Now here’s the background for that piece. If you haven’t seen it already, Bill Simmons[1] recently wrote his annual “trade value” piece for Grantland, which is a wonderful look at player values, ranking them according to whether a team would be willing to trade Player X for another team’s Player Y. If the answer is “no,” then Player X should be ranked higher than Player Y. These articles tend to be massive — this year it was spread across three posts and I think added up to more words than the US tax code.

[1] I can’t do the nifty sidenotes like Grantland uses, so I’ll try this. Simmons, by the way, is one of the few NBA media guys I still haven’t met in person. I came close once — I was standing in the hallway of the Sloan Conference talking to Royce Webb a couple years ago, and Simmons whisked by us on his way into the VIP lounge, with his ear glued to his phone. He & Royce nodded to each other; I was ignored. I still wonder if there really was anyone on the other end of the phone. (The other guy I still haven’t met in person is Chad Ford, even though he was one of the first NBA media people I interacted with — long before either one of us got picked up by ESPN — but I’ve talked to him on the phone several times.)

Part 3 of the Trade Value article came out yesterday, which you can read here. In the section talking about Chris Paul there was a sidenote (number 13) which read:

Don’t rule out Chris Paul becoming a Laker next year. Here’s how they could pull it off: If they amnestied Kobe Bryant, then traded Pau Gasol to Houston for a dirt-cheap salary (say, Donatas Motiejunas), they’d suddenly be lopping close to $49 million off next year’s cap, leaving them with commitments to Metta World Peace, Steve Nash, Steve Blake, Chris Duhon, Jordan Hill, and Gasol’s cheap replacement for less than $30 million. That’s more than enough to sign Chris Paul and re-sign Dwight Howard if they took a little less … which they might, since it’s the Lakers and all.

Now I need to explain what happens when someone, anywhere, posts something controversial that has cap implications. I get asked about it. A lot. On an ordinary day I can expect about five emails, several tweets, a text or two, some Facebook messages, and at least one phone call asking about something someone wrote somewhere, wanting to know if it’s real or not[2]. It’s a daily occurrence, it’s part of the “job,” and I’m fine with it. Really — I try to be as interactive as possible with people, and it comes with the territory.

[2] If it’s a game night, then it’s also usually the topic of dinner conversation in the media room before the game.

In this particular case, there were two multipliers. One was that it dealt with the Lakers, and the other was that it was something Bill Simmons wrote — he’s the most read guy in the business. So I was getting hit up with questions about this as soon as I got up this morning.

There are three reasons I created this blog. One is because I wanted a place to publish things that aren’t really right for sites like ESPN.com — for example, detailed analyses on cap issues that wouldn’t have broad interest, even for Insider. Second is because I wanted to supplement Twitter with an outlet that lets me explain things without worrying about limits like 140 characters. Third is because if I’m getting asked the same question by a lot of people, I wanted a way to answer everyone in a manner that’s not so ephemeral as a tweet[3].

[3] The fourth reason, of course, is “because the world needs more Larry Coon.”

So it’s natural that I devote a blog post to answering all the questions I received about that one sidenote. As can be expected given the multipliers I just named, that post received a lot of attention — it’s the most read post in the (limited) history of this blog. It of course also received a lot of comments.

Forgetting about the 99% of comments that are spam (you’d be surprised if you haven’t done a blog yourself — I was), the comments are mostly good, but there are always a few that I’d consider to be vacuous.

And for whatever reason I was in a feisty mood today. So I took on a couple of the vacuous ones. Here’s the first one of those that I received, from a guy named Brent:

This is possibly the stupidest article I’ve ever read. Here’s my scenario of how it was written:
Scenario1a: You are high
Scenario1b: You had to meet a deadline and threw some cr*p together
Scenario2: Both

And being in a feisty mood, I couldn’t let something like that go unchallenged. My response was to point out that missing any meat, and I challenged him to provide it for me. Here’s my response:

Hmmm, let’s see:

1a. High? No, I don’t do drugs, sorry…unless you count daily overdoes of caffeine. I also love a good Pinot Noir or Chateneauf du Pape, a nice Scotch, or a good reposado Tequila, but none of those things were in my bloodstream when I wrote this post.

1b. Deadline? Since this is my own blog and I post in it whenever I feel like it, there ARE no deadlines. So this one is ruled out too.

2. Both. Well, since one and two are both false, both being true can be ruled out as well (I can diagram if for you if you’d like).

I could also point out that you committed a logical fallacy by limiting it to one of a limited number of choices (similar to a false dichotomy, although that fallacy refers specifically to TWO choices), to which you could respond, “you’re right — I don’t understand logic. My bad.”

So let’s ignore your logic and get to the meat — let’s see your explanation for why you think my post was so stupid.

Oh, wait…you didn’t provide one.

So let’s rectify this. You obviously must think there are REASONS why my piece was so stupid. Here’s your chance to tell me — and to show the world exactly why I’m such an idiot.

Write something up explaining why it was so mind-numbingly stupid that you could only conclude that I must be either high or on a deadline to have written it. Go through the errors, the false assumptions, the missing provisos and the faulty conclusions.

I will publish your response on this blog (assuming it’s at least minimally coherent and actually addresses the point). It will be the first ever guest piece I have allowed (and trust me, I -have- been asked by others if they could write for this blog). I will promote the shit out of it (hey, it’s my blog, and I can cuss if I want to). Here’s your chance to get yourself published and put me in my place at the same time.

The only possible downside for you (other than having to come up with something to say) is that I will respond to it. But hey, if you make good, solid, cogent points — if you convince me with your logic and art of persuasion — then I will acknowledge that fact, and your post and my response will serve as a testimony to your superior intellect.

So don’t just take a lame potshot and run — let’s hear what you have to say.

That’s right — I challenged Brent to provide an ACTUAL critique, and offered to post it here on the blog if he did. To his credit, Brent did just that (to be honest, I expected not to hear anything back). So here it is. I’ll respond to him at the end.

