Where did our cap space go?

[Guest]

So we we one of the top teams with cap space this past summer. We didn't land any if the big fish and got Millsap for 2 years 19 million. Where is the rest of our money?

[thecampster]

This is once again the classic confusion between cap and luxury tax.

Before the season started we had around $30 million in cap space...however part of that money was tied up in cap holds for our 1st rounders, part of that money was tied up in Korver and Teague's cap holds. So when looking at that money.

9.5 Sap

2.5 Carroll

6 Korver

8 Teague

4 Brand

there's that 30 million

the extra money people were counting was the extra 14 million to the luxury tax. Because we didn't perform any trades to use existing roster value (like sign n trade with Zaza/Josh), our ability to go into the fuzzy area between LT and Cap vanished.

In 2012/13 we spent $66.5 million. This year we're on pace to spend $57.5 million.

For all the praise Bud and Ferry have gotten. Last year's team won 44 games. This year's team is on pace to win 43. It would be fair to say we're getting similar production on less money but it isn't we the fans saving that 9 million now is it. Its the ASG. Additionally....last year's team suffered tons of injuries (an average of 2+ player games missed per game last season). Before Al got hurt, this team has been mostly injury free.

We can still go beyond the cap but it requires taking on unwanted salaries now and playing the 150% game in trades. Our signing over the cap flexibility was hampered some.

[Vol4ever]

You can rest assured that the ASG is not going over the cap!

[DJlaysitup]

So we we one of the top teams with cap space this past summer. We didn't land any if the big fish and got Millsap for 2 years 19 million. Where is the rest of our money?

Well at least it isn't going to Joe Johnson

[Admin]

You can rest assured that the ASG is not going over the cap!

Except the past 6 years before this year. A fact the ASG haters don't like to admit.

[Vol4ever]

Dol,

Besides signing Joe at the first, who else have the Hawks spent the big bucks on?

[Guest]

Except the past 6 years before this year. A fact the ASG haters don't like to admit.

Huh? Have there been any teams in the past 6 years that have not been above the cap? No. Every single team has been above the cap at some point in time over the past 6 years.

Take a look at the teams that have had at least one season under the cap in the past 6 years.

07-08 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries08.txt Charlotte, Memphis, Atlanta

08-09 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries09.txt Memphis (2)

09-10 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries10.txt Memphis(3), Portland, OKC

10-11 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries11.txt Sacramento, LAC, Minnesota, Chicago, OKC (2)

11-12 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries12.txt Indiana, Sacramento (2), Cleveland, Toronto, Washington, Minnesota (2), Houston, Golden State, Charlotte (2)

12-13 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries13.txt Phoenix, Cleveland (2), Sacramento (3), Houston (2), Charlotte.(3)

13-14 http://data.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/index.jsp Philadelphia, Phoenix (2), Utah, Atlanta (2), Milwaukee, Orlando

I count 19 who have ended a year under the Cap (Charlotte, Memphis, Atlanta, Portland, OKC, Sacramento, LAC, Minnesota, Chicago, Indiana, Cleveland, Toronto, Washington, Houston, Golden State, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Orlando). Which puts us at 11 teams who have stayed above the cap. Now if we were to look at the entirety of the A$G ownership then we would see Atlanta as #1 Cap team throughout that time.

People point this shit out about the A$G for a reason. It isn't necessarily because they do not like the A$G but because these are facts. Whether or not this fact has any bearing on the quality of A$G ownership is debatable, but it is there. We could probably go and look at salaries paid to players over that same time frame but I frankly do not have the time to go through this research project. I would bet that the A$G would finish in the bottom 5 of this criteria.

