TripleThreat wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Would it make sense to alleviate them of their cap concerns if we get Ben Simmons?

Next season, Simmons will enter his designated rookie extension, which will go through his projected prime years, so there's no way that Philly would trade him.

Philly doesn't have the asset base to dump the Harris and Horford contracts. The Knicks don't have enough to trade to get Simmons anyway.

As a scenario, let's say Tobias Harris, Al Horford, Josh Richardson, Mike Scott and Zhaire Smith were all in the same car that "accidentally" exploded. When a team loses 5 or more players to death in the same incident, it triggers the dispersal draft protocols under the current CBA. It means the cap charges to all the dead players DISAPPEAR. The cash hit stays the same but it's paid out via league insurance ( all teams pay into it) Also each team usually gets insurance on all it's players on an individual level. The money is dispersed to the players estate. Whether the team's individual life insurance falls under "Dead Peasants Insurance" is kind of hazy. But the dispersal system only lets the other 29 teams protect 5 players.

So let's see how that would shake out.

The 76ers are incentivized to MURDER 5 of their own players. The benefit would be a clean cap sheet. The cash payout would be footed by the premiums of all 30 teams. If Dead Peasants Insurance is possible, Philly gets a massive cash influx ( Patrick Stewart Money) The 76ers would run into a dispersal system where they could go to the Heat and take either Dragic or Kendrick Nunn for free. Aron Baynes from the Suns. Jerami Grant from the Nuggets. Etc. Etc.

As I've always said, the salary/economic system in the NBA is totally ****ed. You could snag like 100 million in insurance money free and clear plus steal players from other teams and erase your previous salary mistakes by literally killing your own players.

shinmen wrote:I wouldn't mind Simmons at all and agree that Simmons with shooters would be deadly
However if it costs us Mitch, RJ and a few picks, how are we gonna provide a supporting cast and simply be a better team than the current sixers?

That's the risk we'd have to take. Fortunately, Simmons is young so we'd have more runway to slowly add pieces around him via the exceptions (mid-level and lower-level), minimum contracts and whatever draft picks we'd have left over. There would not be much margin for error but I still believe it is more appealing than the course we're on.

Knicks get Ben Simmons, Josh Richardson, Al Horford and Tobias Harris

Wizards get RJ Barrett, Mitchell Robinson, Frank Ntilikina, Julius Randle, both DAL first round picks and our 2021 first

Sixers get Bradley Beal, Chris Paul, Dennis Smith Jr and Reggie Bullock

Thunder get John Wall (G), Troy Brown Jr (G/F), Kevin Knox (F) and our 8th pick

It'd be a massive trade because of the number of players and salaries involved but is it reasonable for all parties?

NardDogNation wrote:Does this make sense?

Knicks get Ben Simmons, Josh Richardson, Al Horford and Tobias Harris

Wizards get RJ Barrett, Mitchell Robinson, Frank Ntilikina, Julius Randle, both DAL first round picks and our 2021 first

Sixers get Bradley Beal, Chris Paul, Dennis Smith Jr and Reggie Bullock

Thunder get John Wall (G), Troy Brown Jr (G/F), Kevin Knox (F) and our 8th pick

It'd be a massive trade because of the number of players and salaries involved but is it reasonable for all parties?

It's creative. To be fair about it, it's very creative.

The 76ers aren't trading Ben Simmons. Tobias Harris would close to impossible to move. The more likely scenario is to trade Joel Embiid ( more injury prone, older, less positional value, already disgruntled) and attaching Horford, the smaller bad contract, as an implied tax on it. The 76ers could still get some positive return on an Embiid/Horford trade. Less obviously since Horford is attached. Building around Embiid in a blowup versus Simmons isn't likely. But, to be fair to your point, the 76ers are now run by idiots, so anything is possible. But trading Simmons would be so destabilizing, that the league and Silver would intervene.

The Wizards aren't trading Beal for that package. Washington's goal is to find a way to get rid of Wall and build around Beal. While Beal plus Embiid is interesting, as the Wizards won't trade Beal like this, it's a moot point.

