Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Continuity = Asset Accumulation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    magoon wrote: View Post
    The problem with Boozer is that he basically makes any further teambuilding difficult. To wit:

    Say we trade Hansbrough, Salmons, Buycks and Novak to Chicago for Boozer and the #16, which is a reasonable offer because it means Boozer's 17m hit to Chicago drops to 5.5 (Novak's 3.5 plus the 2m to get rid of Salmons, Buycks and Psycho T). The problem is this: assuming we bring back Amir (which of course we do), our team salary before we sign any free agents or rookies is $52.1m - only $11m under the projected cap of $63m, and only $25m under the projected luxury tax of $77m.

    So in that $25m - because you really don't want to go into the tax this year, the team isn't yet at the point where the tax makes sense - you need to pay Kyle, 2Pat and Vasquez (and De Colo?), plus rooks, plus maybe a mid-level exception free agent signing like Vince Carter.

    Like, you'd need the following structure:

    11m Kyle
    3.5m Vasquez
    3.5m 2Pat
    3m MLE free agent
    3m for all the rooks
    1m De Colo

    Not impossible, but it's very, very tight and leaves absolutely no room for error. And of course, the timing of actually signing all these guys becomes extremely important because now you have to negotiate our returning free agents' cap holds - until we sign our returning FAs (or renounce our Bird rights) we effectively can't sign any other free agents. Luckily our Bird rights on the FAs and rook signings all count as cap exceptions, along with the MLE - but we're definitely tight nonetheless.
    You make a good point concerning the luxury tax and I guess it depends on what MLSE and MU are willing to do to get more assets. $11M for another first round pick seems like a lot of money but it might be the cost to get a second 2014 pick if you want to keep the core.

    MU could stretch Fields to help ensure they are under the luxury tax. They could forgo signing a veteran and use one of the rookies to back fill Salmons' role. Perhaps MU is able to bring back Lowry/GV/PP for about $20M freeing up some more cap space. Maybe he gives GV/PP back loaded deals (personally not a fan of that idea but it could be something MU is considering).

    Perkins is another cheaper option.. but I would imagine that it would be much harder to get a pick from OKC than it would from Chicago. Both owners are cheap but OKC isn't near luxury tax after the Harden trade and don't need to get better via free agency as bad as Chicago might.

    Comment


    • #47
      11m Kyle
      3.5m Vasquez
      3.5m 2Pat
      3m MLE free agent
      3m for all the rooks
      1m De Colo
      I don't see anything wrong with these numbers. Very realistic imo

      Comment


      • #48
        imanshumpert wrote: View Post
        I don't see anything wrong with these numbers. Very realistic imo
        Realistic, but not guaranteed - which is why I said "no margin for error." Because there simply isn't any. Those numbers take us right up to the cap, and if any of our free agents want a lousy $500K per year more, we're in the tax.

        Comment


        • #49
          magoon wrote: View Post
          The problem with Boozer is that he basically makes any further teambuilding difficult. To wit:

          Say we trade Hansbrough, Salmons, Buycks and Novak to Chicago for Boozer and the #16, which is a reasonable offer because it means Boozer's 17m hit to Chicago drops to 5.5 (Novak's 3.5 plus the 2m to get rid of Salmons, Buycks and Psycho T). The problem is this: assuming we bring back Amir (which of course we do), our team salary before we sign any free agents or rookies is $52.1m - only $11m under the projected cap of $63m, and only $25m under the projected luxury tax of $77m.

          So in that $25m - because you really don't want to go into the tax this year, the team isn't yet at the point where the tax makes sense - you need to pay Kyle, 2Pat and Vasquez (and De Colo?), plus rooks, plus maybe a mid-level exception free agent signing like Vince Carter.

          Like, you'd need the following structure:

          11m Kyle
          3.5m Vasquez
          3.5m 2Pat
          3m MLE free agent
          3m for all the rooks
          1m De Colo

          Not impossible, but it's very, very tight and leaves absolutely no room for error. And of course, the timing of actually signing all these guys becomes extremely important because now you have to negotiate our returning free agents' cap holds - until we sign our returning FAs (or renounce our Bird rights) we effectively can't sign any other free agents. Luckily our Bird rights on the FAs and rook signings all count as cap exceptions, along with the MLE - but we're definitely tight nonetheless.
          It is extremely tight, no doubt.

          However these aren't your OTPP MLSE owners.

          The core of a 48-win team remains in tact, they add a veteran, they add two first round picks and next year they have a tonne of cap space and little to no chance of going in to the luxury tax again for 2 seasons.

          The luxury tax is bad but the repeater tax is worse.

          IF MLSE can drop $100M on two footballers, then $16.8M and a few million of tax money is a small price to pay for a team that gets bigger audiences in the first round of the playoffs than most of the hockey at the same time.


