Science The Hard Cap and you - please read

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Natebishop3 said:
Yes. I’m actually hoping they use him in the Grant trade instead of the TPE so we can get rid of Bledsoes minimum 3.5 million. Every little bit will count.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if we save the TPE because of the hard cap so use the TPE for Grant still but include Bledsoe. No need to guarantee Bledsoe's contract then so it would only cost Detroit the $3.9 million. That's the best case scenario when we hear the final details.
 
hoopsjock said:
They still have the RoCo TPE, which is about $6.5 million. So technically they don't need to change the guaranteed amount.
Click to expand...
So if we are 4 million away from the hard cap, we can still trade for a player making 6.5 or less and go over that hard cap number?
 
hoopsjock said:
It doesn't matter if we save the TPE because of the hard cap so use the TPE for Grant still but include Bledsoe. No need to guarantee Bledsoe's contract then so it would only cost Detroit the $3.9 million. That's the best case scenario when we hear the final details.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the TPE. I Just want to get Bledsoe's contract off our books.
 
Mediocre Man said:
So if we are 4 million away from the hard cap, we can still trade for a player making 6.5 or less and go over that hard cap number?
Click to expand...
No. Can't go over the hard cap for any reason. We'd be closer to $6 million than $4 million if they ditch Bledsoe somehow though.
 
Mediocre Man said:
So if we are 4 million away from the hard cap, we can still trade for a player making 6.5 or less and go over that hard cap number?
Click to expand...

Nope. You can't go over the hard cap for any reason. Not even a dollar.
 
hoopsjock said:
It doesn't matter if we save the TPE because of the hard cap so use the TPE for Grant still but include Bledsoe. No need to guarantee Bledsoe's contract then so it would only cost Detroit the $3.9 million. That's the best case scenario when we hear the final details.
Click to expand...

just to clarify, Detroit sends Grant to Portland who is absorbed into Portland's 21M TPE. That creates a 21M TPE for Detroit; 3.9M of it they use to absorb Bledsoe. Technically that would be two trades but practically it would be one. I'm thinking I have that right

I'd wonder if the delay in trading Grant is because the Pistons wanted to use all their cap-space first so they wouldn't have to renounce the TPE in order to use the cap-space. But looking at their cap, they are a long ways from hitting the salary cap. Maybe they don't see much value in the TPE?
 
wizenheimer said:
just to clarify, Detroit sends Grant to Portland who is absorbed into Portland's 21M TPE. That creates a 21M TPE for Detroit; 3.9M of it they use to absorb Bledsoe. Technically that would be two trades but practically it would be one. I'm thinking I have that right

I'd wonder if the delay in trading Grant is because the Pistons wanted to use all their cap-space first so they wouldn't have to renounce the TPE in order to use the cap-space. But looking at their cap, they are a long ways from hitting the salary cap. Maybe they don't see much value in the TPE?
Click to expand...
Two trades for Portland, but only 1 trade for Detroit.

Detroit trades Grant for Bledsoe. Later cuts Bledsoe for cap space.

PDX acquires Grant in TE, sends Bledsoe out in separate trade generating new TE.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
Two trades for Portland, but only 1 trade for Detroit.

Detroit trades Grant for Bledsoe. Later cuts Bledsoe for cap space.

PDX acquires Grant in TE, sends Bledsoe out in separate trade generating new TE.
Click to expand...

you said what I said, just differently. I was focused on Portland's end
 
Are our two way roster spots used up? I know B Williams is one and Walker is one I think? We could go get a back up big from the G league without using up a roster spot couldn't we?
 
WesleyMatthews said:
Two trades for Portland, but only 1 trade for Detroit.

Detroit trades Grant for Bledsoe. Later cuts Bledsoe for cap space.

PDX acquires Grant in TE, sends Bledsoe out in separate trade generating new TE.
Click to expand...
Correct. The new TPE would only be for $3.9M though
 
wizenheimer said:
just to clarify, Detroit sends Grant to Portland who is absorbed into Portland's 21M TPE. That creates a 21M TPE for Detroit; 3.9M of it they use to absorb Bledsoe. Technically that would be two trades but practically it would be one. I'm thinking I have that right

I'd wonder if the delay in trading Grant is because the Pistons wanted to use all their cap-space first so they wouldn't have to renounce the TPE in order to use the cap-space. But looking at their cap, they are a long ways from hitting the salary cap. Maybe they don't see much value in the TPE?
Click to expand...
My guess is Detroit agreed to take Bledsoe's $3.9 million, but only if they didn't have something better come up with the space. Looks like they didn't.

I know I'm the only one saying this but it could also be that Grant is signing the 2/$45 extension as part if the trade. If that's the case July 6th is the first day that can be official.
 
And for the record, it's not the TPE that's important for sending Bledsoe out, it's not having his dead money on our books so that it gives us a little tiny bit more wiggle room under the hard cap.

If Keon or Did is also in the deal they might be ducking the tax.
 
hoopsjock said:
My guess is Detroit agreed to take Bledsoe's $3.9 million, but only if they didn't have something better come up with the space. Looks like they didn't.

I know I'm the only one saying this but it could also be that Grant is signing the 2/$45 extension as part if the trade. If that's the case July 6th is the first day that can be official.
Click to expand...

