Aldridge's rumor

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

> >  I was just watching NBA Today on ESPN and David Aldrige said that the
3
> > way deal would go like this
> > >
> > >  Seattle: Walker
> > >  Bulls: Shintzus, Ellison
> > >  Celtics:  Baker
> 
> Why is this latest iteration even referred to by Aldridge as a 3-way deal
(isn't
> it just a pair of 2-way trades)!?
> 
> Relocating Duh-wayne and Pervis to Chicago fails to resolve the main
issue of
> why Vin Baker would suddenly green light a sign-and-trade at around 4
million
> dollars (Walker's maximum trade cap figure). That's less than Vitaly
Potapenko
> money. Even Samaki Walker turned down a contract offer at that price
(probably a
> dumb move in his case).
> 
> I doubt trading Ellison will clear cap space to add to Vinnie's bottom
line,
> since the Celts already are at least 3 million over next year's cap as it
is. As
> for Shi-tzu, he basically has only a two-month playing contract for next
season.
> 
> If Vin Baker's actually willing to settle at around four million dollars,
then
> you'd think GM Wally Walker would just as soon re-sign him in Seattle for
that
> kind of money or a bit more. This trade makes no sense! Incidentally, it
> wouldn't make any more sense cap-wise even if you replaced Antoine
Walker's name
> with that of Ron Mercer.
> 
> Maybe my logic or math is flawed. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong!
 

Joe,

Its not your math or logic that is flawed, its the logic of the whole NBA
salary cap system. The reason dumping Ellison and Schintzius would help in
any 3-way (or double-2-way?) is that their salaries slots could then be
used by the Cs in a trade (and I also thought in signing FAs, but I
certainly could be mistaken). For example, as reported at NBAtalk.com (from
the Indanapolis Star News 7/27/99):

>>The Pacers are over the salary cap of $34 million, but have Antonio
Davis's salary next season, $4.5 million, to use in a trade. They could,
for example, trade a player making $3 million for one making $7.5
million.<<

In other words the Pacers will actually receive Bender's rights AND a $4.5
mil slot DESPITE being over the cap.

The same rules that would benefit the Pacers would also benefit the
Celtics. 

The key is trading a player to a team *under* the salary cap (Toronto will
be as soon as the new fiscal year begins - hence why the long rumored
Davis-Bender trade couldn't be consummated on draft night). If you trade a
player to a team under the cap without receiving a signed player in return
(Indiana only receives Bender's "rights") then you in effect also receive a
slot equal to the traded salary. In other words, the cap space is
"conserved" - it doesn't vanish but is exchanged from the
under-the-cap-team to the over-the-cap-team (for a limited time frame)
despite the fact that the latter team may still be over the cap.

So dumping Schintzius' and Ellison's salaries on the Bulls would enable the
Cs to package the resulting slots together to accommodate a trade that
under other ("normal"?) circumstances could not be made due to the salary
cap. The Celts would "normally" only be able to receive a player earning
1/2 of Antoine's salary (due to base year comp; next year the figure would
be 3/4). That comes to roughly $4.5 mil. However, as in Aldridge's
scenario, if the Cs send the two aforementioned players to Chicago their
salaries could then be added to what we could receive back in a trade (I
think I've heard the numbers at roughly $1.7 mil and $2.8 mil respectively
but whatever, the principle is the same). Those two salaries added to the
$4.5 mil we can receive back for Antoine would sum up (if these numbers are
accurate) to roughly $9 mil - the max that Baker can receive in a new
contract.

More than a *little* convoluted - eh? Perhaps only a Nostradamus could
figure out all the possible iterations. . . 

Best of luck dodging the Mir in Paris ;) 

- All the best, Tom Murphy