Trade target or ‘21 FA target thread
- Thread starter iowamcnabb
- Start date
If we aren't in playoff contention I can't think of a better trade partner for Barnes than Boston. A first and a young player is a good deal for both sides. Kings get more financial flexibility and some young pieces and the Celtics get a great 4th piece with a declining deal. I would be happy for Harrison too as he deserves to play on a winning squad. Great dude.
Nesmith in particular seems like a good fit for the Kings. If you are thinking about upgrading the “closing lineup” of Fox, Halliburton, Hield, Barnes, and Holmes, finding “Buddy, but bigger” would be one angle to explore. From what I recall, that’s how a number of folks described Nesmith pre-draft.
Of course, then you face the challenge of replacing Barnes at the combo forward spot.
Of course, then you face the challenge of replacing Barnes at the combo forward spot.
If Boston doesn't bite on a Barnes trade, I wonder if the Knicks or the Bulls could be a fit? The Knicks are tired of being in the lottery and are trying to make the playoffs. Barnes would be a really nice veteran presence. They have an extra first round pick. The bulls to me are an even better fit. They have won 5 of 7 and may be trying to make a run in the East. A White, Lavine, Barnes, Williams, Carter Jr lineup is pretty solid and would most likely make the playoffs.
Boston isn’t giving up Pritchard and the don’t want to go over the tax.
the trade would have to happen in two pieces:
Boston out:
Thompson and Carson Edwards
Kings out: Nemanja Bjelicia
This trade opens up cap space to take in Barnes and stay under the luxury tax.
Boston out:
Nesmith
Boston into TPE:
Barnes
while I think Boston would do this trade I don’t think the Kings will. This org is focused on fighting for the 10th spot.
the trade would have to happen in two pieces:
Boston out:
Thompson and Carson Edwards
Kings out: Nemanja Bjelicia
This trade opens up cap space to take in Barnes and stay under the luxury tax.
Boston out:
Nesmith
Boston into TPE:
Barnes
while I think Boston would do this trade I don’t think the Kings will. This org is focused on fighting for the 10th spot.
Outside of the fact that this trade return is, as noted above, extremely underwhelming, the second half of the trade is not legal. You appear to be combining Nesmith's salary with a portion of the Gordon Hayward trade exception, which is not allowed.
In order to pull off a trade like this, Boston would have to use the trade exception for Barnes outright in the second half of the trade.
The first half of the trade would be tough, because Boston is trying to unload $6.5M, which is tough to do in a single trade (they'd have to send us $26M...not happening). We could take in Grant Williams for the Dedmon TPE, as a part I, which would mean they'd only have to clear $4M more, but Bjelica isn't enough to bring back both Thompson and Nesmith (who is the evident target here). So we'd have to send both Bjelica and say James.
So a working version of Barnes for Nesmith (without Smart coming back) looks like this:
(The order gets funky here because the Celtics are hardcapped and can't take Barnes back without first dumping salary, but the Kings don't have a roster spot, so they have to send out Barnes before bringing in Williams)
Part I:
Kings out: Bjelica/James
Boston out: Thompson/Nesmith
Part II:
Kings out: Barnes
Boston out: TPE (Hayward)
Boston cuts Javonte Green
Part III:
Kings out: TPE (Dedmon)
Boston out: Grant Williams
That would put Boston at $132,579,989...about $50K under the luxury tax!
But again, super underwhelming return for the Kings, who probably don't want to trade Barnes in the first place. Seeing as Boston only has their own first round picks in the future, how many picks in the 25+ range does it take to drop Barnes for Nesmith? Frankly, if it were me, it would be tough to do this deal for two picks in the high 20s. Maybe three high 20s picks, but I think the Kings value Barnes a lot more than you value him. I kind of doubt they're shopping him, so it's not exactly a question of "what's the best deal we can get?" when the default position is probably "we should keep this guy". Nobody is untouchable, but if a guy isn't being shopped, then the return has to make sense. It's hard to make this return make sense.
In order to pull off a trade like this, Boston would have to use the trade exception for Barnes outright in the second half of the trade.
The first half of the trade would be tough, because Boston is trying to unload $6.5M, which is tough to do in a single trade (they'd have to send us $26M...not happening). We could take in Grant Williams for the Dedmon TPE, as a part I, which would mean they'd only have to clear $4M more, but Bjelica isn't enough to bring back both Thompson and Nesmith (who is the evident target here). So we'd have to send both Bjelica and say James.
So a working version of Barnes for Nesmith (without Smart coming back) looks like this:
(The order gets funky here because the Celtics are hardcapped and can't take Barnes back without first dumping salary, but the Kings don't have a roster spot, so they have to send out Barnes before bringing in Williams)
Part I:
Kings out: Bjelica/James
Boston out: Thompson/Nesmith
Part II:
Kings out: Barnes
Boston out: TPE (Hayward)
Boston cuts Javonte Green
Part III:
Kings out: TPE (Dedmon)
Boston out: Grant Williams
That would put Boston at $132,579,989...about $50K under the luxury tax!
