Easy Peezy: Get Mike Miller

[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?

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.

How big of a share though?  Is it the tax but in reverse?  Dollar for dollar for every buck you're under the threshold?  How much cash would they be getting?

[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.

How big of a share though?  Is it the tax but in reverse?  Dollar for dollar for every buck you're under the threshold?  How much cash would they be getting?

I could be wrong, but I think that every team under the threshold, regardless of how much under they are, receives an equal share.

I'll see if I can find something on it in Larry Coon's FAQ.

Edit: All teams under the threshold receive at least 1/30 of the collected revenues from luxury tax (and possibly more, if the league does not retain the remaining funds for its own purposes):

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q17

[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.

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.

People vetting the details and specifics of trades isn't a "flavor of the month" or anything new to this forum. Its been that way since I've benn here.

If you don't want your ideas vetted, don't post them. Or post them in a non-specific way. "Would you trade for Mike Miller without giving up Ray to give Washington salary relief..." Or something like that.

[More Banners]

I definitely would want Mike Miller on the team, especially if he could arrive in a 6th man role.  Great shooter and rebounder, good hustle...a great fit for this team.  He turns 30 this week, so this next contract is likely to be his last chance to cash in.  I'm not sure I'd offer the number of years that he'll probably be looking for...but he'd be great this year, a tremendous boost for the bench.

They want some value for him, talent-wise, or they'd probably just keep him for sign-and-trades this summer. 

TA/Scal/House works in trade, and results in about a million less in salary for the Wiz, but they would have to cut some players, so buyouts may save more money, allowing us to take the guys we trade back after 30 days (they know the system).

I'd be willing to throw in a 2nd rounder, but probably not a first.  Maybe they take the pick or some rights to Ben Pepper or whatever to save more money, but I don't know how to get the ESPN trade checker to make that happen.

If we did a 3 for 1, we'd have to sign someone right away to get up to the 13 man minimum roster.

[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?

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.

How big of a share though?  Is it the tax but in reverse?  Dollar for dollar for every buck you're under the threshold?  How much cash would they be getting?

I could be wrong, but I think that every team under the threshold, regardless of how much under they are, receives an equal share.

I'll see if I can find something on it in Larry Coon's FAQ.

Edit: All teams under the threshold receive at least 1/30 of the collected revenues from luxury tax (and possibly more, if the league does not retain the remaining funds for its own purposes):

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q17

Thanks for answering my many questions. 

So it's a big deal to get them under that threshold, got it.

[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.

People vetting the details and specifics of trades isn't a "flavor of the month" or anything new to this forum. Its been that way since I've benn here.

If you don't want your ideas vetted, don't post them. Or post them in a non-specific way. "Would you trade for Mike Miller without giving up Ray to give Washington salary relief..." Or something like that.

Man -- if you insist.

Boston first trades for Boykins with a trade exception. Boston then trades Scal, Eddie, Sheldon and Walker for Miller. Washington saves $2.7mil in overall salary. If Boykins minimum salary is an issue vis-a-vis the lux tax, the Cs can separately trade a future 2nd round pick to Washington for Quintin Ross. This saves Washington $3.7mil and should compensate for vet min salary conditions for the tax. If the Ross trade is unneccessary, the 2nd round pick can be included in the original deal.

As pointed out on the front page today, it sounds as if very little is required from the team trading for Miller provided it gets them under the lux tax. At the very least Williams, Walker and a 2nd is a decent haul for a a 3 month rental of Miller when the Wiz are looking to dump salary. They've got 48 hours to do it.

I'd hope Scal would be bought out and return to the Cs to provide a little frontcourt depth.

[ssspence]

If management is prepared to sign up for it, I'd also be open to a deal of Jamison, Miller and junk for Ray and Baby that would provide WAS the same tax relief.

The possibility / confirmation of Ray being bought out and coming back would make it pretty much a no-brainer. 

[IBLEEDGREEN30]

if the celts could deal for ray allen and then get him back ala payton when we traded him for antoine in 2005 that would be awesome!