CBSSports: Teams are hoarding less CAP space this year & possibly going forward. Bull are an example

[MalagaBulls]

Read on Twitter

Relevant Bulls part of article:

The Bulls had a number of partially guaranteed players that they could have waived in order to carve out space. Instead, they traded one of those players, Tomas Satoransky, to match money in the Lonzo Ball deal and Thaddeus Young to do so for DeMar DeRozan. They never could have created the space necessary to sign both players outright without spamming the stretch provision and leaving themselves with years of dead money on their books. By using sign and trades, the Bulls not only landed both but, as we'll discuss later, were able to use the full mid-level exception to bring in Alex Caruso as well.

The appeal for the trading team is obvious. They get something back for players they would otherwise lose for nothing. Yes, it means taking on some extra salary, but teams have grown more willing to attach meaningful assets to get these deals done. San Antonio got a first-round pick for DeRozan when he clearly was not part of their long-term plans. In years past, with cap space more plentiful, they might not have had the leverage to get that pick, but with so many teams operating above the cap, DeRozan needed the sign and trade to get paid what he wanted.

But what has become clear in recent years is that teams are growing significantly less interested in making the sacrifices that are usually necessary to create cap space. They don't want to waste seasons by refusing to give players long-term deals, and agents don't want to let them. They don't want to let their own free agents leave for nothing when they could be kept to support their major additions, and the convergence of all of the factors discussed above means that they no longer have to. If teams no longer need to use cap space to get the best players, they aren't going to invest the time and assets it takes to create that cap space, and if that cap space disappears, the entire player-movement ecosystem as we know it is going to have to adjust. 

[fleet]

The only teams that can play around with capspace and reasonably hope to win that game (for the biggest fish) are California and Florida teams. NYC maybe, considering Durant. So AK sees that reality and decides this summer was the only way forward. I assume besides tanking. Prior Bulls regime never fully committed to either one. Considering the above conditions and theories, the Bulls are not necessarily suddenly a hot destination for certain players, as much as a decent place for certain players to land for an opportunity to become somewhat overpaid. Hell Lauri found himself a spot too.

[Axl Rose]

Another way the old regime would have been woefully outdated.

[PaKii94]

But but flexibility!!!!

[kodo]

There's little point to it because everything is moving via S&T trade right now for higher caliber players. Sure you can sign Daniel Theis with just cap space, but above a certain level they are almost always traded instead of signed with cap space.

[gf2020hotmail]

The article kind of talks about it but obviously I think it comes down to long term planning by smart teams and seeing weaker free agent crops. I think it has to do with a lot of weak drafts from the middle-late part of the 2010s. There's just less sexy players who are entering the stage where they will be unrestricted after their second contract.

I think the trend will eventually reverse, most likely for the 24-25 (Towns, Booker, Sabonis and then a bunch of old guys with player options who might switch teams one more time) and even more likely 25-26 (Giannis, AD, Tatum, Mitchell, Ingram, Murray) free agency windows. Not all those guys will extend especially since they'll be money everywhere due to the cap spiking.

[coldfish]

Lots of good points.

I'll just add: The worst contracts are normally given out by teams with capspace. Tanking for capspace is not only a few down years before hand getting ready but most of the time you end up overpaying for trash and then have to deal with the consequences of that.

[Evil_Headband]

Lots of good points.

I'll just add: The worst contracts are normally given out by teams with capspace. Tanking for capspace is not only a few down years before hand getting ready but most of the time you end up overpaying for trash and then have to deal with the consequences of that.

Speaking of tanking, the article doesn’t mention it but I think the change in lottery odds may also fuel these changes. If teams see less value in tanking, they will be more apt to keep salary on the books.

[dougthonus]

If you look at the last 5 years, big player movement:
Moved due to cap space
Durant, LeBron, Kawhi, Kyrie

Moved via trade
Harden, Anthony Davis, Chris Paul, Paul George, Holiday, Westbrook, Vucevic

Moved via S&T with a team that didn't naturally have cap room
Butler, Lowry, DeRozan

Not sure if I missed anyone there, will be interesting to see how the trend plays out. Lots of players are realizing they can extend early and then just demand a trade though like Harden, so I think that's actually perhaps one of the big driving factors.

