Definitive answer on Hawks cap space for next year

[gsuteke]

Players under Contract

Joe Johnson 14,976,754

Josh Smith 10,800,000

Speedy Claxton 5,209,454

Marvin Williams 7,355,166 (caphold)

Al Horford 4,307,640

Maurice Evans 2,500,000

Acie Law 2,216,160

Randolph Morris 855,189

#19 Pick 1,144,900

Total 49,365,243

This year's cap number = 58,680,000

If the cap stayed flat the Hawks would be $9,314,757 under.

The Hawks would need to sign 6 players to round out the roster. A player like Mario West would cost them $855,189. That's 2,565,567 for 3 of them. I'm not sure if these players can be signed though the MLE. If so we've got another 2.5 million to spend on a FA. If not......

That leaves us 6,749,190 under the cap. That's the approximate amount we'd have to sign a player outright before paying Zaza and Flip.

Childress' caphold may screw it all up.

Bottom line is we need to move Childress' rights this offseason if we want to sign anyone outright. If we're going to resign Marvin to a deal more than 5 yrs 40 million we'll need to do it after bringing in a free agent.

Pachulia, Murray and Bibby or his replacement would need to be resigned.

If anyone has anything to add or clarify please feel free to do so.

[Diesel]

Joe Johnson 14,976,754

Josh Smith 10,800,000

Speedy Claxton 5,209,454

Marvin Williams 7,355,166 (caphold)

Al Horford 4,307,640

Maurice Evans 2,500,000

Acie Law 2,216,160

Randolph Morris 855,189

#19 Pick 1,144,900

Total 49,365,243

These are the contracts that Sund should target for trade.

You're right that something must be done with Chillz contract. Either sign him or trade him but get his numbers *1.5 off the books.

The Marvin experiment should be over.

We were 12-7 without him in the toughest part of our season.

SNT him for something. Maybe we can move up in the draft. It would be nice to get Thabeet!

[gsuteke]

We don't have the cap space to make the appropriate adjustments IMO.

I believe we'll have to trade a player as well. Who would want Marvin that can give us a PG in return, potentially packaged with a big?

Since the team isn't title ready next year unless Sund pulls a Danny Ainge I think they should hold onto that 19th pick.

[Guest]

That is not correct. I am not talking about the numbers you have attached to each player (they may or may not be), but you are ignoring capholds for Bibby, Chillz, Zaza, Flip, Solomon, and West. Even in the event that we renounce all of those players (which is 0.0001% likely) you would then have to factor in the minimum contract amount up until 13 spots are filled.

In other words, we aren't under the cap and will never be under the cap at any time this offseason.

[gsuteke]

If you're an UFA you have a caphold?

Really?

[Joker]

If you're an UFA you have a caphold?

Really?

An UFA holds a caphold???

Evans is not a UFA, Diesel.

[gsuteke]

Evans is under contract next year with a player option for 2010-2011

[Guest]

If you're an UFA you have a caphold?

Really?

Yes. Its a way to prevent loopholes. If they didn't have a caphold, then we could sign players up until we get to the cap in your scenario and then use Bird Rights to go over the cap to sign our free agents. So thats why they have capholds.

And after looking at your numbers, you are definitely incorrect on Marvin. The number you reported was the Qualifying Offer. That is different from his caphold. His caphold is 250% of his previous years salary. I don't have the numbers right here but I know that amount is going to be roughly ($6 mil * 2.5 ~=) $15 mil.

[mrhonline]

In other words, we aren't under the cap and will never be under the cap at any time this offseason.

HF for post of the early offseason.

I cannot stress this enough to all those doing the "offseason plans" that will (happily) litter the board in the next two months. Do not plan on capspace, it's not happening.

Focus on the MLE, LLE, and sign-and-trades. Do not forget about David Andersen either.

Edited May 12, 2009 by mrhonline

[Guest]

An UFA holds a caphold???

Evans is not a UFA, Diesel.

Yes. Although to be extremely CBA technical I should call it their "free agent amount" but that is besides the point.

And Diesel never said Evans was a UFA, D said that Evans is a contract we should look to trade.

[Guest]

HF for post of the early offseason.

