I don’t think the media grasps the specifics of what’s happening.
The 2yr max extension (78.6m total in new money) Woj reported is part of where BK extends Ky first and trades him immediately thereafter (think S&t). Annual raises are capped at 5% and the can’t be longer than 3yrs (including the current season). Ie 2yrs 78.6m “max” extension
Ky’s actual max is 35% of the cap, so this summer as a 10+ seasoned vet, he can make up 47.6m in yr1 of a new deal on a projected 136m cap. That deal can also be 5yrs in length w/ 8% annual raises if his full bird rights are used (ie stays with BK or new team trades for him before the trade deadline).
If Ky gets traded and waives his entire (or partial) 15% prorated trade kicker (~3.5m), the team trading for him cannot imm Disraeli extend him. They need to wait till the offseason to talk dude into a re-up.
If he does get traded with his full trade kicker in tow, the team trading for him can immediately extend dude no higher than his max and up to 120% of his current deal (w/kicker his cap hit this year for the trading team would be about 40.5m and 120% of that puts him beyond his max, so yr1 in the extension would be whatever 35% of the cap would be ie as of now on a 134m cap, it’s 46.9m fit a 35% max player). If the team does extend him immediately after the trade, it can’t be for more than 5 total years (with the current season included). So if dude triggers his trade kicker, he can get up to 4 new years on his existing expiring deal.
Btw, BK is the one that pays for the trade kicker, but a team can trade up to 6.4m in cash to help BK stomach the payment. Also there are other aspects at play with a trade kicker. Even if the kicker is fully triggered, BK only sees his deal as 36.9m instead of 40.5m in outgoing money, however the receiving team sees it as 40.5m in incoming money. So this aspect if a trade kicker could lead to annoyances in terms of salary matching towards a legal trade.
Hope that helps clear some stiff up for folks. _________________ Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE!
I agree...one of the first steps in ensuring less distractions is to not have this hanging over their head. However, I don't think the media is necessarily contorting this. Your conclusion can be reasonably inferred by reasonable people. And two, this probably didn't need its own thread. _________________ Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit)
As always, this really just comes down to the bag.
Extend-and-trade route where BK takes care of the extension
Yr1 (current season): 36.5m in base salary
Yr2: 38.33m (5% max raise)
Yr3: 40.24m (5% max raise)
= 2yr max extension valued at 78.6m in new money
Trade (w/kicker)-then-extend route where LA takes care of extension
Yr1 (current season): 40.5m (prorated 15% trade kicker + base salary)
Yr2: 46.9m (up to max on 134m salary cap)
Yr3: 50.7m (8% max raise via full bird)
= 2yr max extension valued at 97.6m in new money; unlike the extend-and-trade route tho, Ky could get an additional 2yrs tacked on to his extension bringing it to 4yrs in new money, which is what he’s seeking.
Also as a walking FA into cap space, he can receive a max of 4yrs in a deal at 35% of cap with up to 5% annual raises, as long as the team has enough room. Presently only Houston can flat out renounce their pending FAs and hand Ky a true max bag.
If he gets traded and the team acquires his full bird rights, dude can wait till free agency and re-up with that team for the 35% max for up to 5 yrs with 8% annual raises.
Woj did mention 4yrs/200m, so that route implies he’s threatening to walk into free agency, bird rights be damned.
Lastly, if he waives his trade kicker (even partially), he can’t get extended till the season ends. Meaning even if the team trading for him wants to extend him, they can’t till the FA moratorium begins.
If you don’t want him as a flight risk and he refuses to take less via the extend-and-trade, then the only way to get him on a bigger 2yr bag is having him trigger his trade kicker. If that (bleep) gets waived, he’s walking into free agency and there’s nothing the team that trades fit him can do about it. _________________ Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE!
So, I assume all parties (Lakers, Nets, Ky), being professionals all understand this - what's the hold up.
Is It Ky actually not wanting to commit the two years, Nets considering at other options still? Or we simply don't know and ppl frothing at something since there's no meaningful new news?
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:01 pm Post subject: Re: Media is distorting the facts about Lakers not wanting a 4 year deal
BigBallerBrand wrote:
The reason why the Lakers don’t want to do a 4 year deal is not because of the money or length of contract
The reason is bc the only way to do a 4 year deal is in the off-season, which means the Lakers have to risk Irving leaving
That’s why they want to do 2 years so there is no risk of Irving leaving in the summer (extension before trade)
Again, it’s about 2 years of guaranteed Kyrie versus risking him leaving this summer. It’s not about wanting to give him LESS years (2 vs 4).
It’s all about GETTING 2 vs 0 seasons after this year.
Hope that is clear
If the guy you’re acquiring is so volatile and unreliable that you have to do this it really does beg the question as to whether you should empty every asset we have for him. _________________ 14-5-3-12
So, I assume all parties (Lakers, Nets, Ky), being professionals all understand this - what's the hold up.
Is It Ky actually not wanting to commit the two years, Nets considering at other options still? Or we simply don't know and ppl frothing at something since there's no meaningful new news?
My guess is the holdup is a classic stalemate.
1. Kyrie won't sign a two-year extension because he wants more money.
2. The Lakers won't offer a lot for Kyrie on his expiring deal because they can't be sure he'll resign, and they won't make a good offer without an extension.
3. The Nets won't accept a low offer for Kyrie, so if Kyrie refuses to sign an extension and consequently they only get low offers they may not trade him.
The question is whether one of the three will blink. That's not a given, given whoever blinks will risk a lot or lose a lot.
Turns out Mavs blink first. It's a gamble that kind of make sense I guess.
activeverb wrote:
nutella wrote:
So, I assume all parties (Lakers, Nets, Ky), being professionals all understand this - what's the hold up.
Is It Ky actually not wanting to commit the two years, Nets considering at other options still? Or we simply don't know and ppl frothing at something since there's no meaningful new news?
My guess is the holdup is a classic stalemate.
1. Kyrie won't sign a two-year extension because he wants more money.
2. The Lakers won't offer a lot for Kyrie on his expiring deal because they can't be sure he'll resign, and they won't make a good offer without an extension.
3. The Nets won't accept a low offer for Kyrie, so if Kyrie refuses to sign an extension and consequently they only get low offers they may not trade him.
The question is whether one of the three will blink. That's not a given, given whoever blinks will risk a lot or lose a lot.
Turns out Mavs blink first. It's a gamble that kind of make sense I guess.
Very little to no risk for the Mavs.
They lose a 1st rd pick + a couple of 2nds. However, they clear a ton of cap space if Kyrie doesn't re-sign as Smith and Dinwiddie were under contract beyond this year.
So basically, they get 1/2 yr of Kyrie + playoff run + clear max cap space for the cost of a 1st and a couple 2nds.
Turns out Mavs blink first. It's a gamble that kind of make sense I guess.
Very little to no risk for the Mavs.
They lose a 1st rd pick + a couple of 2nds. However, they clear a ton of cap space if Kyrie doesn't re-sign as Smith and Dinwiddie were under contract beyond this year.
So basically, they get 1/2 yr of Kyrie + playoff run + clear max cap space for the cost of a 1st and a couple 2nds.
Not a bad price.
There are numerous articles on the high risks that the Mavs are taking with two players that need the ball and a depleted bench while facing/addressing the spector that Luka might leave in a few years.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum