Wang for Brian Grant???

[Charlie Brown]

What do you guys think of trying to get Brian Grant for Wang in a sign & trade?

Miami's trying to clear room for next year, so maybe Wang can be convinced to take a one year contract for whatever Grant's making. Wang might agree to that, since the market is expected to be better for FA's next year.

Not sure. Thoughts??

[The Crippler]

I think Brian Grant makes something like $9 Million. Not going to happen.

[Dirk77]

no, they want, key word WANT NVE for Grant.

[pepperfletch]

Wait a minute, while I would not trade Wang at all, doesn't the rule for a sign and trade of a restricted free agent require the team he is trading to only take back 1/2 the salary? Can anyone clarify the rule, but does it mean if Wang is signed at lets say 4.5 million (high I know) we can take back the 9 million? Or do I have this all backwards and we can only take back 1/2 what wang gets or in this example 2.25 million?

You know this whole free agent, trading thing is a mess.


OK one of you Gurus, help me out here....


Thanks....PF

[The Crippler]

I'm pretty sure that Sign and Trade salaries have to match up.

[pepperfletch]

Well, when is it then that the 1/2 salary issue applies?

[The Crippler]

Base year compensation players only are worth one half of their scheduled salaries. That might be what you are thinking.

[Prince of Heck]

<< What do you guys think of trying to get Brian Grant for Wang in a sign &amp; trade?

Miami's trying to clear room for next year, so maybe Wang can be convinced to take a one year contract for whatever Grant's making. Wang might agree to that, since the market is expected to be better for FA's next year.

Not sure. Thoughts?? >>


What's the scouting report on Grant? He's no good to the team if his tough inside game screws up our score-happy little team.
We should only consider him if he fits the current Mavs criteria:

fast
promising
outside shooter
soft...er &quot;opportunistic&quot; rebounder
seasonal defender
23 years old
inside game? he don't need to stinkin' inside game
future trade-bait
uses &quot;innovative&quot; tactics with home-state teams to get more money

[nowitzki_prophecy]

forget the money thing,grant is ten times the player wang will ever be,portland would never go for this,although i would love to see BG with a mavs jersey,i know this aint gonna happen.

[Big Boy Laroux]

<< portland would never go for this >>



i don't think miami would either... [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[aexchange]

grant gets paid about 10x times more than wang, but i dont know about him being 10x times the player. yes, he a solid low post defender, but hes got almost no offensive game, and hes REALLY injury prone.

i would still take wang over grant, just for wang's upside.

[Dooby]

<< Well, when is it then that the 1/2 salary issue applies? >>



From RealGM:

66. What is &quot;Base Year Compensation?&quot; How does base year compensation affect trades? Why does it exist?
Base year compensation (BYC) prevents another salary cap loophole. Without BYC, a team over the salary cap that wants to trade a player, but can't because of the assigned player exception (which says teams can receive no more than 115% of the salary they trade away), could just sign the player to a new contract that fits within the desired range, then do the trade. BYC says &quot;if you re-sign a player and give him a big raise, then for a period of time his trade value will be lower than his actual salary.&quot;

BYC defines the salary that's used to compare players for compliance under the assigned player exception (see question number 62 for more information about the assigned player exception). Usually, the salary used for comparison is the player's actual salary. But under either of the following circumstances, a different salary is used when comparing salaries for trading purposes:

The team is over the salary cap, they had Larry Bird or Early Bird rights to re-sign the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20%. (Note that they do not have to actually use the Larry Bird or Early Bird exception to re-sign the player.)

The team is over the salary cap, it extended the rookie scale contract of the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20%.
If either of the above apply, then the player is considered a base year player. A player remains a base year player for two years (one year if the contract is signed on or after July 1, 2001). When trading a base year player, the salary used for comparison is defined as follows:
Contract signed First year BYC Second year BYC
Before July 1, 2001 Previous year's salary or
50% of first-year salary in new contract* 120% of the salary in the last year of the previous contract or
75% of the second-year salary in new contract*
July 1, 2001 or later Previous year's salary or
50% of first-year salary in new contract* N/A

*Whichever is greater

Here is an example of a BYC calculation: A player earned $2 million in 99-00, after which he became a free agent. Prior to the start of the 00-01 season, he signs a new contract (re-signing with his previous team, which is over the salary cap) starting at $9 million. This player qualifies for BYC, so his trade value is the greater of his previous salary ($2 million) or 50% of his new salary ($4.5 million), or $4.5 million. So this player, who actually earns $9 million, is worth $4.5 million for trading purposes.

When comparing salaries for trade, teams use their own player's BYC value and the other player's full salary, even if the other player is also BYC. Here is a simple example -- two $5 million players, both of whom are re-signed (by teams over the cap) for $10 million. Both players become base year players whose base year amount is $5 million (50% of the new salary). If the teams want to trade these players for each other they compare their player's base year amount to the other player's full salary. So each team can take back a maximum of 115% plus $100,000 of their player's $5 million base year amount, or $5.85 million. They compare $5.85 million to the other player's full $10 million. $10 million is way too high, so this trade can't be done, even though the players' actual salaries match exactly.

If one of the teams in the above example was below the cap, the trade still couldn't be done. For the team under the cap, their player would NOT be BYC, so they would be comparing $10 million to $10 million. But since the other team is over the cap, their player is BYC, and they'd still be comparing $5.85 million to $10 million, which prevents the trade from working. (See question number 68 for more information about trading BYC players.)

