2014 Free Agency Thread

[BlackOutBuzz]

If possible, as much as I don't like Lance, could we offer him 12/10/8/6 at an average of 9m per?

The way it is structured would make it hard for the Pacers to retain him imo.

Still not too expensive, though I don't want us to offer him more than 8m, I believe Indy would give him that in a heartbeat.

Can only offer raises/decreases at 4.5% of the original base. So a 4-year, decreasing salary contract averaging $9m per would be structured as so:

$9.65m
$9.22m
$8.79m
$8.36m

Sent from my SM-G900V using RealGM Forums mobile app

[HornetJail]

Who says I don't love Lance? They tried to bring in Afflalo so obviously Lance is not their top guy. Then after the draft Clifford hinted at wanting to add a scorer who can play multiple positions - so I'm looking into Gordon Hayward. We'll see.

Says who? We have cap space for both.

Lance is a scorer who can play 2-3 positions due to athleticism and versatility. He'd probably play backup PG as well as be our starting SG.

They were sending out Henderson in that deal, so Afflalo was the choice for SG before free agency even started. If they signed Lance, would they push Afflalo to SF in front of MKG? I bet they would have kept Afflalo at SG and gone after Hayward as a SF if anything.

Afflalo would back up both MKG and Stephenson.

our wing rotation would be very interchangeable. We have 96 minutes to devote to our wings. We can give MKG and Afflalo 30 each, give Stephenson 20 at the wings (and another 10 at backup PG), and 16 minutes to split between PJ Hairston and whichever wings we bring back (JT, CDR?). All I know is that this team is very deep if we put our cap space to good use at starting SG.

[HornetJail]

If possible, as much as I don't like Lance, could we offer him 12/10/8/6 at an average of 9m per?

The way it is structured would make it hard for the Pacers to retain him imo.

Still not too expensive, though I don't want us to offer him more than 8m, I believe Indy would give him that in a heartbeat.

Can only offer raises/decreases at 4.5% of the original base. So a 4-year, decreasing salary contract averaging $9m per would be structured as so:

$9.65m
$9.22m
$8.79m
$8.36m

Sent from my SM-G900V using RealGM Forums mobile app

Correct.

I'd still pay him 4/44 or 4/48 with a team option on the 4th year. We probably overpay a little, but I'm okay with that. Stephenson is a baller.

[MasterIchiro]

Says who? We have cap space for both.

Lance is a scorer who can play 2-3 positions due to athleticism and versatility. He'd probably play backup PG as well as be our starting SG.

They were sending out Henderson in that deal, so Afflalo was the choice for SG before free agency even started. If they signed Lance, would they push Afflalo to SF in front of MKG? I bet they would have kept Afflalo at SG and gone after Hayward as a SF if anything.

Afflalo would back up both MKG and Stephenson.

our wing rotation would be very interchangeable. We have 96 minutes to devote to our wings. We can give MKG and Afflalo 30 each, give Stephenson 20 at the wings (and another 10 at backup PG), and 16 minutes to split between PJ Hairston and whichever wings we bring back (JT, CDR?). All I know is that this team is very deep if we put our cap space to good use at starting SG.

Hairston would not have been on the team - he would have gone out with Henderson, creating a greater need at SG. Afflalo was their target for SG. They were basically willing to trade 2 SG's (Henderson + Hairston) to acquire him, not to make him a backup. If they wanted a backup they could have just kept their pick 24 and drafted Hairston.

[HornetJail]

They were sending out Henderson in that deal, so Afflalo was the choice for SG before free agency even started. If they signed Lance, would they push Afflalo to SF in front of MKG? I bet they would have kept Afflalo at SG and gone after Hayward as a SF if anything.

Afflalo would back up both MKG and Stephenson.

our wing rotation would be very interchangeable. We have 96 minutes to devote to our wings. We can give MKG and Afflalo 30 each, give Stephenson 20 at the wings (and another 10 at backup PG), and 16 minutes to split between PJ Hairston and whichever wings we bring back (JT, CDR?). All I know is that this team is very deep if we put our cap space to good use at starting SG.

