Woj: Celtics offering Young or Hunter for a 2nd

[saltlover]

Shocked that Danny doesn't hit on all his picks.

More of a roster space problem, than a problem with his picks.

Eh, if Young or Hunter had shown more in the last year or two, Gerald Green wouldn't have been signed, creating said roster space problem.

[kraidstar]

If we are hearing it in the media, I think it's because they haven't been able to get a 2nd for either guy.

Not really sure where either is a fit, maybe New Orleans or Philadelphia.

If teams know they are going to cut one then why not just wait?

On the off chance a team wanted to make sure they are the ones that get Hunter or Young they may want to make a trade

There are several reasons teams might want to trade for Young/Hunter.

If multiple teams place a claim on a waived player, worst record gets the player. So if the Warriors wanted Hunter/Young, they'd be at severe risk of getting beaten by a lesser team in the waiver process due to their good record.

Teams that are over the cap can't claim these guys on waivers. They risk losing them to teams that are under the cap, unless they have a trade exception instead.

And if Young/Hunter clear waivers, a team that is over the cap also has no cap space to sign them for more than a minimum deal unless they want to use a mid-level exception etc.


per the CBA:
A team can claim a player on waivers only if one of the following is true:

- The team is far enough under the salary cap to fit the player's entire salary.
- The team has a Disabled Player exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 25), and the player is on the last season of his contract.
- The team has a trade exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 85).
- The player has a minimum salary contract (one or two seasons at the minimum salary, with no bonuses of any kind).

If a team makes a successful waiver claim, it acquires the player and his existing contract, and pays the remainder of his salary -- the waiving team is relieved of all responsibility for the player. There is a fee of $1,000, payable to the league office, for claiming a player on waivers. If more than one team tries to claim a player on waivers, the team with the worst record gets him.



http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q65

We're talking Young and Hunter here.  Who in their right mind would offer them more than minimum?

Just because they're the 15th/16th-best guys on this club doesn't mean it's the same everywhere. The Nets and Sixers might want to take a flyer on them, and paying more than the minimum might be the only way to do so, as you might have other teams over the cap who would like to add a prospect shooter.

The minimum salary for 2nd/3rd year guys is like $800k. That is chump change, it's not crazy to have a few teams gambling that they might improve. Especially a team like the Nets, that has almost no other ways of improving themselves long-term.

If you trade for Young, you've got to pick up his 4th option which at 2.8mil is not chump change.  Hunter's 3rd year option is a more reasonable 1.2mil.  The problem is Young and Hunter haven't done anything to deserve being traded for.  The Nets and Sixers are better off waiting to see who everyone releases.

I don't think we're disagreeing here, if anyone trades they have to pay the full salary.

Though I don't believe if a team takes on Young they necessarily have to pick up next year's option. They could dump him if they're unsatisfied, they have until June 30th to decide.

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/238777/CBA-Encyclopedia-Contract-Options

But we were talking about how if a guy clears waivers then teams can offer whatever they like. Clubs with cap space have the clear advantage in those situations. It provides some incentive for a club without cap space to make the trade instead, as they can offer almost nothing in initial salary. If someone on, say the Spurs really likes Hunter and thinks they can make a good player of him, maybe they swing a deal.

I don't think there's heavy interest, but all it takes is one team who values them enough to pull the trigger.

[LarBrd33]

Makes sense

[saltlover]

If we are hearing it in the media, I think it's because they haven't been able to get a 2nd for either guy.

Not really sure where either is a fit, maybe New Orleans or Philadelphia.

If teams know they are going to cut one then why not just wait?

On the off chance a team wanted to make sure they are the ones that get Hunter or Young they may want to make a trade

There are several reasons teams might want to trade for Young/Hunter.

If multiple teams place a claim on a waived player, worst record gets the player. So if the Warriors wanted Hunter/Young, they'd be at severe risk of getting beaten by a lesser team in the waiver process due to their good record.

Teams that are over the cap can't claim these guys on waivers. They risk losing them to teams that are under the cap, unless they have a trade exception instead.

And if Young/Hunter clear waivers, a team that is over the cap also has no cap space to sign them for more than a minimum deal unless they want to use a mid-level exception etc.


per the CBA:
A team can claim a player on waivers only if one of the following is true:

- The team is far enough under the salary cap to fit the player's entire salary.
- The team has a Disabled Player exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 25), and the player is on the last season of his contract.
- The team has a trade exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 85).
- The player has a minimum salary contract (one or two seasons at the minimum salary, with no bonuses of any kind).

If a team makes a successful waiver claim, it acquires the player and his existing contract, and pays the remainder of his salary -- the waiving team is relieved of all responsibility for the player. There is a fee of $1,000, payable to the league office, for claiming a player on waivers. If more than one team tries to claim a player on waivers, the team with the worst record gets him.



http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q65

We're talking Young and Hunter here.  Who in their right mind would offer them more than minimum?

