Jump to content

 

Photo
- - - - -

Smooves trade kicker


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
38 replies to this topic

#1 NJHAWK

NJHAWK

    All-Star

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,589 posts
  • Joined 26-July 05

Posted 26 May 2009 - 11:07 AM

He has 48 mil left on his deal ( after year one is complete) so the most his kicker could be is 7.2 mill right? I dont think it is that high though because I think that added to his salary would take him over what he would be allowed to make under the cba. Anyway my ? is how does this make him harder to trade? Using the Chris Bosh deal as an example wouldnt a kicker bring Smooves salary closer or equal to what Bosh's # would be in a trade. The kicker doesnt accompany him to Toronto so it wouldnt deter them or any other team from trading for him. The only thing I can see holding up a deal is the ASG being cheap and not wanting to pay the kicker. Nevermind were not getting Bosh, lol.

Edited by NJHAWK, 26 May 2009 - 11:10 AM.


#2 hawksfanatic

hawksfanatic

    Rumple Minze Connoisseur




  • Amount:
  • Squawk Supporter
  • 7,640 posts
  • Joined 18-April 05

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:27 PM

Well its pretty hard to say anything about Smoove's deal since I don't think anyone on this board has specific information on the contract. All we can really do is make assumptions that are pretty safe to make:

Smoove's deal is for 5 years and worth $58 million. It was originally an offer sheet from the Grizzlies which means that the Max raises could be 8%. It is safe to assume that Max raises were used meaning the contract should look like this:

  • $10,000,000 remaining value: $58,000,000
  • $10,800,000 remaining value: $48,000,000
  • $11,600,000 remaining value: $37,200,000
  • $12,400,000 remaining value: $25,600,000
  • $13,200,000 remaining value: $13,200,000

A big question with the contract is if there are any early termination options (ETO), team options, or player options. I haven't seen anything about those, so I can only assume there are none of those because it is usually explicit when a player has that in their contract (see: LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Amare...). So under the assumption of no options, here is what the trade kicker would look like for cap implications:

  • If Smoove is traded after Year 1 but before Year 2, 15% = $7,200,000. You take that and divide by the number of remaining seasons (4) and add that number ($1,800,000) to each of the remaining seasons. So it would be as if Smoove had a salary of $12,600,000. That is legal because it is under the Maximum salary for a player in the 0-6 years experience category.
  • If Smoove is traded after Year 2 but before Year 3, 15% = $5,580,000. You take that and divide by the number of remaining seasons (3) and add that number ($1,860,000) to each of the remaining seasons. So it would be as if Smoove had a salary of $13,460,000. That is legal because it is under the Maximum salary for a player in the 7-9 years experience category.
  • If Smoove is traded after Year 3 but before Year 4, 15% = $3,840,000. You take that and divide by the number of remaining seasons (2) and add that number ($1,920,000) to each of the remaining seasons. So it would be as if Smoove had a salary of $14,320,000. That is legal because it is under the Maximum salary for a player in the 7-9 years experience category.
  • If Smoove is traded after Year 4 but before Year 5, 15% = $1,980,000. You take that and divide by the number of remaining seasons (1) and add that number ($1,980,000) to each of the remaining seasons. So it would be as if Smoove had a salary of $15,180,000. That is legal because it is under the Maximum salary for a player in the 7-9 years experience category.

In the event that Smoove is traded during the season it becomes more complicated because you need to pro-rate his salary. It isn't hard to calculate, it would just be a waste of my time to put that in here. Also note that the trade bonus/kicker is paid immediately when the trade is made much like a signing bonus is. But for cap implications, it is counted evenly throughout the life of the contract much like a signing bonus is.

http://www.commercia...th-offer-sheet/

#3 DrReality

DrReality

    Assistant Coach

  • Squawk Supporter
  • 14,830 posts
  • Joined 25-September 05

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:56 PM

But if Sekou said he is the guy in Atl why would they want to trade him. Also wondered if that meant they would be willing to give JJ less than max?

