The problem with free agency in the current CBA

[Sothron]

https://www.blazersedge.com/2024/7/23/24204479/nba-free-agents-cba-luxury-tax-second-apron-penalties-portland-trail-blazers-2024

 

This article does a good job explaining why free agency simply doesn't work in today cba. 

 

You can ignore the blazers specific portions. This is why the Hawks aren't going crazy trying to use the mid level exception.

[JayBirdHawk]

25 minutes ago, Sothron said:

This is why the Hawks aren't going crazy trying to use the mid level exception.

I get the newer restrictive CBA particularly for the perennial high spenders, Hawks don't however fall into that category.

They haven't been a team that exceeds the tax or use their MLE so them 'going crazy' in not using it doesn't apply here...it's the Hawks way.

Besides, because of taking on Zeller, Hawks are currently over the tax so the don't have access to their full $12 mil MLE. They only have the $5 mil TMLE. When you consider we are also hard capped at $178 mil because of the Zeller SnT, we don't have the space to use the full value of it.

[Sothron]

4 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I get the newer restrictive CBA particularly for the perennial high spenders, Hawks don't however fall into that category.

They haven't been a team that exceeds the tax or use their MLE so them 'going crazy' in not using it doesn't apply here...it's the Hawks way.

Besides, because of taking on Zeller, Hawks are currently over the tax so the don't have access to their full $12 mil MLE. They only have the $5 mil TMLE. When you consider we are also hard capped at $178 mil because of the Zeller SnT, we don't have the space to use the full value of it.

They don't want to shoot their wad until they feel they have that 2-3 year window where they can maybe really contend. Its another way for them to stay cheap by not paying the LT and possibly just letting Capela and Nance walk as free agents to save on future salary commitments. 

[Final_quest]

We have to time the 2-3 year window to “go for it” as the article explains.  If you hit the start button you are stuck with your roster as is for that time period.  
Once you hit start you then have to either extend your role players and have an insane payroll like Boston did with Hauser or you let them go completely and become less competitive like Denver did with Bruce Brown and KCP..

So much this article explains for anyone with ears to hear, but it’s why I don’t agree with the constant posts about using our MLE, TPE, and paying the tax.  Essentially when you start heavily spending you are saying we have finally assembled the roster to take down Boston.  Because of Trae, Murray, and Collins?  Ya’ll have lost your minds.  

The article also explains why adding long term MLE contracts at the same time you are trying to add someone like Siakam is prohibitive.  

It’s why I’m in favor of moving Hunter.  He’s not a guy we want to build with and at $22M/yr we need to have that room available in future years so that when/if we trade for the star we want we can offer them a contract extension.

[Final_quest]

This section below explains so much of where we are at.  We started to get squished before we could win more than 43 games.  Meanwhile people wanted us to spend as much as possible when we had about $100M of contracts we needed to move away from.  We got to take that trash out first… then we can shop for another star to pair with Trae + Jalen.

That’s why, in this new environment, teams are going to hold onto mid-level exceptions, trade exceptions, and other acquisition mechanisms until they’re sure the players they’re acquiring are impactful and will Tetris into their future cap/tax structure. If not, it makes far more sense to sacrifice some utility today and sign a low-level, short-term veteran, preserving the ability to get the guy you really want when the time and price are right. If you fill that compactor with junk, you’re either going to get squished or have to dump it out before those walls close.

The Ticking Clock

The obvious effect of this is that more teams will hold the ability to offer mid-level contracts to role players than ever before as they wait for the opportune time to strike. This compounds the issue for the would-be contenders. As soon as they sign their prized role-player or third star, a clock starts ticking. Those contracts are nearing their end. As time progresses, paying the team’s own stars and picking up other players off the market will shrink the amount of total salary space available. By the time a role-player’s contract comes up again, the team he plays for will be experiencing serious financial pressure. The trash compactor will have narrowed so far that they might not be able to justify re-signing him at the current rate, let alone for a raise.

[JayBirdHawk]

Hawks will do what they always do until they do otherwise. Just enough.

[AHF]

Teams that keep shedding salary to stay at the play-in level will be very real if they always prioritize flexibility above production.  I am fine with shedding Hunter for the right mix of production and salary but getting an overpaid, underproductive guy in return who saves you $8M a season isn't going to unlock the magic move to make us competitive.  It will just keep us worse than we are today and lead to our best players leaving when they get the chance.  You have to find the right mix of production and salary.

The good news for where the Hawks are now is they are under the cap and will naturally have opportunities to improve their roster going forward with expiring overpaid players coming off in upcoming seasons (CC being the big one for next year).  If we could get 60% of CC's production at 1/3 the price, we would have already done it, imo.  

Hunter is the one I'm more sensitive about because you need a deep stable of wings in today's NBA.  Giving up a solid two-way wing is not an insignificant hit to your roster's competitiveness especially coming off a year where we saw we were paper thin at the position.  Swapping out DJM and Hunter for Dyson and Risacher leaves us still far too thin, imo.  Get a return that will impact the team if you are going to deal Hunter (not a protected pick that won't deliver a useful player for 3 years).