For Larry Bird or Early Bird players, the player's BYC begins on the date he signs his contract. For extended rookie scale contracts, the player's BYC begins on the July 1 preceding the first season of the extension. For example, if an extension of a rookie scale contract is signed on 10/30/99, his BYC begins on 7/1/00, because the first season of the extension is 00-01. If a team tries to trade an extended rookie between the date his extension is signed and the date it takes effect, his &quot;trade value&quot; for the receiving team is the average of the salaries in the last year of the scale contract and each year of the extension. This is called the &quot;poison pill provision.&quot;

A player's BYC goes away if the team falls below the salary cap, the player signs with a different team, or the player is traded.

There is an interesting twist to base year compensation caused by the 1998 lockout. Since the start of the 98-99 season was delayed, contracts signed prior to the 98-99 season were signed in February 1999. The duration of BYC is specified in calendar years and not seasons, so for contracts signed in February 1999, the BYC amount changes in February 2000, which is in the middle of the 99-00 season. It then goes away in February 2001, which is in the middle of the 00-01 season. So for these players, in addition to the mid-year change, BYC lasts into the third season of their contracts.

Don't worry if BYC seems way too complicated -- everybody, the media included, seems to get it wrong. Further complicating matters, the formula used for calculating a player's BYC changed with the current CBA Just know that a large percentage of trade rumors from &quot;reliable sources&quot; are simply not possible because of the BYC rule.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67. How does a base year player's salary count against the team's salary cap?
His actual salary counts as team salary (against the cap). BYC is used only when comparing salaries for trades.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

68. Whenever I read about prospective trades involving base year players, they always say a third team must get involved. Why? Can't a base year player be traded in a two-team trade?
There's no specific rule that prohibits trading base year players in a two-team deal. But the way the numbers work, it's not always possible unless one of the teams dumps additional salary onto a third team.

As an example, let's say Player A plays for Washington. He earned $3 million last season and re-signed as a free agent for $10 million. That makes him a base year player whose BYC value is $5 million (see question number 66 ). Player B plays for Seattle and also earns $10 million, but is not a base year player. Both Seattle and Washington are over the salary cap.

Now suppose Seattle and Washington want to trade Player A and Player B for each other. Seattle can take back 115% plus $100,000 of Player B's $10 million salary, or $11.6 million. Player A's $10 million salary easily fits within that limit. But Washington can only take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of Player A's $5 million BYC value, or $5.85 million. Player B's $10 million salary is too high by $4.15 million.

This means, if the two teams want to complete this trade, that Washington must rid themselves of an additional $3.61 million in salary (I'll show why this is the correct amount a little later). Let's say that Player C plays for Washington, is not a base year player, and earns exactly $3.61 million. What happens if they want to trade Player A plus Player C for Player B? Player A plus Player C total $13.61 million, which is greater than Seattle's $11.6 million maximum. So Washington can't give the additional $3.61 million to Seattle.

This is where a third team must get involved. And not just any third team, but a third team that is far enough under the salary cap, or has a trade exception (see question number 65 ) to absorb the additional $3.61 million in salary. Let's say Chicago (a team way under the salary cap) gets involved. Here is an example three-team trade:

Washington sends Seattle Player A
Seattle sends Washington Player B
Washington sends Chicago Player C
Chicago sends Washington a future second round draft pick
Here's how the numbers work:
Washington trades $5 million BYC plus $3.61 million salary, or $8.61 million. They can receive 115% plus $100,000 of $8.61 million, or exactly $10 million, in return (this is why $3.61 million was correct above). Washington receives Player B's $10 million salary, along with a draft pick that has zero trade value (see question number 62 ) for a total of $10 million. The numbers exactly match.
Seattle trades $10 million in salary, and recives $10 million in salary, so they're fine.

Chicago trades $0 and receives $3.61 million, but since they're more than $3.61 million under the salary cap, they can absorb the increase.

So the numbers work for all teams involved.

However, not all trades involving base year players require a third team. Let's say Player D plays for Washington. He earned $8 million last season and re-signed as a free agent for $10 million, so his BYC amount is $8 million (see question number 66 ). Washington can take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of $8 million in trade, or $9.3 million. Player E plays for Seattle, is not a base year player, and earns $9 million. So Seattle can take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of $9 million, or $10.45 million.

Player D and Player E can be traded for each other directly, even though Player D is a base year player. Player E's $9 million salary is less than Washington's $9.3 million maximum, and Player D's $10 million salary is less than Seattle's $10.45 million maximum. The teams have even more flexibility if one or both have a trade exception (see question number 65 ) or disabled player exception (see question number 16 ).

So a trade involving a base year player doesn't necessarily require a third team.

[Dooby]

To summarize the above, not only is a trade of Wang for Grant completely one-sided, it is virtually impossible as well.

Never mind the fact that we can't offer Wang a contract equal to 1/2 of Grant's salary.

[pepperfletch]

Dooby, great reponse, great information, but could the damn lawyers have made it any more complicated.

I understand the Grant/Wang thing but what about the Lewis to Washington sign and trade that is being discussed in another thread? If Lewis gets 8 million, how would that trade work? Is their anyone left besides Clips under the cap, is their a list of teams with exceptions?


What about Wang and some others from Dallas to Seattle? This might kill two birds with one stone, but I see it complicated by Seattle demand to stay under the Luxery tax...


What do you think Dooby? Sorry for all the questions, shoot me if you wish.