Cold Hard Fact$

[SoCalJazzFan]

Warning, this is long and might be a bit of a wet blanket, but I think that it is helpful to know as a fan when taking positions as to what the Jazz should do as it comes to trades and future plans for the players.

I would be willing to bet that every good NBA organization has a 5 year plan. I’ve gone through the next 5 years to see just how much of a financial pinch the Jazz will be in if they try to keep their current crop/core of players.

A few assumptions are made. First, I am assuming that Hayward, Gobert, Favors, Exum, Hood and Lyles will all be capable of getting a max contract when they renew. Second, I am using future projections from Larry Coon’s estimate of BRI for the next 5 years (see cbafaq.com). The numbers will actually end up being higher for at least a couple of years, but since the max contracts are a percentage of team salary cap, it really doesn’t matter and I can’t find any other projections that go this far out. I am going purely off a percentage of projected salary cap, without a starting salary and increases to keep it simple. I am going to start two seasons from now, when Hayward will opt out. My inability to include a chart will hopefully not create too much confusion.

2017 Season (projected cap= $85M):
Hayward= $25.5M (30% of projected cap)
Favors= $12M
Exum - $5M
Gobert= $21.25 (25% of cap)
Hood= $2.4M
Lyles= $2.4M
Burks- $10.6M
Total for these 7 players = $79M, so $6M for remainder of team before hit cap, still somewhat doable if willing to go over cap, or cap could be higher and more favorable to the Jazz this season (although Hayward will be only in the first year of his max contract).

2018 Season (projected cap = $93M which is probably low, but math still proportional)
Hayward= $27.9M
Favors= $27.9M
Exum= $23.25M
Gobert= $23.25M
Hood= $23.25M
Lyles= $3.4M
Burks= $11.3M
Total for these 7 players- $140.25M (WAY over the cap)

2019 Season (projected cap = $97M, once again probably low, but see above)
Hayward= $29.1M
Favors= $29.1M
Exum= $24.25M
Gobert= $24.25 M
Hood= $24.25M
Lyles= $24.25M
Total for these 6 players an astounding $155M

If all kept for 2020 season (only 5 years from now, and 4th year of Hayward and Gobert contracts), salary cap projection is $101M, which is actually close to other projections I've seen, but these six players would combined eat up $187M!!

From the above, it is pretty clear that at least two of the “6” will not be able to be kept, and really only two of Hayward, Favors, Gobert and Hood can be kept.

This might mean different things to different people.

For example, some might say, we need to trade Hayward asap to get the max value from him.

There is also an argument (which I subscribe to) that the Jazz should really, really try to get a starting PG in the form of Teague or Hill (perhaps even overpay a bit) to see what the Jazz can do the remainder of this season and at least into next season. With Teague or Hill, the Jazz probably are a 5th seed in the West this year, and have a decent chance at advancing to the second round of the playoffs. The Jazz will be in a situation similar to the Hawks this offseason and going into next season- do they ride out these players to see how far they can get, realizing that they can’t resign both, or trade them for assets (although they will have to take on salary for each). Regardless, the Jazz organization gets an idea of what they have with a quality PG which might help them make personnel decisions.

For those that want to stay the course and not make any trades whatsoever, I guess that you are taking the position that the Jazz will still be able to make it to the 5th seed and perhaps second round with the current roster, and that next year the team will be improved when Exum returns (potentially last of Hayward).

If it means something different to you, I would be interested to see how your plan fits into the financial constraints of the timetable and the inevitable decisions that will have to be made in the very near future, as indicated above.

[SoCalJazzFan]

By the way, given the reality that some players are going to have to be traded or simply not resigned, over the 5 year period that would be Hayward's next contract, based on the numbers above, Hayward would cost the Jazz about $118M, while Hood would cost $80M. For a team that supposedly has a fairly small profit margin compared to other NBA teams, this is pretty significant.

Gobert and Favors would be pretty close in cost over those 5 years.