Larry, this is GREAT! I appreciate the chance to respond.
The reason I call the article (and not you, don’t get your feelings hurt, and I do appreciate the opportunity to respond again), is that it defies logic.
By logic, I mean starting with a presumption based in reality and then making factual accurate assumptions based on it in a sequential, realistic manner.
You start off with Kobe “Coming back late in the season as a shell of his former self”. Kobe Bryant, like it or not, has been playing through serious, intense injuries for over 17 years. All indications are that he will come back at the beginning of next season. I’m not trying to act “pugnacious” lol, but I am a doctor and I know a little about achilles’ tears. The timeframe of recovery is 6-9 months. Kobe’s will be 6, because for 17 years, he’s been coming back early from all forms of injuries. The man is simply a machine. Yes age takes it’s toll and he won’t be as high-flying, but he’s already converted to a mid-range, late Michael Jordan, post up game. Anyway, point being he’s an unusual athlete, and even if he were an average professional athlete, he is projected to be back at the beginning of next season. Therefore assumption 1 is, in all likelihood, false.
Ok, now, as you say “let’s assume the Lakers WOULD be willing to amnesty Kobe in order to make this all work. Otherwise, we can just stop here”. So let’s move on to the next assumption:

The Lakers trade Pau Gasol for Donatas Motiejunas??? Are you f*cking serious? Why in the name of hell would the Lakers trade Pau Gasol, who although he may be declining, is still a borderline All-star, for some nameless P.O.S? Is the idea that they just dump salary to make way for the admittedly remote possibility of getting Chris Paul? I think this is where I completely lost track of your “logic”, and found the article, well, stupid. If they want to clear salary, why would they trade their 3rd best player for noone. They could definitely trade some of their less useful assets, or, amnesty Metta World Peace. Agreed, noone wants to help the Lakers, but Memphis “helped” the Lakers many years ago with the Pau Gasol trade, and that has ended up well for both teams. Anyway, I digress…
We both agree there is no way that scenario 1, where Chris Paul moves across town to the Lakers for 6.8 million dollars. So that assumption is agreeably ludicrous.
Scenario2a: Howard takes 8.7 million. Again agreeably ludicrous. No NBA player has ever taken 10 million dollars less then what they could make, to play for a team. I sincerely doubt Dwight Howard will be the first to do so.
Scenario2b: Where they both take 13.7 million. Honestly this is the most possible fantasy of all. Yet you completely discount it. It’s not going to happen, but unlike the other scenarios, I’m not laughing…the “Big Three” in Miami all agreed to take less, albeit SIMILAR amounts, to become the best team in the league. I think Howard and Paul would have to feel they both sacrificed equally to sacrifice at all.
Scenarios 3a and 3b, again, are unlikely to happen because NBA players egos are as big as their salaries. Paul and Howard will have to sacrifice equally in order for this fantasy to occur.
Scenario 3c: This is actually the most plausible of all your assumptions. But have you looked at the team you’ve created? You have Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, and my nephew (who’s awesome btw just not great at basketball).

So, in order to create this awful team with two superstars and a bunch of pieces that don’t fit, you have to trade Pau Gasol for one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and amnesty the most popular athlete in Los Angeles since Magic Johnson.

Your ability to play with numbers is impressive, but data is just that…data. I do research, and if the hypothesis doesn’t make sense in the first place, there’s no point in crunching the numbers.

I hereby refer to this article as “stupid”. It’s not the nicest term but I’m post-call and that was the first word that came to mind.

P.S. You didn’t even point out I used improper grammar when I said “Your” high
P.P.S. I appreciate the chance to respond and hope this is all taken in good fun.

My response:

First, thanks for writing back. I remember being at a comedy club once, and a comedian dealt with a heckler by saying, “You really don’t want to challenge me right now. First of all, I’m sober and you’re not. Second, I do this for a living. I have a lot of practice dealing with assholes who try to out-funny me. And finally, I have a big-ass microphone right here, and you don’t.”

I challenged you to respond, in an arena where I have all the advantages, and you did. Kudos for that. I only wish you would have made your point in this way the first time, instead of with comments that add nothing to the discussion.

Okay, that said…

On Kobe’s injury — sometimes the past is a good predictor, and other times it’s not. I touched on this in this very article, talking about the “the Lakers wouldn’t do that” response. We don’t know what the Lakers would or wouldn’t do with Jim Buss in charge. The only data we have to go on is from when Jerry Buss was in charge.

Likewise, the fact that Kobe has always been a beast when it comes to playing through or recovering from injuries isn’t necessarily a good predictor of what will happen with THIS injury. I’m sure you know that this is one of the worst injuries a basketball player can have, and an injury you really can’t rush. I have access to the Lakers’ locker room. I’ve seen Kobe’s swollen fingers and ankles close up, I’ve talked to him about it, and I’ve marveled at how he’s always been able to play through it. I’ve been in a scrum of media folks, all of us gawking at Kobe’s hand from a few inches away, and all of us thinking, “holy shit — you PLAY with that?”

But this injury is not like the others. To quote The Princess Bride, “You’re only saying that because no one ever has.” Name ONE guy at this level who sustained the same injury and was able to return as some semblance of himself in that timeframe. The typical duration is a full year, and a significant time beyond that to return to his previous level — if it happens at all. I think the fact that Kobe has been able to deal so well with his previous injuries leads people to the assumption that it’ll be the same with THIS injury, and I think that assumption is a mistake.[4][5]

[4] We could also have a long discussion about whether a Kobe amnesty is reasonable if indeed he will miss the entire season, especially given the Lakers’ 2014 plan and the question of how to fit Kobe’s salary in with that plan. But that’s a whole ‘nother discussion, and this post is already getting Simmons-esque in its length.

[5] Do you REALLY think Kobe is inhuman? What if he had — forgive me for being morbid — pancreatic cancer? Would you still be saying, “It’s Kobe Bryant! He’s indestructible! He’ll be back in six months!” Probably not — so now it’s just a question of where you draw the line between things from which he recovers quickly and things from which he doesn’t. I’d put all his previous injuries in the former category, and this particular injury in the latter.

