Warriors offer Brand huge contract

[GrandAdmiralDan]

Wow GAD you are a bit of a snob with some of this stuff huh?

No, it's just that I took the time to through all the numbers and have laid out the details multiple times, even multiple times in this thread.
But despite that, you keep presenting incorrect information.

Multiple times in this thread you have tried to revise things you have said that were incorrect or inaccurate, but those revisions do not actually reconcile with waht you had previously posted.

It is nothing personal against you, it is just that you keep presenting incorrect information when you have certain facts that are being made available to you in this thread. Like I said before, maybe it isn't even completely your fault, maybe you are just relaying inaccurate information you received from where you are hearing this in the first place.

It just isn't correct. I've run the numbers, I've explained how those numbers are reached.
Not just hear, but on the Warriors board, where they were appreciative of having someone look at this like I have. Other well respected users who have a good knowledge of the CBA (killbuckner, Carl_Monday, mrhonline, etc.) participated in that examination and support my conclusions.
As does fellow CBA expert FGump. Our compatriot LarryCoon has confirmed that the reports claiming the kind of difference in offers you keep repeating are erroneous.

Here is how Larry Coon has addressed these erroneous reports:

it was a writer for the SF Chronicle who originated the mistaken limit for what the Clips could offer Brand. She pretty quickly corrected herself (to saying it's what they "had" offered), but other outlets had already run with what she'd written.

There is a HUUGE difference in an initial contract offer and the largest contract one can offer.
Huge.

I am not messing up numbers as I am not working in exact. So 20 or 30 mil, either way GS offered a lot more than the Clippers did.

I am telling you the Clippers and Brand agreed on a 5 yr deal worth 65-68 mil. GS feeling shafted stepped in and offered Brand 5yrs at the most they could possibly offer. I don't know the exact offer yet but I have heard anywhere from 90-100 mil. If true you are talking about 22-35 mil. So I said 30 mil one time and 20 mil another because it is between those two numbers.

No, you are again being a revisionist with what you have said. Again, these details are CRITICAL to the entire issue.

Also, it is one thing to not work with exact numbers when it comes to contracts if you are talking about rounding up to the nearest hundred thousand, or nearest million, or something like that. It's always better to be as exact as possible considering what a difference that can make, but you cannot credibly make that claim and just waiver between $20 mil and $30 mil. That's a 150% increase in total value difference, among other things.

Let's review things you said in this thread. I'll note when something was corrected and your attempted revisions:

Supposedly this is what is going to happen next:

The weirdest sign and trade deal EVER.

The Warriors being one of only a few teams who can sign Brand to a 100 mil contract will sign him to it, then trade him to Miami for Shawn Marion filler. This would be genius on GS part as they take Brand away from LA without having to carry that huge contract and they get Marion who is good but expires at the end of the year.

Honestly the only way the Clippers make it out of this alive is if Brand decides to be loyal and turn down basically 30+ mil to stay in a bad organization, in a tough conference just to play with Baron Davis who is quite overrated anyways. GS, knowing Brand would probably turn down that money just to come to a team who is at best equal to his old team figured out an offer Brand might not be able to refuse. 30+ mil more over the same time frame, playing in a weaker conference and next to Dwayne Wade.

Correction attempted by other poster.

Attempt at revision that abandons critical elements of previous claim but is still not correct:

GAD has to weigh in. I don't think you can sign a guy to a big FA contract and then subsequently trade him.

If you sign another team's free agent you can't trade him for a certain amount of time, I think 21 or 30 days but after that you may. Now my question is when does Stern get involved. There is a lot of slimy stuff going on right now and any real commish who doesn't want to see L.A. teams and players like Baron Davis/Brand or better yet Wade/Brand unite would step in and say there is a lot of tampering and under the table deals going on here.

Interesting. I always thought the original team could offer one more year than anyone else for their own free agents.