[Guest]

04-05 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries05.txt Charlotteish, Atlanta, Utah

05-06 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries06.txt Charlotteish (2), New Orleans, Atlanta (2), OKC

06-07 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries07.txt Charlotte (3), Atlanta (3), Toronto

07-08 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries08.txt Charlotte (4), Memphis, Atlanta (4)

08-09 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries09.txt Memphis (2)

09-10 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries10.txt Memphis(3), Portland, OKC (2)

10-11 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries11.txt Sacramento, LAC, Minnesota, Chicago, OKC (3)

11-12 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries12.txt Indiana, Sacramento (2), Cleveland, Toronto (2), Washington, Minnesota (2), Houston, Golden State, Charlotte (5)

12-13 http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries13.txt Phoenix, Cleveland (2), Sacramento (3), Houston (2), Charlotte (6)

13-14 http://data.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/index.jsp Philadelphia, Phoenix (2), Utah, Atlanta (5), Milwaukee, Orlando

I say Charlotteish because they operated with a different salary cap as an expansion team so they are not comparable. Debate about if Atlanta/Charlotte is #1 based upon expansion issues, but the next closest is Sacramento/Memphis with 3 times under the cap during this time.

"You down with C-A-P? YEAH YOU KNOW ME" ~Thrifty by Nature, A$G

Edited January 15, 2014 by hawksfanatic

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

Oh snap! Another capologists thread!

[Admin]

Oh my fault only 5 straight years before this year. That extra year at the beginning really made my point invalid.

[Guest]

Oh my fault only 5 straight years before this year. That extra year at the beginning really made my point invalid.

I didn't even catch your mistake of saying 6 years instead of 5, I was more focused on this strange fascination with being above the cap. Not sure why that tells you much. We typically see between 85-90% of teams above the cap, so it is more telling for the times a team is below the cap. And we have been below the cap a lot. That seems to be more telling.

[thecampster]

I didn't even catch your mistake of saying 6 years instead of 5, I was more focused on this strange fascination with being above the cap. Not sure why that tells you much. We typically see between 85-90% of teams above the cap, so it is more telling for the times a team is below the cap. And we have been below the cap a lot. That seems to be more telling.

Cap behavior tends to yield future results because of the problems with raising or lowering salary once you are above the cap or LT.

So this recent move to go below the cap the Hawks made now presents them with additional steps they must take again operate near the LT (I know I'm preaching to the choir here). My fear is that because of our issues filling out the building, this is the ASG's answer to profitability and is a sign of their intentions going forward....doing more with less.

[Vol4ever]

Dol, I know you think I'm negative and a ASG hater. But in the past they have done nothing to show me they were interested in winning. I liked Larry Drew in the end but he WAS the lowest paid coach in the league. Now the hiring of Bud is a coup, but until the ASG brings in a star player and pushes the envelope I just don't believe they really want to do what it takes to win a championship. I really hope they have turned the reins over to Ferry and he can do what he needs. I really hope that Ferry has that ability to make the trades that bring us those players. Ferry did well with Sap but the drafting part is still to be determined.

[Admin]

I didn't even catch your mistake of saying 6 years instead of 5, I was more focused on this strange fascination with being above the cap. Not sure why that tells you much. We typically see between 85-90% of teams above the cap, so it is more telling for the times a team is below the cap. And we have been below the cap a lot. That seems to be more telling.

I agree there's no great thing about being above the cap, my only point was to respond to Vol4ever and others who act like the ASG are the cheapest ownership group in the league when that's far from the truth. What year did the ASG buy the Hawks? It was right around when we were first starting the rebuild and pretty much only had rookie contracts so that time period I'd expect us to be below the cap until those players matured into their second contracts. Since then we've been steady above the cap until this year.

[Admin]

Dol,I know you think I'm negative and a ASG hater. But in the past they have done nothing to show me they were interested in winning. I liked Larry Drew in the end but he WAS the lowest paid coach in the league. Now the hiring of Bud is a coup, but until the ASG brings in a star player and pushes the envelope I just don't believe they really want to do what it takes to win a championship.I really hope they have turned the reins over to Ferry and he can do what he needs. I really hope that Ferry has that ability to make the trades that bring us those players. Ferry did well with Sap but the drafting part is still to be determined.

