Post-game Reactions

Everyone has picked up on Gary Tanguay’s report that the Celtics offered J.R. Giddens and “future considerations” to the Knicks in exchange for Nate Robinson. The C’s reportedly made the offer about three weeks ago, when Nate’s trade value was at rock bottom because of Mike D’Antoni’s decision to bench Robinson for more than two weeks. 

One problem: A Giddens-Robinson trade does not work under the league’s collective bargaining agreement. Robinson is earning $4 million this season, meaning that to acquire him, the C’s would have to send out that amount—plus or minus 25 percent and change—in any Robinson deal. 

Giddens makes about $1 million. It’s unclear what “future considerations” might mean, but draft picks and cash do not count for salary-matching purposes in trades. 

Either Tanguay’s information is wrong or it’s not being relayed correctly via media outlets. (There’s also option #3: I’m misreading the collective bargaining agreement. But I’m pretty sure I’ve got this right). 

I’ve said it before: A Knicks-Celtics trade for Robinson is enormously complicated given his status as a base-year compensation player, and gets easier only if you add in a third team with cap space. 

Something is missing in Tanguay’s report. Again: Take any trade-related news with a grain of salt.

The following two tabs change content below.

Zach Lowe

Latest posts by Zach Lowe (see all)

Share →
  • John

    I played around with the ESPN trade machine (I know it’s not the end-all, but its as close as I’m going to get without reading the CBA and doing the math myself) for a good half hour today, and here’s what I got.

    The only deal that worked without including a third team or a player of real consequence was:

    N Robinson/M Landry for S Williams/T Allen:
    (but no reason the Knicks would do this)

    Other trades that were close included:
    N Robinson/M Landry for T Allen/B Walker (only off by $39,211, the closest almost-trade-that-worked)

    N Robinson/M Landry for T Allen/JR Giddens (off by $331K)

    N Robinson/M Landry for M Daniels/JR Giddens (off by $126K) (but Celts wouldn’t do this)

    As far as I can tell, it’s impossible without involving a third team or many more players.

  • John

    In terms of 3-way deals with Memphis, however, giving up Giddens and either House or T. Allen (and presumably “future considerations”) works (in either of those cases, S. Williams or B. Walker can be included to either the Knicks or Grizz as throw-ins without upsetting the balance of the deal).

  • John

    I lied; the following deal also works (but doesn’t if you swap any other players):

    N Robinson/T Douglas for JR Giddens/T Allen/S Williams

  • John

    As does Robinson/Douglas/Landry for Giddens/T Allen/Walker

  • Yeah, I played around with a few of these combinations recently, and you can find some tricky ones that work without including a third team. But then you run into two problems: 1) The deals become silly for the Knicks to even consider; 2) Roster size limits.

  • DRJ1

    Isn’t this all horse-poo anyway? Nate’s own agent denied any knowledge of it, as did Doc; and a “league source” said that NY wants too much for Nate. I think it’s a dead duck, this story.

  • @DRJ: I don’t believe much of what anyone says on the record during trade time, but I don’t think it’s happening.

    I just mostly wanted to clarify that Tanguay is off on this particular report, since everyone appears to be parroting it.