I cannot stress this enough to all those doing the "offseason plans" that will (happily) litter the board in the next two months. Do not plan on capspace, it's not happening.

Focus on the MLE, LLE, and sign-and-trades. Do not forget about David Andersen either.

We basically say the same thing with respect to our capspace and the CBA, we just use different words to say whatever we are trying to say.

[gsuteke]

Yes. Its a way to prevent loopholes. If they didn't have a caphold, then we could sign players up until we get to the cap in your scenario and then use Bird Rights to go over the cap to sign our free agents. So thats why they have capholds.

And after looking at your numbers, you are definitely incorrect on Marvin. The number you reported was the Qualifying Offer. That is different from his caphold. His caphold is 250% of his previous years salary. I don't have the numbers right here but I know that amount is going to be roughly ($6 mil * 2.5 ~=) $15 mil.

Ok well clarify this for me. Detroit has 40 million in salary committed for next season. Iverson made 20 million this year.

Obviously Detroit is clearing out money for 2010 but if they did want to sign a FA this offseason what would they have to do in order to get rid of Iverson's cap hold per your explanation above.

[Guest]

Ok well clarify this for me. Detroit has 40 million in salary committed for next season. Iverson made 20 million this year.

Obviously Detroit is clearing out money for 2010 but if they did want to sign a FA this offseason what would they have to do in order to get rid of Iverson's cap hold per your explanation above.

Just renounce his rights. That means they no longer hold his Bird Rights. After renouncing they could still sign Iverson with their cap space, but they could no longer use Bird Rights to go over the cap in signing him. They also lose out on being able to offer him higher raises (I think 10.5% verse 8.5%) which comes with Bird Rights.

[exodus]

We might as well sticky this. You know this will be brought up over and over if we don't.

[coachx]

We might as well sticky this. You know this will be brought up over and over if we don't.

Yes !

That what they do on realgm.

So when guys put some lame trade out there you can say......READ THE SIGN.

[frosgrim]

Can we put up some information clarifying what we can get for a SnT for Marvin (and/or all other RFAs)?

Here is what I understand (and please correct):

We only get back half of the salary in the trade. E.g. if MW signs for 8 mil, the Hawks get back 4 mil on the cap (maybe not the best way to state this). Example 2, MW signs for 8 mil, but the Hawks can only take back 4 mil salary due to the Hawks being over the cap.

What is not clear to me is can the Hawks bundle Marvin (or Childress) in an SnT since they are RFAs? I have seen various answers on this, so its not exactly clear.

Thanks,

Frosgrim

[AHF]

Larry Coon:

76. 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 25).

One complication with sign-and-trade deals is that the signed player can immediately become a BYC player (see question number 73 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 80 for more information on how long a team must wait after signing a contract before they can trade a player.

* * * *

73. What is "Base Year Compensation?" How does base year compensation affect trades? Why does it exist?

Base year compensation (BYC) prevents another salary cap loophole. Without BYC, a team over the salary cap that wants to trade a player, but can't because of the Traded Player exception (which says teams can't take back more than 125% of the salary they trade away), could just sign the player to a new contract that fits within the desired range, then do the trade. BYC says "if you re-sign a player and give him a big raise, then for a period of time his trade value will be lower than his actual salary."

BYC defines the salary that's used to compare players for compliance under the Traded Player exception (see question number 68 for more information about the Traded Player exception). Usually the salary used for comparison is the player's actual salary. But under either of the following circumstances, a different salary is used when comparing salaries for trading purposes:

* The team is over the salary cap, used the Larry Bird or Early Bird exception to re-sign the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20% (unless it's the minimum salary).

* The team is over the salary cap, it extended the player's rookie scale contract, and the player received a raise greater than 20%.

If either of the above apply, then the player is considered a base year player. A player remains a base year player for six months, or until June 30, whichever comes later. When trading a base year player, the salary used for comparison is the player's previous salary, or 50% of the first-year salary in his new contract, whichever is greater.