Star players have to want to play here though. Do you honestly believe they'd have turned down signing Dwight this offseason if he'd wanted to sign here? I understand your frustration and it goes back further than me but we should be thankful that the team hasn't moved and we've at least had a lot of games won over the past 7 years while other franchises have continued to suck year after year.

[Admin]

Cap behavior tends to yield future results because of the problems with raising or lowering salary once you are above the cap or LT.

So this recent move to go below the cap the Hawks made now presents them with additional steps they must take again operate near the LT (I know I'm preaching to the choir here). My fear is that because of our issues filling out the building, this is the ASG's answer to profitability and is a sign of their intentions going forward....doing more with less.

Operating as a business it's hard to see why they'd put more money into the franchise when attendance is trending down at Philips. They've put out a 7 consecutive year playoff team and we are 2nd to last in attendance, or were the last time I looked.

[Guest]

I agree there's no great thing about being above the cap, my only point was to respond to Vol4ever and others who act like the ASG are the cheapest ownership group in the league when that's far from the truth. What year did the ASG buy the Hawks? It was right around when we were first starting the rebuild and pretty much only had rookie contracts so that time period I'd expect us to be below the cap until those players matured into their second contracts. Since then we've been steady above the cap until this year.

They purchased the team in the middle of the 2003-04 season, which was a year that we were over the cap and made all the salary dump moves. So the A$G probably are the cheapest ownership group in the league during that time with respect to player salaries. Add in how cheaply they ran the scouting department and marketing and security and I would be hard pressed to say they outspent anyone.

Operating as a business it's hard to see why they'd put more money into the franchise when attendance is trending down at Philips. They've put out a 7 consecutive year playoff team and we are 2nd to last in attendance, or were the last time I looked.

Just because attendance is trending down (quantity), that does not mean revenues are trending down.

[Admin]

They purchased the team in the middle of the 2003-04 season, which was a year that we were over the cap and made all the salary dump moves. So the A$G probably are the cheapest ownership group in the league during that time with respect to player salaries. Add in how cheaply they ran the scouting department and marketing and security and I would be hard pressed to say they outspent anyone.Just because attendance is trending down (quantity), that does not mean revenues are trending down.

You're right about them being cheap in ither areas, no debate there. It doesn't mean revenue is not trending down either. Just makes sense that unless they're getting more money from somewhere then they're losing money from the ~2k per game attendance drop.

[MaceCase]

How did such a simple question turn into a debate on the ASG? Where did the ~30 mil in cap space go?

Millsap 9.5mil

+Teague 8mil

+Korver 6.8 mil

+Brand 4.0mil

+Carroll 2.6mil

+Ayón 1.5mil

+Antić 1.2mil

$33.6 million

These were all newly minted contracts from the past off-season to speak nothing of the Scrhoder pick, Cunningham trade or salary increases of some of the few remaining guys on the roster. I don't know how people just decided to accentuate this basic information with their opinion of whether there's a strong enough correlation between the amount of money spent and projected wins, assume that people don't generally know the difference between the salary cap and luxury tax cap.....although the very next post talked about spending above the cap as though it is some sort of monumental barrier to cross so, er, I guess there is some sort of ignorance in that regard...go further into displaying the history of teams spending over the cap .....attendance....whether Wally the janitor has dental...whether the scouting department is actually wrong on Sergiy Gladyr being the next Ray Allen....Whether Fanatic has enough promotional refrigerator magnet schedules etc. etc,

The bottom line is that the team spent it, the end.

[Guest]

You're right about them being cheap in ither areas, no debate there.It doesn't mean revenue is not trending down either. Just makes sense that unless they're getting more money from somewhere then they're losing money from the ~2k per game attendance drop.

Sure, we don't have much information on the Hawks revenues so it is hard to play that game.