Could we sign & trade Jeff Green in the middle of the season?

[Fafnir]

2. I still have a question on whether he is signed to the $9MM number or the $4.5 MM number?

From reports, he's not signed to any number, as his $9 million contract was voided.

So, the Celtics retain his rights, with zero effect on payroll?

That's my understanding.

I thought his cap hold remainded for us though.

[Roy H.]

2. I still have a question on whether he is signed to the $9MM number or the $4.5 MM number?

From reports, he's not signed to any number, as his $9 million contract was voided.

So, the Celtics retain his rights, with zero effect on payroll?

That's my understanding.

I thought his cap hold remainded for us though.

Yeah, but the cap hold won't effect payroll; it would only come in if we had actual cap space.  Apparently, we still have a cap hold for Roshown McLeod sitting on our salary cap, for instance; it doesn't really affect anything.

As for the luxury tax, we're about $4.5 million above the tax line even without Green.

[Lucky17]

2. I still have a question on whether he is signed to the $9MM number or the $4.5 MM number?

From reports, he's not signed to any number, as his $9 million contract was voided.

So, the Celtics retain his rights, with zero effect on payroll?

That's my understanding.

I thought his cap hold remainded for us though.

Yeah, but the cap hold won't effect payroll; it would only come in if we had actual cap space.  Apparently, we still have a cap hold for Roshown McLeod sitting on our salary cap, for instance; it doesn't really affect anything.

As for the luxury tax, we're about $4.5 million above the tax line even without Green.

Ah. I was hoping the C's could dip back down under that threshold to gain an LLE. But $4.5 million is too difficult to shed.

[BballTim]

Not if he can't pass a physical.

I believe teams receiving players in trade can waive a physical if they wish.  I'm pretty skeptical that another team would make this trade, but I think it's technically possible.

  A more realistic case would be if the Celts wanted to make a trade and the contracts didn't match, kind of like trading the contract of a Keith Van Horn.

[Kane3387]

Not if he can't pass a physical.

Exactly.....Why would someone trade for a player that cant play or pass their physical?

Too make a deal work. To unload a contract that is more then one year in length. To get a first round pick.

In 2008 as part of the Nets Mavs trade that sent Jason Kidd to Dallas and Devin Harris to New Jersey, Dallas resigned a then retired Keith Van Horn for like 5 mill to make the salaries match. Van Horn never played a second for NJ. He stayed retired but got 5 extra mill to help the trade go through.

Sources close to the process insist, however, that the league has not imposed any time requirements for staying with the Nets that Van Horn must meet to collect the full $4.3 million he's scheduled to receive for the rest of the season. Sources say Van Horn -- much like Aaron McKie in Memphis after the Pau Gasol trade to the Lakers on Feb. 1 -- merely had to convince the league office that he will indeed report to New Jersey and that he's serious about resuming his career after nearly two years out of the game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3253107

[mgent]

2. I still have a question on whether he is signed to the $9MM number or the $4.5 MM number?

From reports, he's not signed to any number, as his $9 million contract was voided.

So, the Celtics retain his rights, with zero effect on payroll?

That's my understanding.

I thought his cap hold remainded for us though.

Yeah, but the cap hold won't effect payroll; it would only come in if we had actual cap space.  Apparently, we still have a cap hold for Roshown McLeod sitting on our salary cap, for instance; it doesn't really affect anything.

As for the luxury tax, we're about $4.5 million above the tax line even without Green.

So if they had caught it sooner in FA we could've used the big MLE?

[Roy H.]

2. I still have a question on whether he is signed to the $9MM number or the $4.5 MM number?

From reports, he's not signed to any number, as his $9 million contract was voided.

So, the Celtics retain his rights, with zero effect on payroll?

That's my understanding.

I thought his cap hold remainded for us though.

Yeah, but the cap hold won't effect payroll; it would only come in if we had actual cap space.  Apparently, we still have a cap hold for Roshown McLeod sitting on our salary cap, for instance; it doesn't really affect anything.

As for the luxury tax, we're about $4.5 million above the tax line even without Green.

