thecampster

2 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Any word on how he is progressing so far this offseason (I know it's still early).

@NBASupes is more vested and is following that. If there's any news, he would have it.

11 minutes ago, georgia said:

Wanting Gobert or Ayton but wanting more time for OO is odd.    I’m not sure about the PF spot for him unless he can be an Ibaka

Traditional 4, I get it. OO would be a load offensively in the paint for a typical 4 to guard. He is so strong. He's incredibly active, so I get it. He's going to have to get at least a 12 feet out face up game to be effective and that's why he needs time I'd gather.

1 minute ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

Posted this recently in another thread:  Ressler on paying the Tax:

Ressler has previously said he would have no qualms about paying the tax if it meant the Hawks were title contenders. He was asked about that quote and what his stance is now on potentially entering the tax for the first time since purchasing the Hawks.

“We’re going to pay what we have to pay,” Ressler said. “Sometimes owners set a tone — and I’m trying to set a very clear tone — sometimes we say some things one season that may not pertain to the next. Going into the tax doesn’t scare us. Obviously, you want to spend money intelligently. Obviously, you want to run a good business. For whatever it’s worth, I do not look at going into the tax as only possible if we’re competing for a championship that season. Our job is to go into the tax when it’s good business, to position ourselves for greatness. We do not fear the tax. We do not fear spending money. We fully expect Atlanta to be a truly attractive marketplace for (whoever) considers playing here. Money is not going to be our obstacle.”

I then followed up with a very specific question: Has he given Schlenk clearance to enter the tax this season?

“Yes. It’s a one word answer,” Ressler said. “I don’t want to qualify hopefully the obvious. I also say let’s do it intelligently. I don’t think you want to go into the tax to prove the point that we can go into the tax. I don’t worry about those types of things. We can go into the tax for the right reasons at the right time, any time.”

Yup and "go into the tax" is very different than "we aren't scared of the LT and will pay what we need to in order to compete". His words are carefully chosen.

21 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

OKC still has $23 million in space to take Gallo.

Within this year's window, yes.  But 22-23, no.  There is one more year on that, so there is that consideration.

15 minutes ago, ShooterSays said:

Idk I mean he is verified but lots of Hawks stuff out there these days. 
 

And too much to give up imo for Gobert. Creates more holes for us. 

Out 32 million in salary, in 57 million.  Wondering why this rumor feels not quite right.

So yah...before that trade they were $21 million short of the league minimum salary.  They'd have to pay that money anyway. They're currently okay for next year with their trade today.

4 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Still have capspace to take Gallo 

 

 

Okay, outside the box thinking here.  Whether or not OKC spends the money on Gallo or not, for the purposes of financial calculation to end the season, they're short of the 90% required by the league.  For background, to keep teams from not paying players, being cheap, the NBA requires teams to spend 90% of the salary cap.

"

Teams with a team salary below the minimum are surcharged for their shortfall, with the money distributed among the players on that team.

Amounts paid as buyouts to international teams (see question number 77) do not count toward the minimum team payroll." 

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap11.htm

So with 23.4 million remaining, Cap of 112.4, that leaves OKC with a $12.16 million shortfall that they will have to pay.  Stay with me here.

The calculations are based on players remaining on your roster at the end of the season and not the total amount you paid in salaries.  So theoretically since they would have to pay a $12.16 million regardless, OKC could trade for $12.16 million in Salary (absorb Gallo and send back waste) and save themselves from having to pay the difference under 90%.  I'm trusting the tweet and haven't run the exact math but yah, there you are. Taking on Gallo's salary for next year and then flipping him as soon as he's eligible could save them real money this year plus gain them another draft asset. I need to ruminate on this.

2 hours ago, sturt said:

Me too. Anyone else like me, you got your vax last year, and you've had tinnitus ever since... ???

I got dental implants this year and my tinnitus has been gone ever since. Lost 9 lbs since.  Getting the last booster later this month. So probably don't want to draw a straight line correlation.

16 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

@thecampster Denver kicks off the pre end of season trades. 

OKC gets a 2027 1st for $8 mil in salary and pick #30.

What happened to him?  He used to be serviceable?

1 hour ago, h4wkfan said:

Fair points. And this is why Schlenk gets paid the big bucks. 