Of the guys who "demanded" trades where the feeling wasn't mutual and the team probably would have liked to keep their guy, you have:
Harden and Davis

For the most part, the thing I think will be tough about this situation if you plan to build this way is that the guys who move via trade where the team would rather keep them (note these are the only top 10 players on this list) both cost a kings ransom in draft capital and picked the team they went to.

So if you do want to go this route and you do want to acquire a top 10 player, you need to have a kings ransom in draft capital, you need the player to demand out, and you need the player to exclusively want to go to your team. That might be the model going forward, but if so, it's not really an easy model to take advantage of.

[Grodoboldo]

Lots of players are realizing they can extend early and then just demand a trade though like Harden, so I think that's actually perhaps one of the big driving factors.

If Philly's situation with Simmons gets really ugly, I wonder if the league does something about it. Even in Portland if things go off the rails. I understand when a player demands a trade with one, maybe two years left on his deal because he has the leverage of leaving in free agency. But with 4 years left? Yeah, you signed that contract willingly, deal with it.

[dougthonus]

Lots of players are realizing they can extend early and then just demand a trade though like Harden, so I think that's actually perhaps one of the big driving factors.

If Philly's situation with Simmons gets really ugly, I wonder if the league does something about it. Even in Portland if things go off the rails. I understand when a player demands a trade with one, maybe two years left on his deal because he has the leverage of leaving in free agency. But with 4 years left? Yeah, you signed that contract willingly, deal with it.

Not sure what the league can do really. You could argue a trade demand voids the contract and the team isn't obligated to pay, but that wouldn't help because you'd get more by agreeing to a trade than you would by voiding the contract. In the end, if someone doesn't want to be at a place anymore there is little you can do other than part ways.

[ChettheJet]

I think teams see that having cap space isn't great path to take because agents and players decide where they want to go and who they want to either play with or bring in. It's no longer about organizations seeing this player or that guy being a good fit, a leader, key player or whatever, creating space and making him an offer. More often than not the choice is then, spend the money on second o third line players or trade the space for picks and bad contracts. The top 75-100 players decide where they want to go and when and sign short deals with player options so they have the 'out' when they want it and can join the other group of top players that they choose.

In the old days sure the Bulls got played and were used as bargaining chips so players could go to the teams they really preferred. Today it's even more in the players' favor, they and their agents know who comes up as a FA and when so they structure everybody's contract so the guys in a given camp can maneuver to get to a given team together. It doesn't matter about the city, the marketing opportunities, the weather, it's all about players and agents forming the top end of a roster that they want wherever it is the easiest to do and just filling in the bottom 10 spots with minimum guys.

[Wingy]

If you look at the last 5 years, big player movement:
Moved due to cap space
Durant, LeBron, Kawhi, Kyrie

Moved via trade
Harden, Anthony Davis, Chris Paul, Paul George, Holiday, Westbrook, Vucevic

Moved via S&T with a team that didn't naturally have cap room
Butler, Lowry, DeRozan

Not sure if I missed anyone there, will be interesting to see how the trend plays out. Lots of players are realizing they can extend early and then just demand a trade though like Harden, so I think that's actually perhaps one of the big driving factors.

Of the guys who "demanded" trades where the feeling wasn't mutual and the team probably would have liked to keep their guy, you have:
Harden and Davis

For the most part, the thing I think will be tough about this situation if you plan to build this way is that the guys who move via trade where the team would rather keep them (note these are the only top 10 players on this list) both cost a kings ransom in draft capital and picked the team they went to.

So if you do want to go this route and you do want to acquire a top 10 player, you need to have a kings ransom in draft capital, you need the player to demand out, and you need the player to exclusively want to go to your team. That might be the model going forward, but if so, it's not really an easy model to take advantage of.

The picks are obviously meaningful from the team perspective, but it still boils down to the same thing in either old or new model - the player has to want you.

That’s why I will never understand all the hand-wringing and we’re screwed type posts stemming from the Vuc trade. We had a pretty bare cupboard and no star player was going to pick us in that state. Yet some folks seemed to act like that wasn’t the case...and we could actually win over LA, Miami, and NY. Look at your list...virtually all of them are headed to those three. That’s why I always felt good about AK’s path starting w/Vuc.

[Evil_Headband]

The top 75-100 players decide where they want to go and when and sign short deals with player options so they have the 'out' when they want it and can join the other group of top players that they choose.

I agree it can work that way, to a point, for All-Star types and certainly superstars but options are much more limited for the tiers below. Take DeRozan, for example. How many teams could he realistically choose from?

