thecampster

5 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

JJ is a 3.

JJ will be a 4 for us mostly but will be a combo forward.  He is a 3/4 skill wise and can play both.  He played the 4 throughout most of G-League.

Just now, theheroatl said:

It’s a cloud of haze and I think Minny and Sacramento must be 3rd teams somehow or somebody someway is just throwing stuff against the wall from their side (Minn, Sac).

This is very possible.  There was a lot of smoke screening going on the last few weeks. Being 80 hours from the draft, we're definitely in the media rumors to hold front offices feet to the fire country. I would not trust anything you've heard the last few weeks but anything in the news this week probably is based in something, just not exactly what it seems.

The Kings rumors are based off old rumors but of course 2/3rds of the teams in the league would have interest in JC so it could be renewed interest.

The Minny rumor is not old, its new. It hadn't hit the media yet but I mentioned it to a person or 2 privately a few days ago. I didn't see it as viable yet so I hadn't even discussed it with @Sothron or @NBASupes. I was only speculating what Minny might be willing to swap as I didn't know. I do know that Minny loves Huerter and always has. I know they love JC and always have, so any interest in Clint could be part of a bigger deal.

Part 2:  Given our salaries, that the apron grows slower than the cap and that all of our current player salaries (save Bogi) have raises built in that are growing faster than the cap, we end up in a perennially higher than the Apron position.  Meaning no use of exceptions. Our only way to improve/get better players is through consolidation trades, adding more minimum players.

If we go another route this year, we can add that salary this year while we have other salary to add (the use of our our free agents in sign n trade).

Above the apron removes the ability to use exceptions....this year we have assets to cobble together for others to go higher....Ayton doesn't give us this flexibility. The end result is not only this year but effectively capping us going forward to only veteran mins.

24 minutes ago, marco102 said:

I thought the hard cap is only in the year of the trade.

@thecampster seemed to imply it hard caps you after the year of the trade.  I haven't read up on that, but wanted to make sure that is accurate.

I worded that very poorly. I worded the result as opposed to the rule.  Lets start with the rule.

"A Veteran Free Agent and his Prior Team may enter into a Player Contract pursuant to an agreement between the Prior Team and another Team concerning the signing and subsequent trade of such Contract, but only if (i) the Veteran Free Agent finished the prior Season on his Prior Team’s roster, (ii) the Contract is for at least three (3) Seasons (excluding any Option Year) but no more than four (4) Seasons in length, (iii) the Contract is not signed pursuant to the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level Salary Exception or the Taxpayer Mid-Level Salary Exception, (iv) the first Season of the Contract is fully protected for lack of skill, (v) the Contract is entered into prior to the first day of the Regular Season, (vi) with respect to any 5th Year Eligible Player (as defined in Article II, Section 7) who met one of the 5th Year 30% Max Criteria (as defined in Article II, Section 7), the Contract may not provide the player with Salary (plus Unlikely Bonuses) in excess of twenty-five percent (25%) of the Salary Cap (as calculated pursuant to Article II, Section 7) in effect at the time the Contract is signed, and (vii) the acquiring Team has Room for the player’s Salary plus any Unlikely Bonuses provided for in the first Season of the Contract. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the preceding sentence, a Team shall not be permitted to acquire a player pursuant to a Contract entered into in accordance with this Section 8(e)(1) if the Team’s Team Salary (as calculated pursuant to Section 6(m)(3) above) following the proposed transaction would exceed the Tax Level for such Salary Cap Year plus the Tax Apron Amount, and if a Team acquires a player pursuant to this Section 8(e)(1), then the Team’s Team Salary at all times thereafter during the Salary Cap Year may not exceed the Tax Level for such Salary Cap Year plus the Tax Apron Amount."

21 minutes ago, RandomFan said:

I legit laughed out loud. 

Bruh, seriously...

It's like a 6th grader first learning about Algebra then going to a college advanced calculus class telling them what they don't understand. 

His initial thought here of "it can be done" isn't wrong. But he's missing the point of my initial post.  Of all 3 options (nothing, Ayton, Gobert), Ayton is the most constricting because it institutes a ceiling just above our current salary level. I give him more props than all of RealGM, most congressmen, or any woman who thought Bill Clinton really wanted to discuss her career.

Here's the rub:  Minimum NBA salary 0 years experience 

So with somewhere in the neighborhood of a max $19 million in salary and 8 salaries available, that's $2.375 million per player.  So the current team minus Wright, Gallo, Knox, Mays, TLC, Cooper, Lou, etc.... replaced with 8 minimum salary level vets that you can convince to come.