#4 NJHAWK

NJHAWK

    All-Star

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,589 posts
  • Joined 26-July 05

Posted 27 May 2009 - 12:17 AM

Well its pretty hard to say anything about Smoove's deal since I don't think anyone on this board has specific information on the contract. All we can really do is make assumptions that are pretty safe to make:

Smoove's deal is for 5 years and worth $58 million. It was originally an offer sheet from the Grizzlies which means that the Max raises could be 8%. It is safe to assume that Max raises were used meaning the contract should look like this:

  • $10,000,000 remaining value: $58,000,000
  • $10,800,000 remaining value: $48,000,000
  • $11,600,000 remaining value: $37,200,000
  • $12,400,000 remaining value: $25,600,000
  • $13,200,000 remaining value: $13,200,000

A big question with the contract is if there are any early termination options (ETO), team options, or player options. I haven't seen anything about those, so I can only assume there are none of those because it is usually explicit when a player has that in their contract (see: LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Amare...). So under the assumption of no options, here is what the trade kicker would look like for cap implications:

  • If Smoove is traded after Year 1 but before Year 2, 15% = $7,200,000. You take that and divide by the number of remaining seasons (4) and add that number ($1,800,000) to each of the remaining seasons. So it would be as if Smoove had a salary of $12,600,000. That is legal because it is under the Maximum salary for a player in the 0-6 years experience category.
  • If Smoove is traded after Year 2 but before Year 3, 15% = $5,580,000. You take that and divide by the number of remaining seasons (3) and add that number ($1,860,000) to each of the remaining seasons. So it would be as if Smoove had a salary of $13,460,000. That is legal because it is under the Maximum salary for a player in the 7-9 years experience category.
  • If Smoove is traded after Year 3 but before Year 4, 15% = $3,840,000. You take that and divide by the number of remaining seasons (2) and add that number ($1,920,000) to each of the remaining seasons. So it would be as if Smoove had a salary of $14,320,000. That is legal because it is under the Maximum salary for a player in the 7-9 years experience category.
  • If Smoove is traded after Year 4 but before Year 5, 15% = $1,980,000. You take that and divide by the number of remaining seasons (1) and add that number ($1,980,000) to each of the remaining seasons. So it would be as if Smoove had a salary of $15,180,000. That is legal because it is under the Maximum salary for a player in the 7-9 years experience category.

In the event that Smoove is traded during the season it becomes more complicated because you need to pro-rate his salary. It isn't hard to calculate, it would just be a waste of my time to put that in here. Also note that the trade bonus/kicker is paid immediately when the trade is made much like a signing bonus is. But for cap implications, it is counted evenly throughout the life of the contract much like a signing bonus is.

http://www.commercia...th-offer-sheet/









Ok so the kicker can be spread over the years of the deal cap wise. The Hawks are the ones paying the kicker right? It goes on the Hawks cap even though Smoove isnt here anymore. Also if Smoove is traded does his salary # in a trade = salary + the whole kicker? Again for example in a Smoove Bosh trade just guessing the kicker is 5 mil. Smoove salary 11mill + 5 mill kicker = 16 mill to Toronto for Bosh 16 mill. Am I right in saying a kicker would actually make Smoove more attractive to the team he is being traded to because they can send more salary to us then they have to pay for Smoove? I can see Toronto jumping at that.

Edited by NJHAWK, 27 May 2009 - 12:18 AM.


#5 HawksFan87

HawksFan87

    All-Star

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,006 posts
  • Joined 14-January 06

Posted 27 May 2009 - 06:22 AM

Smoove wasn't going anywhere in the first place anywayz.... Thank you Memphis!!!

#6 NJHAWK

NJHAWK

    All-Star

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,589 posts
  • Joined 26-July 05

Posted 27 May 2009 - 09:39 AM

Smoove wasn't going anywhere in the first place anywayz.... Thank you Memphis!!!




