LMA Trade Algebra

[ABM]

Hypothetically, if LMA wasn't happy (long-term) in Portland, would it be reasonable to trade him to, say, Cleveland, Orlando, or Washington, get a proven SG and another decent player (to make the salaries work), flip-flop 1st Round draft picks, then sign Hickson?

....or similar?

 

[RR7]

If he is unhappy, and Olshey knows that, then yes, it makes sense to trade him, but no to keeping Hickson.

 

[ABM]

I was thinking about it this evening, and it would occur to me that Aldridge, at this point in his career (what is he now, a 6-year vet?), would want to have a stab at a championship. I'm guessing the Blazers are a 2 or more years away from that. When does his contract expire? Might he walk at that point?

 

[Reep]

If LMA shows signs of leaving then a Cleveland trade makes sense. Depending on what you get left, I would consider signing JJ. He sure worked his butt off this last year, and showed lots of improvement. I would hope to sign him for two years and see if he can add some defense.

Remember that the salaries don't have to work, and Portland should take back as little as possible. If going that route, I would stockpile as many bigs as I could get so that you could trade one to fill out the roster later.

ABM, did you have any SGs in mind? Or is it just that there aren't really many good 5s that you could get in such a trade?

The teams you named don't really have good established SGs. Beal from Washington would be interesting. The problem is that after the first pick (Noel) then the next most interesting picks are SGs, so Beal doesn't really make sense.

What would be fun is to get one of the first three picks and somehow parley it into something like the 5 and 8 and end up with Len and McCollum.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

The CLE deal has potential.

Package that pick (with Meyers?) for DMC. We'd have competition with the LOLcats -- they are trying to put together a similar offer.

We'd have the #10 to use or deal. Use the #19 on Shane Larkin.

DMC/Thompson/Larkin is a nice haul.

With Ujiri, i wonder ih he'd have interest in pairing LMA with Gay. I like Big Val's potential.

 

[ABM]

ABM, did you have any SGs in mind? Or is it just that there aren't really many good 5s that you could get in such a trade?

OK, I'm no trade guru (please be kind), but I tried this earlier this evening and it appeared to work.....not that either team would do it, mind you.

Portland trades Aldridge, Joel Freeland, and the #10 pick

Cleveland trades Varejao, Waiters, and the #1 pick

 

[ebott]

The CLE deal has potential.

Package that pick (with Meyers?) for DMC. We'd have competition with the LOLcats -- they are trying to put together a similar offer.

We'd have the #10 to use or deal. Use the #19 on Shane Larkin.

DMC/Thompson/Larkin is a nice haul.

With Ujiri, i wonder ih he'd have interest in pairing LMA with Gay. I like Big Val's potential.

I think I'd rather keep the pick and draft Noel than get DMC. At least Noel isn't a head case.

 

[BrianFromWA]

So there seem to be only a few scenarios available.

1. "Trade LMA this summer for the boatload of young players/unprotected draft picks." CLE has already made it known that they'd trade the #1 for Kevin Love. If that's the starting point, I'd imagine you could pull some more assets away (#19, #31/33, SAC's protected 2014, future 1sts). And if (since?) LMA is that much better than Love, then you'd think you could get even more. That CLE wants LMA isn't a made-up rumor by Simmons. It was reported by Yahoo a week before Simmons talked about it.
As for people talking about having to pay a higher salary for the #1 pick, I don't think that's much of an issue. If you get the #1 pick, you're going to still be paying that player less than Wes, and only about 1.3M a year more than Freeland.
This seems to have the highest volatility, but highest ceiling. It's not close to the lowest floor, though.

2. "Trade LMA next summer or at the 2014-15 trade deadline for a significantly reduced amount/quality of young players/draft picks." This isn't the most horrible idea--seeing if you can make the 2013-14 team as competitive as possible and fulfilling LMA's wish of a big body. There are a couple of issues, though.
a) depending on your level of optimism, the return in the summer of 2014 for LMA will range from "significantly reduced from this year" to "rent-a-player". You're also cutting out a significant portion of suitors. This summer, there's a small chance that LMA wouldn't gripe about going to a team that has sucked but is seen as on the rise (CLE, SAC?, CHA?) in addition to the normal "contenders" like HOU, DAL, OKC, etc. Next year? I don't think there's any way that CLE/SAC/CHA/MIL/17 other non-contenders teams in the league offer much of anything in exchange for one year of LMA right before he takes money from a contender in the summer of 2015.
b) If you do manage to trade him in 2014, you're going to be left with Lillard, 2 more years of Batum, one more year of Wes, our bench, and whichever overpriced big body we bring in this summer (Jordan/Asik/Pekovic/McGee/whoever), the #10 pick, no pick in 2014 (1st or 2nd), whoever you can sign for the MLE in 2014 and the return from the trade.

3. "Don't trade LMA at all--he's an All-Star and there's NO WAY he'd leave Portland at the end of his contract. Get a 'defensive-minded center who might only play limited minutes' and build around LMA and Dame."
This one has both the lowest ceiling and the lowest floor. In what I see as the most likely scenario, we are decent next year (probably even a playoff team), lose our pick (leaving us with a total of zero picks) in a great draft, only have the MLE available to improve next summer, and use that single acquisition and personal growth to possibly make it to the 2nd round before LMA leaves for somewhere else for nothing. OR, assuming that he does stay, we're still with Dame/LMA/Batum in his final year/Leonard/Big Body C and our bench, with our 2015 MLE acquisitions and no way to improve going forward other than MLEs and mid-round picks. I don't know if I see that as a championship team.

Additionally, if you think that LMA is sticking around past 2015, then it seems like you're committing today to a 5-year max for him in the summer he turns 30. That's going to be at least a 5yr/95M deal that starts out at 16.5M and goes up to 21.5M when he's 34. Maybe he'll be worth it. Maybe he won't.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Additionally, if you think that LMA is sticking around past 2015, then it seems like you're committing today to a 5-year max for him in the summer he turns 30. That's going to be at least a 5yr/95M deal that starts out at 16.5M and goes up to 21.5M when he's 34. Maybe he'll be worth it. Maybe he won't.

I am not so sure that is true. Contracts don't seem to be escalating that much any more. I would think that an extension of 15 per each year is closer. Still a lot of money, but about 20 million less over 5 years.

 

[BrianFromWA]

max raise is 7.5% for a team extending their own FA. 7.5% of 16.5M is 1.24M a year in raises.

salary year nba yr lma age
$16,543,800 1 15-16 30
$17,784,585 2 16-17 31
$19,025,370 3 17-18 32
$20,266,155 4 18-19 33
$21,506,940 5 19-20 34


edit: Can someone explain (via PM if you need to) how to embed spreadsheet inputs?

 

[Pinwheel1]

max raise is 7.5% for a team extending their own FA. 7.5% of 16.5M is 1.24M a year in raises.

salary year nba yr lma age
$16,543,800 1 15-16 30
$17,784,585 2 16-17 31
$19,025,370 3 17-18 32
$20,266,155 4 18-19 33
$21,506,940 5 19-20 34


edit: Can someone explain (via PM if you need to) how to embed spreadsheet inputs?

Nobody will give him close to that.

 

[e_blazer]

I think that there are a bunch of permutations of #3 that may be available. I think that the crop of likely centers is pretty unlikely to move the dial much. I could see Olshey going for a bigger hit by trying to pull off a deal that gets another All-Star caliber player at a wing position and then moves either Wes or Nic for a serviceable center. I guess there's also the option of banking on Leonard getting better quickly, just picking up an aging vet for not much money (O'Neal?) to buy some time, and using most of the cap space to pick up better bench pieces. I call that one the MediocreMan Coronary plan.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Nobody else CAN. The most another team can offer (even in a sign-and-trade) is 4yrs/$70.6M. They only get 4 years and 4.5% raises.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Nobody else CAN. The most another team can offer (even in a sign-and-trade) is 4yrs/$70.6M. They only get 4 years and 4.5% raises.