Here is an example of a BYC calculation: A player earned $2 million in 2004-05, after which he became a free agent. He then signs a new contract (re-signing with his previous team, which is over the salary cap) starting at $9 million. This player qualifies for BYC, so his trade value is the greater of his previous salary ($2 million) or 50% of his new salary ($4.5 million), or $4.5 million. So this player, who actually earns $9 million, is worth $4.5 million for trading purposes.

When comparing salaries for trade, teams use their own player's BYC value and the other player's full salary, even if the other player is also BYC. Here is a simple example -- two $5 million players, both of whom are re-signed (by teams over the cap) for $10 million. Both players become base year players whose base year amount is $5 million (50% of the new salary). If the teams want to trade these players for each other they compare their player's base year amount to the other player's full salary. So each team can take back a maximum of 125% plus $100,000 of their player's $5 million base year amount, or $6.35 million. They compare $6.35 million to the other player's full $10 million. $10 million is way too high, so this trade can't be done, even though the players' actual salaries match exactly.

If one of the teams in the above example was below the cap, the trade still couldn't be done. For the team under the cap, their player would not be BYC, so they would be comparing $10 million to $10 million. But since the other team is over the cap, their player is BYC, and they'd still be comparing $5.85 million to $10 million, which prevents the trade from working. (See question number 75 for more information about trading BYC players.)

For Larry Bird or Early Bird players, the player's BYC begins on the date he signs his contract. For extended rookie scale contracts, the player's BYC begins on the day after the July Moratorium which precedes the first season of the extension. For example, if an extension of a rookie scale contract is signed on 10/30/05, his BYC begins on 7/12/06, because the first season of the extension is 2006-07. A player's BYC goes away if the team falls below the salary cap, the player signs with a different team, or the player is traded.

If a team trades an extended rookie between the date his extension is signed and the date it takes effect, his "trade value" for the receiving team is the average of the salaries in the last year of the scale contract and each year of the extension. This is called the poison pill provision. The sending team uses the player's actual salary when calculating their outgoing salary. They use the current-year maximum salary in place of the (unknown) maximum salary for a future season, if necessary.

Here is an example of a poison pill calculation: Carmelo Anthony earns $4,694,041 in 2006-07, the final year of his rookie scale contract. Prior to October 31, 2006 he signed a five year extension (bringing the total seasons to six) for the maximum salary, with the maximum 10.5% raises. Anthony's actual salary will not be determined until July 2007, when the maximum salary amounts for 2007-08 are set. During the 2006-07 season the 2006-07 maximum is assumed for the 2007-08 season ($13,762,775), and the salary in subsequent seasons is based on this amount ($15,070,550, $16,378,325 and $17,686,100, respectively). If Anthony is traded during the 2006-07 season, then his outgoing salary from the Nuggets' perspective is his actual salary of $4,694,041. His incoming salary from the other team's perspective would be $13,518,358 -- the average of his 2006-07 salary and the assumed salaries in the extension.

[AHF]

My read on this is that Marvin's 2009 salary was: $5,636,142

If he signs a new contract starting at more than $6,763,370 then he would be a BYC player.

[NJHAWK]

Joe Johnson 14,976,754

Josh Smith 10,800,000

Speedy Claxton 5,209,454

Marvin Williams 7,355,166 (caphold)

Al Horford 4,307,640

Maurice Evans 2,500,000

Acie Law 2,216,160

Randolph Morris 855,189

#19 Pick 1,144,900

Total 49,365,243

These are the contracts that Sund should target for trade.

You're right that something must be done with Chillz contract. Either sign him or trade him but get his numbers *1.5 off the books.

The Marvin experiment should be over.

We were 12-7 without him in the toughest part of our season.

SNT him for something. Maybe we can move up in the draft. It would be nice to get Thabeet!

Anyone who saw Mo Evans let Lebron walk by him and saw Mo Evans allow Lebron to roam free on defense because Mo is no offensive threat at all, should not think the Marvin Williams experiment is over.

[frosgrim]

My read on this is that Marvin's 2009 salary was: $5,636,142

If he signs a new contract starting at more than $6,763,370 then he would be a BYC player.

Great! Thanks for posting this information. I have the same understanding as you do on the situation.

Still, can these players be bundled with other players? - My understanding is no, but again, there seems to be some confusion here.