[stitches]

As far as I know the projected caps are actually as follows:
2016-2017 ~89M, with tax at 108M
2017-2018 ~108M, with tax at 127M
2018-2019 ~101M with tax at 121M
2019-2020 ~102M with tax at 124M
2020-2021 ~107M with tax at 130M

In 2018-2019 the cap actually is projected to drop, but that also would affect the contracts we sign, thus Exum and Hood contract would be lower than the contract given to Rudy.

To this you can add all kinds of exceptions that can be used. I also doubt that none of our players would give us small discounts(i'm not talking about huge ones, more like the one that Draymond gave GSW(signing for 84M instead for the max of 91+). This is especially true about the players on rookie contracts, because we would hold their rights anyways and they'd probably give the discount for the sake of security. Also, that assumes all of them perform to the level of max contracts which is by no means certain.

[Stern Fixer]

Man is that ever an eye opener SoCal. Kudos to you for doing the hard calculations, not easy with so many timetables going on. I've alluded to the fact that we have to use our assets before we lose them - a situation I became more aware of watching NBA TV. The reality is that it's not a marathon with a corps this talented but rather a sprint - we really don't have time to waste. I totally agree with your analysis, we have to make a move to optimize now before our markers are called in.

I think it's easy to get emotionally invested in a team like this and you hate to see anybody go, but it's part of the business. You accrue assets like ours so that you can cash them out as needed to achieve your goal which should be putting together a team capable of a championship run. Carpe Diem, Seize the Day.

[idajazz]

I don't think they all will be max players.
Max palyers should be few and far between, something that the owners need to get a grip on.

[Daddy 801]

I've been waiting for a thread like this. Thank you.

First few things that come to mind.

Big assumption to think everyone gets maxed. Good problem if they are worth it.

Burks contract even more valuable given price.

Trading Hayward might happen, but I don't think they need to until halfway through the season after he signs his new contract.

Jae Crowders contract is amazing and possibly the only player I could see flipping Hayward for. Before I thought it would have to come with a lot more attached to it, but given how good of a contract and length I don't think so. And that's assuming Boston would even trade it(I wouldn't).

I did not think Gobert could get so much his first contract. His personality and the fact he was taken low in draft I doubt he takes anything less than max assuming he keeps up his play and is offered one. Big risk by Jazz to not give him one because I imagine he holds a grudge.

If Lyles lives up to a max either him or Favs will be traded. This is a good problem to have if it happens because one of them will be bringing in assets.

Draft picks are even more valuable than I realized and having a coach who can develop players is important so late draft picks can be developed and traded for more assets. Glad we have Quin.

Really sucks Dante got hurt this year because next year is probably the last year this group is together.

There are many teams in a similar situation with a ton of young guys who are supposedly going to get maxed. It is probably going to be a wild wild west type of scenario with maxed contracts for a year or two, but after that I assume it will cool down. I wonder how that plays out with the Jazz???

[Bullet]

Great work. I've been doing some calculations too since yesterday, and to sum it all up, we may not have enough money to keep all four of Hayward, Gobert, Favors and Hood. My best bet would be that one of Favors and Gobert will have to go. Luckily, we still have until the 2018-19 season to play them both, then trade one before that season's deadline so they won't count on the cap.

Another point, we may be getting too generous in labeling them as max players. Probably due to last offseason's signings, where a lot of players were getting big contracts. This offseason and next, this might not be the case anymore. As I mentioned in my comment in the 2015-16 season thread, Gobert's extension this July will be very crucial moving forward. You'd certainly think he won't command max salary given that he's too limited on offense and he might grab a relatively less than generous offer (say, less than $20M) because of the big jump from his rookie contract and the security that it presents. He knows the reality that he might get his knee injured, and endanger his RFA status if ever he turns down Utah's extension.

[Tom349]

Hopefully our Aussies can have an effect on the rest of the team and get them to take a discount in order to stay together.

Seriously though it amazes me how with the exception of the Spurs that no other team has most of their players taking less in order to create a dominant team. Here in Australia players will take 50k or so less in order to help their current side stick together, which 50k isn't a lot for NBA athletes, it is a lot for footballers in Australia who on average make about 350k a year.

