2021 Cap Projections

[payitforward]

What do we give Matthews?

Read on Twitter

I'd sign him to that deal in a heartbeat. Heck, I'd sign him to double that deal in a heartbeat. $13.5M over 4 years with the 4th year a team option. Sold!

Agreed.
I think he gets 3/9M when its all said and done

Makes sense. But a 4th year option would be great...

[payitforward]

We've moved off the subject of the cap pretty quickly & instead we're seeing trades proposed in this thread. To return to the subject:

After the Gafford trade, we now have some pretty decent visibility on what the core of this team will look like next year.

We have 8 players under contract, assuming we opt in with Gafford and opt out with Gil:

Code: Select all

PG Westbrook  44.2M
SG Beal       34.5M
SF Hutchinson  4.0M
SF Avdija      4.7M
PF Hachimura   4.9M
PF Bertans    16.0M
C  Bryant      8.7M
C  Gafford     1.8M
TOTAL        119.0M

Optimistically, we can sign Mathews with Early Bird Rights for $1.5M. We can match any expected offer, so if someone offers more, we can still retain him. If Neto can be retained for the vet minimum ($1.6M) or the non-Bird exception ($1.7M), I'd keep him too, or another equivalent backup PG for that cost. That gives us 10 guys, 2 at each position, for 120.7M....

You added Neto's $1.7m but not Mathews $1.5m -- should be $122m for 10 guys.

To be safe, let's take it to $2.5m for Mathews. Now, let's add a R1 pick at $5.5m & a R2 pick (somehow...) at $1m, & we are at...

Code: Select all

PG Westbrook  44.2M
PG Neto        1.7M
SG Beal       34.5M
SG Mathews     2.5M
SF Hutchinson  4.0M
SF Avdija      4.7M
PF Hachimura   4.9M
PF Bertans    16.0M
C  Bryant      8.7M
C  Gafford     1.8M
?  R1 pick     5.5M
?  R2 pick     1.0M
TOTAL        129.5M

That's 12 guys. Assume we add 2 veteran minimum guys @$1.6m each, which gets us to 14 guys at $132.7m.

...The luxtax threshold is $136.6. So it looks like, at best, we will have $7M to spend on a decent free agent if we want to stay under the tax, less if we land a top 4 pick....

Make that @$4m rather than $7m. But, if we are able to sign Mathews for the optimal bargain salary nate is using, then it's more like $5m for a FA.

A couple of points: I included a R2 pick, even though we don't have one. Obviously, we'd need to find someone who wants to sell one! But, it didn't seem right to think that a team in the situation we are in would add only one rookie.

[pcbothwel]

Also... I think we'll end up closer to 140M. If by the deadline we need to get under the tax, we would be able to move Hutchinson, Bryant, or Bertans with not too much effort. That also doesn't include a possible full sell off including Beal.

[payitforward]

Not a lot of maneuvering room. It's hard for me to see where this team can be heading in the near term -- unless of course both Rui & Deni become very good very quickly.

[payitforward]

Also... I think we'll end up closer to 140M. If by the deadline we need to get under the tax, we would be able to move Hutchinson, Bryant, or Bertans with not too much effort. That also doesn't include a possible full sell off including Beal.

Hard for me to see why this team would warrant going into the luxury tax.

[pcbothwel]

Also... I think we'll end up closer to 140M. If by the deadline we need to get under the tax, we would be able to move Hutchinson, Bryant, or Bertans with not too much effort. That also doesn't include a possible full sell off including Beal.

Hard for me to see why this team would warrant going into the luxury tax.

Of course you would
Ted wont tell them to stay above or below the lux tax. He'll provide them with a budget he is willing to spend on payroll depending on how successful the team is.
I pointed to some easy salary to move by the deadline should they disappoint and need to get under.

[payitforward]

Hey, I don't care what happens to Ted's $$ -- he wants to pay the lux tax in order to compete to get into the playoffs, it's fine w/ me!

But, if you're in lux tax territory, then the "budget" you provide isn't to spend on "payroll;" it's to spend on payroll plus heavy penalties.

I don't know what makes you so sure it'd be easy to move Hutchison. Or -- especially! -- Bertans. Plus, if you have to move a player who has value but you can't take anything back, then you've paid a high price to get under the tax line. Not to mention that if you're over a barrel, you usually don't get to negotiate the best deal.

Edit: in fairness, I don't know what you have in mind that would get us to $140m. I.e. given what we already know about salary, who are we to acquire that will take us from the 17-30 team we are today (to which a high R1 pick rookie will have been added) to a team that's worth paying luxury tax?

So... how do you see us getting there?

