Hornets Cap Outlook

[BuzzCity]

Alternative Lin trade: We can cut Sessions and offer up Lamb + 2 of Weber/Graham/JOB, then they can cut them if they want. Doesn't really change much from the previous scenario Re: MLE.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Does that leave us any more breathing room than the first Lin trade?

Nah, we're just switching the guys that get cut and traded. Just thought it may be a bit more enticing to Brooklyn because it would take less of their space and they can create a bit more by cutting the unguaranteed players.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Oh yea, from the Nets point of view, I think they'd much rather do that. I had just thought by declining Sessions' option, then we wouldn't qualify for the full MLE. But I guess we'd still be over the limit and therefor qualify, right?

[BlackOutBuzz]

Does that leave us any more breathing room than the first Lin trade?

Nah, we're just switching the guys that get cut and traded. Just thought it may be a bit more enticing to Brooklyn because it would take less of their space and they can create a bit more by cutting the unguaranteed players.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Oh yea, from the Nets point of view, I think they'd much rather do that. I had just thought by declining Sessions' option, then we wouldn't qualify for the full MLE. But I guess we'd still be over the limit and therefor qualify, right?

Since we acquired Howard we're now on the edge of having too much to get the full MLE, and declining Sessions is basically a necessity to keep it. Barring another trade anyway.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[fatlever]

according to bonnell's last mailbag, weber's contract becomes partially guaranteed in early august. therefor, i would not expect to see us sign another pg while also keeping weber, with the idea of letting them fight it out in camp.

[BlackOutBuzz]

Yeah Weber and JOB (fully) guarantee on 8-1, Graham 1-10. With as close as they are to the tax, I don't know if I see them having an open competition involving Weber because they really can't afford the dead money. That said they could bring in another point guard to camp, but he'd be Swarm-bound if they keep Briante.

Two-ways don't count toward the cap, so that could be an option for an extra PG while keeping BW.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[GlenRiceARoni]

Man, who knows. The cap went from increasing by 8 figures a year to going down a bit this year. We'll know soon enough.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

The cap went up almost $5m this year. That's still a tremendous YOY increase. Especially considering how uninteresting and short the playoffs were this year.

"Get Out the Way, Let the Real F. Ballas thru" - Juvenile

[yosemiteben]

The cap went up almost $5m this year. That's still a tremendous YOY increase.

Is it? It's like 5%. Not sure that's a material increase, especially given that we just saw like a 35% jump.

[BlackOutBuzz]

Man, who knows. The cap went from increasing by 8 figures a year to going down a bit this year. We'll know soon enough.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

The cap went up almost $5m this year. That's still a tremendous YOY increase. Especially considering how uninteresting and short the playoffs were this year.

"Get Out the Way, Let the Real F. Ballas thru" - Juvenile

Yeah I misspoke there, should've said went down from earlier projections.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[GlenRiceARoni]

The cap went up almost $5m this year. That's still a tremendous YOY increase.

Is it? It's like 5%. Not sure that's a material increase, especially given that we just saw like a 35% jump.

Yes.

"Get Out the Way, Let the Real F. Ballas thru" - Juvenile

[BlackOutBuzz]

That chart is listing a projection for this year, it ended up being $3M less. Still, it isn't as much that the increase was modest as much as the abrupt halt of growth.

The cap rose 60% from 2013-16, including a 35% jump just from 15-16, but then this year it increased only a bit over 5%. Plus, players that cashed in last off-season have raises due of up to 7.5%, so player salaries grew more than the cap. Last year 2 teams paid tax, as of now there are 9 teams in the tax.

That's why teams are suddenly being so frugal after a couple years of overspending. It's really fascinating how little foresight front offices seem to have with regard to this stuff.

I mean, Cleveland and Golden State are, respectively, numbers 1 and 3 in luxury tax payroll. Number 2? Portland, who for some reason never realized that paying Allen Crabbe and Evan Turner a combined $36.5M (just this year) might come back to bite them. Hell, add what CJ and Lillard are making and that's $85M between four players. That's higher than the current payrolls of a handful of teams.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[yosemiteben]

On that graph it seems like > 5% increases were the norm, except for that five year window when the cap didn't move at all. Is there any year on there where the cap went up but by less than 5?

[GlenRiceARoni]

On that graph it seems like > 5% increases were the norm, except for that five year window when the cap didn't move at all. Is there any year on there where the cap went up but by less than 5?

Sure. '01-'02 to '13-'14 is an annualized 2.5% growth over thirteen seasons.

Whereas this year is 5.3% YOY growth. That's more than double 2.5%. And this is coming off the back of by far the largest spike in cap history and by far the least interesting playoffs in my opinion. Certainly one of the shorter and least dramatic ones.

The only real question was would Golden State be willing to intentionally tank game 4 with $30m riding on the line for their ownership group. And we didn't even get that question answered since they got upset legitimately in game 3.