So why do you think it would take at least 95 mil over 5 years? Can't we just offer him 75 mil over 4 years and beat anyone else by 5 mil? Sorry if I am being a little dense here.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Sure, we could do that. But if the team's big plan is to gamble that LMA stays past 2015, I don't think there's any way you do that scrimping on a deal. If HOU (for instance) could offer 4/70 and Portland offers 4/75, then they're leaving a year and 20M on the table. Maybe LMA understands that. Maybe he gets pissed off that he can't get a "max" deal.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

That would be such an anchor of a contract. He is NOT worth that deal.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I like LMA. But I do not over estimate his talents. I doubt the GM's of other teams do either.
His home state teams will be the biggest competition for his services. Hopefully Houston will be maxed out with Howard. As for Dallas....will Dirk retire? Will Cuban replace Dirk with LMA?
I guess they could but I am not so sure they will. LMA is good, but i doubt other teams are saving their cap room for him. We may be able to sign him for a decent contract.

 

[magnifier661]

It's a good thing that the only rumors of Aldridge showing signs of wanting out are in this forum. Aldridge is the best PF in the game right now. I still laugh that so many want him gone in here.

 

[e_blazer]

It's a good thing that the only rumors of Aldridge showing signs of wanting out are in this forum. Aldridge is the best PF in the game right now. I still laugh that so many want him gone in here.

Same. I also think it's odd that there's so much worrying about what happens at the end of his contract...as if NO and LMA haven't had conversations about this issue?

 

[oldmangrouch]

Roy and Oden are gone and the team has nothing to show for it. They can't let that happen with LMA.

 

[e_blazer]

Roy and Oden are gone and the team has nothing to show for it. They can't let that happen with LMA.

Not exactly true. They have Damian Lillard to show for it. If Roy and Oden were still around and able to play at a high level, the Blazers wouldn't have been in a position to draft Lillard. But, yeah, losing Aldridge for nothing but cap space would suck...which is why Olshey has undoubtedly had a talk with LMA about their respective perspectives on the Blazers' and Aldridge's future aspirations. Aldridge has said as much...saying that NO told him he wouldn't trade Aldridge, would try to bring in pieces this summer and next that would put the Blazers into contention, that the Blazers would be decent next season and good the one thereafter. Obviously, if that doesn't happen then both sides are going to have to look to their own interests. Given that the Blazers will hold Aldridge's Bird Rights and that LMA, should he decide he wants to leave, would want to go to a contender, there's a pretty good chance that a sign-and-trade could be worked out. Regardless of that, barring some team offering the moon for LMA, I don't see any reason to look to make a move before seeing what improvements can be made this off-season.

 

[magnifier661]

Roy and Oden are gone and the team has nothing to show for it. They can't let that happen with LMA.

They were gone because of injuries. Last time I checked; Aldridge has been the least likely to get injured. (Knock on wood)

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Blazers - (LMA + SG) + x(picks) = Blazers + (LMA - y) +2(x)tension

 

[RR7]

So there seem to be only a few scenarios available.

1. "Trade LMA this summer for the boatload of young players/unprotected draft picks." CLE has already made it known that they'd trade the #1 for Kevin Love. If that's the starting point, I'd imagine you could pull some more assets away (#19, #31/33, SAC's protected 2014, future 1sts). And if (since?) LMA is that much better than Love, then you'd think you could get even more. That CLE wants LMA isn't a made-up rumor by Simmons. It was reported by Yahoo a week before Simmons talked about it.
As for people talking about having to pay a higher salary for the #1 pick, I don't think that's much of an issue. If you get the #1 pick, you're going to still be paying that player less than Wes, and only about 1.3M a year more than Freeland.
This seems to have the highest volatility, but highest ceiling. It's not close to the lowest floor, though.

2. "Trade LMA next summer or at the 2014-15 trade deadline for a significantly reduced amount/quality of young players/draft picks." This isn't the most horrible idea--seeing if you can make the 2013-14 team as competitive as possible and fulfilling LMA's wish of a big body. There are a couple of issues, though.
a) depending on your level of optimism, the return in the summer of 2014 for LMA will range from "significantly reduced from this year" to "rent-a-player". You're also cutting out a significant portion of suitors. This summer, there's a small chance that LMA wouldn't gripe about going to a team that has sucked but is seen as on the rise (CLE, SAC?, CHA?) in addition to the normal "contenders" like HOU, DAL, OKC, etc. Next year? I don't think there's any way that CLE/SAC/CHA/MIL/17 other non-contenders teams in the league offer much of anything in exchange for one year of LMA right before he takes money from a contender in the summer of 2015.
b) If you do manage to trade him in 2014, you're going to be left with Lillard, 2 more years of Batum, one more year of Wes, our bench, and whichever overpriced big body we bring in this summer (Jordan/Asik/Pekovic/McGee/whoever), the #10 pick, no pick in 2014 (1st or 2nd), whoever you can sign for the MLE in 2014 and the return from the trade.

