RealGM

Beal, in particular, I'm curious about. The question presumes that both have been waived and stretched. Thanks!

I’d phrase the question a bit differently…… obviously, if they are waived and stretched, we could offer them the vet’s minimum, no problem. (Whether they’d take it is a different question.)

The question I’d ask is “what is the maximum we could offer them, based on our current cap / tax / apron situation, and how would this be impacted by (a) if we bring back Kuminga; and (b) if we sign Horford to the taxpayer’s minimum contract.”

ChuckDurn wrote:I’d phrase the question a bit differently…… obviously, if they are waived and stretched, we could offer them the vet’s minimum, no problem. (Whether they’d take it is a different question.)

The question I’d ask is “what is the maximum we could offer them, based on our current cap / tax / apron situation, and how would this be impacted by (a) if we bring back Kuminga; and (b) if we sign Horford to the taxpayer’s minimum contract.”

Let's go with that then.

If we bring back jk, for anything more than the QO, we'll only have vet mins and one TPMLE(5.4m) that is currently offered to horford, allegedly.

If we lose jk for nothing, or a very low contract, we'll have the full mle (14m) to split among horford/Lillard/beal, in this hypothetical situation, that is.

Pretty sure where they go next will be for the TPMLE, or less

vvoland wrote:If we bring back jk, for anything more than the QO, we'll only have vet mins and one TPMLE(5.4m) that is currently offered to horford, allegedly.

If we lose jk for nothing, or a very low contract, we'll have the full mle (14m) to split among horford/Lillard/beal, in this hypothetical situation, that is.

Pretty sure where they go next will be for the TPMLE, or less

I wish it were like in the old days with the 49ers. Eddie DeBartolo would show up at the player's house, hand over a briefcase, say "Here's a million reasons you're gonna sign with us" and just like that there would be no more salary cap issue. Though I'm pretty sure the Lakers are still using this method.

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/trump-pardons-edward-debartolo-jr-who-paid-400k-cash-to-edwin-edwards-for-gambling-license/article_c96a8aca-5274-11ea-8731-dfd4499e944f.html

The other question I've never remembered the answer to.

A player is to be paid $20m. His team waives him. Another team signs him for $5m. Which of these is true:
1) Old team pays him $20m, new team pays him $5m, he makes $25m
2) Old team pays him $20m, new team pays the $5m back to the old team, the player makes $20m

?

And I guess I now don't know how the stretch provision factors in.

Chris Porter's Hair wrote:The other question I've never remembered the answer to.

A player is to be paid $20m. His team waives him. Another team signs him for $5m. Which of these is true:
1) Old team pays him $20m, new team pays him $5m, he makes $25m
2) Old team pays him $20m, new team pays the $5m back to the old team, the player makes $20m

?

And I guess I now don't know how the stretch provision factors in.

On current CBA I believe only a certain percentage offsets the old salary - I believe it's 50% of new salary minus the vet min goes back to the old team, so the player is still incentivized to play/get a contract.

Not too sure what happens if you stretch, but I believe it impacts year 1?

Jester_ wrote:

Chris Porter's Hair wrote:The other question I've never remembered the answer to.

A player is to be paid $20m. His team waives him. Another team signs him for $5m. Which of these is true:
1) Old team pays him $20m, new team pays him $5m, he makes $25m
2) Old team pays him $20m, new team pays the $5m back to the old team, the player makes $20m

?

And I guess I now don't know how the stretch provision factors in.

On current CBA I believe only a certain percentage offsets the old salary - I believe it's 50% of new salary minus the vet min goes back to the old team, so the player is still incentivized to play/get a contract.

Not too sure what happens if you stretch, but I believe it impacts year 1?

Yeah, basically right, the formula for the "set-off" is the new salary minus the minimum salary for a vet with 1 year of service (for a rookie it's 0 years.) If it's a positive number, 50% of that number is deducted from the original contract for that year. This is done each year remaining on the original contract if the player signs with a new team (even non-NBA teams.)

Since the set-off is calculated at the end of the season, it only affects the luxury tax and not the cap number, stretched or not.

A new wrinkle in the CBA is that the team and player can agree to waive the set off at the time of buy-out. This could be incentive for the player to be bought out.

xdrta+ wrote:

Jester_ wrote:

Chris Porter's Hair wrote:The other question I've never remembered the answer to.

A player is to be paid $20m. His team waives him. Another team signs him for $5m. Which of these is true:
1) Old team pays him $20m, new team pays him $5m, he makes $25m
2) Old team pays him $20m, new team pays the $5m back to the old team, the player makes $20m

?

And I guess I now don't know how the stretch provision factors in.

On current CBA I believe only a certain percentage offsets the old salary - I believe it's 50% of new salary minus the vet min goes back to the old team, so the player is still incentivized to play/get a contract.

Not too sure what happens if you stretch, but I believe it impacts year 1?

Yeah, basically right, the formula for the "set-off" is the new salary minus the minimum salary for a vet with 1 year of service (for a rookie it's 0 years.) If it's a positive number, 50% of that number is deducted from the original contract for that year. This is done each year remaining on the original contract if the player signs with a new team (even non-NBA teams.)

Since the set-off is calculated at the end of the season, it only affects the luxury tax and not the cap number, stretched or not.

A new wrinkle in the CBA is that the team and player can agree to waive the set off at the time of buy-out. This could be incentive for the player to be bought out.