"Get Out the Way, Let the Real F. Ballas thru" - Juvenile

[LofJ]

That chart is listing a projection for this year, it ended up being $3M less. Still, it isn't as much that the increase was modest as much as the abrupt halt of growth.

The cap rose 60% from 2013-16, including a 35% jump just from 15-16, but then this year it increased only a bit over 5%. Plus, players that cashed in last off-season have raises due of up to 7.5%, so player salaries grew more than the cap. Last year 2 teams paid tax, as of now there are 9 teams in the tax.

That's why teams are suddenly being so frugal after a couple years of overspending. It's really fascinating how little foresight front offices seem to have with regard to this stuff.

I mean, Cleveland and Golden State are, respectively, numbers 1 and 3 in luxury tax payroll. Number 2? Portland, who for some reason never realized that paying Allen Crabbe and Evan Turner a combined $36.5M (just this year) might come back to bite them. Hell, add what CJ and Lillard are making and that's $85M between four players. That's higher than the current payrolls of a handful of teams.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Yeah, Portland really screwed themselves. It's why people shouldn't scoff at the idea of them moving McCollum. They could probably move Leonard with him and still get some actual value coming back.

[yosemiteben]

On that graph it seems like > 5% increases were the norm, except for that five year window when the cap didn't move at all. Is there any year on there where the cap went up but by less than 5?

Sure. '01-'02 to '13-'14 is an annualized 2.5% growth over thirteen seasons.

I mean, that doesn't answer the question at all. I already acknowledged the five year period with 0 growth. Can you find a specific year with > 0% but < 5% growth? Eyeballing the graph, I see maybe two or three years since 1984 where that has happened. Calling 5% tremendous growth seems awfully generous, but maybe I'm just doing bad math in my head.

[GlenRiceARoni]

On that graph it seems like > 5% increases were the norm, except for that five year window when the cap didn't move at all. Is there any year on there where the cap went up but by less than 5?

Sure. '01-'02 to '13-'14 is an annualized 2.5% growth over thirteen seasons.

I mean, that doesn't answer the question at all. I already acknowledged the five year period with 0 growth. Can you find a specific year with > 0% but < 5% growth? Eyeballing the graph, I see maybe two or three years since 1984 where that has happened. Calling 5% tremendous growth seems awfully generous, but maybe I'm just doing bad math in my head.

I'm just comparing it to the rest of the millenium absent last year's massive spike.

Getting growth of any sort is impressive considering the playoffs were curtailed. Relative to the post Jordan era yes it's large growth. It's not an outlier or anything but it's still real growth.

You're also basing this on PERCENTAGE growth rather than nominal growth. There are solid arguments that both are meaningful ways to measure growth in this example.

In nominal growth (the way I was referring with my initial comment) yes $5m is very, very large growth.

How many seasons of the 33 pictured has the cap expanded by $5m?? Only 6 of the 33 seasons...

Im not going to get into a semantics argument with you just because you don't like me.



"Get Out the Way, Let the Real F. Ballas thru" - Juvenile

[yosemiteben]

My point is that in growth years 5% is a typical threshold, not an above average accomplishment. From the perspective of "any growth is tremendous growth," then sure that fits. From the perspective of comparing to typical size of growth in growth years, perhaps less so.

[yosemiteben]

In nominal growth (the way I was referring with my initial comment) yes $5m is very, very large growth.

How many seasons of the 33 pictured has the cap expanded by $5m?? Only 6 of the 33 seasons...

Im not going to get into a semantics argument with you just because you don't like me.

Introducing nominal vs. percentage based growth isn't making a semantic argument?

I'm not sure what your point here is. $5M growth would have been > 25% for the first ten years on that chart. Hell it's more than the cap itself the first three years. Of course percentage based growth is the more appropriate metric.

[GlenRiceARoni]

In nominal growth (the way I was referring with my initial comment) yes $5m is very, very large growth.

How many seasons of the 33 pictured has the cap expanded by $5m?? Only 6 of the 33 seasons...

Im not going to get into a semantics argument with you just because you don't like me.

Introducing nominal vs. percentage based growth isn't making a semantic argument?

I'm not sure what your point here is. $5M growth would have been > 25% for the first ten years on that chart. Hell it's more than the cap itself the first three years. Of course percentage based growth is the more appropriate metric.

Not really. Both are valid discussion points. Salaries are paid in nominal terms and the deals that expire and effectively create cap space are in nominal terms as well. So both nominal and percentage based growth are valid ways of analyzing the data.

And the percentage data I referenced isn't applicable to the initial ten years on the chart as i used '01-'02 thru '13-'14 to give you the 2.5% annualized growth measurement.

This will be my last post on this subject as I've got actual work with a deadline to attend to this evening.

"Get Out the Way, Let the Real F. Ballas thru" - Juvenile

[BlackOutBuzz]

Assuming there's nothing that's gone unreported, JOB guarantees today. Brings the roster to 12 guaranteed plus Graham, who guarantees in January.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[BlackOutBuzz]

Read on Twitter

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[BlackOutBuzz]

Read on Twitter

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk