Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=2056938
DCZards wrote:Had to go back several pages to find this thread, but now that he’s bee resigned I wanted to show Neto some love for how well he played for the Zards last season.
I also wanted to point out that with the addition of Holiday we know have two pesky, high IQ backup PGs with a good bit of dog in them. Love that.
Our new starting PG is also known for having a good bit of dog in him.
Woof! Woof! Woof!
nate33 wrote:I see references on Twitter that Neto signed for the minimum, but I can't find confirmation anywhere.
Kanyewest wrote:nate33 wrote:I see references on Twitter that Neto signed for the minimum, but I can't find confirmation anywhere.
nate33 wrote:Kanyewest wrote:nate33 wrote:I see references on Twitter that Neto signed for the minimum, but I can't find confirmation anywhere.
Whether he is being paid $2.0 or $2.3M is irrelevant for our purposes. What matters is that vet minimum signings only count against the cap the equivalent of a 2-year vet salary, or $1.6M. The league actually pays the rest of his salary. His cap hit and luxtax hit will be $1.6M.
Our total salary, for 14 players, is 135.9M. The luxtax is $136.6M
That leaves just a little bit of breathing room to afford 10-day contracts and such.
I suppose if we could stick Isaiah Todd onto a 2-way contract instead of a league contract, that would free up another $900K and give us just barely enough to sign Mathews to a vet-minimum deal. But we might still be just a few dollars over.
Ruzious wrote:I figure at some point by the trade deadline, we'll deal either Bryant or Harrell - since both are expiring center contracts - in a trade where we'll take back less salary, but that's to be determined. That's where it's good to have a GM like Tommy - who has good relations with other GM's. If they do him a favor, they know he'll do a favor for them down the road.
nate33 wrote:Ruzious wrote:I figure at some point by the trade deadline, we'll deal either Bryant or Harrell - since both are expiring center contracts - in a trade where we'll take back less salary, but that's to be determined. That's where it's good to have a GM like Tommy - who has good relations with other GM's. If they do him a favor, they know he'll do a favor for them down the road.
Yeah, that's an option, but maybe it's one that they're unwilling to risk for fear of not finding a trade partner.
In a perfect world, we would sign Mathews now and exceed the tax; and by the Trade Deadline, we'd move Bertans and/or Harrell for modest cap savings to get us below the tax, plus future picks.
nate33 wrote:Ruzious wrote:I figure at some point by the trade deadline, we'll deal either Bryant or Harrell - since both are expiring center contracts - in a trade where we'll take back less salary, but that's to be determined. That's where it's good to have a GM like Tommy - who has good relations with other GM's. If they do him a favor, they know he'll do a favor for them down the road.
Yeah, that's an option, but maybe it's one that they're unwilling to risk for fear of not finding a trade partner.
In a perfect world, we would sign Mathews now and exceed the tax; and by the Trade Deadline, we'd move Bertans and/or Harrell for modest cap savings to get us below the tax, plus future picks.
payitforward wrote:nate33 wrote:Ruzious wrote:I figure at some point by the trade deadline, we'll deal either Bryant or Harrell - since both are expiring center contracts - in a trade where we'll take back less salary, but that's to be determined. That's where it's good to have a GM like Tommy - who has good relations with other GM's. If they do him a favor, they know he'll do a favor for them down the road.
Yeah, that's an option, but maybe it's one that they're unwilling to risk for fear of not finding a trade partner.
In a perfect world, we would sign Mathews now and exceed the tax; and by the Trade Deadline, we'd move Bertans and/or Harrell for modest cap savings to get us below the tax, plus future picks.
Looks like we have to go into the tax in order to reach 15 one way or another. Hence I find the way we handled Mathews completely inexplicable. He certainly played well enough that he has some value. Rescinding his offer threw that value away.
Above all, it makes no sense if we planned to bring Mathews back for the vet minimum -- his offer was at that exact amount & gave us many more options with him.
This seems inept to me. Unexpectedly so.
nate33 wrote:payitforward wrote:nate33 wrote:Yeah, that's an option, but maybe it's one that they're unwilling to risk for fear of not finding a trade partner.
In a perfect world, we would sign Mathews now and exceed the tax; and by the Trade Deadline, we'd move Bertans and/or Harrell for modest cap savings to get us below the tax, plus future picks.
Looks like we have to go into the tax in order to reach 15 one way or another. Hence I find the way we handled Mathews completely inexplicable. He certainly played well enough that he has some value. Rescinding his offer threw that value away.
Above all, it makes no sense if we planned to bring Mathews back for the vet minimum -- his offer was at that exact amount & gave us many more options with him.
This seems inept to me. Unexpectedly so.
We don't have to reach 15. It's perfectly fine to play with 14. Or 13. Or even 12.
nate33 wrote:payitforward wrote:nate33 wrote:Yeah, that's an option, but maybe it's one that they're unwilling to risk for fear of not finding a trade partner.
In a perfect world, we would sign Mathews now and exceed the tax; and by the Trade Deadline, we'd move Bertans and/or Harrell for modest cap savings to get us below the tax, plus future picks.
Looks like we have to go into the tax in order to reach 15 one way or another. Hence I find the way we handled Mathews completely inexplicable. He certainly played well enough that he has some value. Rescinding his offer threw that value away.
Above all, it makes no sense if we planned to bring Mathews back for the vet minimum -- his offer was at that exact amount & gave us many more options with him.
This seems inept to me. Unexpectedly so.
We don't have to reach 15. It's perfectly fine to play with 14. Or 13. Or even 12.
doclinkin wrote:nate33 wrote:payitforward wrote:Looks like we have to go into the tax in order to reach 15 one way or another. Hence I find the way we handled Mathews completely inexplicable. He certainly played well enough that he has some value. Rescinding his offer threw that value away.
Above all, it makes no sense if we planned to bring Mathews back for the vet minimum -- his offer was at that exact amount & gave us many more options with him.
This seems inept to me. Unexpectedly so.
We don't have to reach 15. It's perfectly fine to play with 14. Or 13. Or even 12.
13 on the roster. Minimum of 12 active, plus 1 inactive.