Can we use Lillard as the example? He's slated to make 22.5/yr for the next 5. If he signs a 10m contract, how much of that 22.5 does he "lose." Based on your explanation, I'm thinking 50% of 10m mins a vet min, or ~3m?

If so, really does make sense to sign for the vet min while getting to pick your destination when you make lillard/beal money

vvoland wrote:Can we use Lillard as the example? He's slated to make 22.5/yr for the next 5. If he signs a 10m contract, how much of that 22.5 does he "lose." Based on your explanation, I'm thinking 50% of 10m mins a vet min, or ~3m?

If so, really does make sense to sign for the vet min while getting to pick your destination when you make lillard/beal money

Yeah, that's about right, and one reason most buyouts sign for minimums. More than that benefits the original team as much as the player. Set-offs really aren't a big deal, the amounts are almost always pretty small. And in mid-season, when most buyouts occur, some salaries are pro-rated and after subtracting wind up at zero or less.

xdrta+ wrote:

vvoland wrote:Can we use Lillard as the example? He's slated to make 22.5/yr for the next 5. If he signs a 10m contract, how much of that 22.5 does he "lose." Based on your explanation, I'm thinking 50% of 10m mins a vet min, or ~3m?

If so, really does make sense to sign for the vet min while getting to pick your destination when you make lillard/beal money

Yeah, that's about right, and one reason most buyouts sign for minimums. More than that benefits the original team as much as the player. Set-offs really aren't a big deal, the amounts are almost always pretty small. And in mid-season, when most buyouts occur, some salaries are pro-rated and after subtracting wind up at zero or less.

Thanks for confirming. At that price, I don't see why we wouldn't be pursuing both. In his worst career season, beal still put up better offensive numbers than any two guard we've had since prime klay. As the 5th guard for the vet min, sign me up.

vvoland wrote:

xdrta+ wrote:

vvoland wrote:Can we use Lillard as the example? He's slated to make 22.5/yr for the next 5. If he signs a 10m contract, how much of that 22.5 does he "lose." Based on your explanation, I'm thinking 50% of 10m mins a vet min, or ~3m?

If so, really does make sense to sign for the vet min while getting to pick your destination when you make lillard/beal money

Yeah, that's about right, and one reason most buyouts sign for minimums. More than that benefits the original team as much as the player. Set-offs really aren't a big deal, the amounts are almost always pretty small. And in mid-season, when most buyouts occur, some salaries are pro-rated and after subtracting wind up at zero or less.

Thanks for confirming. At that price, I don't see why we wouldn't be pursuing both. In his worst career season, beal still put up better offensive numbers than any two guard we've had since prime klay. As the 5th guard for the vet min, sign me up.

The only glitch I can see would be if the team agreed to waive the set-off. The player would then collect full price from both ends and might go for as much as he could.

vvoland wrote:

xdrta+ wrote:

vvoland wrote:Can we use Lillard as the example? He's slated to make 22.5/yr for the next 5. If he signs a 10m contract, how much of that 22.5 does he "lose." Based on your explanation, I'm thinking 50% of 10m mins a vet min, or ~3m?

If so, really does make sense to sign for the vet min while getting to pick your destination when you make lillard/beal money

Yeah, that's about right, and one reason most buyouts sign for minimums. More than that benefits the original team as much as the player. Set-offs really aren't a big deal, the amounts are almost always pretty small. And in mid-season, when most buyouts occur, some salaries are pro-rated and after subtracting wind up at zero or less.

Thanks for confirming. At that price, I don't see why we wouldn't be pursuing both. In his worst career season, beal still put up better offensive numbers than any two guard we've had since prime klay. As the 5th guard for the vet min, sign me up.

That’s a pretty good sales pitch to Beal…… “Come and be our 5th guard!”

Pretty clearly, he’s going to want to go somewhere where he’s guaranteed to be a starter or, worst-case, a 6th man. Not saying that that couldn’t be Golden State, but they’d have to convince him it would be.

vvoland wrote:If we bring back jk, for anything more than the QO, we'll only have vet mins and one TPMLE(5.4m) that is currently offered to horford, allegedly.

If we lose jk for nothing, or a very low contract, we'll have the full mle (14m) to split among horford/Lillard/beal, in this hypothetical situation, that is.

Pretty sure where they go next will be for the TPMLE, or less

If JK is gone, in addition to having access to the full MLE, they could also use the Kyle Anderson Traded Player Exception to bring in another salary up to $8.78m

The TPE could be used for any regular trade to receive contracts totaling $8.78m or less. This could also be used for a sign and trade where the Warriors would receive Horford or Melton or other free agents but not Beal or Lillard or anybody bought out of their contracts. (Obviously, you'd probably have to compensate the other team somehow, and they'd have to be ok being hard capped at the second apron if they're not already.)

They could also use the BiAnnual Exception of $4.66m.

Using any of the Full MLE, the BAE or any TPE would hard cap the team at the first apron which would prevent them from spending the total amounts of all 3 exceptions.

They could also make trades that bring in more money than they send out as long as they stay under the first apron.

Basically, if Kuminga is gone, they still have the tools to easily spend right up to the first apron if they want. They could spend about $20m over just filling the roster with minimum contracts up to 14 players. The most they could give any one player would be $14.1m.