LA may offer one more year. But GS can still offer more money since their cap space is now next to nothing. LA can offer 5 yrs 65-70mil which apparently is what was agreed on. They can also offer 6 yrs at around 80. But GS can offer 6 yrs 100+ mil. Right now LA is offering 70 and GS is offering 100, if LA ups it a year and more money then GS can keep it the same amount of years and still offer more.

That is terribly inaccurate and is NOT what you are now claiming you were saying at all.

Then came two very detailed corrections to the presented information, provided by myself.

Here is another attempt at revision that abandons critical elements of previous claim but is still not correct:

GS can't offer as much as LA, all though they can up their offer to get a lot closer than they are now. If they do that, they are in the luxury tax area and I doubt Sterling would do that.

What changed from your previous statement that GS would be able to offer more than LA? This is a direct contradiction.
And now you've added the erroneous luxury tax claim.

I then tried to again correct the record regarding this continuation of inaccurate info.

Here is another attempt at revision that abandons critical elements of previous claim but is still not correct:

But now GS stepping in and offering not just 2 mil more, they are offering 20+ mil more. The Clippers can match, but again be right at or above the luxury tax and if you know Sterling he would not do that.

Again, what happened to 30+ that it shrunk into 20+? This is not what you said previously.
And there's that inaccurate luxury tax information again.

I am not saying the Clippers can not match, maybe that was bad information I got.

Wait, you DID say the Clippers wouldn't be able to sign Baron to his deal while matching the amount of total dollars the Warriors could offer. Again, that's a significant revision.

What I am saying is if they do match they run the risk of possibly bumping close or over the luxury tax soon enough, and if they want to add the extra piece or two like Boston did (I am assuming this is who they are trying to mirror) then they will probably go over the luxury tax.

That really is not what you said. And I illustrated why the Clippers wouldn't be going into luxury tax territory using cap space in the manner explained previously in this thread.
It looks like you're attempting another revision saying that you didn't necessarily mean this year (although that is not what is reflected through what you posted previously), but soon enough. What is soon enough? The Clippers could do exactly what I've illustrated and then use their MLE next offseason and STILL not be over the luxury tax threshold.

.....the info I have is legit and now I see why guys like wichmae decide to keep it to themselves.

What? There is no comparison.

You presented information that was grossly inaccurate and not allowable under the CBA. The recent dust up over wichmae's information was about information that was perfectly allowable under the CBA. There was never any issue there.

If/when wichmae ever does that, I'd absolutely take issue with it, since these are critical issues when discussing any type of operational issue in the NBA like this. If wichmae came on here and told me that he had info that the Bucks were planning to sign Maggette to a 5 year $50 mil deal, I'd first tell him that we can't do that, and then I'd ask if he meant we are attempting a S&T.
If he then told me that his source assured him that it wasn't an S&T and we were just signing him to that amount outright, I'd explain to him how terribly inaccurate that was and how it couldn't be true (that's assuming wichmae wouldn't know any better. I am 99.9% sure he would know better in my example, but perhaps something more arcane he might not initially know, hard to say).

wichmae and I have become good friends off the boards over the last few years, but if he was presenting things the way you have been presenting things in this thread, I would absolutely be doing the same thing. So really, it isn't personal.
I expect/invite the same kind of detailed corrections on anything I might present that can be shown to be technically inaccurate. I guess this is SOMEWHAT unlikely on an NBA issue because I'd probably catch the inaccuracies myself before posting, but it can happen. Certainly it could happen if I share some MLB or NFL info I come across.

Anyway, I will be gone for a number of hours. Hopefully when I return I will not find that you've taken this personally and things have gotten out of hand. Again, it's not personal. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that I definitely believed you were receiving some kind of info that at least had bits of accurate information and I appreciated you sharing it here.
So hopefully we can avoid any animosity and when you're at a Bucks game next we can get a beer or two before/after the game and exchange some NBA info that maybe isn't able to be posted on a forum like this.

[NeedsMoreCheese]

Wow GAD you are a bit of a snob with some of this stuff huh?