Or Gobert and there's no cap on what you can add in salary except that you can use your contracts in Dec/Jan on your roster to cobble together and pick up higher priced players.  Its about flexibility and it only gets worse as the raises kick in for Collins, Trae, Huerter, Hunter.

And that's the big one. Your ability to resign Hunter who you will have just hung your team on, goes to a capped rate. So even though you hold his rights, if someone offers him more than you can in RFA, you can't even match because you're locked at the apron.

2 minutes ago, LucastheThird said:

Dude......he's literally the most knowledgeable poster on this board when it comes to the cap and cap implications. And he's a lawyer (if I'm remembering right) so he knows full well what he is reading. 

 

He routinely gives text form seminars on the cap every year. 

Not a lawyer, that's @AHF and a few others. I'm a 25 year IT pro working in Cyber Security .

Did you look at the numbers?  7-8 players, 136-147 mil.  7-8 players left to add to the roster, 7-19 million in salary to allot to those 7-8 players.

35 minutes ago, theheroatl said:

Let me make it simple.. it must be a 3 or 4 team trade or two separate but immediate trades:

Suns: Ayton $15.7 out, Capela $19m in (not sure if they need to ship out 3-4m in salary to 3rd or 4th team - Haven’t looked at that aspect yet)

Atlanta: Capela $19m out, $12m+ to 3rd team (OR 1-2 players to the 3rd or 4th team.. the teams absorbing salary to facilitate).

3rd Team: $12m player in, TPE with Draft picks to Hawks

They can add a 4th team to take additional Suns salary going out (Saric, Shamet) in exchange for picks + TPE.

Same math applies with the 154 mil hard cap no matter what scenario you craft 

1 hour ago, theheroatl said:

Why does everyone always think that we can ship out just Capela for an Ayton SNT? Go read up on the cap rules.

Snt, byc....you can only send about 19 mil out for his 30 mil salary because due to byc status, only about 19 mil will count.

2 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Link?

Jinx..you owe me a coke.

Just now, MarylandHawk said:

Donovan Mitchell is dying to get John Collins on his squad. I wouldn’t be surprised if Utah dropped it’s asking price for Gobert to get Collins. Maybe even send a pick our way. For the record I am NOT advocating for John’s departure. Love what he brings to our team. 

Do you have a link you can post to Mitchell/Collins?

1 minute ago, REHawksFan said:

Underrated comment from the mega thread was @NBASupes mentioning (I'm paraphrasing) that Atl / Phx have a suitable SNT deal for Ayton agreed to and the question is where Ayton wants to play.  That implies (to me anyway) that if TR / TS / TY etc... can convince Ayton to want to be here, we have a deal ready to go. 

That's good news on its face but also in that it should put pressure on Utah to make a deal IF they decide that their best option is to trade Rudy to Hawks.    

Now I'm wondering what the agreed upon SNT is for Ayton.  

I'm less than optimistic we'll complete a sign n trade because of the cap limitations associated with a sign-n-trade.  Limiting yourself to not being able to go above the tax apron (hard capped).

"The Tax Apron amount increases (or decreases) each year at one-half the rate of increase (or decrease) in the Salary Cap."  https://cbabreakdown.com/

Now read that up top.  Although the apron amount increases, it increases slower than the cap. Unlike the LT level which increases equal to the cap, the apron increases less. It's always more than the LT and the amount more increases but the % more than the LT is always shrinking.  Because contracts normally progress at 8% annual increases, this makes maintaining salary at or below the apron increasingly difficult and for the life of the sign and trade agreement.

Translation: If we completed a 4 year SnT deal for Ayton, we get progressively less and less free salary to work with until the deal expires. If an opportunity to acquire a star comes about, we may be handcuffed from acquiring due to the trade rule and not our willingness to pay the LT.  Teams willing to pay the LT to win championships don't do SnT deals because it shortens their windows. Can it be done? Yes! Is it a gamble? Yes.

Best way out of the handcuffs? Trade the player you acquired via SnT.

when something can be multiple players, the CBA is very good about saying player(s).

