2025-2026: Around the League

[sChOlaRlY_Magi]

Damn, I would say because of the cap, there’s no way to afford him now, but it looks like Boston would give away Simons for cap space at this point….

Would they waive and stretch him? Surely not, right?

I still can’t believe they did that with Lillard over in Mil. Crazy offseason.

I think Boston stretch waiving Simons is absolutely at least under consideration.

They're still $20.2M over the luxury tax which is going to be an $88.4M dollar tax bill because of the repeater tax.

If they stretched Simons, they would immediately shed $18.4M which would put them very close to out of the tax completely.

If a guy is expiring...isn't a simple buyout more favorable than stretching him? I imagine the point is to cut this year's tax, but would stretching extend the burden into future years (albeit less per year)?

Along this line of thought… If you could get Simons to take a buy out less than his contract, but just enough less to get them under the tax, wouldn’t they do that? Simons gets o go wherever he wants and maybe takes a 2 million haircut to do so.

[Knightro]

Damn, I would say because of the cap, there’s no way to afford him now, but it looks like Boston would give away Simons for cap space at this point….

Would they waive and stretch him? Surely not, right?

I still can’t believe they did that with Lillard over in Mil. Crazy offseason.

I think Boston stretch waiving Simons is absolutely at least under consideration.

They're still $20.2M over the luxury tax which is going to be an $88.4M dollar tax bill because of the repeater tax.

If they stretched Simons, they would immediately shed $18.4M which would put them very close to out of the tax completely.

If a guy is expiring...isn't a simple buyout more favorable than stretching him? I imagine the point is to cut this year's tax, but would stretching extend the burden into future years (albeit less per year)?

It really depends on what their goal actually is.

If they absolutely want to get out of the tax completely THIS year, stretching Simons would go further towards accomplishing that than buying him out or trading him would.

If they aren’t concerned with getting out of the tax, then trading him or offering him a buyout makes more sense.

[Knightro]

I think Boston stretch waiving Simons is absolutely at least under consideration.

They're still $20.2M over the luxury tax which is going to be an $88.4M dollar tax bill because of the repeater tax.

If they stretched Simons, they would immediately shed $18.4M which would put them very close to out of the tax completely.

If a guy is expiring...isn't a simple buyout more favorable than stretching him? I imagine the point is to cut this year's tax, but would stretching extend the burden into future years (albeit less per year)?

Along this line of thought… If you could get Simons to take a buy out less than his contract, but just enough less to get them under the tax, wouldn’t they do that? Simons es to go wherever he wants and maybe takes a 2 million haircut to do so.

They’re 20 million over the tax though.

Simons isn’t giving up much money if he gets bought out. Especially not now that free agency money is mostly dried up.

[sChOlaRlY_Magi]

If a guy is expiring...isn't a simple buyout more favorable than stretching him? I imagine the point is to cut this year's tax, but would stretching extend the burden into future years (albeit less per year)?

Along this line of thought… If you could get Simons to take a buy out less than his contract, but just enough less to get them under the tax, wouldn’t they do that? Simons es to go wherever he wants and maybe takes a 2 million haircut to do so.

They’re 20 million over the tax though.

Simons isn’t giving up much money if he gets bought out. Especially not now that free agency money is mostly dried up.

lol
I mixed that up in my head, thats basically his whole year. Man, that alone makes me think they have to stretch now, right? Is there any team that has that kind of Cap space?

Nets, maybe off the top of my head. It seemed like everyone is close to this new threshold right now.

[sChOlaRlY_Magi]

Along this line of thought… If you could get Simons to take a buy out less than his contract, but just enough less to get them under the tax, wouldn’t they do that? Simons es to go wherever he wants and maybe takes a 2 million haircut to do so.

They’re 20 million over the tax though.

Simons isn’t giving up much money if he gets bought out. Especially not now that free agency money is mostly dried up.

lol
I mixed that up in my head, thats basically his whole year. Man, that alone makes me think they have to stretch now, right? Is there any team that has that kind of Cap space and would be willing to lose a young player in the swap?