So if they had caught it sooner in FA we could've used the big MLE?

No.  Teams that use the full MLE have a hard cap of $74 million, from what I understand.  We're at $74.9 million, even without the $2 million extra of a full MLE deal.

[csfansince60s]

Yesterday in the daily links section, this article on Nick Young in CelticsLife hints at the possibility:

http://www.celticslife.com/2011/12/green-target-nick-young.html


"How the Celtics could get him:
Up until Jeff Green failed his physical the Celtics financially could not add Nick Young and while they are still so far over the cap they can not traditionally just sign him. What they can do is sign and trade for him. And the Celtics happen to have a few pieces the Wizards could be interested in. None of the recently signed Celtics are eligible to be traded. Avery Bradley and Jeff Green are two guys that are. Young wants 9 million a year from Washington (basically what Green wanted). He's not getting 9 million though. A 4 year $28 million dollar deal I believe would get it done. With escalating salaries, you could start his contract in 2011/2012 closer to $ 6 million. Avery Bradley makes $1.63 million. Green would be paid the rest. Remember you don't have to match up salaries exactly. Just within a range. So let's say Green in resigned for $3 million or a little bit north of that.

This would be the trade Green, Bradley, + $3 million in cash (maximum teams can include, which tidily in this case means the Wizards get local kid Green's Bird rights for free) for Nick Young. I'll get into why the Celtics should do it after the jump, but for the Wizards it's simple. They don't want to pay Young. This way they get a cheap replacement in Bradley for the coming season and gain Jeff Green's Bird rights. Next Summer they can either sign the former Georgetown Hoya to replace the corpse of Rashard Lewis at the small forward position, or they could sign and trade him for additional assets. Remember, the Celtics $3 million is covering his salary. If Green and Bradley are not enough the Celtics actually have some extra picks that could be used to sweeten the deal."



The S&T scenario for Nick Young sounded like a plausible albeit unlikey (I wish it could happen)way to specifically get Nick Young.

I'm assuming if it theoretically could net us Nick Young, a similar scenario could be used to get someone else who might otherwise be beyond reach.

Anybody knowledgeable on this??

[Chris]

Not if he can't pass a physical.

I believe teams receiving players in trade can waive a physical if they wish.  I'm pretty skeptical that another team would make this trade, but I think it's technically possible.

I also think (hope) Stern would take advantage of his powers to veto trades.  If that happened, it would be horrible for the league, and would make the C's franchise looks completely heartless.

I love the C's, and want them to win the championship, but that is stretching the rules a little far for my liking.

How is that stretching the rules if both teams agree and Jeff Green agrees to the contract?

Why is that any different than signing a player after he's had a serious injury? Its a pretty risky proposition (which is why I don't believe it'd happen) but I don't think its stretching things.

Well, I should clarify, I was talking about signing and trading him on a 1 year deal.  Basically just signing him to use as trade ballast.  But, I jumped the gun on it (this is just such a crazy situation, I didn't pay enough attention to detail), since he couldn't be sign and traded for just 1 year anyways.

If a team genuinely wanted to take him on, on a longer term deal via sign and trade, it would be fine.  I can't concieve of a scenario where it would happen though. 

[mgent]

2. I still have a question on whether he is signed to the $9MM number or the $4.5 MM number?

From reports, he's not signed to any number, as his $9 million contract was voided.

So, the Celtics retain his rights, with zero effect on payroll?

That's my understanding.

I thought his cap hold remainded for us though.

Yeah, but the cap hold won't effect payroll; it would only come in if we had actual cap space.  Apparently, we still have a cap hold for Roshown McLeod sitting on our salary cap, for instance; it doesn't really affect anything.

As for the luxury tax, we're about $4.5 million above the tax line even without Green.

So if they had caught it sooner in FA we could've used the big MLE?

No.  Teams that use the full MLE have a hard cap of $74 million, from what I understand.  We're at $74.9 million, even without the $2 million extra of a full MLE deal.

Oh, i thought we had about $72 if you subtract Sasha, Marquis, and Dooling.  Although, I used hoopshype so I'm likely wrong.