Hairston would not have been on the team - he would have gone out with Henderson, creating a greater need at SG. Afflalo was their target for SG. They were basically willing to trade 2 SG's (Henderson + Hairston) to acquire him, not to make him a backup. If they wanted a backup they could have just kept their pick 24 and drafted Hairston.

Then CDR and/or JT would get those remaining 16 minutes. Either way, my ideal offseason short of grabbing a real superstar was to get Afflalo and Stephenson. Afflalo is replaceable, or we can simply sign him next summer and roll with Hendo, CDR, and PJ as our backup wings this year. But we need Stephenson or Parsons on the wings. We reallllllllllllly need to push Hendo back to the bench or ship him out. His time as a starter on this team is probably over.

[mrknowitall215]

I suppose they could have added Afflalo with the idea that Lance pushes Afflalo to SF and no Lance means keeping Afflalo at SG in place of Henderson. But I doubt it. Clifford's hinting at wanting versatility (read: he knows they can't dump Henderson and does not want to clog one position). I still think Hayward is their #1 target. He and Shaun Livingston can play multiple positions and allow Henderson + MKG to still get their minutes.

Why would Hayward be the Hornets #1 target instead of Stephenson when Stephenson should be a lot more easier to acquire than Hayward, and has the same versatility, but is a better ball handler & defender?

I don't think Stephenson has the same versatility as Hayward. Hayward is 6' 8" and has played both SF and SG. Also, the character thing. Also, they have the inside scoop on Hayward with Al. If Lance is their target, it's all MJ, not Cliff. We'll see what MJ wants to do with his team. He seems very hands off. Put it this way, he was watching TV with fans at the draft party while Cho was working the phones. I saw him in the tunnel right by where I was sitting. The team seems to be in the hands of the GM and the coach. But free agency can be different since higher dollars are at stake so I would think MJ should be more hands-on when it comes to prioritizing free agents. But the Afflalo non-deal is a hint. He was a SG/SF, shooter like Hayward and a character guy and a Cliff guy. I wouldn't try to bend this into anything more than that.

Long story short, I think Stephenson has more versatility than Hayward. I can't imagine Hayward running point guard for extensive stints, but I've seen Stephenson run PG/SG/SF simultaneously at a effective level over the past 2 seasons. They are practically the same player, but Stephenson is a better ball handler and defender, while Hayward has a extra 2-3 inches

The biggest difference is that one is going to make over $10 million annually and will hold a 2-week cap hold if a offer sheet is made (Hayward), while the other could be signed for $8 million outright without the hassle if he's intrigued by the staff & roster (Stephenson)

Am I making sense to you?

[MasterIchiro]

Afflalo would back up both MKG and Stephenson.

our wing rotation would be very interchangeable. We have 96 minutes to devote to our wings. We can give MKG and Afflalo 30 each, give Stephenson 20 at the wings (and another 10 at backup PG), and 16 minutes to split between PJ Hairston and whichever wings we bring back (JT, CDR?). All I know is that this team is very deep if we put our cap space to good use at starting SG.

Hairston would not have been on the team - he would have gone out with Henderson, creating a greater need at SG. Afflalo was their target for SG. They were basically willing to trade 2 SG's (Henderson + Hairston) to acquire him, not to make him a backup. If they wanted a backup they could have just kept their pick 24 and drafted Hairston.

Then CDR and/or JT would get those remaining 16 minutes. Either way, my ideal offseason short of grabbing a real superstar was to get Afflalo and Stephenson. Afflalo is replaceable, or we can simply sign him next summer and roll with Hendo, CDR, and PJ as our backup wings this year. But we need Stephenson or Parsons on the wings. We reallllllllllllly need to push Hendo back to the bench or ship him out. His time as a starter on this team is probably over.

I'm assuming we're stuck with Henderson which is why Clifford seems fixated on a scorer who can play multiple positions, to work around Henderson. Lance forces Clifford to use Henderson at SF and he doesn't want to play small ball and he doesn't want to rock the cart imo. So you can strike Lance from their wish list imo. Parsons is a SF and I don't think Clifford would play MKG at SG with Henderson here. I think Lance + Parsons are out of the equation. It's not what I want but it's what I think they have planned given the presence of Henderson. Hayward is the one big name free agent who allows them to work around Henderson mostly.

[MasterIchiro]

Why would Hayward be the Hornets #1 target instead of Stephenson when Stephenson should be a lot more easier to acquire than Hayward, and has the same versatility, but is a better ball handler & defender?

I don't think Stephenson has the same versatility as Hayward. Hayward is 6' 8" and has played both SF and SG. Also, the character thing. Also, they have the inside scoop on Hayward with Al. If Lance is their target, it's all MJ, not Cliff. We'll see what MJ wants to do with his team. He seems very hands off. Put it this way, he was watching TV with fans at the draft party while Cho was working the phones. I saw him in the tunnel right by where I was sitting. The team seems to be in the hands of the GM and the coach. But free agency can be different since higher dollars are at stake so I would think MJ should be more hands-on when it comes to prioritizing free agents. But the Afflalo non-deal is a hint. He was a SG/SF, shooter like Hayward and a character guy and a Cliff guy. I wouldn't try to bend this into anything more than that.

Long story short, I think Stephenson has more versatility than Hayward. I can't imagine Hayward running point guard for extensive stints, but I've seen Stephenson run PG/SG/SF simultaneously at a effective level over the past 2 seasons. They are practically the same player, but Stephenson is a better ball handler and defender, while Hayward has a extra 2-3 inches

The biggest difference is that one is going to make over $10 million annually and will hold a 2-week cap hold if a offer sheet is made (Hayward), while the other could be signed for $8 million outright without the hassle if he's intrigued by the staff & roster (Stephenson)

Am I making sense to you?

Your world makes perfect sense if Gerald Henderson didn't exist.

[BeesWax]

Why would Hayward be the Hornets #1 target instead of Stephenson when Stephenson should be a lot more easier to acquire than Hayward, and has the same versatility, but is a better ball handler & defender?

I don't think Stephenson has the same versatility as Hayward. Hayward is 6' 8" and has played both SF and SG. Also, the character thing. Also, they have the inside scoop on Hayward with Al. If Lance is their target, it's all MJ, not Cliff. We'll see what MJ wants to do with his team. He seems very hands off. Put it this way, he was watching TV with fans at the draft party while Cho was working the phones. I saw him in the tunnel right by where I was sitting. The team seems to be in the hands of the GM and the coach. But free agency can be different since higher dollars are at stake so I would think MJ should be more hands-on when it comes to prioritizing free agents. But the Afflalo non-deal is a hint. He was a SG/SF, shooter like Hayward and a character guy and a Cliff guy. I wouldn't try to bend this into anything more than that.

Long story short, I think Stephenson has more versatility than Hayward. I can't imagine Hayward running point guard for extensive stints, but I've seen Stephenson run PG/SG/SF simultaneously at a effective level over the past 2 seasons. They are practically the same player, but Stephenson is a better ball handler and defender, while Hayward has a extra 2-3 inches

The biggest difference is that one is going to make over $10 million annually and will hold a 2-week cap hold if a offer sheet is made (Hayward), while the other could be signed for $8 million outright without the hassle if he's intrigued by the staff & roster (Stephenson)

Am I making sense to you?

The biggest difference is one is nuts and the other isn't. That is why the difference in money is there. Also isn't the cap hold down to three days now? I thought that changed a season or two ago.

[LofJ]

Why are we so fascinated with the idea of spending all of our cap now on RFAs that will require us to overpay to get them here? As far as big signings go I think it's Stephenson or nothing.

[mrknowitall215]

The biggest difference is one is nuts and the other isn't. That is why the difference in money is there. Also isn't the cap hold down to three days now? I thought that changed a season or two ago.

Yes, you are correct, the new CBA changed it to 3 days it appear

[mrknowitall215]

Your world makes perfect sense if Gerald Henderson didn't exist.