Nets, maybe off the top of my head. It seemed like everyone is close to this new threshold right now.

[RookieStar]

Am i reading it right Holmgren did not sign a designated rookie max. Just a rookie 5 year max...assuming something similar to Desmond Bane but with some bonuses. It's a lot of money. All of these contracts are...but this is what irks me about Paolo insisting on that player option.

Paolo wanted that player option since he'll be 28 so he could opt out and try for that final 3rd big contract.. or you could say he wanted it in case things don't pan out and he wants out. Regardless he is 1 of 3 players I think to receive this player option on a contract this big.

You could argue that every player would want that option early right?. It's an option. If they are going to get a 35% contract wouldn't it be in every players best interest to get that contract a year earlier. I figured Chet was a designated max extension. I don't understand why Chet's team took a little less. I don't understand why Paolo's team demanded the player option vs the other guys who don't.

I think Paolo is going to become THE man, maybe top 5 player in the league, but he is not that right now. Chet's upside is other worldly too. I prefer Paolo's skill set, but there is a path where Chet is an MVP level player, and you don't have to squint too hard to see it. Didn't someone leave our board because they were mad we didn't take Chet?

That's Xaticus.

[89Magicfan]

Devin Booker at 71 million per year. That’s nuts.

[eyriq]

Read on Twitter

?t=k2YuOwkhY7RFavRVdKueGw&s=19

[Knightro]

Read on Twitter

?t=k2YuOwkhY7RFavRVdKueGw&s=19

And they won't care in the slightest if they're coming off a three peat.

[eyriq]

Read on Twitter

?t=k2YuOwkhY7RFavRVdKueGw&s=19

And they won't care in the slightest if they're coming off a three peat.

Cool story, bro. The Magic have better odds of winning one than the Thunder do of winning two in a row.

[MasterGMer]

Giannis "We will see"
Joker declined his extension
Luka's extension coming up and will he resign

That are the buzz in the league right now

[Knightro]

Read on Twitter

?t=k2YuOwkhY7RFavRVdKueGw&s=19

And they won't care in the slightest if they're coming off a three peat.

Cool story, bro. The Magic have better odds of winning one than the Thunder do of winning two in a row.

Considering they've already won the most recent one, and their odds are much better than Orlando's to win the title this upcoming year, I'd say that their odds of winning two in a row are quite a bit better than Orlando's are to win one.

But you keep doing you.

[eyriq]

And they won't care in the slightest if they're coming off a three peat.

Cool story, bro. The Magic have better odds of winning one than the Thunder do of winning two in a row.

Considering they've already won the most recent one, and their odds are much better than Orlando's to win the title this upcoming year, I'd say that their odds of winning two in a row are quite a bit better than Orlando's are to win one.

But you keep doing you.

Thunder to go back-to-back: ≈ 8 %.
Magic to snag one in the next two seasons: ≈ 13 %.

Why? OKC must win two titles in a row, so the odds multiply and drop. Orlando only needs one hit in two tries, so the odds stack and rise. The math wins; the bravado doesn’t.

[Knightro]

Cool story, bro. The Magic have better odds of winning one than the Thunder do of winning two in a row.

Considering they've already won the most recent one, and their odds are much better than Orlando's to win the title this upcoming year, I'd say that their odds of winning two in a row are quite a bit better than Orlando's are to win one.

But you keep doing you.

Thunder to go back-to-back: ≈ 8 %.
Magic to snag one in the next two seasons: ≈ 13 %.

Why? OKC must win two titles in a row, so the odds multiply and drop. Orlando only needs one hit in two tries, so the odds stack and rise. The math wins; the bravado doesn’t.

They’ve already won one in a row dummy.

I also just absolutely hate this way of thinking about like “oh yeah well the Magic have a 13% chance of winning one in the next two years” and it’s like no they don’t. That’s not how it *actually* works.

That’s just a way for people who like math to convince themselves of something to be true when it really isn’t.

