thecampster

And you still owe me the certificate of authenticity with certified DNA test results...

Before any more Tom Foolery is discussed, please head over to this post and look at the most recent roster makeup/numbers.

Senior moment. Forgot to adjust Trae's salary with the new cap.

• Tax apron: $156,983,000
•  

On 6/26/2022 at 12:22 PM, thecampster said:

 

Player	2022-23	With Waived
Trae Young	$36,600,000
John Collins	$23,500,000
Danilo Gallinari	$21,450,000	$5,000,000
Clint Capela	$19,706,897
Bogdanovic	$18,000,000
Kevin Huerter	$14,508,929
De'Andre Hunter	$9,835,881
Onyeka Okongwu	$6,395,160
AJ Griffin	$2,907,300
Jalen Johnson	$2,792,520
Total	$155,696,687
Cap Projected	$122,000,000
LT Projected	$149,000,000

 

Without Danilo - $139,246,687

Added some context to help those still struggling with some future moves concepts.  3rd column is salary impact.

1 hour ago, NekiEcko said:

Yeah, his market sucks (and he is a good player, I wonder why) but maybe he could be the one that will be traded soon.

@Sothron and @thecampster has been very quiet since all of this is happening, so that means something is happening or they are tired.

exhausted....feeling like a gumball machine

18 minutes ago, RandomFan said:

Yeah, but the question now becomes can we do a frontloaded contract for him where his 1st year salary reaches that threshold, and then a descending scale after that? I assume the answer is yes, but I don't pretend to know for sure. 

• Players signed via cap space or using Non-Bird rights are limited to 5% raises (or deductions) of the first year of the contract (raises/deductions do not compound).

• Players signed via Bird rights or Early Bird rights are limited to 8% raises (or deductions) of the first year of the contract (raises/deductions do not compound).

Technically they could but the decrease would be minimal. It would be great salary cap wise for every contract to be this way...not so much for the player.

1 hour ago, RandomFan said:

I know you know this, but posting for the board regarding Ayton, it's fair to point out this is based on a max 4 year contract. It changes things dramatically if he doesn't get the max he's looking for, but instead is signed to something like a 4 year $100m to 110m contract. (This is all assuming PHX wouldn't just match a less than max offer instead of trading him, which who knows if they would or wouldn't) I only bring this up because of the many rumors that nobody seems to want to pay him a max, so this is becoming more of a possibility. 

Getting Ayton on something closer to a $25m yearly avg makes him much more palatable in my view. The big problem would then become trade value to acquire him in the first place, since the first year BYC value at his max contract is barely enough to cover Capela's salary in a trade. A lesser yearly avg would mean they couldn't take Capela back in trade. 

Is it possible to frontload his offer to where he would be paid close to the $30m in his first year and then have the following salaries descending per year? Or at least a reduced flat amount for years 2 thru 4? 

Very much this. I think the Hawks appear to be very cognizant of getting OO into the starting lineup immediately. It's one of the things that helps explain the "Capela is a goner" tidbit we got from Sothron previously. There are really only 3 reasons Capela should receive that kind of treatment: 1) if he was a malcontent cancer on the team, and we know that's probably not the case; 2) If he's just not worth his contract, and that's probably not the case either; or 3) he needs to be traded to make room for another player as a starter, whether that's someone at his position or if it's someone that isn't a good pairing with him. OO17. 

#3 seems to make the most sense of why the Hawks would be pushing to move Capela off the roster. I personally think Big O should just be moved into the starting lineup at C, but with how much the Hawks have flirted with Gobert and Ayton, apparently they don't think so. But I would love for Okongwu to be our starting center since I think he's a 1 inch shorter and younger version of Bam Adebayo; and Bam is the best defensive center in the game when you consider the whole package of what defense is in today's NBA. 

No, he's not as good of an individual defender of bigs as Gobert, but notice I said considering the whole package of what defense is in today's NBA. Which is much much more than just banging with other centers and/or being an elite rim protector. Playing team defense is much more valuable than individual defense. And being scheme flexible, not being relegated to playing drop coverage, is much more valuable than individual defense. Being able to be effective as an individual defender at the 5, and ALSO be able to switch and guard 1 thru 5 effectively makes what Bam brings to a team as a defender infinitely more valuable than the better individual defender versus centers in Gobert. 

It's for that reason I still would rather see Big O as our starting center instead of at power forward. Because having him at power forward, while extremely valuable on defense, it robs us of what could be a top 2 or 3 center in terms of defensive impact. 

