Everything Derozan

[chico]

This seems to benefit from a lot of hindsight is 20/20 thinking.

"You do not let him opt out"? If the goal is to lock him up without him hitting RFA then you may not have a choice. For all we know the $9.5mm was more than what BC wanted to pay as it is; you yourself said that his contract value seemed nowhere near market value. They could have been so far apart on the terms (remember that the deal was signed at the eleventh hour in the tunnel at the ACC) that this was the only solution.

I wanted BC to wait for RFA on Demar but the fact of the matter is, we ended up with Demar on an advantageous contract, and complaining that Demar has a player option in year four is ridiculous. We can play armchair GM and that's all well and good but there's a limit to how much information we have.

Further, Lowry's contract provides a perfect example of the double standard we set for BC vs Masai. Lowry has a year-four option but we all laud Masai for getting him back on a reasonable deal.

BC messed up a lot of things but it's the height of absurdity to shit on him for this.

Hear ye!!!!! worth repeating

Is there a topic more beaten to death and less interesting than DeMar's contract?

No. Time to start dumping on Masai for Lowry's player option, I guess.

All that to say Colangelo sucked. A large amount of us already knew that. Can the conversation move on to something current? Like DD getting selected for the US B-Ball team camp? Thanks.

No kidding.

[DanH]

No. Time to start dumping on Masai for Lowry's player option, I guess.

Not all player options are created equal. The gamble is that Lowry will maintain his current production. He may opt out that year, but in all likelihood to get a longer deal at roughly the same pay or a little less. Or he may be hurt and opt in and cost us that 4th year. But the choice was probably between that and 5 full years, in which case the latter scenario is best case anyway, and the former is low risk - if he still wants to play here we will still be able to afford him, as he'll be onto what will probably be his final contract.

DD's contract was inherently a gamble that he would outperform his contract. Including a player option nullifies a lot of the benefit of getting that gamble right. If he was being paid an amount that made sense considering his performance at that point, it would make sense to have a player option. No other comparable player both got overpaid based on potential and got a player option. Either or - not both. They are mutually exclusive ideas - the player option is to allow the player out of an underpaying contract in the event of unexpected development, the overpay is locking a player in on a gamble he will have expected development.

[DanH]

BTW, hearing DD is working with Gary Payton? Absolutely great news. Get that D up Demar!

Great news. He starts being a positive contributor defensively and he'll earn a fan. Cut down on the midrange jumpers too and he'll have a big one.

[imanshumpert]

Not all player options are created equal. The gamble is that Lowry will maintain his current production. He may opt out that year, but in all likelihood to get a longer deal at roughly the same pay or a little less. Or he may be hurt and opt in and cost us that 4th year. But the choice was probably between that and 5 full years, in which case the latter scenario is best case anyway, and the former is low risk - if he still wants to play here we will still be able to afford him, as he'll be onto what will probably be his final contract.

DD's contract was inherently a gamble that he would outperform his contract. Including a player option nullifies a lot of the benefit of getting that gamble right. If he was being paid an amount that made sense considering his performance at that point, it would make sense to have a player option. No other comparable player both got overpaid based on potential and got a player option. Either or - not both. They are mutually exclusive ideas - the player option is to allow the player out of an underpaying contract in the event of unexpected development, the overpay is locking a player in on a gamble he will have expected development.

Who gives a shit man can we move on? His contract was signed 2 years ago.

EDIT: Lowry will definitely opt out of that deal to benefit from a larger contract with the new cap (you know... exactly what DD is going to do). Even if his relative value remains the same he'll expect to be paid a larger percentage of the cap on a new deal.

[imanshumpert]

What's being ignored here is that even if Colangelo had been able to plan in advance for the new TV Contract and CBA in 2016, and secure DD for 4yrs/40M or whatever with no player option. He STILL would get a similarly large contract in 2017 free agency...

I think some people are just annoyed that DD is taking away cap space from a potential KD signing. I really don't think we should be planning around signing KD, especially considering that virtually every single team in the league will have max space that year (including almost all the major market teams).

[DanH]

This seems to benefit from a lot of hindsight is 20/20 thinking.

"You do not let him opt out"? If the goal is to lock him up without him hitting RFA then you may not have a choice. For all we know the $9.5mm was more than what BC wanted to pay as it is; you yourself said that his contract value seemed nowhere near market value. They could have been so far apart on the terms (remember that the deal was signed at the eleventh hour in the tunnel at the ACC) that this was the only solution.

It's not hindsight. The criticism was there when the contract was signed. Hindsight is allowing us to confirm the criticism that existed then. If you don't accept hindsight (ie looking at the evidence) as a way to confirm or deny the validity of concerns, how the heck do we judge anything?