          I'm not trying to dismiss your point though - far from it. It is a definite concern if Chicago were even on board.

          Comment


          • #50
            magoon wrote: View Post
            Realistic, but not guaranteed - which is why I said "no margin for error." Because there simply isn't any. Those numbers take us right up to the cap, and if any of our free agents want a lousy $500K per year more, we're in the tax.
            Fair point, for example if Lowry commands 12M instead of 11M

            Comment


            • #51
              imanshumpert wrote: View Post
              Fair point, for example if Lowry commands 12M instead of 11M
              Nah. Even assuming an annual value of 11 or 12M, you could structure his deal so you have a lower starting salary this year by backloading. Same for all those guys listed, so there's a little more wiggle room. Plus frankly, you could let one or two of the listed guys walk depending on who you draft (de Colo being the obvious choice, and one of the draft picks possibly going unsigned and going overseas).
              twitter.com/dhackett1565

              Comment


              • #52
                mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                Steve Kyler not so enthused by the idea.

                I am not sure he really gave it much thought based on the reading of his answer. Bulls giving up 1 first round pick, not two.
                Yet he said this later in his chat:

                Salmons, hansbrough, buycks, stone all waived for $2m, boozer, and #16 is a much better deal than the lakers one he proposes in my opinion.

                Comment


                • #53
                  DanH wrote: View Post
                  Nah. Even assuming an annual value of 11 or 12M, you could structure his deal so you have a lower starting salary this year by backloading. Same for all those guys listed, so there's a little more wiggle room. Plus frankly, you could let one or two of the listed guys walk depending on who you draft (de Colo being the obvious choice, and one of the draft picks possibly going unsigned and going overseas).
                  Good point there. I kind of overlooked the unnecessary re-signing of De-Colo.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                    Yet he said this later in his chat:



                    Salmons, hansbrough, buycks, stone all waived for $2m, boozer, and #16 is a much better deal than the lakers one he proposes in my opinion.
                    Agreed.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                      Yet he said this later in his chat:



                      Salmons, hansbrough, buycks, stone all waived for $2m, boozer, and #16 is a much better deal than the lakers one he proposes in my opinion.
                      I'd be pretty damn happy if that deal happened. It would make us better both next year, as well as the future. Boozer is much better than every player we'd be sending out, and could hold his own in the PF/C rotation with Amir and PPat. #16 could be someone like Ennis, allowing us to let Vasquez walk while still having a very strong PG rotation for the future (I'd say stronger as Ennis is more promising than Vasquez ever was).

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        But, but we need Vasquez's big greasy balls...
                        The name's Bond, James Bond.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          DanH wrote: View Post
                          Nah. Even assuming an annual value of 11 or 12M, you could structure his deal so you have a lower starting salary this year by backloading.
                          That doesn't matter for cap and tax purposes, because you average out the cost of the total deal over all of the years. That's why next year Landry Fields makes $8.5m but his cap hit is only $6.25m. (Which, ironically, makes him even harder to trade.)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            magoon wrote: View Post
                            That doesn't matter for cap and tax purposes, because you average out the cost of the total deal over all of the years. That's why next year Landry Fields makes $8.5m but his cap hit is only $6.25m. (Which, ironically, makes him even harder to trade.)
                            That averaging is only for poison pill contracts, like Landry's, Asik's, and Lin's. I don't know of any others where the average applies.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Primer wrote: View Post
                              That averaging is only for poison pill contracts, like Landry's, Asik's, and Lin's. I don't know of any others where the average applies.
                              That's right. There are very few cases where the cap hit is spread out over the length of the contract, with Gilbert Arenas rule contracts being the most common (and those are rare enough themselves).
                              twitter.com/dhackett1565

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Assuming we resign KL, I will be surprised if something big happens this off-season given that our nucleus from this year is young and reasonably priced, and that we are close to the cap. I think any big move we may have the opportunity to make will be nixed because it would either add too much salary for too long, or it would require us to move one of our key pieces without filling the hole that it would leave. In other words, I think we will likely be in asset accumulation mode by default this year.

                                With that in mind, there are two types of moves I see as particularly likely. One type I see happening involves trading Salmons to a team looking for cap relief in a deal for either a future first round pick +salary expiring at the end of the coming season, or a current player under contract who fits the way we are built and has proven performance and/or untapped potential.

                                The other type of trade I see happening is potentially trading into the second half of first round this year by a trade built on swapping our Knicks/Nuggets pick (which will be second half of the first round in a year or two) to a team which has multiple picks in the first round this year and may not want to integrate as many new faces or as much salary as multiple first rounders may require - most likely Phoenix, assuming that they decide not to leverage those picks to bring in Love (or are unable to).

                                Of course, now that I've put this on record here, Masai will likely do something I completely wasn't expecting instead.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X