Free Agent Thread

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
We could trade Jones and Simons for Smart and a pick
 
B-Roy said:
For those that are thinking about whether or not to operate under the hard-cap. I think CJ for Simmons becomes illegal at that point. Simmons is getting paid 3M more than CJ, and he has a 15% trade kicker that goes on the books of the team receiving him. So 36M.

We could still do Dame for Simmons though!
Click to expand...
Nope 125% of CJ's contract is 37.5M, so we could trade for Simmons straight up under the 125% +500k rule.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
It's 150% while we're still under the apron. 125% only kicks in above.
Click to expand...

No its +5M if the resulting trade doesn't put us into the luxury tax. But we would be in the luxury tax in that scenario, so it doesn't work.

There is different salary matching rules for taxpaying and non-taxpaying teams.
 
blazerkor said:
Nope 125% of CJ's contract is 37.5M, so we could trade for Simmons straight up under the 125% +500k rule.
Click to expand...
The point was that the $36M would take us (along with incomplete roster charges) above the apron, so that would supersede the 125% matching rule, if we were operating under a hard cap (which, again, we're not likely to do). Just saying it's yet another reason why we shouldn't even be thinking about trying to acquire anyone via S&T.
 
B-Roy said:
No its +5M if the resulting trade doesn't put us into the luxury tax. But we would be in the luxury tax in that scenario, so it doesn't work.

There is different salary matching rules for taxpaying and non-taxpaying teams.
Click to expand...
Depends on when the trade is consummated. If our salary is not above the tax at that point, the non-tax rules would apply.
 
What’s the consensus on Boogie, because he’s close with both Chauncey and Dame.
 
B-Roy said:
Hard.
Cap.
Click to expand...
  • Taxpaying Scenario —
    • Rule — If a team’s post-trade team salary would exceed the tax level, then a traded player may be replaced in the same transaction by one or more players whose salaries together do not exceed 125% of the pre-trade salary of the traded player plus $100,000.

    • Example (Team A, Taxpayer) — Assume (i) salary cap = $99.093 million, (ii) team salary = $130 million, and (iii) tax level = $119.266 million. Team A seeks to trade an $8 million player. Team A could replace that player in a simultaneous trade with one or more players making $10.1 million. (125% x $8 million, plus $100,000.)

    • Example (Team B, Options) — Make the same assumptions as above, but this time consider the trade from Team B’s perspective. To receive that $8 million player from Team A, Team B could (i) if it’s available, absorb that salary into room, (ii) if it’s available, absorb that player into a pre-existing trade credit (see non-simultaneous examples below), (iii) send out a single player making $10.1 million or less (so that the trade still works from Team A’s perspective), or (iv) aggregate two or more players’ salaries that do not exceed $10.1 million (again so that the trade still works from Team A’s perspective too).
https://cbabreakdown.com/salary-cap-exceptions

I've never seen mention anywhere and I would challenge you to find where it says that using the 125% salary matching in a trade hard caps a team.
 
Scalma said:
What’s the consensus on Boogie, because he’s close with both Chauncey and Dame.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
blazerkor said:
  • Taxpaying Scenario —
    • Rule — If a team’s post-trade team salary would exceed the tax level, then a traded player may be replaced in the same transaction by one or more players whose salaries together do not exceed 125% of the pre-trade salary of the traded player plus $100,000.

    • Example (Team A, Taxpayer) — Assume (i) salary cap = $99.093 million, (ii) team salary = $130 million, and (iii) tax level = $119.266 million. Team A seeks to trade an $8 million player. Team A could replace that player in a simultaneous trade with one or more players making $10.1 million. (125% x $8 million, plus $100,000.)

    • Example (Team B, Options) — Make the same assumptions as above, but this time consider the trade from Team B’s perspective. To receive that $8 million player from Team A, Team B could (i) if it’s available, absorb that salary into room, (ii) if it’s available, absorb that player into a pre-existing trade credit (see non-simultaneous examples below), (iii) send out a single player making $10.1 million or less (so that the trade still works from Team A’s perspective), or (iv) aggregate two or more players’ salaries that do not exceed $10.1 million (again so that the trade still works from Team A’s perspective too).
https://cbabreakdown.com/salary-cap-exceptions

I've never seen mention anywhere and I would challenge you to find where it says that using the 125% salary matching in a trade hard caps a team.
Click to expand...

*facepalm*

Please go read the context of the post again.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Depends on when the trade is consummated. If our salary is not above the tax at that point, the non-tax rules would apply.
Click to expand...

Right, so it would need to be done before the Powell signing, and presumably before most of the vets sign (probably).

Operating under strict boundaries - not Olshey's forte....
 
B-Roy said:
*facepalm*

Please go read the context of the post again.
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn't get it. I would fucking hope that we're not dumb enough to do anything that would give us a hard cap going forward trying to win a chip. Sorry.
 
B-Roy said:
No its +5M if the resulting trade doesn't put us into the luxury tax. But we would be in the luxury tax in that scenario, so it doesn't work.

There is different salary matching rules for taxpaying and non-taxpaying teams.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm still not getting this but if we signed Norm using the bird exception, that wouldn't hard cap us. If we used the taxpayer MLE that wouldn't hard cap us. So we could still trade CJ for Simmons straight up because Ben's contract is less than 125% of CJ's so it wouldn't have anything to do with a hard cap, just follows the rules of being in the luxury tax, right???
 
Not to simplify this to the Bill Simmons approach, but I do agree with his insistence on evaluating players by a simple method:

Can they be a rotation guy in the playoffs?

Stotts essentially used a 6 man rotation essentially in the playoffs. The players we should target are these guys. And there are plenty of them at the bottom end of the FA list this summer who we can potentially afford depending on who shakes out after day 1.
 
blazerkor said:
Maybe I'm still not getting this but if we signed Norm using the bird exception, that wouldn't hard cap us. If we used the taxpayer MLE that wouldn't hard cap us. So we could still trade CJ for Simmons straight up because Ben's contract is less than 125% of CJ's so it wouldn't have anything to do with a hard cap, just follows the rules of being in the luxury tax, right???
Click to expand...
Yes, but if we take in DeRozan, even though it’s technically possible, makes any CJ for Simmons deal in the future much harder.
 
Here are some minimum (or close to it) guys who played substantial minutes in the playoffs last year:

- Duncan Robinson - 25 mpg
- Drummond - 21 mpg
- Cam Payne - 19 mpg
- Blake Griffin - 27 mpg
- Bruce Brown - 23 mpg
- Raul Neto - 22 mpg
- Taj Gibson - 28 mpg (Thibs is insane)
- Melo - 24 mpg
- Austin Rivers - 30 mpg
- Reggie Jackson - 33 mpg
- Wes Matthews- 18 mpg
- Batum - 29 mpg

yes a lot of them were buyout candidates, so maybe we don't get the guy we want on day 1. And yes, some of their minutes were a function of teammates getting injured, but they all contributed positively in some manner (melo probably arguable). But it's interesting how many of them were valuable in contrast to the guys who signed for the MLE last year. We can't fail again where the guy we give the largest contract to doesn't get off the bench in the playoffs.
 
B-Roy said:
Yes, but if we take in DeRozan, even though it’s technically possible, makes any CJ for Simmons deal in the future much harder.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like I said, trying to do what I hope we're trying to do; any move that hard caps us is fucking stupid.
 
I can't believe this hasn't been mentioned yet but:

Blake Griffin

I'd un-ironically like Griffin for the TPMLE. As a smallball center and someone who could play a bit of 4. Plus he's got playmaking abilities. Defensively.....we'll work on it.
 
illmatic99 said:
Here are some minimum (or close to it) guys who played substantial minutes in the playoffs last year:

- Duncan Robinson - 25 mpg
- Drummond - 21 mpg
- Cam Payne - 19 mpg
- Blake Griffin - 27 mpg
- Bruce Brown - 23 mpg
- Raul Neto - 22 mpg
- Taj Gibson - 28 mpg (Thibs is insane)
- Melo - 24 mpg
- Austin Rivers - 30 mpg
- Reggie Jackson - 33 mpg
- Wes Matthews- 18 mpg
- Batum - 29 mpg

yes a lot of them were buyout candidates, so maybe we don't get the guy we want on day 1. And yes, some of their minutes were a function of teammates getting injured, but they all contributed positively in some manner (melo probably arguable). But it's interesting how many of them were valuable in contrast to the guys who signed for the MLE last year. We can't fail again where the guy we give the largest contract to doesn't get off the bench in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Did you just list Duncan Robinson, Cam Payne, and Reggie Jackson as minimum guys? They all will get the full MLE at the very least (unless Reggie Jackson takes a hometown discount to the Clips). The other ones are debatable, but I wouldn't be surprised to see at least Batum, Griffin, Brown, and Rivers go for portions of the MLE.
 
Graduate32 said:
Did you just list Duncan Robinson, Cam Payne, and Reggie Jackson as minimum guys? They all will get the full MLE at the very least (unless Reggie Jackson takes a hometown discount to the Clips). The other ones are debatable, but I wouldn't be surprised to see at least Batum, Griffin, Brown, and Rivers go for portions of the MLE.
Click to expand...
they had minimum contracts last year. read my post once more to see what i'm trying to say.

that we can find guys who can contribute who will get the minimum-- not that they will necessarily be the ones i listed from last season
 
illmatic99 said:
they had minimum contracts last year. read my post once more to see what i'm trying to say.

that we can find guys who can contribute who will get the minimum-- not that they will necessarily be the ones i listed from last season
Click to expand...

Ah, I see... yes, it would wonderful to find that diamond in the rough at the min so to speak.
 
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...dennis-schroder-and-lonzo-ball-sign-and-trade

How the fuck is Fischer getting these numbers??

New York may be the best destination for Schroder. The Knicks are widely rumored to have centered their sights on Evan Fournier, whom New York general manager Scott Perry once traded for when he was in Orlando's front office. That would add the secondary ball-handler the Knicks desire, assuming the Bulls poach Ball and Derrick Rose.

A potential Fournier deal would likely be a three-year contract worth around $18 million annually, according to league sources.

Alec Burks is also expected to re-sign with the Knicks on a three-year agreement worth roughly $30 million. Nerlens Noel seems likely to return to Madison Square Garden on a deal worth slightly more than $10 million annually.

That would leave New York with plenty of space to still offer Schroder the salary numbers he seeks. But at this point, it seems that scenario would involve the Knicks signing their new point guard to a short-term agreement rather than the four-year framework it's believed he wants. Schroder turns only 28 in September, so he could be in line for another lucrative contract before he exits his prime.


Elsewhere

  • Cam Payne is expected to return to Phoenix in the ballpark of $6 million per year.

  • Will Barton seems likely to re-sign with Denver on a two-year agreement worth slightly over $32 million.

  • T.J. McConnell appears to be headed back to Indiana.
Click to expand...

I'm so curious to see how many of these he gets right. Also, it seems based on the numbers that the market for Powell is probably at or below the 20M line. Barton 16M? Schroeder 18M? Fournier 18M? I'd rather have Powell than all those guys.
 
I think Powell will come back on a 3-4 year deal starting around $18 mill and ending at $23-25 mill his last year.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Click to expand...

It's amazing they were able to negotiate a contract, print it out, read and approve it, and sign it all within ONE MINUTE!!

You just don't see efficiency like that very often.
 
wow if jarrett allen gets this money, then nurk will surely get the same, but on 4 years

hes not worth this money now, neither i see that big of potential in him... athletic center, great rim protector, no skills offensively... i guess they see lesser version of rudy gobert in him

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top