3. "Don't trade LMA at all--he's an All-Star and there's NO WAY he'd leave Portland at the end of his contract. Get a 'defensive-minded center who might only play limited minutes' and build around LMA and Dame."
This one has both the lowest ceiling and the lowest floor. In what I see as the most likely scenario, we are decent next year (probably even a playoff team), lose our pick (leaving us with a total of zero picks) in a great draft, only have the MLE available to improve next summer, and use that single acquisition and personal growth to possibly make it to the 2nd round before LMA leaves for somewhere else for nothing. OR, assuming that he does stay, we're still with Dame/LMA/Batum in his final year/Leonard/Big Body C and our bench, with our 2015 MLE acquisitions and no way to improve going forward other than MLEs and mid-round picks. I don't know if I see that as a championship team.

Additionally, if you think that LMA is sticking around past 2015, then it seems like you're committing today to a 5-year max for him in the summer he turns 30. That's going to be at least a 5yr/95M deal that starts out at 16.5M and goes up to 21.5M when he's 34. Maybe he'll be worth it. Maybe he won't.

Other than it's the choice you seem to prefer, what makes option 1 have the highest ceiling? I understand you just want to be negative about option 3, and make assumptions that all we bring in is a big stiff, and that's it this offseason, but because of your bias againsst it, you really seem to give this option the lowest floor because of the way you present it, when it can very easily have the highest ceiling of the group.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

So there seem to be only a few scenarios available.

1. As for people talking about having to pay a higher salary for the #1 pick, I don't think that's much of an issue. If you get the #1 pick, you're going to still be paying that player less than Wes, and only about 1.3M a year more than Freeland..

I appreciate the post (while respectfully disagreeing), but I mentioned this point so thought I would address that.

I don't think Freeland is a good example why the #1 pick is worth the money. Freeland will make 2.8 next year and many consider him overpaid for that. Freeland is probably untradable because of his contract and I think Olshey would gladly have the cap space than Freeland, and again that is at almost half the price of #1 pick. In fact Freeland is an example of how a draft pick can work against a team. Wes, on the other hand, is a proven commodity and a value at his contract level. You can justify anyone's salary by saying the team has other players they pay that amount, but that really isn't the issue.

The question is if there is a player in the draft worth 5 million a yr (probably yes) and what are the odds the Blazers pick that player with the #1 pick. With the new CBA (and obviously you know this since you are the source on the board), how much a rookie makes, I think becomes an issue. (look at Houston trying to dump a rookie salary to try and get more cap space.)

I get if you think there is a player the Blazers can lock up at #1 who is worth 5 million/yr. Personally I think this is one of those rare years that the #1 pick is not the ideal spot. With no consensus #1 andd the #1 set to make 5 million/yr, I like the 4-6 spot . . .very likely can get your team's top choice at a lower salary/yr . . . and underpaid players are a huge asset in the NBA these days. If you swing and miss at say the #6 spot, it cost you about 2 million less than the #1 spot . . . which will help pay 2/3rd of Freeland's salary.

 

[BBert]

So why do you think it would take at least 95 mil over 5 years? Can't we just offer him 75 mil over 4 years and beat anyone else by 5 mil? Sorry if I am being a little dense here.

Unless I'm wrong LaMarcus would net more income playing for a Texas team in that scenario because their income tax is significantly less. Portland has to "overpay" just to stay even with other teams for more reasons than one.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Other than it's the choice you seem to prefer, what makes option 1 have the highest ceiling? I understand you just want to be negative about option 3, and make assumptions that all we bring in is a big stiff, and that's it this offseason, but because of your bias againsst it, you really seem to give this option the lowest floor because of the way you present it, when it can very easily have the highest ceiling of the group.

LOL, it's an analysis. How do you think I came to the conclusion that I've been trying to explain for a couple of weeks now?