I also take issue with your saying his game has changed and he’s not a high-fly act any more. That was true even before the injury — we’re talking about his ability to return to the level he was at THIS year, not in 2000. He’s a jump shooter, and this is a devastating injury to the leg he jumps with.

But that’s not my main objection to your objection. My main objection is that it was a built-in premise. Remember, I was analyzing whether Simmons’ point was reasonable, from a cap standpoint. A Kobe amnesty was a part of HIS point. His idea doesn’t work at all if the Lakers AREN’T willing to amnesty Kobe, so the only way I could possibly analyze the feasibility of Simmons’ proposal is to accept the premise that the Lakers would be willing to amnesty Kobe.

I didn’t mean assume it like, “of course the Lakers would be willing to amnesty Kobe. We can just take it as a given and move on.” I meant assume it like, “we have to assume it, otherwise I can’t analyze Simmons’ proposal.” Maybe that’s what threw you off (even though I thought I made this point clearly).

On whether the Lakers would trade Gasol for Motiejunas — well, I already made it clear that the salaries wouldn’t work if it was Motiejunas, and instead it needed to be someone like Robinson — but I know that’s not your point.

But you already touched on my response when you pointed out that Memphis traded Gasol to the Lakers in the first place. Remember, at the time the trade was widely panned as a disaster for the Grizzlies. They were trading the same stud player — but this time in the prime of his career — for Kwame “cakethrower” Brown, a second round pick who wasn’t signed, and a first round pick who didn’t amount to anything (the fact that Marc Gasol later developed into an all-star is beside the point. At that time he was an unsigned second-rounder whose career path was still unknown. They didn’t have the advantage then of the hindsight we have now.).

So if a team wouldn’t dump a near-all-star for a stiff, then how come it’s exactly the sort of deal that brought Gasol to the Lakers in the first place, and how come these sorts of deals DO happen in the NBA? The answer is because you’re looking just at the small picture of one specific deal, and you’re looking at it strictly from a basketball perspective. There’s a financial component to deals as well, and sometimes deals are made ENTIRELY for financial reasons.[6]

[6] You asked, “Why would the Lakers trade their third best player for no one?” The Lakers traded the newly-crowned sixth man of the year for no one just two seasons ago.

In this case you need to look at the big picture — it’s not an isolated deal, but part of a series of deals to reach a specific endpoint — and you have to look at the financial aspect — it sets the team up to be able to make the other deals. Trade Gasol for Motiejunas as an isolated deal? I agree — bad move for the Lakers, and one they wouldn’t consider. But no one’s saying they’d be doing this deal in isolation.

You also objected to them dumping salary for the “remote possibility” of getting Chris Paul. I think neither Simmons nor I were suggesting they do this deal blindly, crossing their fingers & hoping that the remaining pieces fall into place. The idea is that they set everything up, and only do this deal if they know they have agreement on the rest of the package.

And now we also get back to my same big objection — trading Gasol for Motiejunas wasn’t MY idea. It was Simmons’ idea, and I was analyzing Simmons’ idea from a salary cap perspective.

You also said the Lakers “could trade some of their less useful assets, or amnesty Metta World Peace.” Same response — sure, they could do that, but: 1) That wasn’t part of Simmons’ proposal to which I was responding; and 2) None of that would have put the team in a position to acquire Chris Paul, which was the point of this exercise.

In my piece I went through the various ways of trying to work the numbers, and showed why each one them didn’t make sense. You then went through them, and pointed out that they didn’t make sense. Yeah — that was my point. Again, maybe you weren’t reading carefully enough, and thought I was saying they were plausible options…

On “…but have you looked at the team you created?” Uh, yeah — I did so right there in that piece. I was specifically pointing out that you have a thin-as-hell team, with little ability to add to it. Maybe by this point you were seeing red so much that it was blurring your vision.

So in summary, thanks for at least providing some content this time — but while you say my article was “stupid,” I think you mistakenly ascribed to me something that should have been directed at Simmons, and I think you weren’t reading carefully enough to realize I was making many of the same points you had in mind.

Credit: LakersNation.com

Somewhere a rumor started about the Lakers potentially clearing enough cap space to sign Chris Paul. Let’s take a look at the plausibility of this idea.

First off, let’s get the obvious red flag out of the way — it would require the Lakers to use their amnesty on Kobe Bryant. While I’m one of the people who thinks the Lakers have to at least give it some serious thought if Kobe’s going to miss the entire season (or come back late in the season and be a shell of his old self, which is more likely), this doesn’t necessarily reflect the team’s thinking on the issue.

I know many Lakers fans would say, “The Lakers would never amnesty Kobe,” talking about loyalty, one of the greatest players ever, P.R. hit, etc. If this was an ordinary year, I might be more inclined to agree with you. However, this year the Lakers are under new management. We have some track record for what the Lakers might or might not do under Jerry Buss. We have a sample size of zero to guide us with Jim Buss in charge.

So just for the sake of argument, let’s assume the Lakers WOULD be willing to amnesty Kobe in order to make this all work. Otherwise, we can just stop here.

This scenario has the Lakers trading Pau Gasol to Houston for Donatas Motiejunas. The last time I looked at the Rockets’ cap situation (link) they could get down to about $41.8 million. If the cap is $60 million (I’m hoping for updated projections soon) that gives them $18.2 million in cap room. Gasol makes $19.3 million, but he also has a trade bonus that would pay him about $700,000 (technically it’s 15%, but it’s limited to the maximum salary), so the Rockets would have to treat him as a $20.0 million incoming player, and they would have to send out at least $1.8 million. Motiejunas will make $1.4 million, so this wouldn’t work. They’d need to send out at least $400,000  more. They have a lot of non-guaranteed salary, but the premise here is that they’re already clearing out these players in order to have this much cap room. They won’t have any non-guaranteed salaries to trade.

[Note: The following paragraph and the resulting analysis were revised. Thanks to @BimaThug for pointing out that Gasol's trade bonus would be constrained by the maximum salary.]