Just because they're the 15th/16th-best guys on this club doesn't mean it's the same everywhere. The Nets and Sixers might want to take a flyer on them, and paying more than the minimum might be the only way to do so, as you might have other teams over the cap who would like to add a prospect shooter.

The minimum salary for 2nd/3rd year guys is like $800k. That is chump change, it's not crazy to have a few teams gambling that they might improve. Especially a team like the Nets, that has almost no other ways of improving themselves long-term.

If you trade for Young, you've got to pick up his 4th option which at 2.8mil is not chump change.  Hunter's 3rd year option is a more reasonable 1.2mil.  The problem is Young and Hunter haven't done anything to deserve being traded for.  The Nets and Sixers are better off waiting to see who everyone releases.

I don't think we're disagreeing here, if anyone trades they have to pay the full salary.

Though I don't believe if a team takes on Young they necessarily have to pick up next year's option. They could dump him if they're unsatisfied, they have until June 30th to decide.

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/238777/CBA-Encyclopedia-Contract-Options

But we were talking about how if a guy clears waivers then teams can offer whatever they like. Clubs with cap space have the clear advantage in those situations. It provides some incentive for a club without cap space to make the trade instead, as they can offer almost nothing in initial salary. If someone on, say the Spurs really likes Hunter and thinks they can make a good player of him, maybe they swing a deal.

I don't think there's heavy interest, but all it takes is one team who values them enough to pull the trigger.

Options for 1st round picks need to be picked up October 31st of the prior season.  Anyone trading for Young has to make that decision in 10 days (or less).  Same with Hunter.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Shocked that Danny doesn't hit on all his picks.

More of a roster space problem, than a problem with his picks.

Eh, if Young or Hunter had shown more in the last year or two, Gerald Green wouldn't have been signed, creating said roster space problem.

Probably not, because who doesn't want control of players in rookie scaled contracts? Just the same, if we haven't had a gazillion picks in the past handful of years, we wouldn't be having said roster problem either. We have one of the youngest teams in the NBA as it is.

Of the 16 players looking for a roster spot, half of them have 3-years or less of experience. Seven of them 2-years or less.

Keeping in mind that the 2 players in question is a 21 year old with 2 years of experience and a 22 year old with 1 year of experience.

Also keeping in mind that the players who have leaped frogged ahead, these other 5 young guys, have all been Danny Ainge picks.

I'll also point out that of the 16 players trying to make the team, 10 of them are Ainge picks.

And this after having to stash 3 players of this draft class.

[Snakehead]

Ryan Kelly.... huh.

[tazzmaniac]

If we are hearing it in the media, I think it's because they haven't been able to get a 2nd for either guy.

Not really sure where either is a fit, maybe New Orleans or Philadelphia.

If teams know they are going to cut one then why not just wait?

On the off chance a team wanted to make sure they are the ones that get Hunter or Young they may want to make a trade

There are several reasons teams might want to trade for Young/Hunter.

If multiple teams place a claim on a waived player, worst record gets the player. So if the Warriors wanted Hunter/Young, they'd be at severe risk of getting beaten by a lesser team in the waiver process due to their good record.

Teams that are over the cap can't claim these guys on waivers. They risk losing them to teams that are under the cap, unless they have a trade exception instead.

And if Young/Hunter clear waivers, a team that is over the cap also has no cap space to sign them for more than a minimum deal unless they want to use a mid-level exception etc.


per the CBA:
A team can claim a player on waivers only if one of the following is true:

- The team is far enough under the salary cap to fit the player's entire salary.
- The team has a Disabled Player exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 25), and the player is on the last season of his contract.
- The team has a trade exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 85).
- The player has a minimum salary contract (one or two seasons at the minimum salary, with no bonuses of any kind).

If a team makes a successful waiver claim, it acquires the player and his existing contract, and pays the remainder of his salary -- the waiving team is relieved of all responsibility for the player. There is a fee of $1,000, payable to the league office, for claiming a player on waivers. If more than one team tries to claim a player on waivers, the team with the worst record gets him.



http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q65

We're talking Young and Hunter here.  Who in their right mind would offer them more than minimum?

Just because they're the 15th/16th-best guys on this club doesn't mean it's the same everywhere. The Nets and Sixers might want to take a flyer on them, and paying more than the minimum might be the only way to do so, as you might have other teams over the cap who would like to add a prospect shooter.

The minimum salary for 2nd/3rd year guys is like $800k. That is chump change, it's not crazy to have a few teams gambling that they might improve. Especially a team like the Nets, that has almost no other ways of improving themselves long-term.

