bwgood77 wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:Slim Charless wrote:
I've thought about that and think he's a possibility but why trade for him when we can sign him on the off season? He would be a decent addition right now with his scoring and passing. He's making a ton is the problem and it'd be hard to get matching money.
But could we even sign him with being as far over the tax line as we are currently? I ask because everyone keeps pointing that out to me in my trade ideas towards free agency impact when suggesting trading for expirings.
yes...you need to cut out all hope for getting a free agent..even if we cleared tons of salary it's still very unlikely we carve more than MLE money..but that would require people to take players on contracts we have going forward and us taking nothing or an expiring back. We don't have many of thos players.
If we trade for someone like DLo, we could keep because of bird rights...anyone we trade for who has been with his team for 3 years (or on the same contract 3 years) we could re-sign with bird rights, but how much would DLo want and what will our owner pay in tax?
Yeah! Sorry man, I kept overthinking/overcomplicating the situation (not like I do that too much huh) ....
I actually understood that we we're over the cap significantly. And that even IF we made big cap cutting moves somehow like:
- Ayton/Shamet for Van Vleet/ Trent/ Achiuwa /Koloko/ Toronto 23' 1st. intent being BOTH Van Vleet AND Trent (per rumors/reports) take their player option and opt out= around 40 million off the books?
- Trading Paul/Saric/Crowder to the Flakers for Westbrick's 47 million expiring= 47 million off the books?
Then that'd be 87 million in expirings to get below the cap........ right? But of course we'd use whatever cap space that affords us to bring back our vet mins for the bench, our draft picks, some decent free agents. THEN LAST ORDER OF BUSINESS, Go over the cap back into the tax to resign Craig, Maybe bring back Van Vleet, and then finally extend Johnson using our bird rights to give him around 16-18 million (hopefully) or 20 million tops? I know my math on this sucks and not sure of the exact numbers in this premise?
And I remember you mentioning cap holds too (for the purpose of player's we intend to resign) or else we'd just renounce them to clear more cap space. I believe (If my understanding is right) that IF we traded for Van Vleet by the deadline we'd still get his (2 yr) early bird rights. And could go over the cap up to 175% to offer him around 36 million (not that he's worth that much). And I honestly don't care about Trent resigning. He could just leave. I'd look for cheaper options honestly. So IF that 87 million cap reduction theoretically put us (currently 35 million over) under the tax by about 52 million or so, Could we then prioritize:
1- sign our draft picks.
2- then resign our key bench vet mins.
3- add a couple quality but affordable free agents (Craig IF Possible)?
4- Resign Van Vleet (using early bird rights) for around 28-30 million??
5- Extend Johnson (using full bird rights) but at around 18-20 million??
(only keeping cap holds for Van Vleet, Johnson, Craig and of course our vet mins). But IF I understand you right, the cap holds for our mins, Craig, Van Vleet, and Johnson would cut into/ count against our available cap (52 million) or so??
But basically I think my confusion was the mechanisms available to us and the numbers (cap holds) affecting our true available cap? But I was premising moves to dump Paul, Saric, Crowder for Westbrick to get his 47 million expiring (renounce cap holds if needed). Then also moving Ayton for Van Vleet (early bird rights), Trent (let leave), Achiuwa/Koloko/ Toronto 23' 1st. Renouncing Trent's ($18 million)rights and Westbrick's ($47 million)rights (IF necessary giving us around 65 million off the books for free agency? Then using that 65 million to sign in our draft picks (1st),Key vet mins (2nd), Free agents including resigning Craig (3rd), Van Vleet (4th), and finally Johnson (5th)! IF in theory Ishbia is willing to really spend, AND I do understand we'd be talking about a significant increase to our current 35+ million tax bill for sure!
So is the premise of my misunderstandings more understandable. Am I still confused on anything here man??(I appreciate all your help and understanding as always.