[macdaddy]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

You have to find the right mix of production and salary.

And this usually means vets that are flawed.  Which no one around here likes but those are the guys we see deep in the playoffs every year.  

[Final_quest]

Hunter is a player we want and fits our salary Tetris?  I think he’s outside of our plan.  It’s actually obvious and the right decision to move him.

“the players they’re acquiring are impactful and will Tetris into their future cap/tax structure. If not, it makes far more sense to sacrifice some utility today and sign a low-level, short-term veteran, preserving the ability to get the guy you really want when the time and price are right. If you fill that compactor with junk, you’re either going to get squished or have to dump it out”

Spend money on guys you want!  Hunter just doesn’t fit.  Per the article Hawks FO understands a lot more than people are giving them credit for.

[RedDawg#8]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

The good news for where the Hawks are now is they are under the cap and will naturally have opportunities to improve their roster going forward with expiring overpaid players coming off in upcoming seasons

We are still way over the cap but we are underneath the luxury tax. We have more flexibility than the tax paying teams but still have to play within the boundaries that come with being over the cap limit. 
 

[JeffS17]

The disconnect between the front office and this board is that the front office came to peace with the fact our old core wasn't ever going to contend over a year ago and started building for the future.  Meanwhile, a lot of the discourse here has been acting like we entered a championship window and need to improve the roster at all costs.

[Final_quest]

15 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

The disconnect between the front office and this board is that the front office came to peace with the fact our old core wasn't ever going to contend over a year ago and started building for the future.  Meanwhile, a lot of the discourse here has been acting like we entered a championship window and need to improve the roster at all costs.

If nothing else we cleaned the payroll and replenished draft capital.  They have capacity to make moves now that were not possible before.  
We had to expose ourselves to some risk losing Trae, but forcing win now moves with an expensive .500 team with limited draft capital was a bigger risk.

[AHF]

3 hours ago, Final_quest said:

Hunter is a player we want and fits our salary Tetris?  I think he’s outside of our plan.  It’s actually obvious and the right decision to move him.

“the players they’re acquiring are impactful and will Tetris into their future cap/tax structure. If not, it makes far more sense to sacrifice some utility today and sign a low-level, short-term veteran, preserving the ability to get the guy you really want when the time and price are right. If you fill that compactor with junk, you’re either going to get squished or have to dump it out”

Spend money on guys you want!  Hunter just doesn’t fit.  Per the article Hawks FO understands a lot more than people are giving them credit for.

Their record will speak volumes.  Landry and co screwed up two years ago.  Schlenk screwed up FA signings before that.  Are they on the right track now?  You are obviously more confident than I am but the W/L record will speak to that.  I see us needing to pace with Trae as long as he is our franchise player and view losing his confidence as a big deal.

The one time I viewed us as going all in was when we acquired DJM.  Why we would have paid what we did for him and not view that as a move that should have had us back in contender status is a mystery to me.  Some seem to think we gave up control of three unprotected picks but didn't expect to return to fighting for the ECF finals and beyond from a season before but I think that is a really strange way to view Landry's goal with that deal at the time he made the deal (ie if he was just an incremental piece WTF did you pay so much when he was an UFA in two years?).

[macdaddy]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

The disconnect between the front office and this board is that the front office came to peace with the fact our old core wasn't ever going to contend over a year ago and started building for the future.  Meanwhile, a lot of the discourse here has been acting like we entered a championship window and need to improve the roster at all costs.

Eh. I think that overstates things.  This is what happens with every regime change.  Say 'we're not where we want to be and need to establish a culture' then clean house and build basically from scratch.  It's like how it takes less vision to build a house from scratch than to renovate it.  Doesn't mean renovating is impossible. 

As AHF said though, ultimately this will be judged on results and not perceived effort of the front office.   It's just how long of a grace period do they get?

[Final_quest]

57 minutes ago, AHF said:

Their record will speak volumes.  Landry and co screwed up two years ago.  Schlenk screwed up FA signings before that.  Are they on the right track now?  You are obviously more confident than I am but the W/L record will speak to that.  I see us needing to pace with Trae as long as he is our franchise player and view losing his confidence as a big deal.

The one time I viewed us as going all in was when we acquired DJM.  Why we would have paid what we did for him and not view that as a move that should have had us back in contender status is a mystery to me.  Some seem to think we gave up control of three unprotected picks but didn't expect to return to fighting for the ECF finals and beyond from a season before but I think that is a really strange way to view Landry's goal with that deal at the time he made the deal (ie if he was just an incremental piece WTF did you pay so much when he was an UFA in two years?).

I think this is two parts.

1. The core of Trae, Murray, Collins, Hunter, Capela, Okongwu, and Bogi was expensive and severely flawed.  No revisionist history could convince any decent analyst or GM that they were “so close” to being great.  That’s $160M/year on those players alone for 41 wins.  The roster was over the moment we made the trade for Murray.  

2. Landry has to build a team from that mess.  Can he do it?  Not sure, but a lot of GMs would struggle to take the post Murray trade Hawks and build a great team.  Especially if it needs to be done in 2-3 years.  In my view it would be an amazing accomplishment if he makes the right adjustments and turns things around.

