Okay, give me a clearer cap status now...

td00 · Post #1 » by **td00** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:07 pm

Realistically, how much do we have left to avoid the cap repercussions? We seem to be very close to the watermark after Marvin's signing?

Do we have enough to fill out the roster? We still have what, 3-4 slots left depending on Mario's negotiations? If that is the case, Morris is going to have to be able to contribute this year being on the 2nd team.

According to this link, we are over the cap once we get Marvin officially signed. Now that included Solo and Mario in this scenario, but not having either presents a numbers issue for us.
We have 10 under contract, and that gets us to just under the cap? This is going to be interesting to see if we decide to go forward. But, I believe you are required to have 13 on your roster.

http://www.hoopinionblog.com/2009/07/20 ... p-set.html

D21 · Post #2 » by **D21** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:29 pm

td00 wrote:Realistically, how much do we have left to avoid the cap repercussions?...

I already updated the Hawks Salaries Information thread, based on what should be the 2009-10 salaries for Zaza and Bibby, and I did it again since that Marvin should re-sign.

More details:
Marvin is re-signing for $37.5M/5yrs, with up to $5.5M of incentives.
The incentives seems to be "unlikely bonus", that means it would not count against the cap in free agent purpose.

The contract can be ascending, flat or descending contract, with at least $6,198,347 for the first year, and up to $9,493,671 if it's a descending contract, which is possible.

It would provide less salaries for the next years for ATL (think that next year Luxury Tax can start at lowers numbers), and it should motivate Marvin to stay since it gives him more money now (a 9.5M first year gives him 2M more than the Q.O.)

Total Salaries : from 61,329,427 to 64,624,751 for 10 players

We need to add at least 3 players (13 players minimum), and we have between 5.3M and 8.6M to spend under the tax.

dpaulh · Post #3 » by **dpaulh** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:58 pm

I do have a question about Mario... Why hasn't he jumped all over that QO and since he hasn't why haven't we rescinded it yet? Or have we? I like him as an energy/possession defender type player but 1 million on a guy that might get 2 minutes per game is hefty... It seems like we could use that million to help sign a big like Joe Smith

lunarblues · Post #4 » by **lunarblues** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:22 pm

dpaulh wrote:I do have a question about Mario... Why hasn't he jumped all over that QO and since he hasn't why haven't we rescinded it yet? Or have we? I like him as an energy/possession defender type player but 1 million on a guy that might get 2 minutes per game is hefty... It seems like we could use that million to help sign a big like Joe Smith

the hawks haven't rescinded it yet.

mario wants a long term contract just like every other free agent out there. if he accepts the QO, he's just going to be a free agent scrapping for a contract again next year. he knows that he's down on the priority list and his agent probably won't be able to talk seriously about a long term deal until everyone else is signed close to training camp. until then mario can just keep working on his game.

i still believe that he is gonna stay on the team.

D21 · Post #5 » by **D21** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:52 pm

D21 wrote:More details:
Marvin is re-signing for $37.5M/5yrs, with up to $5.5M of incentives.
The incentives seems to be "unlikely bonus", that means it would not count against the cap in free agent purpose.

The contract can be ascending, flat or descending contract, with at least $6,198,347 for the first year, and up to $9,493,671 if it's a descending contract, which is possible.
...

Total Salaries : from 61,329,427 to 64,624,751 for 10 players

We need to add at least 3 players (13 players minimum), and we have between 5.3M and 8.6M to spend under the tax.

ESPN Trade Machine is now saying 7.5M for Marvin in 2009-10, so if it's right, it would mean the contract is a flat one.

It would also mean that the total is now at:
62,631,080 for 10 players, with 7.29M to spend.

Too bad Marvin did not sign for this contract sooner, we would have been able to offer good contract to the players taking one-year offer like Gooden.
But sure we had enough to sign Joe Smith and two or three minimum contracts.

D21 · Post #6 » by **D21** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:28 pm

If Joe Smith signs for the veteran minimum like ESPN says, it will be for $1,306,455

It makes now 11 players under contract for $63,937,535, so 5.98M left to spend under the tax.

joeshmoe · Post #7 » by **joeshmoe** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:15 pm

Do we have the entire MLE? If so, maybe we should sign Ramon Sessions for the future.

raleigh · Post #8 » by **raleigh** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:43 pm

D21 wrote:If Joe Smith signs for the veteran minimum like ESPN says, it will be for $1,306,455

That's the amount of the contract, but the cap hit is even less.

raleigh · Post #9 » by **raleigh** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:44 pm

joeshmoe wrote:Do we have the entire MLE? If so, maybe we should sign Ramon Sessions for the future.

Or...they could draft a 21 y.o. rookie for the future.

The Hawks will not be spending the MLE this season. I would expect one-year deals from here on out due to fears of the luxury tax next season.

joeshmoe · Post #10 » by **joeshmoe** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 5:14 pm

I know we probably won't spend the MLE. I'm just trying to think if there is anything out there worth spending it on, since we still have it.

Sund, by the way, did say that he has permission of the ASG to go into the luxury tax if it will make us championship contenders. I don't think there is anybody we could acquire at this point that would make us championship contenders this year. Aside from trades, I don't know if there is anybody available that could make us much better even.

raleigh · Post #11 » by **raleigh** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 5:29 pm

Good comments, joeshmoe.

On another note, I really like the 10-man rotation as is. I'm a bit worried that adding any other veteran to the backcourt will mean reduced minutes for Teague. Of course, I would like to see Teague earn his minutes, but I also don't think it should take 2 years to make a decision on him like it did Acie Law. The Hawks should be able to see tangible results from JT early on...I hope.

D21 · Post #12 » by **D21** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:50 pm

mrhonline wrote:
D21 wrote:If Joe Smith signs for the veteran minimum like ESPN says, it will be for $1,306,455

That's the amount of the contract, but the cap hit is even less.

That's right, I needed to think twice before update the thread

The numbers for Tax purpose will be $825,497, adding $480,958 to 5.98M.

So total would be 63,456,577, with 6.46M left to spend.

D21 · Post #13 » by **D21** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 5:59 pm

With the addition of Jason Collins:

Total salaries: $65,119,338
but only $64,282,074 for tax purpose with Smith and Collins set at the 2 years veteran minimum.

It makes $5,637,926 of room under the tax (almost the MLE), with at least 1 player to add.

raleigh · Post #14 » by **raleigh** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 6:27 pm

D21, when calculating the actual monies paid, note that the league itself pays the difference between the 2yr. vet minimum and the total salary. Also, JJ's salary is ~$1.8M less than his cap hit because of the bonus he received early on.

D21 · Post #15 » by **D21** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 4:57 pm

I know the difference is paid by the league, it was just to show that the total salaries was not the right numbers to use for estimate how much there is left under that tax.

But thanks, I forgot Joe got a bonus.
Isn't it $2,7M less than cap hit ? (storytellerscontracts says $13,488,220 of signing bonus), which should mean that Jo is paid nearly $12,279,110 this season.