[CAE15]

I don't see Exum or Lyles getting max deals that early unless Exum reaches his potential. And no one is going to Max out Lyles when the most minutes he should get in any given season is 28. But yes there's no doubt we're going to be in trouble with the cap. Should be interesting to see if we're willing to pay the tax if we have a contender on the floor. Which is what all the development should lead to. This is indeed another reason to keep Burks. He's on a very team friendly deal.

[Bullet]

For anyone who's interested, here's a simple calculator for player salaries. http://bit.ly/1POWnb5

Just make a duplicate of the PROJECTED sheet and rename so we can compare.

[stitches]

OK, I made some calculation(thanks to Bullet's spreadsheet) and just as I said earlier in another thread - the first decision that would put us above the luxury tax is in the summer of 2018. That's the summer when we need to resign Favors, Hood and Exum. Depending on how much exactly we spend on extensions we might be able to keep two of them. We don't even know how Exum and Hood would pan out until that point. Maybe we won't even be resigning one of them.

The point is - we have A TON OF TIME until any decision needs to be made and it's not like any of our players would be untradable at the point when those decisions need to be made(summer of 2018 - all of our players would be in their prime or close to entering their prime). In general, my conclusion is - resign Hayward if he wants to resign. You can always trade him for assets later if you choose to shake things up and pick a different path. If you think you can't resign him, trade him(preferably for a great pick).

I don't think all of our players are getting maxed out. It's impossible and unthinkable. If they are all getting maxed we are probably contending for titles in 2018, which would be a good problem to have... The Millers might even be willing to pay the tax for a year or two if that team is contending.

Good point by Daddy 801 about Favors and Lyles... if both are getting maxed, we can't keep both. One will have to go. Again - good problem to have if Lyles plays at a level where we need to choose between him and Favors... and it would give us another great asset we can flip(no matter who we decide to keep).

[Wolverine]

Hopefully our Aussies can have an effect on the rest of the team and get them to take a discount in order to stay together.

Seriously though it amazes me how with the exception of the Spurs that no other team has most of their players taking less in order to create a dominant team. Here in Australia players will take 50k or so less in order to help their current side stick together, which 50k isn't a lot for NBA athletes, it is a lot for footballers in Australia who on average make about 350k a year.

What Australians do that? Mills was injured therefore lost out on contract. Delly did via circumstance

[The59Sound]

Great work. I've been doing some calculations too since yesterday, and to sum it all up, we may not have enough money to keep all four of Hayward, Gobert, Favors and Hood. My best bet would be that one of Favors and Gobert will have to go. Luckily, we still have until the 2018-19 season to play them both, then trade one before that season's deadline so they won't count on the cap.

Another point, we may be getting too generous in labeling them as max players. Probably due to last offseason's signings, where a lot of players were getting big contracts. This offseason and next, this might not be the case anymore. As I mentioned in my comment in the 2015-16 season thread, Gobert's extension this July will be very crucial moving forward. You'd certainly think he won't command max salary given that he's too limited on offense and he might grab a relatively less than generous offer (say, less than $20M) because of the big jump from his rookie contract and the security that it presents. He knows the reality that he might get his knee injured, and endanger his RFA status if ever he turns down Utah's extension.

I think Gobert will easily be a max player. He's the best rim protector in the league, and we just saw the very limited DeAndre Jordan get maxed out.

[AingesBurner]

Hopefully our Aussies can have an effect on the rest of the team and get them to take a discount in order to stay together.

Seriously though it amazes me how with the exception of the Spurs that no other team has most of their players taking less in order to create a dominant team. Here in Australia players will take 50k or so less in order to help their current side stick together, which 50k isn't a lot for NBA athletes, it is a lot for footballers in Australia who on average make about 350k a year.

What Australians do that? Mills was injured therefore lost out on contract. Delly did via circumstance

He's talking about footballers in Australia boss.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[The59Sound]

You've done good work here. Food for thought, for sure. It's so hard to project out this far, though. It's the general state of the league (i.e., how many teams have cap space and how many guys are available) that dictates these things. A developed Trey Lyles could sign a max deal in one situation and a bargain contract in another. And, of course, while I love Lyles and think he will be a big part of our rotation for the rest of his contract, we should maybe pump the breaks on our optimism.

