2020 Free Agency Thread

[Handlogten's Heros]

Not aware of this rule; strange. Could this guy (Dan Clayton) just be wrong? Larry Coon is usually pretty good.

I think there is a difference between actual salary and the cap number. I think it’s right just different parts of the rule book. It might only be for tax purposes.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Not aware of this rule; strange. Could this guy (Dan Clayton) just be wrong? Larry Coon is usually pretty good.

If this is the rule, could the Jazz trade a couple of their guys making more than the minimum for other teams' drafted players on the rookie minimum to avoid the tax? Do they have any more 2nd round picks to throw away?

I’ll bet Niang could get you one.

I had the same thought as you... specifically for NWG... but I don’t think it’s an option. Should have bought like the 57 and 58th picks in the draft and had them around.

 

[GVC]

I think there is a difference between actual salary and the cap number. I think it’s right just different parts of the rule book. It might only be for tax purposes.

I don't see it in Larry Coon's FAQ. Is this Salt City Hoops dude reliable?

Either way, it might be possible to replace two or three of the Jazz's last four with players making the rookie minimum ($900k) and avoid the LT.

 

[Getting Traded]

Agreed and with the addition of Favs he should fit better than last year IMO.
Despite all his flaws we have to be aware that, as a player, he's not as trash as we often draw him.
To be clear, I did not mean to say that Mike should be our hero, quite the opposite; I only believe/hope he will play and fit far better this year.

Sent from my M2006C3MG using JazzFanz mobile app

But he should come off the bench ... period. We could have him, Clarkson, and Favors off the bench. Start Donovan, Royce, Ingles, Bojan, and Rudy. If we play a team with two bigs, substitute Favors for Ingles in the starting lineup. This gives the Jazz a very strong bench.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I don't see it in Larry Coon's FAQ. Is this Salt City Hoops dude reliable?

Either way, it might be possible to replace two or three of the Jazz's last four with players making the rookie minimum ($900k) and avoid the LT.

He’s reliable... not 100% sure he’s right but I believe it.

 

[GVC]

I think there is a difference between actual salary and the cap number. I think it’s right just different parts of the rule book. It might only be for tax purposes.

Found the relevant part in Larry Coon's CBA FAQ. It appears as though Dan Clayton's understanding is not consistent with the FAQ, as that salary calculation for rookies and second year players making the minimum is for the Apron, not the cap or LT:

13. Exactly what is included when computing total team salaries? What is cap room? What is a cap hold?

So yeah, the Jazz may be able to keep two of Niang/NWG/Oni/Morgan, and replace the other two with rookie minimum contracts to get under the LT.

 

[GVC]

Which, of course, makes perfect sense: The Jazz are cheap and conservative, and just tossed a bunch of second round picks to avoid the LT.

In the end, it looks like you were wrong about the Jazz using the full MLE + re-signing JC, but possibly right about them skirting the LT.

 

[Troat Guru]

But he should come off the bench ... period. We could have him, Clarkson, and Favors off the bench. Start Donovan, Royce, Ingles, Bojan, and Rudy. If we play a team with two bigs, substitute Favors for Ingles in the starting lineup. This gives the Jazz a very strong bench.

I agree to a certain extent.
IMO, it's not a matter of starting lineup. Yes it could be more useful having JC Favs and Mike off the bench but what I want to underline here is that what really matter is how many minutes you play and with whom you play these minutes.
BTW I've always believed that the difference between starters and bench dudes is pretty overrated.

This gives the Jazz a very strong bench.

Anyway yes we are a pretty balanced team

 

[framer]

Found the relevant part in Larry Coon's CBA FAQ. It appears as though Dan Clayton's understanding is not consistent with the FAQ, as that salary calculation for rookies and second year players making the minimum is for the Apron, not the cap or LT:

13. Exactly what is included when computing total team salaries? What is cap room? What is a cap hold?

So yeah, the Jazz may be able to keep two of Niang/NWG/Oni/Morgan, and replace the other two with rookie minimum contracts to get under the LT.

Yeah, generally you need to trust the accountant that does this for a living over the guy who runs a sports blog, no matter how good the b

 

[infection]

Yeah, generally you need to trust the accountant that does this for a living over the guy who runs a sports blog, no matter how good the b

Yes, and I hear people say this a lot about my profession, but being in my profession I have witnessed people at the highest levels be wrong, and lay people be right, not infrequently. The difference between lay public and expertise on any given specific situation varies significantly on the mean, but the distributions still have overlap, however, and isn't binary.

 

[LogGrad98]

I’m gonna be honest. Love favs...admittedly underrated his value in the past. But I would have been totally ok with rolling with Morgan for these situations. I have concerns that Favs health is fried and also have lots of optimism with Morgan.

The problem lies in the fact that the FO loves Favs and views him as a starter. If he is coming in to provide backup off the bench and the occasional big lineup situationally that's actually really great. But they are going to start him, we all know it, and frankly, that's bad.