The construction of a team - within a salary cap - is so complicated. And making the potential call on if JJ is ready to replace JC (assuming upgrades elsewhere) is a call I wouldn’t make this year (I think he should take the Gallo role for a season). It’ll be fun to see what moves are made. And inevitably - people will be unhappy. 

I'd play him next to Gobert to start the season without pause. I would not play him next to Ayton, Capela to start the season unless we were rebuilding.  His defensive shortcomings are in PnR, PnP, switching situations. I'd wager he's better 1v1 defensively than Collins right now. Its the team aspect of defense where he is woefully behind.  Gobert can help cover for that.  Capela is not good enough, Ayton is too lazy to cover for teammates like that. He's more volatile.  Gobert is more dedicated to his craft, longer and could cover those deficiencies.  My guess is over 40 games JJ would improve dramatically. Its a matter of time with him, not ability. He's proven he has the BBIQ to develop in other areas. This one is just stuff he's never encountered in amateur play. He's already much better than he was when he came in. Most of it is now timing and recognition with can only be learned through repetition.

2 hours ago, sturt said:

@thecampster ... all well taken... we're all allowed to have our varying amateur scout/coach/GM opinions on talent level.

I suppose the tectonic principles I'm trying to express are, in thinking about potential trades...

(1) It does make a major difference if the receiving team is forced to guarantee Gallo's full $21.5m salary, as opposed to taking on... and eating by virtue of cutting him... his pre-6/29 salary of $5m or $11m or even $15m... and

(2) It makes a major difference what is the current player acquisition posture of the team.... vis-a-vis, OKC is one that especially sticks out both because Presti has publicly indicated he's in for one more year of a tank posture, and he has added incentive to consider a deal as Jay imagined b/c he's already got a full roster today (15 under contract), he's got 4 draft picks today (sure, he might end up with just 2 or 3 after all is said and done... but then... ), and also he's got these players who are living on the payroll cliff, ie, expiring contracts that he has to assess whether he's committed to keeping, and if not, how he can convert those expiring assets into something of more enduring value.... and... finally...

(3) If Presti determines--and he very well might (based, not on my assessment, but on those of OKC bloggers/beat writers whose content is widely accessible online)--that Dort, Williams and/or Roby are not in his long-term plans, and for that matter, I think we already know that none of Micic, Muscala nor Favors are... then the puzzle pieces are on the table that could be put together to make a Gallo deal... one that, as I pointed out, can be tailor-made to fit which puzzle pieces at what amount of trade exception, and importantly, with OKC actually netting a savings on their payroll on the other end of 6/29.

Correct me where I'm wrong (???).

 

They're worth way more than Gallo as a $10 million overpay and 1 pick though.  He can want to move them all he wants but there are places more eager for them than we are.

@h4wkfan lets play a little salary connect 4.

Besides Trae and assuming Gallo is waived, the top 3 salaries on the team are:  JC-$23.5 mil, Clint-$19.7 mil (cap purposes), BB-$18 mil. When you include Gallo's salary - $1.67 million (stretched cap impact), that's another $19.78 mil in a team currently at $152.7 million in salary. Those salaries add up to $80.98 million or Gobert + 1x $35 million salary + $7 million.  So go find me a top 5 2-guard at $35 million, slip JJ into the 4 or backup 4 and fill in some slots with the other $7 million in add on pieces.  That's how I see it. I see a big pot of money absorbed by 4 players, 1 of which won't be on the team next year and those salaries take up the starting/backup 4 spots, the starting center spot, backup 2 guard spot.  

I see Trae, Hunter in the starting lineup and say what can put around them.  JJ = no salary impact to the $80.98 mil.  He's already on the roster.  So now I say...can I get another C, PF, SG for $80.98 mil and would they be a better fit around Trae?  Of all the salaries above, JC's contributes the most, Gallo the second most and we have a good player waiting to take one of those slots. You got 16/8 from Collins last year.  JJ gave you 22.5/11.1/4.6 in the g-league last year. I have to believe his drop off from Collins in the NBA won't be too far. Especially at 13% the salary.

1 hour ago, h4wkfan said:

The problem is … what defensive 4s are available that would be a real improvement to JCs defense? Unless we are banking our season on OO being our starting 4. 

I never said "defensive 4", I said improve defensively. Defense at the 2/5 is the defense I'm talking about.  Much of what JC brings to the table can be replaced by JJ right now (we'd be missing a few things but actually be better in a couple....like JJ's ball on the floor, passing game). I'm willing to take steps down at the starting/backup 4 if it upgrades our starting 5, starting/backup 2.

