2020 Off-season Discussion

[BigSlam]

Would that be a salary dump worth a first rounder for you? Or would you rather have cap space with no pick?

Easy answer.

Cap space, no pick.

Because the cap space is guaranteed and:

If you are saying Terry is equal the 1st round pick you spoke of then what good is that 1st round pick if he is buried on the bench as a 3rd string PG and 3rd string SG possibly getting very disgruntled (like he did in Boston when that happened
or
If you are saying we can trade Terry for a 1st round pick down the road that is assuming you can (A) find a trade partner (B) assume they feel he's worth a 1st rounder (C) they be willing to take $18-$19mil per year in salary back (unless the team you are trading with has a clean sheet - then we might have to add an asset to have them take Terry off our books and absorb him into theirs).

Again, this option is all hypothetical as well - because you are only hoping a trade would eventuate - there is no guarantee this would happen.

[Liver_Pooty]

Does this complicate our ability to extend an offer to Graham now?

[Rich4114]

I read somewhere Hayward’s 20-21 salary is $27m not $30m FYI.

[LofJ]

I don't really care about the Hayward contract, it's the Batum stretch that pisses me off. There had to be another way to open up cap space.

coming from a knicks fan. We still have about $20 MM in cap space and its clear this offseason we are playing the long game.

I think a Randle (18 MM) for Batum (27 MM) would get you pretty close to the cap space needed to sign Hayward with having 9 MM in dead cap for 3 years.

What type of draft compensation do you think CHA would potentially to give up to get a flawed but stil productive big in Randle and not have 9 MM in dead cap space for the following few years?

With Obi drafted I think the knicks should clear that big spot up so I think it makes some sense for both sides assuming the compensation is worth while to the knicks taking on the extra money and getting a productive player.

I don't think the team would be willing to attach any draft asset to facilitate a cap clearing trade. That is assuming they tried to find trades for Rozier, Zeller, or Batum without giving up draft compensation to create more cap space, but you never know with this team.

[DY_nasty]

Does this complicate our ability to extend an offer to Graham now?

if we extend graham we're officially stuck in the mud unless everyone somehow becomes amazing

[mpharris36]

I don't really care about the Hayward contract, it's the Batum stretch that pisses me off. There had to be another way to open up cap space.

coming from a knicks fan. We still have about $20 MM in cap space and its clear this offseason we are playing the long game.

I think a Randle (18 MM) for Batum (27 MM) would get you pretty close to the cap space needed to sign Hayward with having 9 MM in dead cap for 3 years.

What type of draft compensation do you think CHA would potentially to give up to get a flawed but stil productive big in Randle and not have 9 MM in dead cap space for the following few years?

With Obi drafted I think the knicks should clear that big spot up so I think it makes some sense for both sides assuming the compensation is worth while to the knicks taking on the extra money and getting a productive player.

I don't think the team would be willing to attach any draft asset to facilitate a cap clearing trade. I'm assuming they tried to find trades for Rozier, Zeller, and Batum without giving up draft compensation to create more cap space, but you never know with this team.

I gotcha. I guess how I see it is that if you are paying Hayward 120 MM over 4 years they plan on being competitive with LaMelo and Hayward and the other pieces you have so I figured having nearly 10 MM of dead cap over the next few years could be pretty damning if they want to make further moves. I think they made the decision they wanted to win now, why else spend that kinda money on Hayward?

Also if it was simply a salary dump i would understand not wanting to give up draft compensation but in theory you would be trading a useless piece in batum for a 25 year old that avg 20 and 10 last year. And im not trying to oversell Randle becuase he absolutely has his flaws. But as a 25 minute bench piece I think he could be productive to boost your second unit, while also not having that Batum stretch dead money hit the books.

Its seems odd they would committ that much money to Hayward and then double down and add that much dead cap over the next few years while trying to win games with LaMelo.

[LofJ]

coming from a knicks fan. We still have about $20 MM in cap space and its clear this offseason we are playing the long game.

I think a Randle (18 MM) for Batum (27 MM) would get you pretty close to the cap space needed to sign Hayward with having 9 MM in dead cap for 3 years.

What type of draft compensation do you think CHA would potentially to give up to get a flawed but stil productive big in Randle and not have 9 MM in dead cap space for the following few years?

With Obi drafted I think the knicks should clear that big spot up so I think it makes some sense for both sides assuming the compensation is worth while to the knicks taking on the extra money and getting a productive player.

I don't think the team would be willing to attach any draft asset to facilitate a cap clearing trade. I'm assuming they tried to find trades for Rozier, Zeller, and Batum without giving up draft compensation to create more cap space, but you never know with this team.