[Wingy]

The only teams that can play around with capspace and reasonably hope to win that game (for the biggest fish) are California and Florida teams. NYC maybe, considering Durant. So AK sees that reality and decides this summer was the only way forward. I assume besides tanking. Prior Bulls regime never fully committed to either one. Considering the above conditions and theories, the Bulls are not necessarily suddenly a hot destination for certain players, as much as a decent place for certain players to land for an opportunity to become somewhat overpaid. Hell Lauri found himself a spot too.

Completely agree. Flexibility wasn’t going to get us anything given we’re not one of those glamour cities, and didn’t have a transcendent superstar already drafted.

AK recognized this reality, and acted with an aggressive plan framed within that context. Inability to recognize this truth crippled the GarPax philosophy.

Interestingly, though mortgaging picks, AK has also maintained a decent amount of cap flexibility w/his roster makeover...so there’s a lot to be content about given our circumstances.

[kodo]

Jerami Grant was a S&T. I know he's not a Lebron, but as a realistic move many teams could have made I think this is a good example, versus say signing Lebron outright w/ cap space which isn't realistic for 90% of NBA teams.

With guys like KD & Lebron, it's really out of the team's hands. They're going where they're going and the only input any team has is to say "Yes" when they and their camp decides. Jerami Grant, he was willing to go anywhere where he could get a bigger role. Malcolm Brogdon was also a S&T. Relevant to us because a lot of us complained bitterly about signing Sato instead of Brogdon...we were probably trying to sign Brogdon outright but he was S&T'd instead.

[Grodoboldo]

Lots of players are realizing they can extend early and then just demand a trade though like Harden, so I think that's actually perhaps one of the big driving factors.

If Philly's situation with Simmons gets really ugly, I wonder if the league does something about it. Even in Portland if things go off the rails. I understand when a player demands a trade with one, maybe two years left on his deal because he has the leverage of leaving in free agency. But with 4 years left? Yeah, you signed that contract willingly, deal with it.

Not sure what the league can do really. You could argue a trade demand voids the contract and the team isn't obligated to pay, but that wouldn't help because you'd get more by agreeing to a trade than you would by voiding the contract. In the end, if someone doesn't want to be at a place anymore there is little you can do other than part ways.

Actually, I think the player could be liable for breach of contract, having to pay really big bucks to the team.

[khufure]

Lots of good points.

I'll just add: The worst contracts are normally given out by teams with capspace. Tanking for capspace is not only a few down years before hand getting ready but most of the time you end up overpaying for trash and then have to deal with the consequences of that.

I was just looking over a list of the worst contracts in NBA history(https://www.yardbarker.com/nba/articles/the_worst_nba_contracts_of_all_time/s1__29861057#slide_17). It's kind of crazy how many were signed with HUGE red flags, especially knee or health ones. I love him but Noah's contract with NY is a prime example, dude's body was obviously shot. Or Curry's contract with NY. Parsons with Dallas. Felicio for 4 years with us. How do people making millions / year to make decisions keep making such obvious blunders? Even if the person making the decision isn't the best, at that salary they should have a heap of actual experts to poll.

[dougthonus]

If Philly's situation with Simmons gets really ugly, I wonder if the league does something about it. Even in Portland if things go off the rails. I understand when a player demands a trade with one, maybe two years left on his deal because he has the leverage of leaving in free agency. But with 4 years left? Yeah, you signed that contract willingly, deal with it.

Not sure what the league can do really. You could argue a trade demand voids the contract and the team isn't obligated to pay, but that wouldn't help because you'd get more by agreeing to a trade than you would by voiding the contract. In the end, if someone doesn't want to be at a place anymore there is little you can do other than part ways.

Actually, I think the player could be liable for breach of contract, having to pay really big bucks to the team.

I don't think you'd ever be able to claw money already paid back. The team received the benefits of your play for that money already. You'd only be able to stop paying future money, but again, that doesn't really help the teams.

[League Circles]

Why is "cap", as in "salary cap", so often capitalized as "CAP" on this forum? I've never understood it.

IMO, any team with a player that makes a trade demand should be allowed to sit that player indefinitely, without pay, and maybe have some fines paid by the player to the team, and the team should get a cap exception or something to replace the player. It's so unacceptable from an entertainment aspect to allow it to go on like it has.