RealGM

The 76ers have the most of it, but I'm a firm believer that the good teams and GMs are fine without it. Do you think having cap space is more important than having a winning team or being in a desirable location?

Well cap space, if used well, can be a huge part of becoming a winning team. There are other ways to do things, but if used right, cap space can be extremely valuable as a way to gain assets.

I get the theory, but when it plays out it seems like players want to go to a place where they can actually see the vision. It can only work if we're using it to trade for contracts IMO. Even then you're hoping someone of value is being discarded. Otherwise it doesn't mean squat.

Cap space can mean a few things. One, that your best players are on their rookie contracts. Two, that you just have a horrible team. If you have a Durant or Duncan type on his rookie contract, you'll probably do just fine attracting top talent: they'll get a chance to play with stars and get a ton of money because of all of the cap space. So, score one for cap space. If you have cap space because your team sucks, then you can still attract a large pool of players, just probably not as large as in scenario one: (1) guys who want bigger roles and want to establish themselves (e.g., Harden, Asik--a pool not to be underestimated...offer a guy a ton of money and the opportunity to be the best player on a team or at least a 30 mpg guy, and you've got yourself a hard offer to refuse), (2) guys who just want a paycheck (e.g., Bynum), (3) guys who have no other choice. You may even be able to tap into other elite players who don't fall into any of these categories if, for example, you hire a preeminent coach or have an owner with a reputation for not caring about the luxury tax. And then, once you bring in a couple of stars with your cap space, others will follow. So, again, score a point for cap space.

Obviously, cap space isn't positive if teams squander it on terrible players (see Villanueva and Gordon acquisitions by Detroit a few years back), so you can't make some hard and fast rule that cap space is always good (or always bad).

To another point mentioned, location is overblown. A guy like Brad Miller was a top talent when we acquired him but he had no issue coming here. That was the case not only because we were a winning team but because he's not a big-city type of guy. A lot of foreign guys don't care too much about location either. Look at how excited Vasquez is to play here. Not every NBA player grew up idolizing Hollywood, big cities, and beaches. Lastly, people go anywhere if they see a chance to win a ring. I mean, for goodness sake, Cleveland of all places attracted Shaq because they were lucky enough to draft Lebron. And that wasn't because Cleveland had some sort of grand vision; it was the dumb luck of having the #1 pick when Lebron came out.

IMO you should never sign average talent more than 2 years or so. Protect your cap space until you are a legit playoff team. No need to invest as a bottom dweller until you have a real opportunity, else you may miss an opportunity.

ICMTM wrote:I get the theory, but when it plays out it seems like players want to go to a place where they can actually see the vision. It can only work if we're using it to trade for contracts IMO. Even then you're hoping someone of value is being discarded. Otherwise it doesn't mean squat.

Not necessarily. You can still give value back in a trade like that. Cap space plus a valuable young prospect can get you a star in the right situation. So can expirings, but cap space can be even better.

There's also instances of people using it to acquire assets. The most notable example that I can remember is when Presti acquired a 1st to take on Kurt Thomas' contract from Phoenix, and then a year later, traded Thomas to the Spurs for another 1st. Guy got two firsts for having Kurt Thomas for a year. If I'm not mistaken (I might be), I think one of them might have become Ibaka.

That kind of thing is rare and hard to do, but it gives you an idea of the potential of things if you're smart and use your assets wisely.

Now, I think what you might be getting at is that we can't attract real star through FA with cap space. This is true, because anybody that is worth the max can get it other places. But that doesn't mean cap space can't have great value. It's an asset just like anything else.

Guys that are more fluid in terms of value, however, can come here if we overpay them. We have to do that right now and will for a couple years until Vivek can prove to the league that we've washed the Maloof stink off of us.

So right now, the primary use of cap space would be to draw in good guys that aren't stars, but will help the team win, and grow, and become a desirable location. The best FA we ever signed was Vlade, and I think that's the caliber of player we'd want now. He wasn't a superstar, but he was a huge part of turning things around back then.

It's so annoying that our cpa-space years were wasted with the slimebags Maloofs.

We could have been is such a better position if Vivek bought us like 2 years ago

Cleveland is a prime example of how to make use of your capspace to gain assets.

I mean it got them Kyrie freaking Irving just for taking Baron Davis' contract!!!! goddamit I'm pissed off again