[eyriq]

Considering they've already won the most recent one, and their odds are much better than Orlando's to win the title this upcoming year, I'd say that their odds of winning two in a row are quite a bit better than Orlando's are to win one.

But you keep doing you.

Thunder to go back-to-back: ≈ 8 %.
Magic to snag one in the next two seasons: ≈ 13 %.

Why? OKC must win two titles in a row, so the odds multiply and drop. Orlando only needs one hit in two tries, so the odds stack and rise. The math wins; the bravado doesn’t.

They’ve already won one in a row dummy.

Math is undefeated: 1 + 2 = 3. OKC still needs two more rings (≈ 8 %), Orlando needs one (≈ 13 %). Quit nut-riding the Thunder and pick up a probability book.

[eyriq]

Knightro, translation of your rant:

> “I can’t stomach being wrong, so let’s yeet math straight out the window.”



One ring isn’t three, probabilities don’t wilt because you “hate” them, and logic doesn’t bend for fan goggles. Carry on.

[Knightro]

Thunder to go back-to-back: ≈ 8 %.
Magic to snag one in the next two seasons: ≈ 13 %.

Why? OKC must win two titles in a row, so the odds multiply and drop. Orlando only needs one hit in two tries, so the odds stack and rise. The math wins; the bravado doesn’t.

They’ve already won one in a row dummy.

Math is undefeated: 1 + 2 = 3. OKC still needs two more rings (≈ 8 %), Orlando needs one (≈ 13 %). Quit nut-riding the Thunder and pick up a probability book.

I admit I was being a little bit trollish, but what you actually said is that they need to win “two in a row”

But two in a row *from this point forward* - which wasn’t actually specified even though I know that that you meant - would actually be be three in a row.

Two in a row *including last year* would mean they only need to win it this year to win “two in a row”. Now I know that’s not what you meant, but I was just using your literal words against you.

[MartinsIzAfraud]

Considering they've already won the most recent one, and their odds are much better than Orlando's to win the title this upcoming year, I'd say that their odds of winning two in a row are quite a bit better than Orlando's are to win one.

But you keep doing you.

Thunder to go back-to-back: ≈ 8 %.
Magic to snag one in the next two seasons: ≈ 13 %.

Why? OKC must win two titles in a row, so the odds multiply and drop. Orlando only needs one hit in two tries, so the odds stack and rise. The math wins; the bravado doesn’t.

They’ve already won one in a row dummy.

I also just absolutely hate this way of thinking about like “oh yeah well the Magic have a 13% chance of winning one in the next two years” and it’s like no they don’t. That’s not how it *actually* works.

That’s just a way for people who like math to convince themselves of something to be true when it really isn’t.

More mental gymnastics Yaye!!!!

[eyriq]

They’ve already won one in a row dummy.

Math is undefeated: 1 + 2 = 3. OKC still needs two more rings (≈ 8 %), Orlando needs one (≈ 13 %). Quit nut-riding the Thunder and pick up a probability book.

I admit I was being a little bit trollish, but what you actually said is that they need to win “two in a row”

But two in a row *from this point forward* - which wasn’t actually specified even though I know that that you meant - would actually be be three in a row.

Two in a row *including last year* would mean they only need to win it this year to win “two in a row”. Now I know that’s not what you meant, but I was just using your literal words against you.

You anchored the convo with a three-peat, then instantly moved the goalposts to pull a lame gotcha.

[eyriq]

Thunder to go back-to-back: ≈ 8 %.
Magic to snag one in the next two seasons: ≈ 13 %.

Why? OKC must win two titles in a row, so the odds multiply and drop. Orlando only needs one hit in two tries, so the odds stack and rise. The math wins; the bravado doesn’t.

They’ve already won one in a row dummy.

I also just absolutely hate this way of thinking about like “oh yeah well the Magic have a 13% chance of winning one in the next two years” and it’s like no they don’t. That’s not how it *actually* works.

That’s just a way for people who like math to convince themselves of something to be true when it really isn’t.

More mental gymnastics Yaye!!!!

Got any thoughts of your own or are you just hitching a ride on smarter posters all offseason?