So the Rockets would have to either send out a different player, or add an additional player to the Motiejunas trade. Nothing is a really good fit. It looks like Royce White at $1.7 million will be a little short. Do they add in Terrence Jones or Royce White to Motiejunas make the numbers work? Maybe, but if they do, then the Lakers’ spending ability is reduced. Another possibility would be to trade Thomas Robinson, at $3.5 million instead of Motiejunas. So just for the sake of argument let’s say they do Robinson for Gasol (note that we already had to abandon the original idea where the Rockets send out Motiejunas).

The Lakers would then have a total payroll of $64 million. I assume they’re going to waive Chris Duhon, who has a $1.5 million guarantee. That gets them down to $61.7 million. Now amnesty Kobe, and they’re at $31.2 million.

Next let’s look at their cap room. If they’re going to retain their Bird rights to Howard (which they’d need in order to re-sign him above the cap), his cap hold would be $20.5 million. There’d also be four cap holds totaling about $2 million. That brings them to $53.2 million.

This means Chris Paul would have to sign for $6.8 million. Not going to happen.

Let’s look at it a different way — say they renounce Dwight Howard and try to sign both with cap room. Dwight’s $20.5 million cap hold comes off, but we need to add $500,000 back in as a separate cap hold. They’d be at $33.2 million, with $26.8 million to split between the two of them.

Scenario 2a: Paul takes the max; Howard takes what’s left — Paul would get $18.7 million, leaving $8,1 million for Howard. Not going to happen.

Secnario 2b: They split the cap room — each takes about $13.4 million. Also not going to happen.

Finally, let’s assume that if the Lakers sign Chris Paul they don’t need Steve Nash any more, and waive/stretch him. His cap hit would be spread out over five years, $3.8 million per year. The Lakers would have to be willing to have Nash on their cap for $3.8 million for the next five years, but let’s assume they do. Their cap for Nash this summer would drop from $9.3 million to $3.8 million, saving $5.5 million. Let’s re-run the numbers:

Scenario 3a: Leave Howard on the cap, sign Paul, and then use Bird rights on Dwight — Their cap amount would be $47.7 million. Paul would get $12.3 million ($6.4 million less), and Howard gets his full $20.5 million. Paul doesn’t sign for that.

Scenario 3b: Renounce Howard, sign Paul, then re-sign Howard with cap room — Paul gets his full $18.7 million, and Howard gets $13.6 million. Howard doesn’t do this.

Scenario 3c: Split the cap room — They would split $32.3 million, each getting $16.1 million — Paul gets $2.6 million less, and Howard gets $4.4 million less. This may be the most palatable option, but again, BOTH players would have to agree to this. I think it’s very, very unlikely.

But let’s say scenario 3c is the one they want to go with. The Lakers would then be back at the cap, and would have the following on their roster:

1 – Chris Paul/Steve Blake
2 – Jodie Meeks
3 – Metta World Peace/Robinson (I know he’s more of a 4)
4/5 – Howard/Jordan Hill

They’d also have a 2nd round draft pick and the Room Mid-Level ($2.652 million). With this and minimum salary contracts they’d need to sign at least three players, including a starting shooting guard (a tall order given their budget) and a lot more depth at 2/3. They’d need to get younger, more athletic, and have better shooters. Not impossible, but there would be a lot of work to do in the front office.

But to get to this point, the following would have to happen:

1. Houston would have to agree to trade Robinson for Gasol. Remember, the Rockets are also clearing cap space in order to land a big-time free agent. I know they like Gasol (they almost traded for him in 2011, in the famous “basketball reasons” debacle), but is this the best they could do this year? I’m sure they like the idea of luring Howard to the Rockets — do they abandon that idea in order to help Howard and Chris Paul team up on the Lakers?

2. The Lakers would have to be willing to waive and stretch Steve Nash, and live with his cap hit over the next five years.

3. The Lakers would have to be willing to amnesty Kobe Bryant. They would have to make this decision in early July — probably too early to get a realistic prognosis on his recovery time.

4. Paul would have to agree to come to the Lakers, taking $2.6 million less than he could make from the Clippers or elsewhere, AND take one fewer year and smaller raises than he could get from the Clippers.

5. Howard would have to agree to return to the Lakers, taking $4.4 million less than he could make on the open market.

Is all this possible? Sure. But I think the possibility is extremely remote.

UPDATE:

I got a couple good questions on Twitter:

Q: Don’t the Lakers have a team option on Jodie Meeks?

A: Yes, they do. They could pass on the option, he would become a free agent, they could renounce him, and they would then save additional dollars on their cap. The savings would be about $1.05 million. I didn’t include this scenario for two reasons: 1) Even if the full amount went to one of Howard or Paul, it wouldn’t change the situation — they’d still have to take a big pay cut; 2) If the Lakers amnestied Kobe, they’d be extremely thin at SG, and could hardly stand to thin the roster further at that position; 3) The Lakers would have to make a decision on Meeks by June 30, and couldn’t even talk to Paul about it until July 1 — so they’d have to drop Meeks before they’d have any idea whether this unlikely scenario is even possible.

Q: What if Metta World Peace takes his opt-out and becomes a free agent?

A: Then the Lakers save about $7.7 million, and the financial objections I raised become less of a problem. But from what I hear, even though Metta raised the possibility of opting-out, it isn’t going to happen. I’d be shocked if it did.

And since a player opting-out isn’t something that’s under the team’s control, I didn’t want to consider it for this piece.

Q; Can the Lakers trade Steve Nash to Toronto, say for Kyle Lowry and Terrence Ross, rather than waiving him?

A: Let’s assume they could. Lowry could be waived, and his guarantee of $1 million would be on the books. Ross is on the books for $2.7 million — so that’s $3.7 million total, Waiving & stretching Nash leaves $3.8 million on their books — hardly any savings at all.