If 9.5M was more than BC wanted to pay, he should have let him go to RFA. Other GM's let similar players go to RFA, posters here and elsewhere were saying at the time it would have been the right choice, the media panned the deal. Hindsight allows us to see that all those people were right - DD's worst case would have been about 11M based on the market as it showed itself. He ended up with 10M AND a player option. Only solution. Right. Because you HAVE to sign an extension.

I wanted BC to wait for RFA on Demar but the fact of the matter is, we ended up with Demar on an advantageous contract, and complaining that Demar has a player option in year four is ridiculous. We can play armchair GM and that's all well and good but there's a limit to how much information we have.

OK, so you, a fan, wanted him to wait for RFA. Many others did. The media did. Other GM's did it with their similar players (when they didn't, they paid a LOT less in extension money). The market proved to be such that his value would likely have been 11M per year, with no player option. People predicted this would be so (not in exact terms, but that he wouldn't get much more than his extension amount in free agency).

Now, we sit on the verge of the biggest cap boom in the recent history of the NBA, with DD having an opt out in that season (and a fairly large cap hold because of his overpayment on his rookie extension). That 5M in extra cap room can make a big difference. As can potentially the extra 14M in room under the tax if he angles for a max deal (and who expects him not to?). The best part is that ALL of this was foreseeable. And according to you we cannot criticize this situation.

Further, Lowry's contract provides a perfect example of the double standard we set for BC vs Masai. Lowry has a year-four option but we all laud Masai for getting him back on a reasonable deal.

BC messed up a lot of things but it's the height of absurdity to shit on him for this.

I replied to another poster along the same lines, but we applaud Masai because Lowry is on a reasonable deal. Was the DD deal reasonable at the time of its signing? Look at the media response to the two deals - DD was vastly overpaid based on his current production. Lowry, it could be argued, is slightly underpaid based on his current production. Putting in player options with veterans who are already producing at what you expect is their peak is not an issue (also note the timing of the player option - he is locked into his reasonable deal past the cap boom). If they opt out it will likely be for more term, not more salary. Putting player options into a deal that is predicated on the expectation that a player will outperform their current performance (significantly) is a fool's game, as the player is likely to opt out for more term AND money. If the team is taking the risk of overpaying in the early years of the deal, the player should be taking the risk of being underpaid at the end of it. The player option removes the risk for the player, and doubles the risk for the team (if the player sucks, they are on the hook for the final year of overpayment, if he is awesome, he opts out either to leave entirely or to re-sign for significantly more, hurting the team's cap situation significantly).

[DanH]

What's being ignored here is that even if Colangelo had been able to plan in advance for the new TV Contract and CBA in 2016, and secure DD for 4yrs/40M or whatever with no player option. He STILL would get a similarly large contract in 2017 free agency...

I think some people are just annoyed that DD is taking away cap space from a potential KD signing. I really don't think we should be planning around signing KD, especially considering that virtually every single team in the league will have max space that year (including almost all the major market teams).

Yes. In 2017 free agency. When the 2016 cap boom had passed, teams had used a bunch of their cap room that year and eaten up the excess cap space, and any big moves made in the one-year cap boom situation would be in place, allowing the team to re-sign DD to whatever they needed to with no impact on ability to build the roster. Having to deal with his big cap hit (or bigger deal) in 2016 means being limited in what they can do in that once-in-a-TV-deal opportunity.

[DanH]

Who gives a shit man can we move on? His contract was signed 2 years ago.

EDIT: Lowry will definitely opt out of that deal to benefit from a larger contract with the new cap (you know... exactly what DD is going to do). Even if his relative value remains the same he'll expect to be paid a larger percentage of the cap on a new deal.

Yes, in 2017. Unless he slows down a bit, then he'll opt out just for more term. Either way, I viewed it as a 3 year deal to start with. Veteran players are an entirely different situation. Did you read my post you just quoted? I made a distinction between vet and young player deals that is kind of central to my argument, and you appear to have ignored it considering your response.

[imanshumpert]

Yes. In 2017 free agency. When the 2016 cap boom had passed, teams had used a bunch of their cap room that year and eaten up the excess cap space, and any big moves made in the one-year cap boom situation would be in place, allowing the team to re-sign DD to whatever they needed to with no impact on ability to build the roster. Having to deal with his big cap hit (or bigger deal) in 2016 means being limited in what they can do in that once-in-a-TV-deal opportunity.

Ah ok, so every team would've used up all their space in 2016, and we'd be able to sign DD for low-mid teens in 2017. Makes a ton of sense man.

[imanshumpert]

And I hope you guys realize, if we had signed DD for a little more money to get rid of the player option (say 11M per year?).