For ex:

"Room A team may sign players to the extent it has “Room.”  Room is either:  (i) the amount by which a team’s Team Salary is less than the Salary Cap; or (ii) the amount of an “Exception” to the Salary Cap. Examples: (1) (2) (3) D. Salary Cap = $101.869 million; Team Salary = $85 million Team has Room of $16.869 million and may sign player(s) for up to $16.869 million. Salary Cap = $101.869 million; Team Salary = $110 million Team has $8.641 million Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level Salary Exception.  Team has Room of $8.641 million and may sign player(s) for up to $8.641 million. Salary Cap = $101.869 million; Team Salary = $130 million; Tax Level = $123.733 million Team has $5.337 million Taxpayer Mid-Level Salary Exception.  Team has Room of $5.337 million and may sign player(s) for up to $5.337 million. "

1 hour ago, AHF said:

@JayBirdHawk

@thecampster

Just didn't want this question to get lost.  Thanks in advance!

The language is important in understanding this.  The language states, the team signs and immediately trades him to another team.  The signing and trading is 1 action. Signing then packaging, then trading is 3 separate actions.  The language is meant to be understood the act of signing is to trade the player to his preferred destination. One reason you can't "include" other players is to get around the matching requirements (ie byc). This is why all multiplayer deals from the sending team in a sign n trade are completed as 2 simultaneous trades. Although you may see some deals (sign n trade) that look like multi player, its actually 2 separate deals.  I talked last week about the order trades are processed and it mattering. In a simultaneous trade, the 2 separate trades happen at once in order to satisfy salary trade rules. This is one way to get around salary x doesn't line up with salary y.  If Trade 1 pushes a team under the cap, their half of trade rules don't apply and then trade 2 can go through.  In most cases, the media reports this as one trade but you can see it in their language.  They'll usually say, "GW send Bob and Mil send harry, sally, Barney. GW will also receive Fred and send a 2nd round pick to Mil."  Although it seems like 1 deal, its actually 2.  

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap05.htm

The language in SnT situations is: 

79. Can a free agent be signed and immediately traded?

Under no circumstances can a team sign and then trade another team's free agent. But there is a rule that allows teams to re-sign their own free agents for trading purposes, called the sign-and-trade rule. Under the sign-and-trade rule, the player is re-signed and immediately traded to another team. This is done by adding a clause to the contract which stipulates that the contract is invalid if the player's rights are not traded to the specific team within 48 hours.

A sign-and-trade deal can be made even with players who have been renounced, but cannot be made when the player is signed using the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual or Disabled Player exceptions. Sign-and-trade contracts must be for three years or longer, but only the first season of the contract must be guaranteed. The three year minimum (even though the last two seasons may be non-guaranteed) ensures that the new team will not acquire Bird rights to the player any sooner than if they had signed him directly, because they would have to waive him, after which they wouldn't be able to use Bird rights (see question number 26).

One complication with sign-and-trade deals is that the signed player can immediately become a BYC player (see question number 76 for more information on BYC), so the player's BYC value must be used when determining whether the trade is allowed.

If a sign-and-trade contract contains a signing bonus, then either team can pay it. By default the team that signs the player pays the signing bonus (as with any other contract), but since a sign-and-trade is in essence a contract with the receiving team, the teams can agree that the receiving team will pay it. However, any portion that is paid by the signing team counts toward the $3 million limit for cash included in a trade (which in effect limits the portion of a signing bonus that can be paid by the signing team to $3 million).

If a sign-and-trade contract contains a trade bonus, then the bonus is not earned upon the trade that accompanies the signing, but rather on the first subsequent trade.

See question number 83 for more information on how long a team must wait after signing a contract before they can trade a player.

Language from the CBA:  

https://cdn.nba.com/manage/2021/03/2018-19-CBA.pdf

"Additional Trade Rules (1) Sign-and-Trades.  Teams are prohibited from signing a free agent pursuant to an agreement that the player will later be traded to another team unless the free agent being signed is the team’s own free agent.  In addition, these “sign-and-trades” are permitted only if (i) the contract is for three or four years, (ii) the first year of the contract is fully guaranteed, (iii) the contract is entered into prior to the first day of the regular season, and (iv) the player finished the prior season on the signing team’s roster.  The maximum annual salary increase for a sign-and-trade is 5% of the salary in the first year of the contract.  A team may only acquire a free agent via a sign-and-trade if the team’s Team Salary post-transaction and at all times thereafter during that Salary Cap Year 10 --does not exceed the Tax Level for the then current Salary Cap Year plus the Tax Apron Amount (see Section I.F.(3)(e) above).  "