So this idea already adds an additional contingency to our unlikely scenario where all these other pieces have to fall together, making it even more unlikely. And even if it does work, the trade idea is further constrained by the requirement that the Lakers would have to find a trade that brings back significantly less than $3.8 million.

Q: Does the maximum salary affect Pau Gasol’s trade kicker?

A: Yes it does! I neglected this in the original article. I’ve revised the analysis to take the limitation on Gasol’s trade kicker into account. Thanks to @BimaThug for the catch.

ESPN LA 2013-04-12

But the Lakers still haven’t used their amnesty waiver — a one-time opportunity to waive a player with his salary exempted from the salary cap and luxury tax (although they still have to pay his salary). Only players who were on the team continuously since the CBA was signed in December 2011, and who are still playing on the same contract, are eligible to be amnestied. For the Lakers, only Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Metta World Peace and Steve Blake meet these criteria.

You can forget about Bryant, for obvious reasons. Unless he loses a leg in an industrial accident between now & July, he’s safe from the amnesty axe.

I have always thought that Gasol was equally safe. Even if the Lakers decide that Gasol & Howard just aren’t a compatible combination, you have to remember that amnesty is more of a last-ditch resort than a preferred option. Assuming the player(s) or pick(s) returned in a trade are acceptable, teams will always prefer a trade to an amnesty waiver. Teams don’t have to continue paying a traded player, they can get assets in return, and they get to preserve their one-time amnesty waiver to use on players they can’t trade.

I thought — and still think — that Metta World Peace is the logical choice to amnesty. As I told Ramona Shelburne, waiving Peace and his $7.7 million salary would save the team over $30 million in taxes. With Peace gone the team would be about $22.3 million over the tax line rather than $30 million, and the luxury tax bill would drop from $85 million to about $53.6 million. Still a lot, to be sure, but I think he’s the best choice from the standpoint of production vs. savings.

More than one person has responded by saying that it should be Pau Gasol, not Peace, who is amnestied. The Lakers’ luxury tax savings would certainly be greater — closer to $62 million — and these people argue that the soon-to-be-33-year-old is no longer the same player who teamed with Kobe Bryant to win titles in 2009 and 2010.

There is certainly evidence to support this contention. He hasn’t been an all-star for two seasons, and he has seen a decline in several stats including minutes, points, rebounds, field goal percentage, and PER. He is signed for nearly $19.3 million next season, and no team is going to want to pay that amount for an aging big man who clearly is about to fall off the cliff. The Lakers, they say, will have little choice but to amnesty him, because all they could get in return for him are bad contracts which don’t help their tax situation.

But I think that’s short-sighted, and doesn’t accurately reflect the Lakers’ situation with Gasol.

More than anything, Gasol’s highest levels of production in LA coincide with playing for a coach in Phil Jackson who could utilize multiple post players effectively. Even then, he didn’t have to share the paint as often because of Andrew Bynum’s extended stints on the sidelines. As Bill Simmons pointed out in this piece for Grantland with Zach Lowe:

When they made the 2008 Finals and won the 2009 and 2010 titles, it happened with Gasol playing center, Lamar Odom playing power forward and Bynum either wearing a suit or carrying the second team’s offense. Here, look:

2008 Playoffs: Gasol, 39.7 MPG … Odom, 37.4 MPG … Bynum, 0.0 MPG
2009 Playoffs: Gasol, 40.5 MPG … Odom, 32.0 MPG … Bynum, 17.4 MPG
2010 Playoffs: Gasol, 39.8 MPG … Odom, 29.0 MPG … Bynum, 24.4 MPG

The presence of a healthy Andrew Bynum, and later Dwight Howard, has pushed Gasol outside where he is less effective. Here is where Gasol’s shots came from in 2009-10:

Now compare that to this season:

Here is how his shots have moved:

Gasol’s utilization of long twos — the worst shots in basketball — nearly quadrupled from 7 percent in 2009-10 to 27 percent in 2012-13, and correspondingly his shots close to the hoop have dropped. This doesn’t come from being washed-up. This is a result of playing for two consecutive coaches who haven’t been able to play to his strengths, and instead left him to languish out on the perimeter.

So what would happen if Gasol were to be utilized correctly? In response to that question, I give you the 2012 Olympics, and also last night’s game against the Hornets. My colleague J.A. Adande summed it up nicely in today’s ESPN Daily Dime:

It didn’t matter that Nash was out with a hamstring injury, and Howard was limited by foul trouble; Kobe probably wouldn’t have involved them anyway. Like a mischievous schoolkid enticing his friends to ditch class, Kobe convinced Gasol to abandon Mike D’Antoni’s offense and head down to the low block. That’s where he kept going to Gasol — three straight times down the floor during one third-quarter stretch.

Gasol responded with a 22-point, 11-rebound, four-assist game.

Bryant called it “2010 Pau.”

Adande also pointed out that according to the Elias Sports Bureau, the Bryant-Gasol duo (without Nash or Howard) is plus 18.8 points per 48 minutes, which is almost double the Lakers’ next-best combination of Bryant, Howard and Nash.

So what should the Lakers do with Gasol? The biggest factor in their decision is whether Howard comes back. If Howard leaves for greener pastures (actually a misplaced metaphor, since there’s more green available to him in LA), then Gasol immediately becomes the Lakers’ starting center and too valuable to them to lose.

But what if Howard stays, as the Lakers are hoping and many people (including me) are assuming? The next biggest factor in this decision is the identity of their coach. If D’Antoni stays — and I think Howard will be the key factor in determining whether D’Antoni stays or goes — then Gasol likely will continue to be mis-utilized. At that point a trade would be a strong consideration.

What’s Gasol’s trade value? These last two seasons in LA have hurt his trade value, to be sure. Still, he’s a seven footer, a mobile & efficient scorer in the post, a great passer, effective in the pick-and-roll, has range out to 18-feet, has a high basketball IQ, and comes with an expiring contract. There’s clear evidence that he hasn’t been used effectively for two years, and that he could thrive in a better situation.