No, it's just that I took the time to through all the numbers and have laid out the details multiple times, even multiple times in this thread.
But despite that, you keep presenting incorrect information.

Multiple times in this thread you have tried to revise things you have said that were incorrect or inaccurate, but those revisions do not actually reconcile with waht you had previously posted.

It is nothing personal against you, it is just that you keep presenting incorrect information when you have certain facts that are being made available to you in this thread. Like I said before, maybe it isn't even completely your fault, maybe you are just relaying inaccurate information you received from where you are hearing this in the first place.

It just isn't correct. I've run the numbers, I've explained how those numbers are reached.
Not just hear, but on the Warriors board, where they were appreciative of having someone look at this like I have. Other well respected users who have a good knowledge of the CBA (killbuckner, Carl_Monday, mrhonline, etc.) participated in that examination and support my conclusions.
As does fellow CBA expert FGump. Our compatriot LarryCoon has confirmed that the reports claiming the kind of difference in offers you keep repeating are erroneous.

Here is how Larry Coon has addressed these erroneous reports:

it was a writer for the SF Chronicle who originated the mistaken limit for what the Clips could offer Brand. She pretty quickly corrected herself (to saying it's what they "had" offered), but other outlets had already run with what she'd written.

There is a HUUGE difference in an initial contract offer and the largest contract one can offer.
Huge.

I am not messing up numbers as I am not working in exact. So 20 or 30 mil, either way GS offered a lot more than the Clippers did.

I am telling you the Clippers and Brand agreed on a 5 yr deal worth 65-68 mil. GS feeling shafted stepped in and offered Brand 5yrs at the most they could possibly offer. I don't know the exact offer yet but I have heard anywhere from 90-100 mil. If true you are talking about 22-35 mil. So I said 30 mil one time and 20 mil another because it is between those two numbers.

No, you are again being a revisionist with what you have said. Again, these details are CRITICAL to the entire issue.

Also, it is one thing to not work with exact numbers when it comes to contracts if you are talking about rounding up to the nearest hundred thousand, or nearest million, or something like that. It's always better to be as exact as possible considering what a difference that can make, but you cannot credibly make that claim and just waiver between $20 mil and $30 mil. That's a 150% increase in total value difference, among other things.

Let's review things you said in this thread. I'll note when something was corrected and your attempted revisions:

Supposedly this is what is going to happen next:

The weirdest sign and trade deal EVER.

The Warriors being one of only a few teams who can sign Brand to a 100 mil contract will sign him to it, then trade him to Miami for Shawn Marion filler. This would be genius on GS part as they take Brand away from LA without having to carry that huge contract and they get Marion who is good but expires at the end of the year.

Honestly the only way the Clippers make it out of this alive is if Brand decides to be loyal and turn down basically 30+ mil to stay in a bad organization, in a tough conference just to play with Baron Davis who is quite overrated anyways. GS, knowing Brand would probably turn down that money just to come to a team who is at best equal to his old team figured out an offer Brand might not be able to refuse. 30+ mil more over the same time frame, playing in a weaker conference and next to Dwayne Wade.

Correction attempted by other poster.

Attempt at revision that abandons critical elements of previous claim but is still not correct:

GAD has to weigh in. I don't think you can sign a guy to a big FA contract and then subsequently trade him.

If you sign another team's free agent you can't trade him for a certain amount of time, I think 21 or 30 days but after that you may. Now my question is when does Stern get involved. There is a lot of slimy stuff going on right now and any real commish who doesn't want to see L.A. teams and players like Baron Davis/Brand or better yet Wade/Brand unite would step in and say there is a lot of tampering and under the table deals going on here.

Interesting. I always thought the original team could offer one more year than anyone else for their own free agents.

LA may offer one more year. But GS can still offer more money since their cap space is now next to nothing. LA can offer 5 yrs 65-70mil which apparently is what was agreed on. They can also offer 6 yrs at around 80. But GS can offer 6 yrs 100+ mil. Right now LA is offering 70 and GS is offering 100, if LA ups it a year and more money then GS can keep it the same amount of years and still offer more.

