What's new
By:

2020 Free Agency Thread

KqWIN said:
In theory the two big lineup should be better with Bojan/Conley instead of Rubio. It was never negative. But I still don’t have much faith in it during the playoffs. The Lakers money lineup has AD at C anyways. He played 5 almost exclusively in the finals. So it’s a moot point.

I would respect DL a lot more if he just said that Bradley and Davis were trash and that’s why we signed Favs.
Click to expand...
I mean he booted their asses and drafted a Rookie to replace one of them so the writing is pretty much on the wall there. . .
 
idiot said:
TLDR overview: possible way to get below luxury tax without trade (though I'm not smart enough to know for sure, so I want feedback on this)

Given what we know now, I'm very confused by the Tucker trade. It seems to only save the Jazz about half a million dollars if they don't go beneath the tax (unless they received a bit more than expected in cash considerations from Cleveland; but even then it's puzzling). If it is something that allows them to go below the tax, then it may be worth up to $10 million or more in the long run (and thus will be well worth it).

The problem is, despite what DL said today in the presser, we don't really know the avenue from there to get below the tax. This problem is compounded by not knowing what certain things (for example, if this seaon's revised CBA makes avenues available that aren't usually there; or whether dollar amounts in the current contracts differ from those publicly reported). Assuming there's nothing in the revised CBA or nothing unknown in the existing contracts, it appears we're in the neighborhood of $1.9 million above the tax level with the 14 contracts we have. So what options do we have for getting below the tax? We (may) have two.

Of course we could make a trade (the OPJ for Conley trade that everyone seems to assume is perpetually on the table from the Bulls, being the easiest).

But it may still be possible through another mechanism. I'm not enough of an expert to calculate this all out. But I have been looking at the CBA (https://cosmic-s3.imgix.net/3c7a0a50-8e11-11e9-875d-3d44e94ae33f-2017-NBA-NBPA-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement.pdf). It looks like there could be a path (this is my plea for someone smarter than me to help figure out whether this is really plausible):

@Handlogten's Heros is right that we generally need 14 players under contract, and 2-ways don't count. But there is an exception. A team can carry 13 players for up to two weeks at a time. I can't find any limit to the number of times per year this can be done.

I also looked at @Saint Cy of JFC's thought of circulating through 10-day contracts if NWG ends up being cut before being guaranteed. That does indeed appear to be a viable option after a certain date (January 5 in normal years; I don't know if the revised CBA makes it different this year). The only requirement for 10-day contracts is that they have to be scaled at least to the level of a minimum contract. There are also stipulations about how many 10-day contracts a team can concurrently have, but I think that this probably won't end up mattering much in our case.

So I'm wondering, if for whatever reason during the season, the Jazz decide that they really do want to go below tax level whether the following strategy would work:
  • Jettison two players: likely NWG before guaranteed; Oni also has the same February 27 guarantee date; Morgan and Niang could also be candidates if the right situation emerged
  • Once the 10-day contracts are permitted, use the combination of cycling through 10-day players on prorated minimum contracts ($898,310 proration basis) and cycling through the 2-week grace period for a 13-man (non-two-way) roster to cut the ~$1.9 off the salary burden.
If anyone's smart enough to figure out whether this might possibly work (given that we still have some unknowns on dates), please let me know.
Click to expand...
Problem is we are at 1.8-1.9M over and this saves us a maximum of like 1.5M I think.

I like the thinking but only way I see it happening is a trade. It would also make some sense if there was another signing... like we wanted to use BAE but were concerned it gets us too close to the hard cap.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Problem is we are at 1.8-1.9M over and this saves us a maximum of like 1.5M I think.

I like the thinking but only way I see it happening is a trade. It would also make some sense if there was another signing... like we wanted to use BAE but were concerned it gets us too close to the hard cap.
Click to expand...
Can you give me your assumptions behind the 1.5M figure?
 
infection said:
RHJ could be our dollar store Crowder. It's an obvious choice, which means it's not happening.
Click to expand...
If I were GM, my off-season would be...

[I could live with Udoka]
Sign Udoh.
Sign Shaq.
Sign RHJ.
Trade Mike for OPJ.

That team's payroll is like $10-15M less and it's a better team.
 
Mitchell / Shaq
Ingles / Clarkson
Bojan / Royce
OPJ / RHJ
Gobert / Udoka
 
idiot said:
Can you give me your assumptions behind the 1.5M figure?
Click to expand...
I was just using a full waiver of NWG. I don’t think you can go below 13... so you waive NWG and add in a few 10 days which stack up on the cap.
Honestly I just think they are a little sloppy and will pay tax on like 2M in salary over the tax... or they have another addition and want to give themselves maximum breathing room.
 
infection said:
If I were GM, my off-season would be...

[I could live with Udoka]
Sign Udoh.
Sign Shaq.
Sign RHJ.
Trade Mike for OPJ.