He can also play either four or five, but at this point in his career is probably better utilized as a five. This would mean he’d face fewer stretch fours who would draw him out of the paint and kill him off the dribble. So who would want a center with that kind of pedigree? I’d say at least half the league.

The Lakers will have an interesting summer ahead of them, to be sure, and this summer will likely see them utilizing their amnesty waiver. But not on Gasol. While it’s still not clear whether Gasol will be a Laker next season, the idea of dumping him via amnesty is ridiculous.

This story starts with Cleveland. They were involved in a number of trades which included 2013 first round picks. As a result, they have (or potentially have) the following picks — not including the Lakers trade:

• Their own.
• Miami’s from the LeBron James sign-and-trade in 2010.
• Sacramento’s, as a result of the Omri Casspi/J.J. Hickson trade in 2011. Sacramento sends the Cavs a #1 pick, which was top-14 protected in 2012 (and not conveyed) and top-13 protected this year. If the pick falls 1-13 then the Kings keep it and the Cavs wait until next year (the pick protection continues all the way to 2017).

The Cavs then made a deal with the Lakers in March 2012 (the 2011-12 season’s trade deadline) which sent Ramon Sessions (who later left as a free agent), Christian Eyenga (sent to Orlando in the Dwight Howard trade) and draft considerations for Luke Walton, Jason Kapono, a conditional first round pick (which became the 24th pick in 2012 and used to select Jared Cunningham), and cash.

The draft considerations the Cavs received was the right to swap the least favorable of the two or three picks (depending on whether they have the Kings’ pick) for the Lakers’ pick. They only get this right if the Lakers’ pick is not a lottery pick — i.e., if it falls 15-30. If the Lakers’ pick is in the lottery, then the Cavs keep the picks they have. Technically the Cavs just have the “right” to swap, but that’s just to cover the contingency of the Lakers’ pick being the worst of the four. Since the Heat’s pick is now certain to be the worst of the four, you can be sure they will send it to LA if the Lakers’ pick falls 15-30.

The Lakers went on to trade whatever pick they end up with — i.e., their own pick if it falls 1-14, or the pick they end up with from Cleveland if their pick falls 15-30 — to the Suns as part of the Steve Nash deal.

At this point in the season, here’s how things look like they will shake out. On the basis of current standings alone (i.e., not considering what might happen in the lottery), here are the pick each team will end up with:

• Lakers: pick 15
• Cavs: pick 4
• Kings: 6
• Heat: pick 30

If this is how the draft ends up, then the Kings would keep their pick, and the Cavs would swap the Heat’s #30 pick with the Lakers’ #15 pick. The Cavs would end up with picks 4 and 15. The Lakers would then send the Heat’s #30 pick to the Suns.

Now let’s bring the lottery into play. The Kings will keep their own pick regardless, so they are out of the picture whether or not they advance in the lottery. Likewise, the Cavs would keep their own pick no matter what, since it’d be in the top 4. And forget the Heat as well — their pick is guaranteed to be out of the lottery, and guaranteed to be the worst pick of the four.

That leaves the Lakers — if they miss the playoffs, end up in the lottery and receive one of the top three picks, that pick goes directly to Phoenix. Cleveland just loses the first crack at the Lakers’ pick because it’s in the top 14.

So the bottom line is that the Lakers’ own pick goes to either Phoenix or Cleveland, and if they get a pick back from Cleveland, it goes to Phoenix. The Lakers won’t have a first round pick this summer, unless they trade for one sometime before the draft.

• The big spenders: Teams way over the luxury tax line.
• The low-tax teams: Teams between the luxury tax threshold and the apron.
• The teams just below the tax line: Teams that are capped-out, and which will likely want to stay out of the luxury tax.
• The teams with big cap room: Teams able to offer at least $20.5 million to a free agent (i.e., enough for Dwight Howard).
• The field: The remaining 15 teams that aren’t in one of the above categories.

Due to space constraints (yes, space constraints exist, even on a web site where a page is theoretically infinite in length) I had to gloss over the field, and only mentioned this category in passing.

Of course, this gave rise to many “what about _____?” questions, naming one of the 15 teams I had glossed over. The most frequently mentioned teams were the Rockets and Mavericks. These two teams will have a lot of cap room, to be sure — but not enough to make my “big cap room” category.

Let’s take a look at these two teams now, and assess their ability to sign Dwight Howard this summer. Due to the league’s max salary rules, Howard will be able to sign for up to $20,513,178 next season. Let’s assume he will want to sign for the full max if at all possible (which I think is a very reasonable assumption).

Let’s also assume the 2013-14 cap will be in the $58.5 million to $60 million range, which is the range in which the teams to which I have spoken are projecting. Note that the value of the cap is dependent on BRI, a lot of BRI comes from playoff revenue, and a lot of this playoff revenue is determined by which teams make the playoffs and how far they advance — so a $1.5 million range is about as accurate as we can be at this point.

The Rockets

Houston currently has $54,951,158 committed for 2013-14, which includes $100,000 remaining for Tyler Honeycutt, who cleared waivers. They have 15 players signed for next season. Adding Howard would take them to $75,464,336 — which is well above the projected cap. At first glance it appears there’s no way the Rockets can offer Howard a competitive deal.

But if you’ve studied the league you know that Rockets GM Daryl Morey likes to keep his options open. He has done exactly that heading into this summer, by utilizing team options as non-guaranteed salary as follows:

• Francisco Garcia: Team option ($6.4 million)
• James Anderson: Non-guaranteed
• Patrick Beverley: Non-guaranteed
• Aaron Brooks: Non-guaranteed
• Carlos Delfino: Non-guaranteed
• Tim Ohlbrecht: Non-guaranteed
• Chandler Parsons: Partially guaranteed ($600,000)
• Greg Smith: Non-guaranteed

Some of these players’ guarantee amounts change to full on July 1 or October 31, so let’s assume Morey declines Garcia’s team option, and waives the remaining players before July 1 in order to maximize his cap room.

