Tanking strategy under new CBA

Y-Knot · Post #1 » by **Y-Knot** » Sun Aug 4, 2013 4:36 pm

Help settle a debate. Can't figure out why tankers didn't bid on Oden.
If you are tanking and under the minimum team salary (like sixers) why not bid for taking 1yr flyers ( with 2nd team option) on high risk -high reward guys like Oden. You have to spend the money anyway and it seems to be a win-win. If he never plays, great! You're tanking who cares... and its an expiring deal you can move anyway. If he works out and actually threatens your tank (unlikely) you can limit his mins or trade him for a pick or keep him as a 7ft center. I can't see a downside. If you're the sixers why not overpay Oden and help your tank, gamble on upside? Thanks,
JP

nodeal · Post #2 » by **nodeal** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 2:08 am

They would probably have to really over pay to get oden to choose them over a ring. It wouldnt be that easy to trade him away either, the other team will have to match salaries.

Teams way under the cap have other options to acquire picks. Owners are cheap and love to dump bad contracts. Phi can take these contracts without giving anything back. They can also help other teams complete trades by being the salary dumping grounds.

Phi will prob fill up their roster with non-guaranteed minimum contracts.

DBoys · Post #3 » by **DBoys** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 3:06 am

Owners didn't become rich because they like to waste money.

For all the "what-if's" that we as fans can dream up about Oden, the professional basketball evaluators clearly see it another way. It speaks volumes that only one team would offer one year minimum salary with an option year. These aren't guys who won't take a risk: Brandon Roy - coming off the "career already ended due to injury" scrap heap - got $5M or so, and Bynum got $12M after missing a whole season that led to double knee surgery. The money no one wanted to give him says it all.

Dunkenstein · Post #4 » by **Dunkenstein** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 8:49 am

DBoys wrote:It speaks volumes that only one team would offer one year minimum salary with an option year.

Actually there were six teams that each offered Oden a contract. And several were larger than the one he accepted from Miami. Miami had two advantages. First, they offered him the possibility of winning a Ring. And maybe more importantly, Miami told him they wouldn't need him until the second half of the season. That meant he has six months to get in shape and continue rehabbing his knees.

DBoys · Post #5 » by **DBoys** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 10:57 am

Dunkenstein wrote:
DBoys wrote:It speaks volumes that only one team would offer one year minimum salary with an option year.

Actually there were six teams that each offered Oden a contract. And several were larger than the one he accepted from Miami.

Are you sure? I am aware that some could have offered him more. But the report I saw that mentioned other offers (si.com), said that Miami alone was willing to make year two a player option at the minimum rather than something less advantageous to Oden.

Y-Knot · Post #6 » by **Y-Knot** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 12:04 pm

I agree with the benefit of being able to take on salary and facilitate, and i may be misunderstanding the team minimum. If the sixers must commit the min prior to the season than overpaying Oden is just money that will have to spent no matter what. If compliance with the min is calculated at the end of season, when holding space underneath it now makes sense for sixers.

Y-Knot · Post #7 » by **Y-Knot** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 2:24 pm

Ok. It seems teams have until last reg season game to hit minimum, so staying below it until Feb makes some sense to me. My initial thought was that if you are tanking anyway (esp if you are below the min), why wouldnt you be interested in taking as many 1 yr flyers as contenders like say Miami. The answer then would seem to be that the drop in trade flexibility is not worth it..Thx.

Post #8 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 3:28 pm

Y-Knot wrote:Ok. It seems teams have until last reg season game to hit minimum, so staying below it until Feb makes some sense to me. My initial thought was that if you are tanking anyway (esp if you are below the min), why wouldnt you be interested in taking as many 1 yr flyers as contenders like say Miami. The answer then would seem to be that the drop in trade flexibility is not worth it..Thx.

Yup, end of year is deadline to meet salary floor. Even then, there's really no punishment, you just distribute the difference to the players on the roster. Essentially, it's almost a bonus to the players.

Dunkenstein · Post #9 » by **Dunkenstein** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 4:42 pm

DBoys wrote:
Dunkenstein wrote:
DBoys wrote:It speaks volumes that only one team would offer one year minimum salary with an option year.

Actually there were six teams that each offered Oden a contract. And several were larger than the one he accepted from Miami.

Are you sure? I am aware that some could have offered him more. But the report I saw that mentioned other offers (si.com), said that Miami alone was willing to make year two a player option at the minimum rather than something less advantageous to Oden.

You may be right that only one team offered the option in the second year. I don't know all the offers.

Post #10 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 5:04 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
Y-Knot wrote:Ok. It seems teams have until last reg season game to hit minimum, so staying below it until Feb makes some sense to me. My initial thought was that if you are tanking anyway (esp if you are below the min), why wouldnt you be interested in taking as many 1 yr flyers as contenders like say Miami. The answer then would seem to be that the drop in trade flexibility is not worth it..Thx.

Yup, end of year is deadline to meet salary floor. Even then, there's really no punishment, you just distribute the difference to the players on the roster. Essentially, it's almost a bonus to the players.

While this is true, the floor is a payroll versus salary floor so catching up to it at the end of the season is impossible, and at the trade deadline will only catch up at ~half the rate you add salary.

Post #11 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 5:10 pm

Y-Knot wrote:I agree with the benefit of being able to take on salary and facilitate, and i may be misunderstanding the team minimum. If the sixers must commit the min prior to the season than overpaying Oden is just money that will have to spent no matter what. If compliance with the min is calculated at the end of season, when holding space underneath it now makes sense for sixers.

For a team like the Sixers, the possible outcomes of an Oden deal would look something like:

1 year deal:
1) Oden is terrible -- Cap space loss. Small net negative
2) Oden is great -- team doesn't draft as high, Oden is a unrestricted free agent. Bigger net negative.

Multi-year deal:
3) Oden is terrible -- Cap space loss per year. Bigger net negative.
4) Oden is great -- Team doesn't draft as high, but has a cheap(?) Oden locked up for another year(s?). Possibly negative, possibly positive, although this depends upon Oden working out for a second year.

Altogether, it is not hard to see why a team in a similar situation would pass on Oden, the best case scenario might just be that Oden doesn't work out. For Oden to make sense, you really need a team trying to currently win - a description that Miami definitely fits.

Y-Knot · Post #12 » by **Y-Knot** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 7:20 pm

Under scenario 4:

1. why can't it be team option
and
2.why cant you trade a great Oden for a pick, and still tank?

Either way arent you are better off than losing the money or worse signing another big for no reason other than hitting the min?

Post #13 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 8:13 pm

Y-Knot wrote:Under scenario 4:

1. why can't it be team option
and
2.why cant you trade a great Oden for a pick, and still tank?

Either way arent you are better off than losing the money or worse signing another big for no reason other than hitting the min?

Who would pay a decent asset for Oden? It is possible that route works out, although that relies on Oden staying healthy and productive enough that someone would give up something worthwhile while at the same time he doesn't improve the team's performance enough to negate that.

Given the contract he ultimately signed, I think the consensus is pretty clear that this is the least likely scenario. And every other alternative is a loss. So, it seems to me the balance is clearly towards it not being a beneficial strategy, which is backed up by the list of teams that targeted Oden being all highly competitive teams.

Y-Knot · Post #14 » by **Y-Knot** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 8:53 pm

If Oden cant play your draft pick improves since you otherwise are spending that money on someone who can actually play and could lower your pick. That is the positive you aren't listing. The team min creates different incentives for tankers which makes injured players more valuable...especially if a year later they have upside potential you can get for cheap.

Post #15 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 9:11 pm

Y-Knot wrote:If Oden cant play your draft pick improves since you otherwise are spending that money on someone who can actually play and could lower your pick. That is the positive you aren't listing. The team min creates different incentives for tankers which makes injured players more valuable...especially if a year later they have upside potential you can get for cheap.

Mostly because its not necessarily true?

Y-Knot · Post #16 » by **Y-Knot** » Mon Aug 5, 2013 9:28 pm

You're right since you may be able to simply avoid adding a player by handing out bonuses later on as long as you have met the minimum roster size.

wiLQ · Post #17 » by **wiLQ** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 12:33 pm

I'm surprised nobody has mention it but... Oden has something to say in all of this ;-)
for him it's probably more important to have a lot of time to rehab without any rush to get back and a defined small role when he will come back rather than slightly bigger contract [he's playing for next one anyway]. Heat offered both, Sixers probably neither.

Post #18 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 12:49 pm

wiLQ wrote:I'm surprised nobody has mention it but... Oden has something to say in all of this
for him it's probably more important to have a lot of time to rehab without any rush to get back and a defined small role when he will come back rather than slightly bigger contract [he's playing for next one anyway]. Heat offered both, Sixers probably neither.

The question was why did tankers not even bid on Oden. On that question, Oden really didn't have a say in it.

DBoys · Post #19 » by **DBoys** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:17 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:The question was why did tankers not even bid on Oden.

It must have to do with the value of his situation and this particular contract, which consists entirely of what oncourt value you can gain from him this year. Tanking teams don't need on-court value, so they don't have any way to get any benefit from having him.

Post #20 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:18 pm

DBoys wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:The question was why did tankers not even bid on Oden.

It must have to do with the value of his situation and this particular contract, which consists entirely of what oncourt value you can gain from him this year. Tanking teams don't need on-court value, so they don't have any way to get any benefit from having him.

Yep.