10 hours ago, sturt said:

I'm uncertain which part of that I'm being taken to disagree with, camp.

Not proposing a team with cap room take on Gallo.... independent of... some balancing out so that they're both (a) ridding themselves of some contract(s) that balance out the buy-out ($5m right now, but as said previously as much as $15m if the deal needed it... me, I'm saying $11m is adequate for what I'm suggesting)... and (b) acquiring some more lucrative perceived reward for their trouble.

To be clear, also, not proposing a contending team would take him (ie, short of the NYK situation we'd discussed weeks ago where his one year is arguably attractive in view of the four years that team committed to Randle).

So, to illustrate using the OKC trade proposed earlier today (tweaked from last week, which was tweaked from the week before that)...

OKC gets #16 pick and Gallo w/ a revised guarantee of $11m, which they will eat after cutting him prior to 6/29... for...

3 expiring contracts each at ~ $2m (Dort, Williams & Roby) plus 1 more at ~$10.2m (Favors)... total of $16m (accommodated via trade exception, ie $11m+$5m+100k)... and rights to Micic, who theoretically would be signed using MLE... oh... and yeah, pick #34 (as-if OKC needs that one anyhow).

So, OKC's net is they subtract $5m-ish off their bottom line.

The short-term value to ATL is a fairly significant infusion of defense up and down the 22-23 roster, and the addition of a plausibly legitimate other scorer who can be featured in the rotation. Long-term value is almost exclusively Micic since the others would all be UFAs in 2023, though you'd have Bird rights I believe to resign Favors and Kenrich Williams if they impressed.

You may not like that version, but for the sake of this particular conversation, it's purpose is only to illustrate the incentives that would lead both sides to make a deal... the particular player assets involved could be modified, of course(... I even argued with myself about Favors, in light of the money and in light of how Moose performed last season relative to what he's owed for his expiring).

 

 

I'm trying to advance (or quash) a discussion.

Every year I make a post that I inevitably get flamed for (usually pre-draft through Moratorium) where I give examples of the types of posts people should avoid if they don't want to incur the wrath of the board.  This whole discussion is quickly derailing into silly.

Jaybird's post was about bringing the discussion back to "reasonably could" instead of "theoretically possible". Its theoretically possible the whole world will lay down their nuclear arms tomorrow, disband their militaries and through logic and reason enter into a 1 world government run through community level policing democracy". Theoretically possible...oh sure.....Reasonably could...lol no.

The nonsense has all centered on Gallo.  No team in the league sees Gallo as worth spending more than (estimated) $12 million ish next year.  $10 million 1 year rental is probably more reasonable.  So when I told Jaybird I could get behind her 4 players for Gallo suggestion. I wasn't saying (oh yah lets make that happen). I was saying, I'd accept that because it fits our cap needs. What I wasn't saying is, "yep, OKC would do that."

I've never had a good feel for "taking back bad salary X is worth draft pick Y" but if I had to guess, 1 year of taking away Gallo's entire 2022 salary is worth a future 1st top 20 protected (because its only 1 year).  When you start throwing players in, you aren't going to get much in return positive without adding more compensation. To get the haul Jaybird was suggesting would probably take the future 1st and #16 just for starters.  But when people start going into hypotheticals where multiple teams are thinking for trading for Gallo as if he's a positive at that salary, I have to protest. Her post was closer to my thinking on this. 

So let me say this with clarity.  Any post where we are sending out Gallo, getting back usable assets in return for any salary swap level is going to cost 2 x 1sts (IMHO) and I don't think Travis is going to do that when he can keep the assets and just waive/stretch that $5 million. Why stretch, financial?

$1.66 million /year for 3 years.  If the team believe it won't go too far into the LT, that $1.66 will cost less LT penalty in total if stretch vs loading up the LT amount this year. Although it could push us into the LT in the next 3 years each year, it may not and stretched dead money in the LT is better than loaded up dead money in the LT.

Without Danilo - $136,339,387

8 hours ago, Dean Walker said:

He thinks Jc is Gone!

Not surprised, we should’ve never resigned him!

He is the 2nd highest paid player on a team that needs to make salary room for defense.

There are about 8 teams in the league that could use a bonified 4 with scoring.

Draw your own conclusions.

3 hours ago, sturt said:

Right.