[FAH1223]

I laugh at the 'blow it up' talk when we only have 2 guys on the roster from 2 years ago. And only 1 guy left from our last postseason appearance 3 years ago.

[payitforward]

I laugh at the 'blow it up' talk when we only have 2 guys on the roster from 2 years ago. And only 1 guy left from our last postseason appearance 3 years ago.

I've made this point about 100 times; no one seems to get it.

[payitforward]

So... once again... with Gafford's option & Mathews on a new deal & say $5m to our high R1 rookie, we are at $126m+ for 10 players --
Brad, Russ, Davis, Bryant, Rui, Deni, Hutchison, Mathews, Gafford & the rookie.

The lux tax line at $136m, but let's work with pcbothwei's idea that our initial payroll may be "closer to $140m." We have @$14m to work with, & we need 5 players.

We will need a few cheap players, obviously, so suppose for a moment that we pick up both Gill's & Bonga's options, & we've bought a R2 pick & added a player that way. Seems like we might need to sign Winston (unless our R1 pick had been a PG). He'd be @$1m, right? That takes us to $131m w/ 1 open roster spot.

So we have about $9m & the mid-level exception to use: who is the guy?

Anybody have a good idea?

(edit: of course, the numbers could be slightly different -- a really high R1 pick if we're lucky... no Bonga but someone even cheaper instead, etc. -- but, even in this case, the picture doesn't really change much does it?)

[nate33]

I laugh at the 'blow it up' talk when we only have 2 guys on the roster from 2 years ago. And only 1 guy left from our last postseason appearance 3 years ago.

I've made this point about 100 times; no one seems to get it.

By "blow it up", people mean to give up on the dream of trying to win now and fully commit to a rebuild. It's not just about roster turnover. It's about getting younger and committing to developing that youth, even if that means losing in the short term.

[doclinkin]

I laugh at the 'blow it up' talk when we only have 2 guys on the roster from 2 years ago. And only 1 guy left from our last postseason appearance 3 years ago.

I've made this point about 100 times; no one seems to get it.

By "blow it up", people mean to give up on the dream of trying to win now and fully commit to a rebuild. It's not just about roster turnover. It's about getting younger and committing to developing that youth, even if that means losing in the short term.

And by extension it suggests committing to multiple years of lottery. Being willing to bottom out in order to earn better chances at that top spot. Now with flattened lotto odds it may be less rewarding to tank, but even with lower odds there are still players that are worth it. If you were a GM with a 40% chance at the next generational player, you'd still be happy about those odds. For many teams a 40% chance at a complete franchise turnaround for 4 years or so is worth a year of lost revenue in ticket sales and advertising.

[nate33]

I've made this point about 100 times; no one seems to get it.

By "blow it up", people mean to give up on the dream of trying to win now and fully commit to a rebuild. It's not just about roster turnover. It's about getting younger and committing to developing that youth, even if that means losing in the short term.

And by extension it suggests committing to multiple years of lottery. Being willing to bottom out in order to earn better chances at that top spot. Now with flattened lotto odds it may be less rewarding to tank, but even with lower odds there are still players that are worth it. If you were a GM with a 40% chance at the next generational player, you'd still be happy about those odds. For many teams a 40% chance at a complete franchise turnaround for 4 years or so is worth a year of lost revenue in ticket sales and advertising.

Yes. And I'm not even suggesting they tank. I just expect an OKC-style season or two. It's fine to try and win, just do it with young guys carrying a heavy burden, while developing a team culture. Memphis is another example.

[Kanyewest]

I laugh at the 'blow it up' talk when we only have 2 guys on the roster from 2 years ago. And only 1 guy left from our last postseason appearance 3 years ago.

You can blow up a roster multiple times.

[FAH1223]

I laugh at the 'blow it up' talk when we only have 2 guys on the roster from 2 years ago. And only 1 guy left from our last postseason appearance 3 years ago.

You can blow up a roster multiple times.

Of course.

But I’m becoming more of the mind we move Westbrook and keep Beal. But this is all lottery dependent.

[dckingsfan]

We've moved off the subject of the cap pretty quickly & instead we're seeing trades proposed in this thread. To return to the subject:

After the Gafford trade, we now have some pretty decent visibility on what the core of this team will look like next year.

We have 8 players under contract, assuming we opt in with Gafford and opt out with Gil:

Code: Select all

PG Westbrook  44.2M
SG Beal       34.5M
SF Hutchinson  4.0M
SF Avdija      4.7M
PF Hachimura   4.9M
PF Bertans    16.0M
C  Bryant      8.7M
C  Gafford     1.8M
TOTAL        119.0M

Optimistically, we can sign Mathews with Early Bird Rights for $1.5M. We can match any expected offer, so if someone offers more, we can still retain him. If Neto can be retained for the vet minimum ($1.6M) or the non-Bird exception ($1.7M), I'd keep him too, or another equivalent backup PG for that cost. That gives us 10 guys, 2 at each position, for 120.7M....