The remaining seven players would then total $39,338,522, before accounting for cap holds for empty roster spots and first round draft picks. As a result of earlier trades the Rockets are slated to keep their first round pick if it’s in the top-14, and lose it otherwise. As of right now they’d wind up with the 19th pick, so let’s assume they lose it and that we don’t need to account for it. We only need to account for five empty roster spots at $490,180 each, bringing the team’s total to $41,789,422.

If we add Howard to this total their team salary would be $62,302,600. So even if Morey clears the team’s roster as much as possible he still won’t be able to offer Howard the max. The largest contract he could offer would start at $16.7 million to $18.2 million.

The Mavericks

Dallas is committed to $42,205,221 right now for seven players, before accounting for empty roster spots and draft picks. But unlike the Rockets, the Mavs don’t have many options. O.J. Mayo and Shawn Marion have a player option and an ETO, respectively, but since those are in favor of the player, they are out of the team’s control. (Their problems would be solved if Marion opted-out, but I don’t think that’s likely.) The only Maverick on non-guaranteed salary is Bernard James, and he will make the minimum salary for a one-year player.

Let’s do the same exercise we did with Houston and see how much cap room they can generate. If they waive James their total would be $41,416,349 for six players. Their first round pick is top-20 protected, and as of right now they’d get the 13th pick — so let’s assume they keep that, adding a cap hold for $1,655,300. We also need to add five roster charges for $490,180 each, bringing their total to $45,532,549.

This is higher than the total we got for the Rockets, so you know what the answer is going to be. Adding Howard at the max salary would bring their total to $66,045,727, which is above the upper limit of the projected cap. The largest contract the Mavs could offer would start at $13.0 million to $14.5 million.

So both the Rockets and Mavs can offer Howard a big contract, but not a max contract. But note the following:

• The maximum salaries vary by player, and Howard will have the highest maximum of any free agent this summer (unless I’m forgetting someone). Other players will have maximum salaries as low as $15 million or so, so while neither team will be able to field a competitive offer to Howard, they potentially can be competitive for other free agents.
• If a team is dead-set on signing Howard, it may be possible to entice the Lakers into participating in a sign-and-trade transaction. (The Lakers will be prohibited from receiving a player in a sign-and-trade, but nothing prevents them from trading a player away in such a transaction.)
• Both teams can potentially clear additional salary by making a trade as a prelude to a Howard deal. For example, if the Mavs persuade a team to take Marion off their hands (with little or no salary coming back), they will be able to offer Howard a deal at the maximum.
• A team can clear additional cap room by waiving a player whose salary is guaranteed and utilizing the stretch provision. For example, if the Mavs waived Mayo (with one year remaining at $4.2 million), his salary would be stretched over three seasons, and the Mavs’ 2013-14 team salary would be reduced by $2.8 million. This scenario is only feasible with players signed under the current CBA (December 2011 or later).

So as things stand right now, either the Rockets or the Mavericks could offer Dwight Howard a large contract, but neither team will be able to offer him the maximum. To do that would require some extra — and tricky — maneuvering.

Update 4/18/2013:

Tim MacMahon from ESPN Dallas tweeted that OJ Mayo has opted to be a free agent this summer. This potentially changes the equation.

Let’s assume Mayo opts-out and leaves the Mavs, and that the team tries to maximize cap space by waiving the non-guaranteed contracts of Josh Akognon (signed after this post was originally written) and Bernard James. Let’s also assume that Shawn Marion does not exercise his early termination option.

The Mavs would then have $37,215,449 committed to five players. They will officially keep their own first round pick now, but we still don’t know where it will land. On the basis of the final standings they’d pick #14, which would have a cap hold of $1,572,600.

That adds up to $38,788,049 for six players, so we’d need six empty roster charges totaling $2,941,080, for a total of $41,729,129.

If we stick with the cap projection of $58.5 million to $60 million, the Mavs would have about $16.7 million to $18.3 million in cap room. Still not enough for Dwight Howard, but a lot more than they would have had without Mayo opting out.

Of course, now they also have to replace Mayo.

And if you haven’t seen Coach Nick’s other work, you should check it out at B-Ball Breakdown as well. He does detailed video breakdowns of NBA basketball from a coach’s perspective. His explanations are always educational.

The tax line this season is at $70.309 million, and teams above the tax level will have to pay a dollar for every dollar their payroll exceeds the cutoff. The league uses the team salary as of each team’s last regular season game in its computations, so while teams can no longer lower their payroll (we’re past the trade deadline, and all salaries are now guaranteed for the remainder of the season), they can still raise it by signing 10-day and rest-of-season contracts.

But we still don’t know exactly how much each team will have to pay, because of performance bonuses. These bonuses are classified as either “likely” or “unlikely” based on whether the criterion was achieved the previous season — for example, a bonus based on the player scoring at least 20 points per game would be classified as “likely” if the player had scored 21 PPG the previous season, and “unlikely” if the player had scored 19 PPG the previous season.

Since at the end of each season (when the league does its luxury tax accounting) they know whether or not a bonus was actually earned, they ignore the “likely” and “unlikely” classifications and go by whether the player received the bonus — if he did, then it’s counted in the team salary, and therefore toward the luxury tax, even if it’s not included in the team salary right now.

Likewise, a bonus may be classified as “likely” and be included in the team salary right now, but go unearned and drop off the books for luxury tax purposes. This means a team’s tax bill may end up lower than what you see below.

Other factors that weigh into luxury tax calculations:

• Cap holds and exceptions are ignored.
• If a player with a trade bonus is traded after the season ends and before June 30, then the portion of his trade bonus that is charged to the current season is added to the tax.
• Any amounts from settlements of grievances are added to the tax.
• Players who signed as free agents (not draft picks) who make less than the two-year minimum salary are taxed at $854,389, the minimum salary for a two-year veteran.
• Players waived through the Amnesty provision are not counted toward the luxury tax.

Here are the team salaries of the teams that currently are over the tax line, and their projected tax bill (based on their team salary right now, and not factoring in what might happen with bonuses):

That’s six teams paying a little over $69 million in tax. Last season six teams paid $32 million, as I described in my post looking at the cumulative effects of the tax.