Using John Wall as a type of cap manipulation requires walking a fine line in ruling Wall out each year but never to the point of having the Chris Bosh Rule invoked. The 100 percent hit on the cap but only 20 percent cash hit only occurs through year to year evaluation. The insurance behind this will demand Wall undergo protocols through the Chris Bosh Rule if he starts playing some games but not enough to avoid an insurance payout. The current benchmark is less than 41 games in a nominal season, but we don't know how or if that scales in a shortened season. If Wall can't survive the Chris Bosh evaluation, the cap charge would disappear entirely. Wall would have to be complicit ( which might be possible but only a cash rich team could pay him off enough to do it) but the team getting Wall would need to be very cash rich enough to take this risk. The Knicks or Clippers OK, but not the Thunder. The 100/20 split when its happening for Washington now is going to be seen as an unintended advantage, but only as long as the Wizards stay out of the tax zone and Wall stays on their roster. Washington drafted Wall, invested in him and bad **** happened. For another team to trade for Wall to try to get that 100/20 split changes that unintended advantage into cap manipulation, barely legal, but the league would immediately close the loophole afterwards. It's a high risk one shot deal.

If the Thunder want to dump Chris Paul, they can attach some late firsts to him and that would be the more practical pathway.

If the Knicks wanted Tobias Harris for just about free, they can have him. Philly would probably add in Thybulle plus some 2nds too in exchange for the rights to like Labyerie. Do I think the Knicks should do that? Probably not.

The Knicks have close to no trade assets.

Teams would wait to see what the league does in terms of changing the tax structure, if a single use amnesty would happen, if there's a change in the stretch provision before they would try to engage in a trade akin to this. Also they'd want to see where the new cap would go, and how far the tax line would fall. Only then could a team understand Horford's contract. Unlike the maxes and the rookie slotting in that proposal, which would scale with a change in the BRI, Horford's deal is expensive but not a max. It would need a negative market correction that could only be determined when the league announces a financial plan built for the pandemic. He's a strong candidate if a single use amnesty would happen. Note that single use amnesty provisions only happen as a bargaining chip during a labor war so it's more likely the league changes the luxury tax provisions because that directly helps the owners without adding more salary commitment.

You are willing to go out of the box, which is good. But sorry, this one has a tough time working out.

Is it possible we could even facilitate a trade for him?

TripleThreat wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Does this make sense?

Knicks get Ben Simmons, Josh Richardson, Al Horford and Tobias Harris

Wizards get RJ Barrett, Mitchell Robinson, Frank Ntilikina, Julius Randle, both DAL first round picks and our 2021 first

Sixers get Bradley Beal, Chris Paul, Dennis Smith Jr and Reggie Bullock

Thunder get John Wall (G), Troy Brown Jr (G/F), Kevin Knox (F) and our 8th pick

It'd be a massive trade because of the number of players and salaries involved but is it reasonable for all parties?

It's creative. To be fair about it, it's very creative.

The 76ers aren't trading Ben Simmons. Tobias Harris would close to impossible to move. The more likely scenario is to trade Joel Embiid ( more injury prone, older, less positional value, already disgruntled) and attaching Horford, the smaller bad contract, as an implied tax on it. The 76ers could still get some positive return on an Embiid/Horford trade. Less obviously since Horford is attached. Building around Embiid in a blowup versus Simmons isn't likely. But, to be fair to your point, the 76ers are now run by idiots, so anything is possible. But trading Simmons would be so destabilizing, that the league and Silver would intervene.

The Wizards aren't trading Beal for that package. Washington's goal is to find a way to get rid of Wall and build around Beal. While Beal plus Embiid is interesting, as the Wizards won't trade Beal like this, it's a moot point.