I'd say most likely this is not the case, the trade was setup to just go down as reported. However Detroit or Portland has the option to modify the trade or bring in a 3rd team, and both clubs wanted to keep that flexibility.

But Portland would have to give Detroit an asset to eat the 3.9 million Bledsoe deal. If so, I'd expect we see the Blazers likely do this and give up a 2nd, and use the "flexibility" only to stay out of the tax.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
I'd say most likely this is not the case, the trade was setup to just go down as reported. However Detroit or Portland has the option to modify the trade or bring in a 3rd team, and both clubs wanted to keep that flexibility.

But Portland would have to give Detroit an asset to eat the 3.9 million Bledsoe deal. If so, I'd expect we see the Blazers likely do this and give up a 2nd, and use the "flexibility" only to stay out of the tax.
Click to expand...
If they used Keon as that asset and then signed Walker as the 14th guy, they'd be just under the tax line. I wouldn't be shocked if they're that cheap.
 
hoopsjock said:
And for the record, it's not the TPE that's important for sending Bledsoe out, it's not having his dead money on our books so that it gives us a little tiny bit more wiggle room under the hard cap.

If Keon or Did is also in the deal they might be ducking the tax.
Click to expand...
I agree with both your posts.
 
hoopsjock said:
And for the record, it's not the TPE that's important for sending Bledsoe out, it's not having his dead money on our books so that it gives us a little tiny bit more wiggle room under the hard cap.

If Keon or Did is also in the deal they might be ducking the tax.
Click to expand...
My guess is they are ducking the tax... but that it is as part of a 'unlikely incentive' associated with Ant's contract (ie- making the all-star team).

I can't remember who stated it - but shortly after his deal was announced, one of the media guys was saying to wait until all the details come out because the announced deal will always be the most favorable amount. If you take 15% off Ant's contract, we'd be below the tax.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
I'd say most likely this is not the case, the trade was setup to just go down as reported. However Detroit or Portland has the option to modify the trade or bring in a 3rd team, and both clubs wanted to keep that flexibility.

But Portland would have to give Detroit an asset to eat the 3.9 million Bledsoe deal. If so, I'd expect we see the Blazers likely do this and give up a 2nd, and use the "flexibility" only to stay out of the tax.
Click to expand...
Could just be $5M cash...
 
hoopsjock said:
If they used Keon as that asset and then signed Walker as the 14th guy, they'd be just under the tax line. I wouldn't be shocked if they're that cheap.
Click to expand...
i really hope i'm not the only one upset that this 'ducking the tax' is fundamentally wrong, and goes against everything this franchise claimed it was going to do. i'm not necessarily upset at at the particular action, but more what it signifies.
 
illmatic99 said:
i really hope i'm not the only one upset that this 'ducking the tax' is fundamentally wrong, and goes against everything this franchise claimed it was going to do. i'm not necessarily upset at at the particular action, but more what it signifies.
Click to expand...

I think of it more as the offseason and going back to the trade deadline is fundamentally wrong. Started with the Clippers trade losing 2 starters for "flexibility" and culminated with the team hard capped to bring in a 7th guard.

Now that we are here and hard capped the team might as well just duck the tax. They can't go into it more than a few million, so better to leave a non repeater year available in the future.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
I think of it more as the offseason and going back to the trade deadline is fundamentally wrong. Started with the Clippers trade and end up with the team hard capped to bring in an 8th guard.

Now that we are here and hard capped the team might as well just duck the tax. They can't go into it more than a few million, so better to leave a non repeater year available in the future.
Click to expand...
what makes you think they will actually pay the tax next year? fool me once...
 
CJ_is_Gone said:
Next year Portland will not be in the repeater either. Earliest it can happen is the '24-'25 season.
Click to expand...

Actually, the earliest that it can happen is in the 25-26 season. If they are over the tax threshold in 22-23, 23-24 and 24-25, then repeater tax kicks in if they are also over the threshold in 25-26.
 
Storyteller2 said:
Actually, the earliest that it can happen is in the 25-26 season. If they are over the tax threshold in 22-23, 23-24 and 24-25, then repeater tax kicks in if they are also over the threshold in 25-26.
Click to expand...

You sure about that? I thought this last season was the only recent year they were out of the tax, so the 2020-21 season would count towards the repeater.

Or maybe it was 2019-20 they were in it; I can't remember.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
You sure about that? I thought this last season was the only recent year they were out of the tax, so the 2020-21 season would count towards the repeater.

Or maybe it was 2019-20 they were in it; I can't remember.
Click to expand...


they were tax payers in 18-19 & 19-20, but not 20-21 or 21-22

the trigger is 3 of the last 4 seasons. So if they are taxpayers next season:

19-20 - tax
20-21 - no tax
21-22 - no tax
22-23 - tax

next phase:

20-21 - no tax
21-22 - no tax
22-23 - tax
23-24 - tax?

at that point, they'd still be 2 years away from paying repeater tax in 25-26
 
Tince said:
Click to expand...

Great, this guy justifies the people that keep thinking we can do things like trade Hart and Sharpe for Durant.

It literally doesn't matter. We will be hard capped and will need to be under that amount. Who cares if it happens tomorrow. We still have to stay under that hard cap amount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top