If you trade for Young, you've got to pick up his 4th option which at 2.8mil is not chump change.  Hunter's 3rd year option is a more reasonable 1.2mil.  The problem is Young and Hunter haven't done anything to deserve being traded for.  The Nets and Sixers are better off waiting to see who everyone releases.

I don't think we're disagreeing here, if anyone trades they have to pay the full salary.

Though I don't believe if a team takes on Young they necessarily have to pick up next year's option. They could dump him if they're unsatisfied, they have until June 30th to decide.

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/238777/CBA-Encyclopedia-Contract-Options

But we were talking about how if a guy clears waivers then teams can offer whatever they like. Clubs with cap space have the clear advantage in those situations. It provides some incentive for a club without cap space to make the trade instead, as they can offer almost nothing in initial salary. If someone on, say the Spurs really likes Hunter and thinks they can make a good player of him, maybe they swing a deal.

I don't think there's heavy interest, but all it takes is one team who values them enough to pull the trigger.

Options for 1st round picks need to be picked up October 31st of the prior season.  Anyone trading for Young has to make that decision in 10 days (or less).  Same with Hunter.

If I were the owners, I'd want to change that in the new CBA especially with rookie salaries going up.  Seems strange to have to decide on the 3rd year option after 1 season and 4th year option after two seasons.  Ought to be able to push it back to the next trade deadline at least. 

[kraidstar]

If we are hearing it in the media, I think it's because they haven't been able to get a 2nd for either guy.

Not really sure where either is a fit, maybe New Orleans or Philadelphia.

If teams know they are going to cut one then why not just wait?

On the off chance a team wanted to make sure they are the ones that get Hunter or Young they may want to make a trade

There are several reasons teams might want to trade for Young/Hunter.

If multiple teams place a claim on a waived player, worst record gets the player. So if the Warriors wanted Hunter/Young, they'd be at severe risk of getting beaten by a lesser team in the waiver process due to their good record.

Teams that are over the cap can't claim these guys on waivers. They risk losing them to teams that are under the cap, unless they have a trade exception instead.

And if Young/Hunter clear waivers, a team that is over the cap also has no cap space to sign them for more than a minimum deal unless they want to use a mid-level exception etc.


per the CBA:
A team can claim a player on waivers only if one of the following is true:

- The team is far enough under the salary cap to fit the player's entire salary.
- The team has a Disabled Player exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 25), and the player is on the last season of his contract.
- The team has a trade exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 85).
- The player has a minimum salary contract (one or two seasons at the minimum salary, with no bonuses of any kind).

If a team makes a successful waiver claim, it acquires the player and his existing contract, and pays the remainder of his salary -- the waiving team is relieved of all responsibility for the player. There is a fee of $1,000, payable to the league office, for claiming a player on waivers. If more than one team tries to claim a player on waivers, the team with the worst record gets him.



http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q65

We're talking Young and Hunter here.  Who in their right mind would offer them more than minimum?

Just because they're the 15th/16th-best guys on this club doesn't mean it's the same everywhere. The Nets and Sixers might want to take a flyer on them, and paying more than the minimum might be the only way to do so, as you might have other teams over the cap who would like to add a prospect shooter.

The minimum salary for 2nd/3rd year guys is like $800k. That is chump change, it's not crazy to have a few teams gambling that they might improve. Especially a team like the Nets, that has almost no other ways of improving themselves long-term.

If you trade for Young, you've got to pick up his 4th option which at 2.8mil is not chump change.  Hunter's 3rd year option is a more reasonable 1.2mil.  The problem is Young and Hunter haven't done anything to deserve being traded for.  The Nets and Sixers are better off waiting to see who everyone releases.

I don't think we're disagreeing here, if anyone trades they have to pay the full salary.

Though I don't believe if a team takes on Young they necessarily have to pick up next year's option. They could dump him if they're unsatisfied, they have until June 30th to decide.

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/238777/CBA-Encyclopedia-Contract-Options

But we were talking about how if a guy clears waivers then teams can offer whatever they like. Clubs with cap space have the clear advantage in those situations. It provides some incentive for a club without cap space to make the trade instead, as they can offer almost nothing in initial salary. If someone on, say the Spurs really likes Hunter and thinks they can make a good player of him, maybe they swing a deal.

I don't think there's heavy interest, but all it takes is one team who values them enough to pull the trigger.

Options for 1st round picks need to be picked up October 31st of the prior season.  Anyone trading for Young has to make that decision in 10 days (or less).  Same with Hunter.

Good catch, you're right. That probably does lower the odds of a trade, especially for Young, who makes more than Hunter.

Hunters salary is $1.2M this year, $1.25 next year.

Jimmy Young is $1.8M this year, $2.8M next.

Not a huge difference, but might matter to some clubs.

