Trade Idea - Quisy for TA

[rutzan]

Trade Idea - Quisy for TA

[Fafnir]

You'll have to build a bigger deal than that, why would Memphis try to dump Tony Allen for an injured minimum salaried player?

[crownsy]

Idea- actually come up with a thought or scenario for a trade.

But I'll play, no way in hell do the grizzlies trade TA for a guy with a spinal injury, no matter what the state of TA's rotation time is in Memphis.

Also, there contracts don't match up, so we'd have to do something other than a straight up trade.

Lastly, TA left because he thought he deserved more than backing up Pierce. Barring some new information, I don't think that's changed, except in people's wishful thinking, so why would he come back to do the job he expressly said he didn't want to when he went looking for more playing time?

[rutzan]

i think memphis would do it in salary dump...they would probably save $7M to $8M...

[rutzan]

i think he's only playing 16 min per game...so it's not like he's getting a lot of burn there anyway...

[Fafnir]

i think memphis would do it in salary dump...they would probably save $7M to $8M...

Memphis isn't really looking to dump salary, they're trying to make the playoffs right now.

They might dump salary this summer once they have to pay their big men.

[Boris Badenov]

Lastly, TA left because he thought he deserved more than backing up Pierce. Barring some new information, I don't think that's changed, except in people's wishful thinking, so why would he come back to do the job he expressly said he didn't want to when he went looking for more playing time?

I thought that TA left because Memphis gave him one more year of guaranteed money. This was a debatable point (money or PT as the reason), and it was in fact debated on this blog, but the playing time argument didn't really make as much sense given the two teams' rosters.

In which case we have another argument against the trade - why would we bring him back on the same contract we refused to match six months ago?

[rutzan]

i think we do it for a number of reasons...

it would be almost seamless transition...how many players can you say that about...

he definitely fits a huge need...position wise...defense...athletic...

the owner of the griz is always looking to save a penny...

the difference in money for the celtics in nba terms is almost negligible...

the window for championships in any sport can be extremely short...

you have to strike while the iron is hot...

[CDawg834]

Mentioned this in a previous thread:  TA walked because the Celtics wouldn't give him the 3rd year he wanted.  When he told them that Memphis offered a 3rd year, they told him to take the offer.  Why would the Celtics then trade for the exact contract that they refused to give him eight months ago?

Putting aside my hatred of TA as a player, from a business standpoint it doesn't make sense.  We'd have to throw in Semih, Luke or Von to make the salaries match up.  The team is already shorthanded, so a 2 for 1 deal is counter-productive. 

[pearljammer10]

Why would we want Tony back? We let him walk for a reason. And why would the Grizz take back an injured player while getting nothing else in return. The only way I trade Quis is for an actually 3 that brings length/size. Tony is another guard to add to Rondo, Nate, Allen, West, Wafer, and Bradley.

[rutzan]

i think quisy makes $2.5M and TA makes approx $3M...i think that is within the 25% rule...

nba teams buy out players for tens of millions of dollars...

approx $3M in NBA terms is nothing...

especially when nba franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars...

on top of that...any extra revenue from winning even one playoff game and especially winning it all more than makes up for approx $3M...

SO...

yes...

it does make financial sense...

[CDawg834]

i think quisy makes $2.5M and TA makes approx $3M...i think that is within the 25% rule...

nba teams buy out players for tens of millions of dollars...

approx $3M in NBA terms is nothing...

especially winning it all more than makes up for approx $3M...especially when nba franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars...

on top of that...any extra revenue from winning even one playoff game and

SO...

yes...

it does make financial sense...

Might be my mistake, but I thought salaries had to be within 15%  If it's 25%, then a straight up trade would work. 

But you're forgetting that TA has 2 more years under his deal totalling $6.5 million, while Quis is a free agent.  Boston is over the cap, so that becomes $13 million total over two years with the luxury tax. 

Let's say you're the Celtics owner.  Do you really think Tony Allen is going to bring an additional $13 million in revenue?  The games will all sell out anyway.  And that swapping Quis for TA = Banner 18?

[rutzan]

i'm not a salary cap expert...

i do not agree with your $13M figure...

i would like a salary cap expert to weigh in...

[CDawg834]

TA is under contract for 2 more years:

2011-12: 3.15 mil
2012-13: 3.30 mil

Total of $6.45 mil, but if the Celtics are over the luxury tax threshold next year, they would pay a dollar for dollar luxury tax.  They're over it this year, and not a lot of money is coming off the books.  So next year they pay $3.15 mil in luxury tax just on TA, and if they don't get under the tax level for 12-13, they'd pay $3.30 mil in TA tax that year too.

Of course, a potential lockout/new CBA could change the rules, but as of right now, they'd be doubling TAs salary if they bring him on.

Have I mentioned how much I dislike TA? 

[rutzan]

if you are saying approx $6M...

yes...

it is worth it...

unless...

you have a better idea...