What makes it the highest ceiling is that, to reach the ceiling, you'd need the stuff coming back from LMA and the additional 5-11M in cap space to make the team better/be better than what LMA and the stiff center (who do you think is coming who isn't? Even LMA said he doesn't plan on the guy playing a lot.) Seriously, name someone you can get without trading the Core Four. If we roll the dice on Bynum, forget I said anything. He's potentially the one player who could make Option 3 pretty good. I don't need to go into risk analysis there.

So, on to ceiling. Who do you think has a higher ceiling? LMA at 28/29 years old and someone like Jordan/Asik/Pekovic/Kaman/etc, or 9 years of a #1 pick, #10 pick, last year's #4 pick, and potentially either a late-first (#19) or a future 1st? That's why the ceiling is higher. Noel's ceiling isn't much different than Anthony Davis. Oladipo is being mentioned in the same breath as Jordan (whatever) and Wade. Someone like Shabazz or Zeller or whoever could be there at 10. Having an extra pick next year (in addition to possibly keeping our own) in a solid draft could net that.

What analysis of yours shows that LMA would stay, or that we can bring in a needle-mover without further stripping the team? I mean, I'm not necessarily opposed to something like trading Batum for a good center and then trying to fill in the SF hole, but where are your preferred choices and why you think they have high ceilings and are worth the gamble?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Fair enough, ToB. I understand what you're saying, but I take a slightly different approach. (BTW, you were right. I was going off memory to get Freeland at 3.1M next year, but he's not)

We're not in cap hell, or in need of a piece that would be competitive for a championship immediately (if we do the trade). If the L*kers were to pay a rookie 3M more than they needed just b/c they got him at 1 instead of a similar player at 10, that would start to hurt ($3.25 in tax for every $1 in salary at their current level, and worse next year if they're repeaters).
We don't really have to spend a lot of assets to get the #1 this year (for instance, a team might not want to give up the haul this year to get from #6 to #1 like anyone would've done last year, only to pay almost double for a similar player). So for us, it's basically a cash layout. Yes, it'll remove dollar-for-dollar our ability to get FA's, but the only way that's a big problem is if LMA is still here. If he's traded for #1 + whatever, then you actually will most likely end up with more space than you have now this summer.
Where my philosophy is a bit different is that, once you have the rights to a player, the actual salary is based on the team's players, not on your class of contract. For instance, I don't consider LMA "overpaid", but he's going to take up about 1/3 of the team's payroll this summer. You can get away with that if you have rookies performing above their status on their rookie contract. Similarly, I don't have any problem paying Oladipo (for instance) 2M+ less than I pay Wes if I make him the #1 pick, because my SG's still only make ~11M combined. That's not horrendous.

This wasn't super-coherent, partially b/c it's 1230am here, and partially because it's still not completely fleshed out. But I think that rookie contracts are almost always worth it--the talent level if you choose correctly will outperform contract value, which is a lot of what you're asking for in capped sports.

 

[RR7]

Noel's ceiling is a lot different than Davis. If it was similar, there wouldn't be any questions about who'd go #1 in the draft. And, of course, you factor in that he just tore his ACL. My issue with your analysis is you seem to be looking best case scenario primarily with the option you like the most, and worst case scenario with the option you like the least. That's fine if that's the way you want to come to your conclusion on what to do. I'm unsure where you're coming up with 5-11 million in additional cap space, also. 11? From moving LMA for 1, 19 and Thompson? #1 will make a little over 5 next season. Thompson will make 4. 19 will make about 1.5. We'd get an additional 4-5 million or so in cap space from moving him.

 

[BrianFromWA]

If you get Thompson with the package you end up with 5 more in space. If you just get picks (which was another rumor) then you're at 10+ more. That's all.

Right now there's still little question about who'll go #1, and that's with a dude with an ACL injury. A) Did you think he was a prospect on par with Davis before the injury? B) How much of his game will be robbed by a recovery from it?

You're getting the timing backwards. I didn't go into this thinking "I like Option 1, so I'll skew the results". I didn't go into it saying "I hate LMA--let's get rid of him." It was because so many people were saying that there's no way we should trade him that I started looking at if that really should be the case. As you can see, it's not. As you can see, there's a pretty decent case to be made that he should be traded if CLE is offering the package they're rumored to. (At least, to my thinking. Your mileage may vary).