Home > Offseason > Kings Should Act On LTBMs

Kings Should Act On LTBMs

Yesterday, I wrote an article on Talkhoops about Luxury Tax Bowel Movements. What are Luxury Tax Bowel Movements you ask? Well, LTBMs are essentially when a team trades a player away and receives nothing but a conditional second round draft pick from the future.  Most recently, we saw it happen with the New Orleans Hornets when they traded Rasual Butler and his nearly $4 million contract to the Los Angeles Clippers for a second round draft pick in 2016.

Why did the Hornets give up such a nice, young three-point threat that would be perfect for a system featuring a penetrating, pass-first point guard? They didn’t want to pay the luxury tax on his contract. So instead, they dumped his salary for what is sure to be essentially nothing.

What does this have to do with the Kings?

Well, the Kings are one of four teams that are currently under the salary cap with their payroll and are realistically the only team along with the Oklahoma City Thunder that have enough salary cap room to make a significant addition. The Kings are roughly $6.8 million under the cap right now. So they can add a player making up to that much in a trade without having to give away a single player/contract.

Realistically, the Kings could even ask for a future protected first round pick along with the player and only have to give up a second round pick. The Grizzlies just did this with their acquisition of Steven Hunter from Denver. They gave up a second round pick to acquire Hunter and Denver’s 2010 first round pick. The Thunder/Sonics did this a couple of years ago when they acquired Kurt Thomas and two future first round picks from the Suns for a 2009 second round draft pick that ONLY went to Phoenix if it was outside of the top 55.

While the Kings probably won’t get as good of a deal as the Thunder/Sonics got that day, they can definitely pilfer a future pick if it means saving a team nearly $14 million in salary and the luxury tax penalty that follows with it.

Here’s the list of the most likely available LTBMs that I came up with:

Teams Possible Luxury Tax Bowel Movements
Boston Celtics — $12.5m over Brian Scalabrine ($3.5m), Tony Allen ($2.5m)
* Charlotte Bobcats — $2.2m under Raja Bell ($5.3m)
Cleveland Cavaliers — $12m over Zyndrunas Ilgauskas ($11.6m), Daniel Gibson ($4.1m, 3 yrs)
Dallas Mavericks — $22.5m over Drew Gooden ($4.5m)
Denver Nuggets — $6.5m over Malik Allen ($1.3m)
Houston Rockets — $5.6m over Brian Cook ($3.5m), Brent Barry ($2.1m)
Los Angeles Lakers — $22.5m over Derek Fisher ($5.1m)
Miami Heat — $2.5m over Quentin Richardson ($8.7m)
Milwaukee Bucks — $1m over Luke Ridnour ($6.5m), Kurt Thomas ($3.8m)
New Orleans Hornets — $4.5m over Antonio Daniels ($6.6m)
New York Knicks — $10.5m over Larry Hughes ($13.7m), Darko Milicic ($7.3m), Chris Duhon ($6.1m)
Orlando Magic — $11m over Marcin Gortat ($5.9m, 5 yrs)
Phoenix Suns — $9m over Leandro Barbosa ($6.6m)
San Antonio Spurs — $11m over Roger Mason ($3.8m), Matt Bonner ($3.3m), Michael Finley ($2.5m)
Utah Jazz — $13.5m over Carlos Boozer ($12.7m), Matt Harpring ($6.5m), Kyle Korver ($5.4m)
Washington Wizards — $9m over Mike Miller ($9.8m), Mike James ($6.5m), Brendan Haywood ($6m)

* – Bobcats aren’t over the luxury tax at the moment but hold the restricted free agent rights to Raymond Felton, which technically puts them over because of his cap hold.

If we’re sticking with the idea that the Kings won’t add salary past what their cap room allows, that narrows the most likely possible acquisitions down to Brian Scalabrine, Tony Allen, Raja Bell, Drew Gooden, Brian Cook, Brent Barry, Luke Ridnour, Kurt Thomas, Antonio Daniels, Matt Harpring, and Mike James.

Out of those players, the most valuable future draft picks would most likely come from the Hornets and Bucks.