But again, super underwhelming return for the Kings, who probably don't want to trade Barnes in the first place. Seeing as Boston only has their own first round picks in the future, how many picks in the 25+ range does it take to drop Barnes for Nesmith? Frankly, if it were me, it would be tough to do this deal for two picks in the high 20s. Maybe three high 20s picks, but I think the Kings value Barnes a lot more than you value him. I kind of doubt they're shopping him, so it's not exactly a question of "what's the best deal we can get?" when the default position is probably "we should keep this guy". Nobody is untouchable, but if a guy isn't being shopped, then the return has to make sense. It's hard to make this return make sense.
Last edited:
It took a little reading to find why Boston would be hard capped. Made sense after realizing that the use of the mid-level invoked that rule.
I had a different question. Let's say hypothetically that the Kings opened up a roster spot and Boston unloaded the ~2 million necessary to take Barnes into their TPE. Those maneuvers can involve other teams or not.
Without the concerns of the hard cap or roster spots, couldn't you take players into a TPE by splitting the transaction up. For instance, Barnes fits into Boston's TPE creating a TPE for Sacramento. Then Sacramento uses it's newly created TPE to take back a player(s) that fits into the newly created TPE creating new TPE(S) for Boston. Of course without the hypothetical, there are neither roster spots or room under the hard cap for this situation.
I had a different question. Let's say hypothetically that the Kings opened up a roster spot and Boston unloaded the ~2 million necessary to take Barnes into their TPE. Those maneuvers can involve other teams or not.
Without the concerns of the hard cap or roster spots, couldn't you take players into a TPE by splitting the transaction up. For instance, Barnes fits into Boston's TPE creating a TPE for Sacramento. Then Sacramento uses it's newly created TPE to take back a player(s) that fits into the newly created TPE creating new TPE(S) for Boston. Of course without the hypothetical, there are neither roster spots or room under the hard cap for this situation.
Technically you can do that. But there's no real reason to, as if the salaries match (within the allowable salary cap rules, which they would under a TPE-for-TPE scenario), you can just do a regular trade and not involve the TPE.
The point of the TPE is that it allows teams to execute what is called a non-simultaneous trade. Effectively, you send a player into another team's cap space, creating the TPE, and then you use the TPE later (if you like) to bring back up to the same amount of salary you sent out (+$100K). It's actually not as beneficial to a team looking to take on salary as a simultaneous (read: "normal") trade, because in those a team can take on between 125%-175% of the outgoing salary (+$100K), depending on their cap situation and the total dollars in the trade.
Note that technically teams don't trade their TPEs. If a player is sent into a TPE, that TPE goes away (partially, the leftover remains) and a NEW TPE is created for the other team. But it's a technicality.
The point of the TPE is that it allows teams to execute what is called a non-simultaneous trade. Effectively, you send a player into another team's cap space, creating the TPE, and then you use the TPE later (if you like) to bring back up to the same amount of salary you sent out (+$100K). It's actually not as beneficial to a team looking to take on salary as a simultaneous (read: "normal") trade, because in those a team can take on between 125%-175% of the outgoing salary (+$100K), depending on their cap situation and the total dollars in the trade.
Note that technically teams don't trade their TPEs. If a player is sent into a TPE, that TPE goes away (partially, the leftover remains) and a NEW TPE is created for the other team. But it's a technicality.
That makes sense. I was looking in terms of Barnes. For him I would want youth and/or picks. The youth wouldn't have nearly enough salary for a straight trade. Otherwise Boston can go kick rocks. And the trade proposed couple posts above, why would we bend over? We ain't the ones who would be calling or paying.
It's total BS that it's come to this but if they have any considerations on moving on from the team they've got they better hit the phones early and not later. If the Kings get a young player and a 1st along with some cap flexibility that's all you can ask for. With how wishy washy the game plan is from game to game you can't rely on value for anyone holding strong.
Like I said, Ainge is a particular case when it comes to his own assets but he's buried Nesmith already. There is little to no value there ATM. I'd base this off the long term talk of his interest in Barnes specifically and the style of ball they play. Brown, Tatum, and Barnes is modern BBall to a T.
valuation aside..... I’m curious why you feel it is not legal. You can’t bundle players but you can send a player out and take a player back into your TPE. Given this trade was run by an Asst GM of an NBA Franchise and multiple people on real GM said it was legal I’m inclined to disagree with you but I’m to lazy to look up the relevant CBA section.
re valuation:
generally Barnes is seen as a negative contract by 3-4M a year. That tends to hurt his valuation. He is not as negative as Buddy but still not positive value.
Now, it is reasonable to argue the Kings should keep him if you are trying to win short term and that gets to the crux of the issue. Yes, I believe the Kings are trying to win short term and Barnes might be enough to get them a 10th seed playin spot and an early exit.
So the whole discussion of the trade is around your strategic direction and how you want to get there.
generally Barnes is seen as a negative contract by 3-4M a year. That tends to hurt his valuation. He is not as negative as Buddy but still not positive value.
Now, it is reasonable to argue the Kings should keep him if you are trying to win short term and that gets to the crux of the issue. Yes, I believe the Kings are trying to win short term and Barnes might be enough to get them a 10th seed playin spot and an early exit.
So the whole discussion of the trade is around your strategic direction and how you want to get there.