Using John Wall as a type of cap manipulation requires walking a fine line in ruling Wall out each year but never to the point of having the Chris Bosh Rule invoked. The 100 percent hit on the cap but only 20 percent cash hit only occurs through year to year evaluation. The insurance behind this will demand Wall undergo protocols through the Chris Bosh Rule if he starts playing some games but not enough to avoid an insurance payout. The current benchmark is less than 41 games in a nominal season, but we don't know how or if that scales in a shortened season. If Wall can't survive the Chris Bosh evaluation, the cap charge would disappear entirely. Wall would have to be complicit ( which might be possible but only a cash rich team could pay him off enough to do it) but the team getting Wall would need to be very cash rich enough to take this risk. The Knicks or Clippers OK, but not the Thunder. The 100/20 split when its happening for Washington now is going to be seen as an unintended advantage, but only as long as the Wizards stay out of the tax zone and Wall stays on their roster. Washington drafted Wall, invested in him and bad **** happened. For another team to trade for Wall to try to get that 100/20 split changes that unintended advantage into cap manipulation, barely legal, but the league would immediately close the loophole afterwards. It's a high risk one shot deal.

If the Thunder want to dump Chris Paul, they can attach some late firsts to him and that would be the more practical pathway.

If the Knicks wanted Tobias Harris for just about free, they can have him. Philly would probably add in Thybulle plus some 2nds too in exchange for the rights to like Labyerie. Do I think the Knicks should do that? Probably not.

The Knicks have close to no trade assets.

Teams would wait to see what the league does in terms of changing the tax structure, if a single use amnesty would happen, if there's a change in the stretch provision before they would try to engage in a trade akin to this. Also they'd want to see where the new cap would go, and how far the tax line would fall. Only then could a team understand Horford's contract. Unlike the maxes and the rookie slotting in that proposal, which would scale with a change in the BRI, Horford's deal is expensive but not a max. It would need a negative market correction that could only be determined when the league announces a financial plan built for the pandemic. He's a strong candidate if a single use amnesty would happen. Note that single use amnesty provisions only happen as a bargaining chip during a labor war so it's more likely the league changes the luxury tax provisions because that directly helps the owners without adding more salary commitment.

You are willing to go out of the box, which is good. But sorry, this one has a tough time working out.

We're only 16 months removed from the narrative of Simmons being useless to the Sixers success in the playoffs; when he'd stand in the dunkers spot for +30 minutes and take 3-6 shots a game in hopes he wouldn't get in the way of the Sixers more essential players. As a Simmons optimist, even I question how far a team can go if he's your franchise player; because at the end of the day, elite defenses can take players out of the equation that can't shoot, like the Raptors did with Giannis last season in the 2nd round. So how far does a team get with an inferior player to Giannis that WON'T shoot under any circumstances?

And then there is the question about the players needed around Simmons to make it all worthwhile. Due to his skillset, you need to be hyperspecific with the personnel around him, which adds another layer of difficulty you don't have with other topshelf stars. Say what you will about Embiid's maturity and health, he's a far easier plug-and-play option. That made him the more appealing asset last season and should remain true for the immediate future. To each his own though.

As for the Wall-Beal situation, I don't think there is any feasible way to simply dump Wall for the Wizards. Doing so consigns his new team to burn half their cap for the next 3 seasons on a player that will be a shell of his former self (provided he's even healthy) and who is a well documented malcontent. That's no small ask.

So what assets do the Wizards even have to facilitate the dumping of John Wall? Even if they were to conjure up those assets, they'd be so crippled by whatever contracts they'd assume in return and the draft assets they'd lose, that there would be nothing left to add talent around Beal.

Then there is also the fact that it's a matter of time before Beal grows disgruntled and demands a trade. As injury-riddled as he's been, it's telling his "extension" only amounted to one year and a second with a player option. He is not long for Washington but wanted some degree of security before pursuing the inevitable. No matter the Wizards wishes, they're going to have to move him sooner rather than later. I personally think the Thunder will be one of the few teams open to the idea of taking Wall's contract since they will be transitioning toward a long build around SGA and will have no need for max cap space.

But you do raise some pretty compelling points about changes to the CBA. A one-time amnesty and/or the easing of the luxury tax would radically change the outlook for the Sixers. We'll have to see what the league comes up with but the Sixers will still be stuck with one of Horford or Harris, along with two stars that don't fit. Those conditions are untenable no matter what the league does; the only thing it can change is the ask in a potential trade.