This season 50 percent of the tax revenues will be used to fund the league’s revenue sharing program, and the other 50 percent will be distributed to non-taxpaying teams. The 24 teams not on the above list can each expect to receive a distribution of around $1.44 million, courtesy of the six teams above.

The results, unsurprisingly, were dismal. Spears had the best hit ratio at 40 percent, but he also had the smallest sample size — with two of the five rumors he reported actually going down.

In fact, the hit rate was pretty much a function of the sample size — there’s a statistical function called r-squared that measures the extent to which the y values in a set of x-y data pairs are influenced by the x values. Put the number of predictions on the X axis and the hit rate on the Y axis and calculate r-squared — the result in this case is 0.96596, or close to 97 percent. This is very high indeed — a perfect correlation is 1.0 or 100 percent.

So Murphy’s article doesn’t measure how accurate the reporters are at all — it measures how many rumors they report. Murphy recognized this, writing:

Except there’s something more seismic in there – it’s not that reporters are peddling misinformation; multiple teams were probably courting Josh Smith, at least on some level – but that somewhere along the line, “moderately revelatory potential event” became breaking news, and the reporters are there every step of the way to catalogue any minor shift: new teams in pursuit, new players floated, likelihoods increasing and decreasing.

Murphy correctly surmised that there aren’t enough morsels to feed the hungry beast that is the Internet. Some resort to throwing whatever wood they can find into the fire, while others are more discriminating.

The fundamental problem is that we’re using the wrong measuring stick to judge reporters’ accuracy. It’s almost certainly not wrong to have reported that the Bucks were pursuing Josh Smith — I haven’t personally spoken to John Hammond or Danny Ferry about it to get 100 percent confirmation, but I think we can put the accuracy rate of this one in the high 90 percent range.

So if the two teams try to work out a deal, a scribe reports they are talking, and the deal ultimately falls through, was the reporter right or wrong? He was 100 percent right — they were talking about a deal when he reported it. If the deal doesn’t actually go down it’s not the reporter’s fault.

Another problem is that there are too many variables here. In addition to “did they have discussions?” we also need to assess the “how serious were the discussions?” question. Did Ferry call every GM in the league to gauge Smith’s value, and in the process have a mundane, ten-minute exploratory conversation with Hammond before deciding he wasn’t going to deal his player? Or did they have serious negotiations that went right down to the wire before falling through?

Most of the time the answer to the above question is “somewhere in the middle.” So is a reporter right or wrong if he says the two teams had a discussion? A serious discussion? Are working hard on a trade? That a deal is imminent? The answer (as long as the discussion actually took place) lies in how the rumor is presented, and is not based on whether it actually results in a deal.

As I read these types of articles I keep asking myself “what’s the baseline?” In other words, what’s the true ratio of deals discussed to deals completed? A dozen-or-so deals were completed around the trade deadline, but how many deals were actually discussed? I don’t know the answer to this question, but I know it’s high — certainly in the hundreds, and maybe in the thousands.

Let’s be conservative and say 100 deals were seriously discussed (i.e., beyond simply gauging interest) prior to the deadline. If a dozen of these deals actually went through, that means we’d expect — with perfect reporting — to see the reporters’ accuracy rate hovering around 12 percent — twelve. And that’s using a conservative estimate of the number of deals that were discussed.

The low discussion:completion ratio also means that the GMs themselves don’t know which deals will be completed and which won’t — they have to do their due diligence and sift through dozens of potential trades to find the needle in the haystack — the trade proposal that actually has merit. I talked to one team executive a week-or-so before the deadline who said their basketball operations staff was swamped working the phones — and this was a team that wasn’t strongly pursuing anything.

So while I don’t know the true baseline rate of deals discussed to deals completed, I’m confident it’s pretty low. And since these discussions take place in private it’s usually impossible to know whether a discussion actually took place, and if it did, how serious it was. But one thing for sure — we’re using the wrong yardstick if we judge a report based on whether the deal actually was completed.

Collectively, the reporters named in the Murphy article were 21-for-91, or a little over 23 percent. Compare that to my conservative baseline estimate of 12 percent. While an uninformed fan could see that 23 percent completion rate and conclude that NBA reporters are doing a pretty lousy job, I think it’s pretty impressive.

As I describe in my FAQ, trade exceptions are the result of non-simultaneous trades. If a team trades a single player away, it has a year in which to acquire up to 100 percent plus $100,000 of the outgoing player’s salary. For example, if a team trades its $10 million player for a $5 million player, it has a year in which it can acquire another $5.1 million in salaries, which is charged to the original trade (i.e., salary matching requirements are ignored). This $5.1 million credit, which lasts a year, is commonly referred to as a trade exception.

Many trade exceptions go unused and simply expire, or are partially used and the remaining balance expires a year after the original trade. Since many trades usually occur right before the trade deadline, you always see a clustering of trade exceptions that expire right around the following season’s deadline. However, since the 2011-12 season was played under an altered schedule due to the lockout, the 2012 trade deadline fell on March 15 rather than its usual late February. This means that trade exceptions from last season’s deadline have not expired, even though they can’t be used.

Teams can start trading again once their season ends — so teams that don’t make the playoffs can start trading again on Thursday, April 18 (all 30 teams play on April 17). Playoff teams can begin trading once they are eliminated (or for the NBA champions, the day after the Finals ends).

Eric reported on the Lakers’ exceptions. Here are the exceptions for all NBA teams which are still active, but will expire on or before April 17.

In addition, the Lakers have a Disabled Payer exception for Jordan Hill in the amount of $1,781,800, and the Warriors have one for Brandon Rush for $2 million. Normally a Disabled Player exception can be used to acquire a player by either signing or trade. However, since we’re now past the trade deadline these Disabled Player exceptions are now “functionally expired” for trade purposes as well (they still can be used to sign a free agent).

I have only skirted over the details of trade exceptions. For the full explanation, see question number 83 in my FAQ.