via a trade exception, acquire Miller with a slew of expiring contracts, and then in a separate side deal (because he cannot be combined with other players in a deal for another 60 days), trade a draft pick or rights to another player for Ross.

Those combined deals would get Washington under the luxury tax threshold.

Yeah, Ross has a minimum deal so we could give up a heavily protected 2nd round pick to get Washington under the tax.

So whats the exact deal? If you dont mind.