You added Neto's $1.7m but not Mathews $1.5m -- should be $122m for 10 guys.

To be safe, let's take it to $2.5m for Mathews. Now, let's add a R1 pick at $5.5m & a R2 pick (somehow...) at $1m, & we are at...

Code: Select all

PG Westbrook  44.2M
PG Neto        1.7M
SG Beal       34.5M
SG Mathews     2.5M
SF Hutchinson  4.0M
SF Avdija      4.7M
PF Hachimura   4.9M
PF Bertans    16.0M
C  Bryant      8.7M
C  Gafford     1.8M
?  R1 pick     5.5M
?  R2 pick     1.0M
TOTAL        129.5M

That's 12 guys. Assume we add 2 veteran minimum guys @$1.6m each, which gets us to 14 guys at $132.7m.

...The luxtax threshold is $136.6. So it looks like, at best, we will have $7M to spend on a decent free agent if we want to stay under the tax, less if we land a top 4 pick....

Make that @$4m rather than $7m. But, if we are able to sign Mathews for the optimal bargain salary nate is using, then it's more like $5m for a FA.

A couple of points: I included a R2 pick, even though we don't have one. Obviously, we'd need to find someone who wants to sell one! But, it didn't seem right to think that a team in the situation we are in would add only one rookie.

Good to be back on point with this thread... The amazing improvement of Gafford really helps (opinion). In my mind he is now the starting C for next year.

Hutchinson is a team option, right? I would lose him.

I would hope as you guys do that we can resign Neto and Len at very reasonable prices. They seem to be a good fit.

That gives us the following plus our R1 pick. Which is really 4 young players. I probably should consider Mathews and Bryant young players but I don't.

Code: Select all

Westbrook   Neto   
Beal        Mathews    
Avdija      Bertans
Rui         Bertans   
Gafford     Bryant     Len

When you look at the draft and then look at this lineup it really does allow you to take BPA, which is mostly guards and SFs (you always should) without consequence.

[nate33]

I think his team option was already claimed by Chicago (and therefore transferred to us). You have to opt in on a rookie scale contract's 4th year, at the start of Year 3.

[dckingsfan]

I think his team option was already claimed by Chicago (and therefore transferred to us). You have to opt in on a rookie scale contract's 4th year, at the start of Year 3.

Ah, I looked for that but couldn't find it... then:

Code: Select all

Westbrook   Neto   
Beal        Mathews    
Avdija      Hutchinson
Rui         Bertans   
Gafford     Bryant     Len

Still means BPA and not for "need".

[payitforward]

I laugh at the 'blow it up' talk when we only have 2 guys on the roster from 2 years ago. And only 1 guy left from our last postseason appearance 3 years ago.

I've made this point about 100 times; no one seems to get it.

By "blow it up", people mean to give up on the dream of trying to win now and fully commit to a rebuild. It's not just about roster turnover. It's about getting younger and committing to developing that youth, even if that means losing in the short term.

Fair enough -- I'd say we still qualify, wouldn't you?

If you change 13 of your 15 players in 2 years, you are "blowing it up." How not? Especially since we didn't acquire a bunch of older players in those moves. Between Wall & Westbrook it's a small difference. Otherwise, the only real veteran we've added, w/ the intention that he is part of our core, is Bertans.

In fairness, we do feature Beal & Westbrook, & we play them a lot of minutes. But, somehow -- until this recent pleasant stretch -- we've managed to be very good at "losing in the short term" all the same!

[payitforward]

By "blow it up", people mean to give up on the dream of trying to win now and fully commit to a rebuild. It's not just about roster turnover. It's about getting younger and committing to developing that youth, even if that means losing in the short term.

And by extension it suggests committing to multiple years of lottery. Being willing to bottom out in order to earn better chances at that top spot. Now with flattened lotto odds it may be less rewarding to tank, but even with lower odds there are still players that are worth it. If you were a GM with a 40% chance at the next generational player, you'd still be happy about those odds. For many teams a 40% chance at a complete franchise turnaround for 4 years or so is worth a year of lost revenue in ticket sales and advertising.

Yes. And I'm not even suggesting they tank. I just expect an OKC-style season or two. It's fine to try and win, just do it with young guys carrying a heavy burden, while developing a team culture. Memphis is another example.

Hmmm. Nate, aren't you strongly supporting a tank in some other threads?

I thought you'd pretty firmly converted to "give up & start over" some time this season. Am I wrong?