I gotcha. I guess how I see it is that if you are paying Hayward 120 MM over 4 years they plan on being competitive with LaMelo and Hayward and the other pieces you have so I figured having nearly 10 MM of dead cap over the next few years could be pretty damning if they want to make further moves. I think they made the decision they wanted to win now, why else spend that kinda money on Hayward?

Also if it was simply a salary dump i would understand not wanting to give up draft compensation but in theory you would be trading a useless piece in batum for a 25 year old that avg 20 and 10 last year. And im not trying to oversell Randle becuase he absolutely has his flaws. But as a 25 minute bench piece I think he could be productive to boost your second unit, while also not having that Batum stretch dead money hit the books.

Its seems odd they would committ that much money to Hayward and then double down and add that much dead cap over the next few years while trying to win games with LaMelo.

It's stupid is what it is. You're right I'd much rather have Randle, flaws and all, than see the team waste $9 million for the next 3 years.

[BigSlam]

...so I figured having nearly 10 MM of dead cap over the next few years could be pretty damning if they want to make further moves.

FYI: Next season we'll have an additional $20mill coming off the books with Zeller and Monk alone and, assuming Terry is moved in the S&T for Hayward only around $55-$60mil in committed salaries.

We're still looking petty good cap wise and under no pressure to fire sale or attach assets to anything to help other teams out of their positional backlogs.

[JMAC3]

coming from a knicks fan. We still have about $20 MM in cap space and its clear this offseason we are playing the long game.

I think a Randle (18 MM) for Batum (27 MM) would get you pretty close to the cap space needed to sign Hayward with having 9 MM in dead cap for 3 years.

What type of draft compensation do you think CHA would potentially to give up to get a flawed but stil productive big in Randle and not have 9 MM in dead cap space for the following few years?

With Obi drafted I think the knicks should clear that big spot up so I think it makes some sense for both sides assuming the compensation is worth while to the knicks taking on the extra money and getting a productive player.

I don't think the team would be willing to attach any draft asset to facilitate a cap clearing trade. I'm assuming they tried to find trades for Rozier, Zeller, and Batum without giving up draft compensation to create more cap space, but you never know with this team.

I gotcha. I guess how I see it is that if you are paying Hayward 120 MM over 4 years they plan on being competitive with LaMelo and Hayward and the other pieces you have so I figured having nearly 10 MM of dead cap over the next few years could be pretty damning if they want to make further moves. I think they made the decision they wanted to win now, why else spend that kinda money on Hayward?

Also if it was simply a salary dump i would understand not wanting to give up draft compensation but in theory you would be trading a useless piece in batum for a 25 year old that avg 20 and 10 last year. And im not trying to oversell Randle becuase he absolutely has his flaws. But as a 25 minute bench piece I think he could be productive to boost your second unit, while also not having that Batum stretch dead money hit the books.

Its seems odd they would committ that much money to Hayward and then double down and add that much dead cap over the next few years while trying to win games with LaMelo.

I think you are making a lot of sense and I think it is a fair inquiry. I know Randle has 2 years left on his but it looks like he might not be fully guaranteed.

Overall this board is super low on Rozier for some reason, so you might actually get a better result absorbing him into your cap space and giving us a small sweetener like French Frank.

[mpharris36]

...so I figured having nearly 10 MM of dead cap over the next few years could be pretty damning if they want to make further moves.

FYI: Next season we'll have an additional $20mill coming off the books with Zeller and Monk alone and, assuming Terry is moved in the S&T for Hayward only around $55-$60mil in committed salaries.

We're still looking petty good cap wise and under no pressure to fire sale or attach assets to anything to help other teams out of their positional backlogs.

maybe its just me, I never trust Danny Ainge completing a S&T...he is always up to some nonsense. If the rumors are true and he turned own Myles Turner because he wanted more from Indy for Hayward he is bafoon. Maybe that Nets blockbuster with KG and Pierce made him think he could destroy everyon in trades, but there is a reason not many teams complete deals with Boston. Ainge is a clown.

If they are willing to take Terry Rozier instead of Myles Turner that would be pretty confusing to me considering there needs. But maybe he loves Rozier.

I guess this was under the assumption that if there is no S&T with BOS...and the option is move batum with an asset for a useable piece or just take the 9 MM hit what would make more sense for CHA pov?

[mpharris36]

I don't think the team would be willing to attach any draft asset to facilitate a cap clearing trade. I'm assuming they tried to find trades for Rozier, Zeller, and Batum without giving up draft compensation to create more cap space, but you never know with this team.