Hey if we can get Chris Bosh using Marvin, Speedy, Acie and picks Im all for it. Thing is they are prolly going to want Smoove and for discussion sake I just want to know all about this trade kicker. You are prolly correct though and Sekou said it about Smoove staying. Woody's exact words after game 7 vs Miami were that he loved Josh Smith and wouldnt trade him for anything.

#7 hawksfanatic

hawksfanatic

    Rumple Minze Connoisseur




  • Amount:
  • Squawk Supporter
  • 7,640 posts
  • Joined 18-April 05

Posted 27 May 2009 - 09:50 AM

Ok so the kicker can be spread over the years of the deal cap wise. The Hawks are the ones paying the kicker right? It goes on the Hawks cap even though Smoove isnt here anymore. Also if Smoove is traded does his salary # in a trade = salary + the whole kicker?


The Hawks don't pay the trade bonus, whatever team receiving Smoove does. The trade bonus has nothing to do with the Hawks cap except it increases the amount the Hawks will have to take back in a trade if they are trading with a team over the salary cap.

Again for example in a Smoove Bosh trade just guessing the kicker is 5 mil. Smoove salary 11mill + 5 mill kicker = 16 mill to Toronto for Bosh 16 mill. Am I right in saying a kicker would actually make Smoove more attractive to the team he is being traded to because they can send more salary to us then they have to pay for Smoove? I can see Toronto jumping at that.


No, you spread the trade bonus over the life of the contract. In your scenario you are failing to do that. In no way does a trade bonus make it "more attractive" for another team.

#8 NJHAWK

NJHAWK

    All-Star

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,589 posts
  • Joined 26-July 05

Posted 27 May 2009 - 09:57 AM

The Hawks don't pay the trade bonus, whatever team receiving Smoove does. The trade bonus has nothing to do with the Hawks cap except it increases the amount the Hawks will have to take back in a trade if they are trading with a team over the salary cap.



No, you spread the trade bonus over the life of the contract. In your scenario you are failing to do that. In no way does a trade bonus make it "more attractive" for another team.



Thanks for clearing this up for me. I thought the Hawks would have to pay for trading Smoove and it would make it easier for another team to take him. There is no way a team like Toronto would pay an extra 7.2 mil over the corse of 4 years. Maybe if it was smaller then that lets hope. Im sure there are teams like Dallas that wouldnt mind shelling out extra but those teams dont have Chris Bosh. Sekou is right then Smoove is the man HERE.

#9 Diesel

Diesel

    Deputy Commissioner

  • Squawk Supporter
  • 40,574 posts
  • Joined 08-June 02

Posted 27 May 2009 - 10:11 AM

The Hawks don't pay the trade bonus, whatever team receiving Smoove does. The trade bonus has nothing to do with the Hawks cap except it increases the amount the Hawks will have to take back in a trade if they are trading with a team over the salary cap.



That basically shuts the door on the trade (the whole purpose of a kicker). For instance, For argument sake...

Smoove's salary is 10 million (just for argument).

A team trading for Smoove would have to be able to come up with 11.5 Million in their cap while only sending us 10 million. Right?

The only way it can work is if they have an exemption...

or

We have capspace to take on more of their salary.

right?

#10 NJHAWK

NJHAWK

    All-Star

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,589 posts
  • Joined 26-July 05

Posted 27 May 2009 - 11:09 AM

That basically shuts the door on the trade (the whole purpose of a kicker). For instance, For argument sake...

Smoove's salary is 10 million (just for argument).

A team trading for Smoove would have to be able to come up with 11.5 Million in their cap while only sending us 10 million. Right?

The only way it can work is if they have an exemption...

or

We have capspace to take on more of their salary.

right?





I dont think so. I still think it plays out like this. Smoove salary 10mil + lets say a 5 mil kicker would have to be traded for a player or players in range of 15 mil. The problem is since the team your trading him to has to pay the bonus its going to make it tough. Boston did it to get Garnett but I believe he waived some of it. I dont think you can waive all of it legally but thats another tale for another day. A financialy struggling team like Toronto is prolly not going to pay a trade kicker.