Now let me uncomplicate this: Logically speaking a sign n trade is team B's way of signing a player they could not otherwise afford. When you sign a player, you don't get 3 players for 1.  Sign n trade is an agreement to sign n trade that player. Not an agreement to sign n trade a player but take my garbage. The language of the CBA prohibits circumvention of the CBA. Therefore a simultaneous trade where 2 separate trades happen is the only way to follow league rules.  The media doesn't always report it, but that is what happens.  The main reason for "other players" is that team B has rules related to the apron and the luxury tax. The language is and at all times thereafter during the salary cap year. So in many cases, the trade of a player (say Capela for Ayton) would count 19 million for trade purposes but would increase the team's salary by another $11 million. On a cash strapped team, that would/could push them over the apron. The simultaneous trade allows them to send extra salary they might not be permitted to in clean up that room. Since the trade is "simultaneous" at no time is the team above the apron.  If the trade was the player (and assets) they would have written the language as "or with other players or picks" but they didn't. You can trade "the player" any other shenanigans to make the trade work is a separate, simultaneous trade.

Nobody argue...I won't respond.

1 hour ago, NBASupes said:

Not really. Separate market altogether. 

Utah is overplaying its hand asking for more than 16/one of the core bigs vets and Huerter. 

Atlanta has shifted its focus to Ayton. That doesn't mean Gobert to Atlanta won't happen but it's a 2nd option. Atlanta focus is Ayton. Once again, Ayton will choose where he wants to play.

Dallas was considered a top suitor for and interested in Gobert.  Reduced the number of teams that could take Gobert and send back something Utah needed by 1.

34 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Wow, that’s too much. We can take JC out of this deal.

Asked and answered. The deal doesn't work with JC included (cap wise). Started by someone who included all names he'd heard without any knowledge of how things work.

2 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

They were at that time. When Utah insisted on Hunter but it seems Utah came to it's senses. 

Its all media posturing. If the asset is Huerter, that needs to happen after the Moratorium to make the salaries work. If its BB, it can happen pre-draft but it would cost Utah more in LT this year (couple million more). So from a financial standpoint, in either deal they wouldn't consummate until Jul 8th or later. They're feeling out their options incase there is a late offer to the party.  The media needs something to write about in the interim so they make stuff up to fill article quotas. That's really it.

5 minutes ago, AtLaS said:

Just don't see why all the focus is on Gobert instead of Ayton.

Age - Ayton is 8 years younger

Contract - Ayton 10+ million less per year

Assets to give up - Ayton likely less as it's an S&T

Potential - Ayton (obviously)

Offense - Ayton

Free Throws and floor streching - Ayton

Defense - Gobert

Rebounding - Gobert

 

I just don't get it.  We really want to pay this guy 46 million in a few years?   He's been exposed in the playoffs multiple years in a row by scrubs.  Why does everyone keep pointing to his regular season stats.  Teams know the formula to counter him.  Since he sucks offensively, he can't make teams pay by going small on the other end.  

All that being said, if the trade is any more than Capela and one of Heurter/Bogi for Gobert, I can stomach it.  If we throw in Collins and/or Hunter, Schlenk is an idiot.  Gobert is considered a bad contract by most standards.  To give up that much young talent to get that much older as a team for a slight upgrade over Capela would be complete nuts.

 

 

Ayton will only include Clint which means we're absorbing an extra $10 million in salary so one of the players we mentioned earlier would still most likely be sent out.  In order to get Phoenix to bite, the Ayton deal would likely include 2x 1sts instead of 1.

1 minute ago, REHawksFan said:

IMO, the Hawks HAVE to find a 2nd playmaker AND upgrade the defense.  If Gobert is the D answer then fine as long as his salary doesn't prohibit the addition of the 2nd playmaker.  Adding Gobert while losing Huerter may help one area of the team but it hurts the other.  And let's be real.....the wings weren't all that great with Huerter / Bogi.  

 

I'm saying adding Gobert helps facilitate getting the secondary playmaker. It'll be a rental but it will make others trying to up their stock, ring chase, etc consider us.  Clint does not move that needle. Ayton only slightly moves that needle.  Gobert moves that needle. Its how you get 1/2 signings on the cheap. You commit. 

You make that commitment, you change players minds.  Right now, they are looking at the Hawks and wondering how can we beat Miami, Boston, Milwaukee, Brooklyn, Philly. Its the fill in pieces that make the difference.