I gotcha. I guess how I see it is that if you are paying Hayward 120 MM over 4 years they plan on being competitive with LaMelo and Hayward and the other pieces you have so I figured having nearly 10 MM of dead cap over the next few years could be pretty damning if they want to make further moves. I think they made the decision they wanted to win now, why else spend that kinda money on Hayward?

Also if it was simply a salary dump i would understand not wanting to give up draft compensation but in theory you would be trading a useless piece in batum for a 25 year old that avg 20 and 10 last year. And im not trying to oversell Randle becuase he absolutely has his flaws. But as a 25 minute bench piece I think he could be productive to boost your second unit, while also not having that Batum stretch dead money hit the books.

Its seems odd they would committ that much money to Hayward and then double down and add that much dead cap over the next few years while trying to win games with LaMelo.

I think you are making a lot of sense and I think it is a fair inquiry. I know Randle has 2 years left on his but it looks like he might not be fully guaranteed.

Overall this board is super low on Rozier for some reason, so you might actually get a better result absorbing him into your cap space and giving us a small sweetener like French Frank.

Only 4 MM is guaranteed for Randle for the following year...so its essentially an expiring if you wanted to treat it that way.

As for Rozier. Your talking to someone that doesn't like him at all, and you are also talking to someone that is still super high on Frank as a good role player in the NBA. So I wouldn't have any interest in that move. But there are obviously differing opinions on Frank.

I don't see anywy the knicks would just take Rozier on for free especially with him having a 2nd year on his contract and him not being a needle mover.

[BigSlam]

...so I figured having nearly 10 MM of dead cap over the next few years could be pretty damning if they want to make further moves.

FYI: Next season we'll have an additional $20mill coming off the books with Zeller and Monk alone and, assuming Terry is moved in the S&T for Hayward only around $55-$60mil in committed salaries.

We're still looking petty good cap wise and under no pressure to fire sale or attach assets to anything to help other teams out of their positional backlogs.

maybe its just me, I never trust Danny Ainge completing a S&T...he is always up to some nonsense.

It's not just you

That said, if the Turner thing was real and fell over I think it helps us - just like us last year with Walker. We didn't expect him to qualify for the super max, and then to demand it, so when he did the FO had to save face so they orchestrated the S&T for Terry (because they were never going to super max Walker).

I wonder if the same thing is happening with Douchbag this year (sorry, I meant Ainge). He went for the home run pressing for Turner +, fell on his face and now he is scrambling to get something of value to show he didn't lose Hayward for nothing.

[mpharris36]

FYI: Next season we'll have an additional $20mill coming off the books with Zeller and Monk alone and, assuming Terry is moved in the S&T for Hayward only around $55-$60mil in committed salaries.

We're still looking petty good cap wise and under no pressure to fire sale or attach assets to anything to help other teams out of their positional backlogs.

maybe its just me, I never trust Danny Ainge completing a S&T...he is always up to some nonsense.

It's not just you

That said, if the Turner thing was real and fell over I think it helps us - just like us last year with Walker. We didn't expect him to qualify for the super max, and then to demand it, so when he did the FO had to save face so they orchestrated the S&T for Terry (because they were never going to super max Walker).

I wonder if the same thing is happening with Douchbag this year (sorry, I meant Ainge). He went for the home run pressing for Turner +, fell on his face and now he is scrambling to get something of value to show he didn't lose Hayward for nothing.

Makes sense. So from what I'm seeing if you had the chance to get rid of Rozier or Batum + asset. Even though Rozier would probably start alongside lamelo or be the 6th man with Graham starting . You would rather just not talk about moving an asset and just get rid of Rozier even though he's a more impactful player to your team then Batum is.

Because you can still clear space without BOS, so I agree that Ainge really doesn't have a ton of negotiating power with you guys.

[JMAC3]

maybe its just me, I never trust Danny Ainge completing a S&T...he is always up to some nonsense.

It's not just you

That said, if the Turner thing was real and fell over I think it helps us - just like us last year with Walker. We didn't expect him to qualify for the super max, and then to demand it, so when he did the FO had to save face so they orchestrated the S&T for Terry (because they were never going to super max Walker).

I wonder if the same thing is happening with Douchbag this year (sorry, I meant Ainge). He went for the home run pressing for Turner +, fell on his face and now he is scrambling to get something of value to show he didn't lose Hayward for nothing.