 

 

If its even more than a smidge below a max, he is no longer a salary match with Clint....but of course you're figuring that in I'm sure.

1 minute ago, macdaddy said:

That seems like a no.  I guess the question is do they think this team is a contender?

They are an upgrade or two away from a locked in top 4 slot.  The hawks were 8 games out of a top 4 slot, 10 games out of first at the end of last year.

12 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

@thecampster @Sothron @NBASupes

The biggest question I have is "Are the owners willing to go into the tax this year or not?"

Yes if it means a top 4 seed, IE contender status.

5 minutes ago, marco102 said:

But again, after this year, you're not locked in at the tax apron which is what a sign and trade does for Ayton this year. 

In future years, you can still go above it to sign your own players whereas if it occurred this year the team is capped at the tax apron. That's the distinction I'm trying to clarify.  

The way you wrote it before you're saying your stuck at the tax apron for every future year after the trade, but you're not because you can clear it to sign OO, Hunter, JJ, Cooper, and AG. 

I'll add you'll have one hell of a tax bill though which practically will not happen unless championships are won. 

Of for Pete's sake.  How the F$%^ do you plan to get more salary then?  Can you sign a $15 million player? No!....If an opportunity to trade someone for a 25% upgrade happens this year that would push you to $160mil  can you do it? No!...You can only sign minimums, use 125%+100k trades, etc.  Same thing with Gobert or Ayton as far as signings this year but your trade/exemption options are different. Because your floor with Ayton is lower due to his lower salary + BYC status and the add on salaries this year can't push you over $156 so any "options" you have to spend more this year for a multiyear player can't be used and those players/salaries carry over to next year. You aren't going to sign vets on multi year minimums, so you're stuck this year.  It does hamstring you going forward because you can't take advantage this year and those players/salaries aren't carried forward. 

3 minutes ago, marco102 said:

But this would happen with any player after this year.  The fact that they increase Hunter's salary will push them into the tax.

I don't think it's fair to say oh you get Ayton and you have to worry about the tax apron every year because of his trade.  After this year, that will be the case with Gobert or any player because the Hawks are going to be in the tax. 

The tax apron definitely impacts the Hawks this year with the trade because you can't go above it. However, in future years you can go above it with players on your roster because of their bird rights. 

 

 

Its fair because it effectively locks us "X" salary range this year.  Stuck at around $156 million.  I know I'm saying this clearly but a few aren't understanding.  Whatever the salary ends up this year becomes the baseline for future years with trapeze work needing to be done to expand that amount in future years from the $156mil baseline.  Using the SNT locks us in at that baseline.

Spending on Gobert might be $165 million or more  but that becomes the baseline to work from.  Next year we start in the salary range of the $165 when you take into account whatever empty roster slots get filled.  If you want to trade Gobert later, you have that much salary to send out if the fit isn't right, its overkill.  But if you don't get that budget in this year, you will lose it. Its a flexibility thing.

One side note: if you trade for either they are both locked in through 25-26, but Gobert's last year is a player option which he could technically opt out of freeing up salary room a year early.

6 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

So we'd essentially only be able to increase our "$155 payroll" by extending our own players and signing minimum contracts?

Pretty much...because after the 1 year expires, the multiple max contracts and the Hunter extension push you over that tax level every year. So unless you bundle and trade at 125% you can't increase salary via signing.

19 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I think @thecampster said as long as Ayton remains on his SnT contract.  I have not looked into it though.

Its 1 year but functionally it might as well be the whole contract.

1st year will lock you in at under $156 million.  Because all of our contracts are "long" and we have to extend Hunter, we won't be able to offer new players more than the minimum. Unless you trade others to get under the apron, you can't even use the Tax Payer MLE because that hard caps you too and we'd be over the apron if we use it.  LT + T-MLE = apron.

They would like to have him back, but this is a courtesy to Kevin to see if he can find himself a rotation opportunity on bigger than a min deal.

45 minutes ago, Dean Walker said:

They have his bird rights!

so it doesn’t affect their cap space!

Not even remotely true.  Until his deal is signed, his cap hold counts as salary toward their cap. Once signed, the 1st year of the deal counts toward their cap this year.

His cap hold is only 1.88 million. So it is in their best interest in signing other players to process Mitchell's deal last.  True they own his rights so he can sign for up to his individual max, but that max affects the available salary for any player coming in after him. So keeping him at the "hold" status until the other deal get processed gives their "cap situation" another 12 ish million to play with year one.