#11 mrhonline

mrhonline

    Assistant Coach

  • Moderators
  • 9,822 posts
  • Joined 15-July 02

Posted 27 May 2009 - 11:24 AM

We're talking about a <$2M difference/year, guys. It's not something to be overlooked, but I remain more shocked that the Grizzlies had the chutzpah to put it in the contract than it's actually effect on a trade.

Didn't think Memphis had it in them (this was prior to the Miles signing).

#12 hawksfanatic

hawksfanatic

    Rumple Minze Connoisseur




  • Amount:
  • Squawk Supporter
  • 7,640 posts
  • Joined 18-April 05

Posted 27 May 2009 - 12:38 PM

I dont think so. I still think it plays out like this. Smoove salary 10mil + lets say a 5 mil kicker would have to be traded for a player or players in range of 15 mil. The problem is since the team your trading him to has to pay the bonus its going to make it tough. Boston did it to get Garnett but I believe he waived some of it. I dont think you can waive all of it legally but thats another tale for another day. A financialy struggling team like Toronto is prolly not going to pay a trade kicker.


No, and I've explained this already so I am getting a little annoyed. There is no $5 million in the context of the trade, that money is paid upfront but for cap purposes it is spread throughout the life of the contract. Like I explained earlier you take the trade bonus and divide it by the number of years remaining and spread it evenly throughout the contract. I have no idea where you get this idea of $15 million.

D all the trade kicker does is increase the salary of Smoove. Originally Smoove would have a salary of $10.8 mil in the offseason. That means we can take back within 125% +$100,000 of $10,800,000(*) if Smoove does not have a trade kicker. Now because Smoove does have a trade kicker that means if we wanted to trade him this offseason we actually are bound to the rules of 125% + $100,000 of a salary of $12,600,000 instead of $10,800,000.

What it appears is that people are confusing a trade kicker with a BYC. These are not the same thing, a trade kicker is like an additional signing bonus given in the middle of the contract and treated like a signing bonus. BYC has to do with the first year of a contract where a player receives a substantial raise. Smoove's BYC status will wear off at the beginning of this offseason.

*Edit on second paragraph.

Edited by hawksfanatic, 27 May 2009 - 12:54 PM.


#13 coachx

coachx

    Head Coach

  • Squawk Supporter
  • 12,866 posts
  • Joined 10-July 02

Posted 27 May 2009 - 12:44 PM

No, and I've explained this already so I am getting a little annoyed.

Stay patient with us.

Your input is really needed on this board. We need a poster with a degree in "captology."

I am glad to hear its just a "trade kicker" and not some no trade clause like we see in baseball with Jake Peavy.

Not saying I want to trade Smoove for just anybody but it does keep the Chris Bosh dream alive or atleast not totally impossible...........even though it does lower the, already slim, probability of him being moved.

Edited by coachx, 27 May 2009 - 12:46 PM.


#14 MaceCase

MaceCase

    Hall of Fame

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Joined 08-April 09

Posted 27 May 2009 - 02:24 PM

We're talking about a <$2M difference/year, guys. It's not something to be overlooked, but I remain more shocked that the Grizzlies had the chutzpah to put it in the contract than it's actually effect on a trade.

Didn't think Memphis had it in them (this was prior to the Miles signing).

Hey they're a small market struggling to survive, they'd do anything within their power to knockout the competition. At this rate FAs would have no choice but to sign there soon enough.

#15 mrhonline

mrhonline

    Assistant Coach

  • Moderators
  • 9,822 posts
  • Joined 15-July 02

Posted 27 May 2009 - 03:33 PM

HF,

I hate to even mention this after all the work you've put into this, but do you think Sekou simply confused "trade kicker" with "BYC?" That would make more sense in the context of his quote...

I'll tell you what. I'll go check with the 'captologists' over on RealGM. Maybe someone can find out for us...