Makes sense. So from what I'm seeing if you had the chance to get rid of Rozier or Batum + asset. Even though Rozier would probably start alongside lamelo or be the 6th man with Graham starting . You would rather just not talk about moving an asset and just get rid of Rozier even though he's a more impactful player to your team then Batum is.

Because you can still clear space without BOS, so I agree that Ainge really doesn't have a ton of negotiating power with you guys.

Assume we could dump Batum for an asset. Really what we would be doing is giving up an asset to have 9 extra million in caps space the following two years.

So we have to ask ourselves

Would I rather have Bridges or 9 million in cap space? Bridges
Would I rather have a first round pick or 9 million in cap space? First round pick
Would I rather have Monk or 9 million in cap space? Only one I would consider, but i would have to think about it

I assume that is what you had mind when you mentioned an asset? was there any other idea you had?

[BigSlam]

...Even though Rozier would probably start alongside lamelo or be the 6th man with Graham starting .

I really like Terry. I was super impressed by him last season, wayyyyyy more than I thought I would be (I had pretty low expectations, but I am of the opinion that with Graham breaking out last year and now the addition of Ball and Hayward that Terry has become redundant. That's not really a knock on Terry, it's just that the landscape of our team has changed dramatically since we signed him. For example, had Graham not busted out or if we didn't lotto up to Ball then Terry would likely be a "must keep" for us.

the option is move batum with an asset for a useable piece or just take the 9 MM hit what would make more sense for CHA pov?

Sorry, neglected to respond to this ^ previously.

That, of course, depends on what the asset is. For example: You want a top 50 protected pick - sure.....but I'm guessing that's not the type of asset you have in mind and if that's the case, I'd rather just eat the money because cap space is not a concern at all (assuming the S&T with Terry).

And if Batum was going out I sure as sh*t wouldn't want to be bringing back in a salary over $9mil a year.

[mpharris36]

It's not just you

That said, if the Turner thing was real and fell over I think it helps us - just like us last year with Walker. We didn't expect him to qualify for the super max, and then to demand it, so when he did the FO had to save face so they orchestrated the S&T for Terry (because they were never going to super max Walker).

I wonder if the same thing is happening with Douchbag this year (sorry, I meant Ainge). He went for the home run pressing for Turner +, fell on his face and now he is scrambling to get something of value to show he didn't lose Hayward for nothing.

Makes sense. So from what I'm seeing if you had the chance to get rid of Rozier or Batum + asset. Even though Rozier would probably start alongside lamelo or be the 6th man with Graham starting . You would rather just not talk about moving an asset and just get rid of Rozier even though he's a more impactful player to your team then Batum is.

Because you can still clear space without BOS, so I agree that Ainge really doesn't have a ton of negotiating power with you guys.

Assume we could dump Batum for an asset. Really what we would be doing is giving up an asset to have 9 extra million in caps space the following two years.

So we have to ask ourselves

Would I rather have Bridges or 9 million in cap space? Bridges
Would I rather have a first round pick or 9 million in cap space? First round pick
Would I rather have Monk or 9 million in cap space? Only one I would consider, but i would have to think about it

I assume that is what you had mind when you mentioned an asset? was there any other idea you had?

Yes correct, to an extent, that is in theory what I would be asking for but obviously the 1st round pick wouldn't be a straight up 1st round pick. I'm not that crazy . Whether it potentially be a swap rights pick (we own our pick and DAL 1st round pick) potentially protect it like top 10 swap meaning that if you are 12 and Dallas is 18 its just a 12 for 18 swap. Otherwise it defaults to a couple 2nd round picks.

Just trying to get creative. I'm guessing with us drafting Quickly we probably don't have any interest in Monk since they are actually pretty similar players. But if there was a way to re-route Monk for draft asset that could work as well.

I am considering this just to clear the road for Obi to play without having the duplication with Randle.

But from what I'm gathering you also see no value in acquiring randle because most of your scenarios are just comparing 9 MM in dead cap space for a few years without the acquisition of Randle. Now if you don't think he would help then I would totally understand your logic on just saying its between cap savings and the asset...instead of cap savings + the value of upgrading batum to Randle for that said asset.

[JMAC3]

@Slam

I think the biggest disconnect that we have is I am about collecting as many assets as we can and not just giving away players who have value. We can argue about Rozier value level all day, but based on contracts that were given out today and the contracts that will be given out next summer Rozier will have some value regardless how buried on our bench is.

We have the MLE of 4.7 million available and if we don't use it we lose it. If my options are to use it on Kent Bazemore and let him sit on our bench or not use the MLE... I would rather just sign him to let him sit on our bench. Why because he is a positive asset. Somebody will be willing to trade a 2nd round pick for him at some point and a second round pick is better than nothing.