That team's payroll is like $10-15M less and it's a better team.
Click to expand...
What happens if they waive Niang, NWG, Morgan and Oni and fill the roster with the bare minimum of minimum wage rookies? Like Toolson and the Seton Hall dude for example.
 
infection said:
If I were GM, my off-season would be...

[I could live with Udoka]
Sign Udoh.
Sign Shaq.
Sign RHJ.
Trade Mike for OPJ.

That team's payroll is like $10-15M less and it's a better team.
Click to expand...
I’d have drafted Desmond Bane... signed Shaq to a multi year value deal. I might have moved Mike but tough to speculate what actually could get done.

Then I go shopping for bargain rim protectors... Len at the minimum or Nerlens for 5M.

Id have waived NWG and bought a pick in the 50s and used it on anybody so I could get a 900k cap number instead of 1.5M.

Whatever I did I’d make sure I was clear of the tax to not start the repeater clock.
 
homeytennis said:
What happens if they waive Niang, NWG, Morgan and Oni and fill the roster with the bare minimum of minimum wage rookies? Like Toolson and the Seton Hall dude for example.
Click to expand...
They have the same caphold as a vet unless you draft them. So you need to buy picks in the 50s and roster them.
 
infection said:
If I were GM, my off-season would be...

[I could live with Udoka]
Sign Udoh.
Sign Shaq.
Sign RHJ.
Trade Mike for OPJ.

That team's payroll is like $10-15M less and it's a better team.
Click to expand...

The Conley for Porter Jr trade would have saved us so many assets. I think we could have saved at least 3 2nd rounders (we wouldn't have had to dump Tucker or Bradley/Davis). Here is my fear;

- we keep Conley all season
- we have another disappointing playoff run
- Conley just leaves in free agency

All things considered, mismanagement of trading for and then not trading Conley will cost us two 1st round picks, Crowder, Grayson, Korver and three 2nd round picks.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I was just using a full waiver of NWG. I don’t think you can go below 13... so you waive NWG and add in a few 10 days which stack up on the cap.
Honestly I just think they are a little sloppy and will pay tax on like 2M in salary over the tax... or they have another addition and want to give themselves maximum breathing room.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you can't go below 14 for more than 2 weeks at a time.

I'm surely not fully accurate with my back-of-the envelope Excel calculations, but based on my original idea, it seems like that idea of cycling through 10-days and 2 weeks of 13 players on the roster could indeed get the Jazz under the luxury tax if:
- two of Oni, NWG, and Morgan were somehow off the books by about January 10; or
- Niang and one of the three above were off the books by about January 20.

I haven't been able to find when 10-day contracts are allowable for this season yet. My suspicion is that it won't be this early, though the original CBA says January 5. Given that (and given that I don't see the Jazz letting go of Oni, Morgan, or Niang that quickly in any event), I think you're right that we pay the tax. And maybe the idea about the BAE comes into play.

As for me: I'm not ready to go down the rabbit hole of the Jazz made a mistake in their calculations. The Jazz's money moves here might prove to be unwise, but I'm not going with the negligently incompetent narrative.

So barring any more solid information, I'll just conclude my participation in this discussion with:
- I still don't understand the Tucker trade. The only way I can make sense of it is with the possibility I mention here (using it as one step in a larger plan to go below the tax; and without the Tucker trade, this possibility would not exist, I think). But this possibility depends on information that doesn't seem to be publicly available yet.
-Though the path to go beneath the tax might exist, I'm not really expecting the Jazz to use it.
- Unless something surprising happens, I don't like the Tucker trade.
 
idiot said:
I'm pretty sure you can't go below 14 for more than 2 weeks at a time.

I'm surely not fully accurate with my back-of-the envelope Excel calculations, but based on my original idea, it seems like that idea of cycling through 10-days and 2 weeks of 13 players on the roster could indeed get the Jazz under the luxury tax if:
- two of Oni, NWG, and Morgan were somehow off the books by about January 10; or
- Niang and one of the three above were off the books by about January 20.

I haven't been able to find when 10-day contracts are allowable for this season yet. My suspicion is that it won't be this early, though the original CBA says January 5. Given that (and given that I don't see the Jazz letting go of Oni, Morgan, or Niang that quickly in any event), I think you're right that we pay the tax. And maybe the idea about the BAE comes into play.

As for me: I'm not ready to go down the rabbit hole of the Jazz made a mistake in their calculations. The Jazz's money moves here might prove to be unwise, but I'm not going with the negligently incompetent narrative.

So barring any more solid information, I'll just conclude my participation in this discussion with:
- I still don't understand the Tucker trade. The only way I can make sense of it is with the possibility I mention here (using it as one step in a larger plan to go below the tax; and without the Tucker trade, this possibility would not exist, I think). But this possibility depends on information that doesn't seem to be publicly available yet.
-Though the path to go beneath the tax might exist, I'm not really expecting the Jazz to use it.
- Unless something surprising happens, I don't like the Tucker trade.
Click to expand...
PS -- I'm likely wrong about how much 10-day contracts count toward the cap figure/tax line. If so, the possibility I imagined simply doesn't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top