Side note, we did not trade three unconditional picks for Murray.  I think maybe you are counting the swap, which that is not remotely the same.  That involves a condition of the Spurs having a better record and giving us their own pick.

We gave up a lot less for Murray than guys who have been traded for 3-4 real first round picks.   

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

I think this is two parts.

1. The core of Trae, Murray, Collins, Hunter, Capela, Okongwu, and Bogi was expensive and severely flawed.  No revisionist history could convince any decent analyst or GM that they were “so close” to being great.  That’s $160M/year on those players alone for 41 wins.  The roster was over the moment we made the trade for Murray.  

2. Landry has to build a team from that mess.  Can he do it?  Not sure, but a lot of GMs would struggle to take the post Murray trade Hawks and build a great team.  Especially if it needs to be done in 2-3 years.  In my view it would be an amazing accomplishment if he makes the right adjustments and turns things around.

Side note, we did not trade three unconditional picks for Murray.  I think maybe you are counting the swap, which that is not remotely the same.  That involves a condition of the Spurs having a better record and giving us their own pick.

We gave up a lot less for Murray than guys who have been traded for 3-4 real first round picks.   

Let's not pretend Landry  didn't have a hand in that mess.  He was working in the FO at the time and clearly got promoted in at least large part because of his support for the DJM trade.

Also, Murray is not close to as good as the guys you are comparing him to.  I'm not aware of many packages that involve 3 unprotected picks when they aren't dealing with a multiple AS / All-NBA player.  Can you think of any that went for someone who had one season under his belt (at the level you are minimally buying him at) and had only 2 years left until UFA?  I can't.  The reason you trade for someone in that situation is because you think they'll make a big positive impact now and then you can retain them for the long-term.

[kg01]

Honestly, I don't like our front office.  But the reality is most front offices are pretty meh-diocre.  On top of that the CBA has really killed most of what they can do anyways.

The CBA needs to be complex, I get that.  But it's at the point where it's complicated just for the sake of being complicated.  It's basically lawyers justifying their fees at this point.  That moves things further away from common sense, not toward.

On a note related to my FO hatred, I also hate the concept of "protected" picks.  Yeah, I get the purpose.  I'm not dumb.  But, to me, if you want to trade a pick .. trade a pick.

These snatch-back provisions are cowardly.  "I HEREBY TRADE MY PICK!! ............. but only if it's outside the top 27."  Grab your nuts/boobs and trade the fkng pick, coward.  Live with the results, sawft-a**.

Ok, I'm off my soapbox (for now). 

ISE 

[AHF]

9 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Honestly, I don't like our front office.  But the reality is most front offices are pretty meh-diocre.  On top of that the CBA has really killed most of what they can do anyways.

The CBA needs to be complex, I get that.  But it's at the point where it's complicated just for the sake of being complicated.  It's basically lawyers justifying their fees at this point.  That moves things further away from common sense, not toward.

On a note related to my FO hatred, I also hate the concept of "protected" picks.  Yeah, I get the purpose.  I'm not dumb.  But, to me, if you want to trade a pick .. trade a pick.

These snatch-back provisions are cowardly.  "I HEREBY TRADE MY PICK!! ............. but only if it's outside the top 27."  Grab your nuts/boobs and trade the fkng pick, coward.  Live with the results, sawft-a**.

Ok, I'm off my soapbox (for now). 

ISE 

I think a lot of this is the tension between the vast majority of owners who want a hard cap and the few owners and players' union who want a soft cap.  Over time, the cap gets more complicated but moves closer to a hard cap as it gets both more expensive and more competitively limiting to go over the aprons.  (I'm saying the second apron is for all practical purposes a hard cap now for the vast majority of teams not that exceeding the cap by itself is anything important.)

[macdaddy]

23 minutes ago, AHF said:

I think a lot of this is the tension between the vast majority of owners who want a hard cap and the few owners and players' union who want a soft cap.  Over time, the cap gets more complicated but moves closer to a hard cap as it gets both more expensive and more competitively limiting to go over the aprons.  (I'm saying the second apron is for all practical purposes a hard cap now for the vast majority of teams not that exceeding the cap by itself is anything important.)

As usual isn't it the perfect system for the owners.  The handful who don't care how much they spend get to do that while the rest who just want all the money in their pockets they can get receive kickback penalties from the big spenders.  All while we pay $100+ per ticket. 

[JayBirdHawk]

19 hours ago, kg01 said:

Honestly, I don't like our front office.  But the reality is most front offices are pretty meh-diocre.  On top of that the CBA has really killed most of what they can do anyways.

The Hawks have always operated as an under the tax team, so I don't think it necessarily affects their typical approach. To me, it's just now another excuse in 'well the new penalties in the new CBA blah blah blah', when the intention has never been to operate over the tax.

The new CBA has more of an effect on the free wheeling big spenders: not so much the actual money and penalties, but rather the restrictions on the type of trades they can make, the guys they can sign like signing buyout guys, aggregation of player salaries and picks they can't trade or lose.

Other than that the money is money....you either operate under or over. How much over is the biggest hindrance to how those teams that are over can remake their teams.