[mpharris36]

...Even though Rozier would probably start alongside lamelo or be the 6th man with Graham starting .

I really like Terry. I was super impressed by him last season, wayyyyyy more than I thought I would be (I had pretty low expectations, but I am of the opinion that with Graham breaking out last year and now the addition of Ball and Hayward that Terry has become redundant. That's not really a knock on Terry, it's just that the landscape of our team has changed dramatically since we signed him. For example, had Graham not busted out or if we didn't lotto up to Ball then Terry would likely be a "must keep" for us.

the option is move batum with an asset for a useable piece or just take the 9 MM hit what would make more sense for CHA pov?

Sorry, neglected to respond to this ^ previously.

That, of course, depends on what the asset is. For example: You want a top 50 protected pick - sure.....but I'm guessing that's not the type of asset you have in mind and if that's the case, I'd rather just eat the money because cap space is not a concern at all (assuming the S&T with Terry).

And if Batum was going out I sure as sh*t wouldn't want to be bringing back in a salary over $9mil a year.

Gotcha, I always kinda saw Rozier as a scoring combo guard that could play a little defense. So I think the fit next to LaMelo actually makes sense because he can space the floor and take on the better defensive assignment, because LaMelo is known to have his deficiencies there and I'm not sure Graham isn't that type of defender either (even though I really haven't focused on him much on that end) he just kinda jump on the scene and a real offensive threat.

So that is why I guess I saw some value in keeping Rozier because he is the best defender of the bench and is a really good shooter. But if you see that duplication it makes sense to just move Rozier rather then losing something to move Batum.

[Braggins]

Does this complicate our ability to extend an offer to Graham now?

If nothing changes with the Batum stretch situation and Rozier isn't moved then they'll have 71 million in committed cap next season before factoring in any cap holds. Grahams cap hold is only 2 million, so they can resign him after using the rest of the cap and still go over the line. Monks hold is 13 million, then you also have empty roster spot cap holds. So, if Monk has a good enough year that we want to resign him and end up keeping his cap hold, they would be at about 89 million (71 + 2(Graham) + 13(Monk) + 3.2(4 empty spot)). That means they would have about 20 million in cap space to use on whatever before resigning Graham and Monk. So, as is, things would be pretty tight if they wanted to resign Graham and Monk. They can definitely resign Graham, especially if he takes a reasonable deal, but Monk could be iffy. Monks salary would probably end up being less than his cap hold unless he really broke out, so he probably wouldn't put them as far over the cap as it might seem, but its still a borderline situation imo.

When you really look at the cap breakdown, I think we actually have to get rid of Rozier and avoid stretching Batum. This would create an additional 27 million in space over the next few years, which would put them at about 63 million with Graham and Monks cap holds next year. If they don't then they aren't going to have much left to sign any more decent free agents or resign whichever young guys end up panning out over the next few years since MJ refuses to ever pay the luxury tax.

This Hayward deal is going to be an albatross in a few years.

[JMAC3]

Yes correct, to an extent, that is in theory what I would be asking for but obviously the 1st round pick wouldn't be a straight up 1st round pick. I'm not that crazy . Whether it potentially be a swap rights pick (we own our pick and DAL 1st round pick) potentially protect it like top 10 swap meaning that if you are 12 and Dallas is 18 its just a 12 for 18 swap. Otherwise it defaults to a couple 2nd round picks.

Just trying to get creative. I'm guessing with us drafting Quickly we probably don't have any interest in Monk since they are actually pretty similar players. But if there was a way to re-route Monk for draft asset that could work as well.

I am consider this just simply do to the fact that I obviously want to clear the road for Obi to play without having the duplication with Randle.

But from what I'm gather you also see no value in acquiring randle because most of your scenarios are just comparing 9 MM in dead cap space for a few years without the acquisition of Randle. Now if you don't think he would help then I would totally understand your logic on just saying its between cap savings and the asset...instead of cap savings + the value of upgrading batum to Randle for that said asset.

Yeah, I don't know the ins and outs of Randle value as a player. However assuming we don't see him as much of an asset we would be avoiding the dead cap, but it wouldn't be the full dead cap assuming we waived Randle. As you mentioned he is guaranteed 4 million in the second year so we would only be saving 5 million off the dead cap Batum Scenario for that year, would save us 9 million still in the third year.

I think it is something to consider, but I also think most are overblowing this 9 million dead cap (most teams have bad contracts on their books) We will still have 20-25 Million in cap space and we do not lose any assets.