Fanatic reveals on Peachtree the magic sauce for expanding our cap space

[DS5]

6 minutes ago, sturt said:

1. Last summer, I read the CBA section on this, and my understanding is.... anytime they damn well please. But conventional thinking says they'll wait until his arraignment next week--if he pleads guilty, then there's seemingly no reason to hold off any further, but if he pleads not guilty, maybe this plays out further.

2/3. If we have already guaranteed it for 2016-17, then it becomes dead money.... again, that's my understanding based on what I read. There is no mechanism that gives us any new allowances to replace him.

Thanks! And I'm assuming that we haven't guaranteed his contract?

[sturt]

I believe we have to make that decision on or before 7/12.... or maybe that's the date of the arraignment, and if so, then I'm pretty sure we have to guarantee by 7/10.... those are the two dates in my head, excuse the laziness for not taking the time to look it up.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, DS5 said:

When will the nba make a decision on Scott? If he gets the OJ Mayo suspension, how does that affect our cap? Do we still have to account for his salary or do we get a pass?

Not until his case concludes.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, sturt said:

I believe we have to make that decision on or before 7/12.... or maybe that's the date of the arraignment, and if so, then I'm pretty sure we have to guarantee by 7/10.... those are the two dates in my head, excuse the laziness for not taking the time to look it up.

7/10 option date 

7/12 court date.

I think the Hawks can negotiate with him an extension date on the option.

[sturt]

4 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

7/10 option date 

7/12 court date.

I think the Hawks can negotiate with him an extension date on the option.

True.... I've seen that other teams have done that.

7 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Not until his case concludes.

Actually, as I understand it, the CBA allows them to intervene at their own discretion.... you're almost certainly right that they won't, but I believe they could if they wanted to.

[mrhonline]

HF's idea makes some sense, but it assumes a willing partner (as he mentioned).  What I'd do instead is use the cap space to make Bazemore's contract as "front loaded" as possible. It's too early for accurate math, so I will estimate something like: $19.3M, $18.1M, $16.9M, $15.7M.  You'd still have the exception to sign a free agent, although that has lost a lot of its value in this new market.

Trades are the best option moving forward, and there's plenty of vet expirings on the roster to facilitate a move.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

True.... I've seen that other teams have done that.

Actually, as I understand it, the CBA allows them to intervene at their own discretion.... you're almost certainly right that they won't, but I believe they could if they wanted to.

This is not Roger Goodell's NFL. 

[thecampster]

I am a bit confused by his article...not that he's wrong but I think he said it a bit too quick.  Trading Teague for incoming contracts does not "give us space". Trading Horford for incoming contracts does not give us additional space. Space is a fixed number, and in the end of it all is calculated by total salaries, holds and kickers.  The current state of the roster not including holds is 91 million...no amount of trickery will change that. The only way to lessen the current cap is to remove current players.

Now using sign and trades we can bring in additional salary on top of the cap and in Al's case, the full $25 million of his salary. But that would put us $21 million over the cap and that's a luxury tax land you don't want to live in (every dollar over the cap costs another $3.75 in tax....ie...21 million over is close to $80 million.....more next year). Staying with $5 million of the cap is the only financially responsible long term answer in regards to the flexibility to resign Sap/Dennis.

The no-brainer move here is Scott has to go and to use that space to sign people straight up...the only reason it hasn't been done is to provide a waive capable contract to another team as a kicker. But that needs to be done in the next 5 days.

[RandomFan]

You only have to trade out a smaller amount of salary when you trade for a larger one. Meaning we could sign players up to the cap, then trade something like $17.5m in salaries out and take back something like $23.5m in salary back. Which puts you over the cap, but is allowed in trade scenarios. So yes, it does give us more salary cap space to work with, by allowing us to go over the cap.

[thecampster]

That isn't cap space, that's LT space.

[RandomFan]

41 minutes ago, thecampster said:

That isn't cap space, that's LT space.