[mctyson]

What a failure.  Holds onto these draft picks like they're gold.   Drafts guys that will need to play to develop then has to cut them because he didn't have enough playing time for them and has made too many picks.   assets.

These extra picks we kept (15-60) were not about hitting on each one. The more you have the better shot you have of hitting on any of them. What are the odds any GM finds a true serviceable player with almost every draft pick? These two guys were selected in the late teens and late 20's. It can't be Paul George and Jimmy Butler every time.

This...

Not only that, but remember RJ Hunter was projected to be a mid-1st round pick, and Terry Rozier was not. 

No one here is thanking Danny for that one, of course.

[Alleyoopster]

Frankly

Danny is a better Pirate than a treasure hunter


Other words


He is better at stealing others richs than finding his own.



I guess it does not matter how you end up with great players ,  just as long as you do.

I'd say MS, TR, KO and JB is looking like a pretty good harvest for his last four top picks.

That is, I think Danny is both a hunter and gatherer.

I'm with you. Ainge comes out looking like a genius picking Rozier at 16.

Drafting Rozier should definitely quiet the Danny Ainge draft critics for a while.

No, it won't quiet his critics.I"ll admit the Rozier pick turned out great. However, I'm still upset Ainge signed Mickey for 4 years when it was painfully obvious he was undersized.

Selecting Yab at 16. Are you kidding? With a lot of quality players on the board and a need for rebounding I'm sure there are going to be a lot of regrets.

[Eja117]

Maybe somebody else already said this but has Young run out of NBDL eligibility as opposed to RJ?

[saltlover]

Frankly

Danny is a better Pirate than a treasure hunter


Other words


He is better at stealing others richs than finding his own.



I guess it does not matter how you end up with great players ,  just as long as you do.

I'd say MS, TR, KO and JB is looking like a pretty good harvest for his last four top picks.

That is, I think Danny is both a hunter and gatherer.

I'm with you. Ainge comes out looking like a genius picking Rozier at 16.

Drafting Rozier should definitely quiet the Danny Ainge draft critics for a while.

No, it won't quiet his critics.I"ll admit the Rozier pick turned out great. However, I'm still upset Ainge signed Mickey for 4 years when it was painfully obvious he was undersized.

Selecting Yab at 16. Are you kidding? With a lot of quality players on the board and a need for rebounding I'm sure there are going to be a lot of regrets.

Regarding Mickey, do you understand how non-guaranteed contracts work?  He's not signed for four years.  He signed for two.  The following two years he will only stick around if he shows something.  If he doesn't, he can be cut at zero cost, or even traded as salary filler on draft that the other team can cut at zero cost.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Frankly

Danny is a better Pirate than a treasure hunter


Other words


He is better at stealing others richs than finding his own.



I guess it does not matter how you end up with great players ,  just as long as you do.

I'd say MS, TR, KO and JB is looking like a pretty good harvest for his last four top picks.

That is, I think Danny is both a hunter and gatherer.

I'm with you. Ainge comes out looking like a genius picking Rozier at 16.

Drafting Rozier should definitely quiet the Danny Ainge draft critics for a while.

No, it won't quiet his critics.I"ll admit the Rozier pick turned out great. However, I'm still upset Ainge signed Mickey for 4 years when it was painfully obvious he was undersized.

Selecting Yab at 16. Are you kidding? With a lot of quality players on the board and a need for rebounding I'm sure there are going to be a lot of regrets.

Regarding Mickey, do you understand how non-guaranteed contracts work?  He's not signed for four years.  He signed for two.  The following two years he will only stick around if he shows something.  If he doesn't, he can be cut at zero cost, or even traded as salary filler on draft that the other team can cut at zero cost.

I loved the Mickey deal. Then a again I have a huge bias for rookie contracts full of non guarantees while also netting us Bird Rights along the way at the cheap.

[Kuberski33]

It seems unreal that teams aren't willing to basically trade for one of these players for free. I guarantee Danny isn't asking for anything in return for these guys, only like a top-55 protected 2nd, which will probably never even convert over to us.

I can't believe even Philly wouldn't want one of the two young shooters, unless he's asking for a bigger deal from Philly due to our context with them.

There is a huge pool of players in the D-League and elsewhere that are just like these 2 guys - they have one or two serviceable NBA skills with a hope that eventually they develop enough additional skills so that they can make a rotation. 

Neither one of these guys has any real value to another NBA team unless you find a coach or GM who for whatever reason likes the player enough so that they'll take a flyer on him. But forget about them giving you anything in return.  There will be players cut from other teams this week who are better than either Young or Hunter.

[Kuberski33]

And in all seriousness, I'd cut both of them and go sign Kendrick Perkins for his 6 fouls.  He'll be a better end of bench player than either of these two.