Debunking Trade Rumors: Robinson, Hinrich
Posted by Zach Lowe on Jan 16, 2010
Trade season is in full swing, and Marc Spears of Yahoo! reports the C’s and Lakers “have expressed some interest” in Nate Robinson. I wrote a ton about L’il Nate last month, so I won’t repeat much of that here. Suffice it to say that statistics, both advanced and otherwise, don’t support my general distaste for his preening, selfish game.
Could the Celtics use Nate? Sure, I guess. I mean, he scored 17 points per game last season. That’s significant. And the C’s don’t have a true back-up point guard.
But negativity is my general state of mind, so let’s talk about why this trade won’t happen.
Robinson is making $4 million this season, but his trade value, for salary cap matching purposes, is a shade over $2 million, because Robinson is what the league calls a” base-year compensation” (BYC) player. This basically means that if a player gets a big raise (as Nate did before this season), his trade value for cap purposes stays closer to his old salary.
Your first instinct is to say, Hey, that’s great! The C’s can get Nate Robinson for J.R. Giddens and Shelden Williams! Or straight up for Tony Allen!
But that’s not how base-year compensation works. Nate Robinson counts as a $4 million player (his real salary) for the Celtics but as a base-year player (with a $2 million salary) for the Knicks. So the above trades—in which the C’s are sending out about $2 million for Robinson—don’t work, since the C’s are bringing in a $4 million player.
If you can follow that, you realize that the opposite scenario won’t work, either—the C’s cant send the Knicks $4 million in salary in exchange for Robinson, because then the Knicks would be taking back too much (since Robinson is on their books as $2 million player).
Fun times all around.
Now, there are ways to do a deal for Robinson, but they are complicated and not really favorable for the Knicks.
After all, Robinson is both an expiring contract and a player the Knicks could re-sign using Bird rights—one whose talent might appeal to certain big-name free agents who might like to play with at least two NBA-caliber players in New York next season. So the Knicks aren’t going to do a Jordan Hill/Robinson for Scal/Giddens/Shelden deal (which works).
The most likely scenario would involve a third team with the salary cap space (Memphis) to take on the extra salary the C’s must send out but the Knicks cannot accept. For instance, this works:
Knicks receive: Tony Allen
Celtics receive: Nate Robinson
Memphis receives: J.R. Giddens and a cash/draft pick sweetener
But again: Why would the Knicks do something like this? And is Nate Robinson really worth the trouble of making all of these damn phone calls and giving Memphis whatever it is they would want in exchange for allowing the C’s to rent their cap space?
No. Nate isn’t coming here without some major commitment and effort from Ainge and his crew.
• The other name that has “been connected” with the Celtics in recent days is Kirk Hinrich. Both Bill Simmons and Patrick Cassidy of Dime Magazine have floated the same basic trade: Scalabrine, Allen, Expiring Contract #3 (most likely Eddie House) and a draft pick for Hinrich.
This deal works under the cap, and—in a minor miracle for Boston—the Bulls could do a 3-for-1 trade, because they only have 13 players on their roster. (The league limit is 15).
In this scenario, Chicago basically gains monster 2010 cap space. Shedding Hinrich’s $9 million deal leaves the Bulls with about $28 million in salary committed to 2010-11, assuming they decline offers on Ty Thomas and Aaron “The White Flag” Gray. Moving down from $37 million to $28 million by getting rid of Hinrich is the difference between being able to sign one max free agent and being able to sign one max free agent and another Very Good Player. That means something.
But this deal has two major hold-ups:
1) Chicago sits 8th in the Eastern Conference standings right now, and they may be wary of signaling to their fans that they don’t care about making the playoff—and, from ownership’s perspective, banking a couple million from playoff home games. (That said, I’m not sure this trade makes the Bulls that much worse this season. They could still make the playoffs with TA/House instead of Hinrich).
2) Hinrich is on the books for $17 million over the next two seasons. Those of you who objected to paying James Posey less than this over the next two years: Do you want to shell out even more for Hinrich? I’m guessing you don’t, and neither does the team.
The Ticker