That is terribly inaccurate and is NOT what you are now claiming you were saying at all.

Then came two very detailed corrections to the presented information, provided by myself.

Here is another attempt at revision that abandons critical elements of previous claim but is still not correct:

GS can't offer as much as LA, all though they can up their offer to get a lot closer than they are now. If they do that, they are in the luxury tax area and I doubt Sterling would do that.

What changed from your previous statement that GS would be able to offer more than LA? This is a direct contradiction.
And now you've added the erroneous luxury tax claim.

I then tried to again correct the record regarding this continuation of inaccurate info.

Here is another attempt at revision that abandons critical elements of previous claim but is still not correct:

But now GS stepping in and offering not just 2 mil more, they are offering 20+ mil more. The Clippers can match, but again be right at or above the luxury tax and if you know Sterling he would not do that.

Again, what happened to 30+ that it shrunk into 20+? This is not what you said previously.
And there's that inaccurate luxury tax information again.

I am not saying the Clippers can not match, maybe that was bad information I got.

Wait, you DID say the Clippers wouldn't be able to sign Baron to his deal while matching the amount of total dollars the Warriors could offer. Again, that's a significant revision.

What I am saying is if they do match they run the risk of possibly bumping close or over the luxury tax soon enough, and if they want to add the extra piece or two like Boston did (I am assuming this is who they are trying to mirror) then they will probably go over the luxury tax.

That really is not what you said. And I illustrated why the Clippers wouldn't be going into luxury tax territory using cap space in the manner explained previously in this thread.
It looks like you're attempting another revision saying that you didn't necessarily mean this year (although that is not what is reflected through what you posted previously), but soon enough. What is soon enough? The Clippers could do exactly what I've illustrated and then use their MLE next offseason and STILL not be over the luxury tax threshold.

.....the info I have is legit and now I see why guys like wichmae decide to keep it to themselves.

What? There is no comparison.

You presented information that was grossly inaccurate and not allowable under the CBA. The recent dust up over wichmae's information was about information that was perfectly allowable under the CBA. There was never any issue there.

If/when wichmae ever does that, I'd absolutely take issue with it, since these are critical issues when discussing any type of operational issue in the NBA like this. If wichmae came on here and told me that he had info that the Bucks were planning to sign Maggette to a 5 year $50 mil deal, I'd first tell him that we can't do that, and then I'd ask if he meant we are attempting a S&T.
If he then told me that his source assured him that it wasn't an S&T and we were just signing him to that amount outright, I'd explain to him how terribly inaccurate that was and how it couldn't be true (that's assuming wichmae wouldn't know any better. I am 99.9% sure he would know better in my example, but perhaps something more arcane he might not initially know, hard to say).

wichmae and I have become good friends off the boards over the last few years, but if he was presenting things the way you have been presenting things in this thread, I would absolutely be doing the same thing. So really, it isn't personal.
I expect/invite the same kind of detailed corrections on anything I might present that can be shown to be technically inaccurate. I guess this is SOMEWHAT unlikely on an NBA issue because I'd probably catch the inaccuracies myself before posting, but it can happen. Certainly it could happen if I share some MLB or NFL info I come across.

Anyway, I will be gone for a number of hours. Hopefully when I return I will not find that you've taken this personally and things have gotten out of hand. Again, it's not personal. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that I definitely believed you were receiving some kind of info that at least had bits of accurate information and I appreciated you sharing it here.
So hopefully we can avoid any animosity and when you're at a Bucks game next we can get a beer or two before/after the game and exchange some NBA info that maybe isn't able to be posted on a forum like this.

I love it when GAD makes long ass posts like this. (Even with all the spelling errors , though yours still make the sentence mean the same thing at least unlike mine did )

[paulpressey25]

The first week of July is sort of Christmas week for GAD......