I do think we should prepare ourselves for the fact that all of these guys are unlikely to accept significantly less money than the market bears. I'm not looking forward to a redux of the juvenile "Hayward is a bad person for getting the best contract he could" attacks.

[Daddy 801]

I do think we should prepare ourselves for the fact that all of these guys are unlikely to accept significantly less money than the market bears. I'm not looking forward to a redux of the juvenile "Hayward is a bad person for getting the best contract he could" attacks.

I personally would never be upset at any player taking less than a max if they can get it. Especially that first contract off the rookie contract. But, it is telling that if they are not willing to sacrifice a little they aren't serious about winning. A huge part of the Spurs success is the core guys took less at times to keep the group together. The one player I think needs to lead by example on this is Hayward. Show guys that you go get money on that first contract and then take less the third contract so other guys can get their financial security. If he wants a true 30% max you sign him and then trade him to a team where you know he will never win a championship and show that if a player only cares about business you will treat him like an asset and maximize him as a trade chip. Seems like that is part of creating a culture like they talk about.

[The59Sound]

I do think we should prepare ourselves for the fact that all of these guys are unlikely to accept significantly less money than the market bears. I'm not looking forward to a redux of the juvenile "Hayward is a bad person for getting the best contract he could" attacks.

I personally would never be upset at any player taking less than a max if they can get it. Especially that first contract off the rookie contract. But, it is telling that if they are not willing to sacrifice a little they aren't serious about winning. A huge part of the Spurs success is the core guys took less at times to keep the group together. The one player I think needs to lead by example on this is Hayward. Show guys that you go get money on that first contract and then take less the third contract so other guys can get their financial security. If he wants a true 30% max you sign him and then trade him to a team where you know he will never win a championship and show that if a player only cares about business you will treat him like an asset and maximize him as a trade chip. Seems like that is part of creating a culture like they talk about.

The same way there is absolutely nothing wrong with a player getting the most money he can, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a front office getting the most trade assets they can out of a player. So if your hypothetical scenario played out, I wouldn't have any problem with that.

[Daddy 801]

I also think that's why the Jazz will let the Hayward scenario play out. If they trade him before he even has a chance to show that he is willing to sacrifice I think it will set a bad example and make the organization look bad. Creating a culture takes two sides to be honest with each other. I believe that if Quin keeps doing what he is doing and proving he is good enough to completely change the organization and players WANT to stay they will sacrifice. No player is going to sacrifice if they know the coach/organization is a joke. Would you sacrifice if Corbin was the coach????

[The59Sound]

I also think that's why the Jazz will let the Hayward scenario play out. If they trade him before he even has a chance to show that he is willing to sacrifice I think it will set a bad example and make the organization look bad. Creating a culture takes two sides to be honest with each other. I believe that if Quin keeps doing what he is doing and proving he is good enough to completely change the organization and players WANT to stay they will sacrifice. No player is going to sacrifice if they know the coach/organization is a joke. Would you sacrifice if Corbin was the coach????

It's definitely night and day from Corbin to Quin. While I'm not convinced any of our marquee players will take less money, I will say we're doing a good job creating a culture that could coax them into it (respected coach who has clearly benefited their development + a very positive locker room full of guys that genuinely like each other).

[StocktonShorts]

2017 Season (projected cap= $85M):
Hayward= $25.5M (30% of projected cap)

2018 Season (projected cap = $93M which is probably low, but math still proportional)
Hayward= $27.9M

2019 Season (projected cap = $97M, once again probably low, but see above)
Hayward= $29.1M

I applaud the effort you've put into this, but I believe you've made a mistake in how year-to-year salaries work. For deals that are based on a percentage of the cap, only the first year is tied to the official cap number for that year. Assuming maximum raises are given, then each year after that is based on that first year.

So if Hayward gets a max deal starting in 2017, his first year would be $25.5, then the next year would be a 7.5% increase on that number, and not 30% of the new cap:

2017: 25.5
2018: 27.4
2019: 29.5
2020: 31.7
etc.

The numbers aren't drastically different and don't change your overall analysis or conclusion much, I just thought I should point it out.