DD's 2016 cap hit would decrease by a whopping 3M (like < 4% of the projected cap). So it's not like he's the one holding up the fairy-tale Durant signing that isn't going to happen.

[DanH]

And I hope you guys realize, if we had signed DD for a little more money to get rid of the player option (say 11M per year?).

DD's 2016 cap hit would decrease by a whopping 3M (like < 4% of the projected cap). So it's not like he's the one holding up the fairy-tale Durant signing that isn't going to happen.

Yeah, except in most Durant (or any other star) scenarios, considering the roster situation, we are looking at a sign and trade. Meaning we are hard capped at the apron. And DeMar potentially making his max of 23M is very different from him making 11M. And the following year we would not be hardcapped and would be free to sign him to his max and simply pay the tax (which ownership would be willing to do with the potential powerhouse we could have). That's the point.

[DanH]

Ah ok, so every team would've used up all their space in 2016, and we'd be able to sign DD for low-mid teens in 2017. Makes a ton of sense man.

No, we'd sign DD to some huge deal. But we would be much more flexible in 2016 when we are primed for a big move. In 2017 who cares what we sign him for - we'll pay the tax, big whoop.

[imanshumpert]

Yeah, except in most Durant (or any other star) scenarios, considering the roster situation, we are looking at a sign and trade. Meaning we are hard capped at the apron. And DeMar potentially making his max of 23M is very different from him making 11M. And the following year we would not be hardcapped and would be free to sign him to his max and simply pay the tax (which ownership would be willing to do with the potential powerhouse we could have). That's the point.

I don't see why we would sign DeRozan to his max deal before signing Durant if we had any chance in hell of getting KD? So the cap hit would be 14M.

[DanH]

I don't see why we would sign DeRozan to his max deal before signing Durant if we had any chance in hell of getting KD? So the cap hit would be 14M.

Yeah, except a) there is very little chance we have cap room for Durant unless we let DeMar walk.

And b) if a) is correct, any Durant move will be via sign and trade, which means our limit is the tax apron, and if we keep our team together and add a borderline all-star talent next summer to help attract KD, then we will be right up against the apron if DD makes his projected 11M - and we won't be able to go over the apron to give him his 23M, so we lose him for nothing in that scenario (or lose basically all of our depth to make room for him).

[imanshumpert]

Yeah, except a) there is very little chance we have cap room for Durant unless we let DeMar walk.

And b) if a) is correct, any Durant move will be via sign and trade, which means our limit is the tax apron, and if we keep our team together and add a borderline all-star talent next summer to help attract KD, then we will be right up against the apron if DD makes his projected 11M - and we won't be able to go over the apron to give him his 23M, so we lose him for nothing in that scenario (or lose basically all of our depth to make room for him).

Would we even have nough assets to complete a sign and trade for Durant without completely gutting our roster? Quoting you here:

Kyle Lowry $12,000,000
Paul Millsap (eg) $10,450,000 (second year of a 10M contract)
Role player from 2015: $6,871,849 (expiring)
Patrick Patterson $6,418,605 (expiring)
Room MLE from 2015: $2,940,630 (unguaranteed)
Lucas (BeBe) Nogueira $1,921,320
Bruno Caboclo $1,589,640
2015 1st rounder (assumed 20th): $1,577,280
2016 1st rounder (assumed 20th): $1,562,280 (cap hold is lower)
2016 1st rounder (NYK/DEN assumed 10th): $2,568,600 (cap hold is lower)
Vet min from 2015 $980,431 (unguaranteed)

Cap holds:
DeMar DeRozan $14,250,000
Jonas Valanciunas $11,651,205
Greivis Vasquez $10,102,410
Terrence Ross $8,884,793
James Johnson $4,854,524

Total committed salary including cap holds: 97.0M

Say we denounce Vasquez and JJ's cap holds. That puts us at roughly 82M committed, so still over a project cap of ~80M ish after the new TV deal. Durant (9 years exp by that time) and DeRozan would both have the same max of about 24M. So we would have to send out roughly that much in order to even complete a S&T for KD. How on earth would we achieve that while maintaining any semblance of depth?

EDIT: If ~80M is the cap (44.74% of BRI - projected benefits/# of teams), the tax level is set by 53.51% of BRI - projected benefits/# of teams.

So the tax threshold should be somewhere around (80M * 53.51/44.74) so 96M ish. Putting the apron at 100M or so. So if we somehow WERE able to S&T for KD by sending out the same $$$ contracts, we'd still be at a cap hit of 82M. Bump DD's hit from 14 to 24M on a new deal, and that's 92M. So below the tax level and below the apron so no problem.