Easy Peezy: Get Mike Miller

[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.

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

Well, you could conceivably combine trades 1 and 2 into a single deal. ESPN's trade checker does something to the combined deals, and doesn't show the correct incoming and outgoing salary.

And after double-checking my math, trades 1 and 2 could suffice, depending on who's leaving Boston.

So, it would break down as Boykins and Miller for Scal, Tony Allen, Giddens, and Williams. I imagine Scal would return via a buyout.

It would cash in virtually all our chips, except for Ray Allen.

[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 whats the exact deal? If you dont mind.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yfpyqr6

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ykewcd9

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

We'd have to send them protected 2nd round picks for Boykins and Ross though, as the NBA rules state both teams must get something of value in a trade. You can also swap out a couple of different players in the Mike Miller trade. (Tony Allen/Marquis/Shelden)

[Fafnir]

And after double-checking my math, trades 1 and 2 could suffice, depending on who's leaving Boston.

We'd have to send out Marquis/House to get the permutations for just the first two right?

We can't send both of our backup PGs out!

Edit: NM Lucky17 found a permutation that doesn't send out any top 9 rotation guys.

[ssspence]

Fafnir, your technical obsessing is a constant stain.

I wont post every way the Cs could trade end of bench players for Miller and provide the Wiz 2.6 in cap space. There are 4, 5 ways to do so. Would you give up a pick for Miller, or not?

[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 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

Well, you could conceivably combine trades 1 and 2 into a single deal. ESPN's trade checker does something to the combined deals, and doesn't show the correct incoming and outgoing salary.

And after double-checking my math, trades 1 and 2 could suffice, depending on who's leaving Boston.

So, it would break down as Boykins and Miller for Scal, Tony Allen, Giddens, and Williams. I imagine Scal would return via a buyout.

It would cash in virtually all our chips, except for Ray Allen.

Miller is exciting as a player to replace Ray, and give us a younger option for the future.

OR replace the outside shooting on the second unit, which is currently held down by E.House.

But this deal doesn't get rid of Ray or House making space in the rotation for Miller. It instead loads us up with more expensive backup guards. AND trades away two backup forwards.

I think House has to go in order for this to happen...

[Fafnir]

Fafnir, your technical obsessing is a constant stain.

I wont post every way the Cs could trade end of bench players for Miller and provide the Wiz 2.6 in cap space. There are 4, 5 ways to do so. Would you give up a pick for Miller, or not?

Detail are important, especially when you're trying to get one team under the tax line by a couple hundred-thousand dollars. You've reacted with incredible hostility to me pointing out that your original trade didn't work, and breaking down the details of why it wouldn't. If you're posting a trade idea, why wouldn't you expect someone to analyze whether or not it makes sense for both teams!

I would not give up a first round pick for a rental of Mike Miller.

[xmuscularghandix]

I really don't see any way that this gives Washington enough savings to waste time on it. Especially when other teams, with more chips to give, are sniffing around for Jamison.

[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

Well, you could conceivably combine trades 1 and 2 into a single deal. ESPN's trade checker does something to the combined deals, and doesn't show the correct incoming and outgoing salary.

And after double-checking my math, trades 1 and 2 could suffice, depending on who's leaving Boston.

So, it would break down as Boykins and Miller for Scal, Tony Allen, Giddens, and Williams. I imagine Scal would return via a buyout.

It would cash in virtually all our chips, except for Ray Allen.

Miller is exciting as a player to replace Ray, and give us a younger option for the future.

OR replace the outside shooting on the second unit, which is currently held down by E.House.

But this deal doesn't get rid of Ray or House making space in the rotation for Miller. It instead loads us up with more expensive backup guards. AND trades away two backup forwards.

I think House has to go in order for this to happen...

Sending House out messes up the salary math, we're cutting it very close to get the Wizards under the tax.

I don't think Mike Miller is all that exciting, especially since we'd have to resign him after just one half season. But he can play the 3 for short stints, I don't see a problem with him and Eddie on the same roster. Eddie backs up the 1, Marquis and Miller backup the 2/3 in some manner.

I think in the end Doc would cut down his rotation to just 2 of them, I'm not sure who'd end up playing the best with the rest of the team.

[xmuscularghandix]

I would not give up a first round pick for a rental of Mike Miller.

It's not only a rental of Miller, it's also the ability to bridge the gap while rebuilding... Miller was not signed as a FA, his bird rights are very valuable to us.

[Fafnir]

I really don't see any way that this gives Washington enough savings to waste time on it. Especially when other teams, with more chips to give, are sniffing around for Jamison.

