tontoz wrote:On the season Seraphin has the best +/- on the team, by far.
Exactly.
Single game +/- numbers are generally meaningless. But a season-long trend is worth noting.
Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart

tontoz wrote:On the season Seraphin has the best +/- on the team, by far.

Nivek wrote:For me at least, the issue with the trade was not giving up McGee. It was taking on 4 more years at $13 million per of a guy a few months shy of his 30th birthday. Nene should be okay for the next couple years. The last couple are a crap-shoot.

closg00 wrote:Nivek wrote:For me at least, the issue with the trade was not giving up McGee. It was taking on 4 more years at $13 million per of a guy a few months shy of his 30th birthday. Nene should be okay for the next couple years. The last couple are a crap-shoot.
You could say that the crapshoot started immediately, Nene (as we were warned), sat injured within a few games. It remains to be seen how-much of him we are going to see of him on the court over the next four years.
closg00 wrote:Nivek wrote:For me at least, the issue with the trade was not giving up McGee. It was taking on 4 more years at $13 million per of a guy a few months shy of his 30th birthday. Nene should be okay for the next couple years. The last couple are a crap-shoot.
You could say that the crapshoot started immediately, Nene (as we were warned), sat injured within a few games. It remains to be seen how-much of him we are going to see of him on the court over the next four years.
nate33 wrote:closg00 wrote:Nivek wrote:For me at least, the issue with the trade was not giving up McGee. It was taking on 4 more years at $13 million per of a guy a few months shy of his 30th birthday. Nene should be okay for the next couple years. The last couple are a crap-shoot.
You could say that the crapshoot started immediately, Nene (as we were warned), sat injured within a few games. It remains to be seen how-much of him we are going to see of him on the court over the next four years.
My guess is that Nene could be playing if we really wanted him to. There's no sense running him down when the games are meaningless and tanking helps us more than winning.
tontoz wrote:Nick is laying an egg with the Clippers. He might not even get an MLE deal this summer the way he is going.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.

hands11 wrote:tontoz wrote:Nick is laying an egg with the Clippers. He might not even get an MLE deal this summer the way he is going.
Personalty, I am not conceding McGee gets D Jordon type money either. I wouldnt sing him for more then 6M a year.

Bickerstaff: who's up for kickball?!!
Ed Wood: Only if it's the no-pants variety.
Rafael122 wrote:McGee is a lost cause. If he doesn't get it with a great coach like George Karl he's not going to get it with anyone else. Maybe Pop? But then again, they wouldn't sign him.
closg00 wrote:Nivek wrote:For me at least, the issue with the trade was not giving up McGee. It was taking on 4 more years at $13 million per of a guy a few months shy of his 30th birthday. Nene should be okay for the next couple years. The last couple are a crap-shoot.
You could say that the crapshoot started immediately, Nene (as we were warned), sat injured within a few games. It remains to be seen how-much of him we are going to see of him on the court over the next four years.
Larry Coon wrote:The stretch provision is a new rule for paying the player guaranteed salary after he is waived, and for how the team’s cap is charged in these circumstances. Under the previous CBA, when a team waives a player, his remaining guaranteed salary continues to be charged to the team’s cap in the same years as the original contract. If they arranged for a different amount to be paid via a buyout, then the buyout amount is charged against the team’s cap. If they arranged a different payment schedule (even a lump-sum payoff of the entire amount) it didn’t matter, because it was still charged to the cap in the same years as the original contract.
With the stretch provision the salary is paid off over a longer period of time — twice the number of years, plus one. So if a player is waived with two years remaining, his remaining guaranteed salary is paid off over five years. If the player is waived Sept 1 or later, then the current season is paid normally, and any subsequent years are stretched.
If the salary is stretched, the team can elect to have the cap hit stretched as well. So, for example, if a player is waived with $20 million remaining over the next two years ($10 million per season), the stretch provision could make it $20 million over five years ($4 million per season) instead. That’s a lot of money off the team’s cap in the short term, and teams might be able to utilize that money on free agents.
But here’s the big catch, and the reason you don’t hear people talk about it very much — it applies only to contracts signed under the current CBA — i.e., signed December 2011 or later. Any contracts signed under the previous CBA can’t be stretched.
We’ll be hearing more about the strategic uses of the stretch provision after another season or two, when more contracts are signed under the current CBA.