For the Kings, it seems completely worth it to acquire Antonio Daniels from the Hornets and have them throw in their first round draft pick 2010 or 2011. Although I’m not sure how likely this scenario is, a lot of people assume that the Hornets will eventually have to trade Chris Paul due to the bad economy. Let’s say that the Hornets either have to deal Paul or suffer through a season in which he’s injured for a significant portion of the campaign in the next two years. Now, how valuable would that Hornets draft pick be to the Kings? They could use it to add young talent or use it in a trade to acquire a big time veteran.

And if the Kings decided to go after Luke Ridnour, they can trade for him and the Bucks conditional first round pick without having to give up a whole lot in return. The Kings have never been in position to do this financially with the their salary cap usually overflowing with contract but now they find themselves in a position of flexibility. Shouldn’t they take advantage of this while they can?

The NBA has many franchises in no shape to pay any kind of luxury tax penalty and on top of that, miss out on the dispersing of those penalty payments to the teams that didn’t pass the luxury tax threshold. Geoff Petrie could easily learn from the Sam Presti playbook here and try to take advantage of those teams. It’s smart business and a relatively cheap way of rebuilding your franchise with young talent.

If the Kings don’t acquire these expiring contracts that can net them valuable assets, they’re doing their fans and organization a great disservice.

Categories: Offseason Tags:
  • Aykis16

    Wouldn’t trading Chris Paul hurt the Hornets financially more than keeping him? He’s the franchise and the best point guard in the league. Unless you bring in someone like Dwyane Wade or Chris Bosh, you won’t get nearly the same amound of name recognition. It just doesn’t make sense to me to dump Paul for financial reasons when he’s such a big financial asset.

  • Aykis16

    As for the actual article idea, I’d prefer the Kings deal for Kurt Thomas and a 1st rounder from the Bucks. That’d be ideal, since it gives us a backup center and a high pick.

  • http://www.cowbellkingdom.com Zach Harper

    @Aykis16
    I agree that it seemingly would be less beneficial financially for a team like the Hornets to trade one of the top 5 players in the league. The only reason I mention that is I’ve read little comments about it here and there over the past year in various articles throughout the media. In no way do I think it will happen but I find it odd that people would mention something like that.

    As for Kurt Thomas, he makes much more sense for the Kings to trade for. I just wonder if they could get a first round pick out of the deal without relieving the Bucks of Ridnour’s deal since it’s THAT much more money for a team in such poor financial shape.

  • pookeyguru

    The biggest problem with trading Chris Paul is that he’s BYC. So the Hornets won’t be able to get a dollar for dollar value in return to begin with.

    That’s something a lot of national commenters forget. Also, that means that you’re limiting your market to teams with cap space, and if you’re going to trade Chris Paul, wouldn’t you want a whole league with asset’s that please you to get in return? I would think so.

    This doesn’t even include the obvious arguments, that you both (Aykis & Zach) have already made.

  • http://www.cowbellkingdom.com Zach Harper

    @pookeyguru
    I may not have made it entirely clear. The Chris Paul trade, in theory, wouldn’t go down this year. It’s just been bandied about within the time frame of his current contract. I think if they did have to trade him for financial reasons it would happen at the last possible instance and not a moment sooner.

  • http://www.cowbellkingdom.com Zach Harper

    @Zach Harper
    But regardless of anything, I don’t think that Chris Paul would ever be traded for financial reasons. I only mentioned it to help state the financial woes that the Hornets find themselves in right now. The fact that people would suggest trading him because of the bad economy would ever be a possibility must show how awful their financial books must be.

  • http://www.netflix.com Walter

    the lakers have sasha vujacic and adam morrison as well, and they would rather get rid of them before fisher, in my opinion.

  • Mike

    Bucks fan here. There is no way the Bucks would send Luke Ridnour and a first round pick to Sacramento to avoid the luxury tax. The table is incorrect. The Bucks are $1.6 mil under the tax and will not make any moves to go over to put them in an over the tax situation.