They're not sure if they want to trade Jamison, if they don't move him cutting 2.6 million in salary would result in a next savings of what 8 million net?

That's a lot of money when your franchise is already operating at a loss for the year.

[Fafnir]

I would not give up a first round pick for a rental of Mike Miller.

It's not only a rental of Miller, it's also the ability to bridge the gap while rebuilding... Miller was not signed as a FA, his bird rights are very valuable to us.

It is a rental, Mike Miller is a player who falls into the MLE range of salary. So there could be a lot of teams bidding on him, there is no guarantee that the Celtics would be able to retain him.

[ssspence]

Fafnir, your technical obsessing is a constant stain.

I wont post every way the Cs could trade end of bench players for Miller and provide the Wiz 2.6 in cap space. There are 4, 5 ways to do so. Would you give up a pick for Miller, or not?

Detail are important, especially when you're trying to get one team under the tax line by a couple hundred-thousand dollars. You've reacted with incredible hostility to me pointing out that your original trade didn't work, and breaking down the details of why it wouldn't. If you're posting a trade idea, why wouldn't you expect someone to analyze whether or not it makes sense for both teams!

I would not give up a first round pick for a rental of Mike Miller.

Not hostility -- annoyance. I understand this blog has become heavy on trade ideas, but doubting the ability of deals over minutia is the flavor of the month, and it's a hinderance to the point of conversations in the forums. I hope you recognize that.

An opinion is all we need to hear. I'm glad it's now on the table.

Maybe I'm just tired of the combative trade discussions. I don't need to be told trading for Miller is like trading for Lebron.

Considering this discussion is going on at 11pm, it's a poor sign for us all. I'm gonna peace out.



 

[xmuscularghandix]

I would not give up a first round pick for a rental of Mike Miller.

It's not only a rental of Miller, it's also the ability to bridge the gap while rebuilding... Miller was not signed as a FA, his bird rights are very valuable to us.

It is a rental, Mike Miller is a player who falls into the MLE range of salary. So there could be a lot of teams bidding on him, there is no guarantee that the Celtics would be able to retain him.

I don't even think it's possible to get him without trading Ray.

And if we traded Ray that would make Miller our starting SG, he's certainly not going to sign somewhere else if he has the option to be a starter on a Championship caliber team who happens to be coached by the guys he won ROTY under.

BTW I would trade Ray for Miller if they had some other stuff for us to get in return. But i don't think they want to give up anything besides Jamison.

[snively]

Fafnir, your technical obsessing is a constant stain.

I wont post every way the Cs could trade end of bench players for Miller and provide the Wiz 2.6 in cap space. There are 4, 5 ways to do so. Would you give up a pick for Miller, or not?

Detail are important, especially when you're trying to get one team under the tax line by a couple hundred-thousand dollars. You've reacted with incredible hostility to me pointing out that your original trade didn't work, and breaking down the details of why it wouldn't. If you're posting a trade idea, why wouldn't you expect someone to analyze whether or not it makes sense for both teams!

I would not give up a first round pick for a rental of Mike Miller.

Is it that important for Washington to get under the exact threshold?

If Boykins/Trade Exception + Miller/Scal-House-Walker-JR nets the Wizards $2.5 mil in savings, doesn't that mean they have $100,000 in tax to pay out?  Couldn't we just cover that and then some by tossing in a million in cash? Or does being one dollar under the luxury tax open the floodgates for a huge portion of the luxury tax receipts?

[Lucky17]

Fafnir, your technical obsessing is a constant stain.

I wont post every way the Cs could trade end of bench players for Miller and provide the Wiz 2.6 in cap space. There are 4, 5 ways to do so. Would you give up a pick for Miller, or not?

Detail are important, especially when you're trying to get one team under the tax line by a couple hundred-thousand dollars. You've reacted with incredible hostility to me pointing out that your original trade didn't work, and breaking down the details of why it wouldn't. If you're posting a trade idea, why wouldn't you expect someone to analyze whether or not it makes sense for both teams!

I would not give up a first round pick for a rental of Mike Miller.

Is it that important for Washington to get under the exact threshold?

If Boykins/Trade Exception + Miller/Scal-House-Walker-JR nets the Wizards $2.5 mil in savings, doesn't that mean they have $100,000 in tax to pay out?  Couldn't we just cover that and then some by tossing in a million in cash? Or does being one dollar under the luxury tax open the floodgates for a huge portion of the luxury tax receipts?

Yes, it does matter. Getting under that magic threshold allows Washington to get a share of the money all the luxury-taxpaying teams are throwing into the kitty.