Gerald Henderson would still exist with Gordon Hayward on the roster too. I don't think demoting MKG, the best defender on a team with a defensive identity, to the bench is in their deck of cards right about now

However, I'm hoping Cho could find a salary dumping trade of Henderson packaged with a couple 2nd rounders to a team desperate for proven veteran help at shooting guard once the dust clear and they aren't able to acquire none of the big fish free agents at the wing position like the Hawks

[BeesWax]

The biggest difference is one is nuts and the other isn't. That is why the difference in money is there. Also isn't the cap hold down to three days now? I thought that changed a season or two ago.

Yes, you are correct, the new CBA changed it to 3 days it appear

This is why I think we might be able to steal Parsons. If Melo takes more than three days to pick they will have to choose Parsons or giving up on Melo.

[mrknowitall215]

The biggest difference is one is nuts and the other isn't. That is why the difference in money is there. Also isn't the cap hold down to three days now? I thought that changed a season or two ago.

Yes, you are correct, the new CBA changed it to 3 days it appear

This is why I think we might be able to steal Parsons. If Melo takes more than three days to pick they will have to choose Parsons or giving up on Melo.

What if Melo verbally agree to or show that he's leaning towards Chicago on the 1st day of free-agency like I'm expecting? Do we take that risk of putting our first dibs on Parsons and show Stephenson that he's not our priority at the expense of landing none of the top wing free agents?

[BeesWax]

Yes, you are correct, the new CBA changed it to 3 days it appear

This is why I think we might be able to steal Parsons. If Melo takes more than three days to pick they will have to choose Parsons or giving up on Melo.

What if Melo verbally agree to or show that he's leaning towards Chicago on the 1st day of free-agency like I'm expecting? Do we take that risk of putting our first dibs on Parsons and show Stephenson that he's not our priority at the expense of landing none of the top wing free agents?

Depends on the offers but we could make roads to both. I would prefer Parsons to Lance due to chemistry but. I think depending on what you are giving them we could start both around 9.5 and see if either bites.

[mrknowitall215]

This is why I think we might be able to steal Parsons. If Melo takes more than three days to pick they will have to choose Parsons or giving up on Melo.

What if Melo verbally agree to or show that he's leaning towards Chicago on the 1st day of free-agency like I'm expecting? Do we take that risk of putting our first dibs on Parsons and show Stephenson that he's not our priority at the expense of landing none of the top wing free agents?

Depends on the offers but we could make roads to both. I would prefer Parsons to Lance due to chemistry but. I think depending on what you are giving them we could start both around 9.5 and see if either bites.

I personally wouldn't sign neither of Parsons or Stephenson to $9.5 million, and that definitely wouldn't be my starting offer. We'll see how it play out though

[jakenc]

Honestly i could live with us offering Stephenson $12M, maybe even $13M. If he keeps improving at the rate he has thus far in his career he'll be worth that by the second year of his contract.

[fatlever]

reminder for tomorrow...

similar to the trade deadline, if we are rumored to be interested in a big name free agent tomorrow, feel free to start a new thread for that specific player rather than discussing in this thread. speculation and general free agency discussions will stay in this thread.

thanks,

[BeesWax]

What if Melo verbally agree to or show that he's leaning towards Chicago on the 1st day of free-agency like I'm expecting? Do we take that risk of putting our first dibs on Parsons and show Stephenson that he's not our priority at the expense of landing none of the top wing free agents?

Depends on the offers but we could make roads to both. I would prefer Parsons to Lance due to chemistry but. I think depending on what you are giving them we could start both around 9.5 and see if either bites.

I personally wouldn't sign neither of Parsons or Stephenson to $9.5 million, and that definitely wouldn't be my starting offer. We'll see how it play out though

If we landed both we would be a top 3 team in the east. Only weakness would be at PF. Not sure what we could do there.

[mrknowitall215]

Honestly i could live with us offering Stephenson $12M, maybe even $13M. If he keeps improving at the rate he has thus far in his career he'll be worth that by the second year of his contract.

I'm willing to overpay for Stephenson and bid up to $10 million max if desperation set in, but I honestly doubt his offers will make it out of the $8 million ball park, all things considered. We'll see though