  • http://www.cowbellkingdom.com Zach Harper

    @Walter
    The Lakers basically print money so I doubt they would feel the need to trade anybody. Fisher would make the most sense if Farmar emerges as their top point guard because nobody will want to take Vujacic’s two-year contract with the way he’s played since getting his contract.

  • http://www.cowbellkingdom.com Zach Harper

    @Mike
    Actually, we’re both wrong. The cap figure was correct until the Bruce Bowen buyout/waive. Now they’re currently $600k under the luxury tax for the time being.

  • HoopsDogg

    Who the hell payed Matt Bonner 3.3 million dollars a season? Brian Scalabrine was equally idiotic, but I remember the Celtics having absolutely no locker room guys, so it made a semblance of sense. It’s hard to believe that Ridnour was once considered “promising.” Looking at that list it’s so easy to spot the guys that were fortunate enough to earn their bones playing with good players: Antonio Daniels, Drew Gooden, Daniel Gibson, Quentin Richardson, Marcin Gortat…

  • Ajay

    Lakers name should be tied to adom morrison and not derek fisher if you need to get things correctly

  • MustangMBS

    There are some names on your list that aren’t likely to move… Why would they match a huge offer for Gortat and then trade him away? Similarly, others are not likely to move.

    BUT your premise, and that is the important part people, is absolutely dead on correct. I do really wish you would have combined this with statements from the Kings saying they want a Center. That really is their priority and the cap argument is a valid point.

    The Kings are most likely to go after a big man. Somebody that can take on other bigs defensively. They need that to compete in this league.

  • Dunk

    I disagree with several of your “movement” choices:
    Dallas – You don’t dump a player you just signed. Plus only $1.9 of Gooden’s contract is guaranteed.

    Lakers – They are not worried about the LT. Morrison is the only player on their roster who they’d move.

    New York – Like the Lakers, they don’t care about the LT. All they want to do is dump salary for 2010. So if they could move Jeffries or Curry they’d be happy.

    Orlando – As stated above, you don’t sign a player to an offer sheet and dump him. That’s just plain stupid.

    San Antonio – All three of the players listed are rotation players and the Spurs made a conscious decision this summer to spend whatever money it took in a last ditch effort to win another championship before their nucleus gets too old. They’re not dumping anybody.

    Washington – Abe Pollin is getting old and wants to have one last good run in the playoffs. So they’re not that concerned about the LT. Haywood is their starting center, so I doubt they’d dump him. Miller is probably a keeper as well.

  • Mike

    Zach,

    I guess that $600,000 under the cap number includes the QO for Ramon Sessions.

  • Gerrit

    Zach,

    I would think that the Lakers would be more willing to give up either Farmar or Morrison than Derek Fisher. Given how much coach Jackson and Kobe trust and respect Fisher, I can’t see them trading him away.

  • http://www.hornets247.com Ryan Schwan

    You’re killin’ me Zach. Perpetuating the myth of the possible Paul trade. Killin’ me.

  • http://www.cowbellkingdom.com Zach Harper

    @Ryan Schwan
    Ryan, I don’t like it either. It hurts me to even mention it.

  • http://www.sactownroyalty.com Exhibit G

    Zach,

    I’m with you until you get into the Paul discussion. In the comments here, you’ve mentioned you don’t even like to mention it. So why include it at all? Seems ill-advised to mention a trade scenario that would only be truly beneficial to the Kings if an unlikely scenario comes to pass. And to add to that, it’s an unlikely scenario that you don’t believe would happen. Just leave that out altogether then.

    The Kings wouldn’t make a trade like that based solely on the hope of a Paul trade or injury, and for that same reason it doesn’t warrant discussion, regardless of how many mentions it may get among speculative national writers.

  • http://www.cowbellkingdom.com Zach Harper

    @Exhibit G
    The reason I mention it is to stress the dire financial situation that the Hornets are in. I think with smaller markets like them and the Bucks, we really don’t get a close idea of how bad their finances are in this economy. Eventually, it could mean they have to basically sell off players to stay viable. Now, I’m not sure that Chris Paul would ever truly be considered but if decently credible people have mentioned it in some avenue then there must be something there. Perhaps I’m wrong about that.