But my intended point was, there are only so many rotation spots to be had, and thus, only so many players that are going to get any meaningful minutes in the pursuit of re-establishing his team as a legit contender for 22-23.

And, we already know (a) McM has a history even predating ATL of resisting inserting younger players into his line-ups, and so (b) to anticipate he'd actually insert not just one but two into his plans for 22-23... seems a stretch.

Thus, the value of keeping #16 seems a stretch, at least from where I sit.

 

Right.

But as said in another post yesterday... here's your trouble...

Schlenk can't plan for the next coach. Schlenk can't plan for 23-24 and beyond. Schlenk has to do whatever he's going to do full throttle laser-focused on re-validating that his master plan that got us to an EC Final in 20-21 was legit.

Thus, any thought that he's going to take a longer view than 22-23 with how he constructs the 22-23 team seems to be infected with cognitive dissonance.

 

Don't know about DET. I suppose someone else somewhere in the thread suggested them, but I've not really looked at that.

My thought in response is this.

Think maybe (???) you and @thecampster (based on his "like") might be among those who may accept the idea that the trade value aspect of a deal for a non-guaranteed player inherently means that the receiving team must take-on the contract at the trade value.

I've been researching it to the degree that I can find anything online, and based on that, my takeaway is that that seems to be more a creation/assumption of some fans than it seems to be rooted in any actual language. Can't find that Coon even addresses it, but maybe I've overlooked it.

But those who write about it, such as the guy at Hoops Rumors who impressed me as having studied it, used words that discernibly separated the element of applying trade value to the transaction and the element of the receiving team, then, being automatically obligated to guarantee the incoming player's contract.

And here's why I'm 51+% inclined to think I'm seeing this correctly: The trade value aspect is incorporated into the rule self-evidently to ensure that if the newly-acquired non-guaranteed player's contract is guaranteed--then consistent with the whole reason this 2018 rule was birthed--the receiving team's payroll need to be able to accommodate that according to the normal conventional CBA trade rules. But here's the thing... that's the ONLY relevant reason the trade value needs to be considered.

In other words, there is nothing about the overall spirit of the new rule that demands that the new team actually should be forced to guaranteed that contract. To the contrary, if the contract says the guarantee date is 6/29, then that's the guarantee date. If another team has been assigned the contract through trade, then the choice remains for them to determine.

If I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong about that, but there must be some specific CBA language that makes that so... and I'm just not reading anything that establishes that... nay, even suggests it... ie, other than what fans have read into it, and yeah, somewhat naturally assumed.... but I believe it's that... "assumed," and they haven't really paused to see that it's not necessarily that way.

All that...

(*catches breath*... hehe... )

to say...

Yeah, if OKC... OKC specifically... can deal for Gallo before 6/29 at a newly-updated guarantee of $11m, or OKC being OKC and Presti being Presti, even $15m... and in that trade send out a $16m package of players that are far more valuable to a team looking to seriously contend in 22-23 than they would be to them ... and get, for their trouble (practically none) a #16 pick? Add to that even moreover that they already have a full roster, and are logically needing to make room for their next draft class?

Seems no-brainer-ish.

 

Danilo is on the final year of his deal. No one with the cap room is taking on Gallo. Only a team with a poor multi year contract and a chance of contending would take him to keep him, unless we're selling him. But then we're giving up 16 just to save $5 million for 1 year. If we took back a bad contract instead, that puts us in the LT. We aren't taking back a multi year unless it's useful.

7 minutes ago, terrell said:

So how is he gonna have room to work in Portland or Sactown? Nurkic and Sabonis arent stetch 5's either.. And they both pretty much suck on defense....Indy would be the best fit.. But arent they trying to trade Turner?

You aren't wrong.  This is why a limited number of teams see JC better than what he is...most see him similar to what he's paid, a few don't value him and that's the number reason....the players around him.

This is why players like Lebron or other true superstars are so rare. He fits pretty much everywhere with only small variances based on what's around him.  Most players in the NBA have fit issues on the wrong team.

Jake Fischer on John Collins synopsis.

Atlanta would like to move him this offseason.  They like John but defense is his shortcoming and doesn't justify his contract fit with Atlanta because he isn't offensively dominant. This is in like with what I was saying that they feel John is a better fit next to stretch 5 where he has room to work.  Fischer mentioned Portland, Indiana and San Antonio as possible fits but concedes there are others. He admits the feeling around the league with Collins is team fit is key.