 

[KqWIN]

The problem lies in the fact that the FO loves Favs and views him as a starter. If he is coming in to provide backup off the bench and the occasional big lineup situationally that's actually really great. But they are going to start him, we all know it, and frankly, that's bad.

It's not that bad, he lineup has always been positive. It's just always been better with whatever PF (good or bad) we play instead. Favors is the backup C, and if he plays any 4 it doesn't matter if it's off the bench or as a starter. At the end of the day any Favors 4 minutes it's just replacing Niang's minutes. I love the minivan, but I'm not going to pretend like that's a huge loss. Feels bad to spend the full MLE on a long term 15 MPG guy...but if it stops the bleeding of picks to find a backup C it might be worth it. Backup C should be the easiest spot to fill.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yeah, generally you need to trust the accountant that does this for a living over the guy who runs a sports blog, no matter how good the b

He’s actually an IT guy that does sports business on the side.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

From cba questions... second to last bullet point.​

​

18. What is the "luxury tax?" Why does it exist? How is it determined? Who pays it?​

The luxury tax is a mechanism that helps control team spending. While it is commonly referred to as a "luxury tax," the CBA simply calls it a "tax" or a "team payment." It is paid by high spending teams -- those with a team salary exceeding a predetermined tax level. These teams pay a penalty for each dollar their team salary (with a few exceptions, see below) exceeds the tax level.

The tax level is determined prior to the season, and is computed by taking 53.51% of projected BRI (see question number 12), subtracting projected benefits, and dividing by the number of teams in the league1. The tax level may be adjusted from there, based on what happened during the previous season:

• If the league didn't pay the players enough the previous season, i.e., if they had to cut the players a supplemental check to make their guarantee, then the shortfall, divided by the number of teams in the league1, is added to the tax level. For example, if the players are paid $90 million less in 2017-18 than they are guaranteed, then the 2018-19 tax level is adjusted upward by $3 million.
• If there is an overage -- i.e., if the players were paid more (pre-escrow) than their guaranteed share in the previous season -- and the system is getting close to exceeding what the league can get back through the escrow system, then the tax level (and salary cap) may be reduced in order to put on the brakes (see question number 17 for more information).

Teams pay an incremental tax rate based on their team salary as of the team's last regular season game, and whether the team is a "repeat offender," i.e., whether they were also taxpayers in at least three of the four previous seasons (not including the most recent season):

Lower	Upper	Tax rate	Incremental maximum	Tax rate	Incremental maximum
Team salary above tax level	Non-repeater	Repeater
$0	$4,999,999	$1.50	$7.5 million	$2.50	$12.5 million
$5,000,000	$9,999,999	$1.75	$8.75 million	$2.75	$13.75 million
$10,000,000	$14,999,999	$2.50	$12.5 million	$3.50	$17.5 million
$15,000,000	$19,999,999	$3.25	$16.25 million	$4.25	$21.25 million
$20,000,000	N/A	$3.75, and increasing $.50 for each additional $5 million	N/A	$4.75, and increasing $.50 for each additional $5 million	N/A

For example:

• A team with a team salary $12 million over the tax level pays a tax of $21.25 million (the incremental maximum of $7.5 million for $0 to $4,999,999, plus the incremental maximum of $8.75 million for $5 million to $9,999,999, plus $2 million times the incremental rate of $2.50 for $10 million to $14,999,999).
• A team that was a taxpayer in three of the four previous seasons, with a team salary in the current season $4 million over the tax level pays a tax of $10 million ($4 million times the repeater rate of $2.50 for $0 to $4,999,999).

When determining the amount of tax a team owes, the league uses its team salary (see question number 13) on the date of its last regular season game (i.e., if a player is traded away before the end of the season, then none of his salary is taxed), with the following adjustments:

• Cap holds and exceptions are ignored.
• Any "unlikely bonuses" (see question number 74) that were actually earned are added to the team salary.
• Any "likely bonuses" (see question number 74) that were not earned are subtracted from the team salary.
• Any trade bonuses (see question number 99) for players received in trade after the last regular season game are added to the team salary. This amount may be pro-rated -- see question number 100 for details.
• Any amounts from settlements of grievances are added to the team salary.
• For players who signed as free agents (i.e., not draft picks) under the current CBA, and make less than the two-year minimum salary, the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is used in place of their actual salary.2,3
• For minimum salary players whose salary is partially paid by the league (see question number 22) only the amount paid by the team (the two-year minimum salary) is taxed.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Found the relevant part in Larry Coon's CBA FAQ. It appears as though Dan Clayton's understanding is not consistent with the FAQ, as that salary calculation for rookies and second year players making the minimum is for the Apron, not the cap or LT:

13. Exactly what is included when computing total team salaries? What is cap room? What is a cap hold?

So yeah, the Jazz may be able to keep two of Niang/NWG/Oni/Morgan, and replace the other two with rookie minimum contracts to get under the LT.

Check out the post above... Larry and Dan agree... it’s a two year minimum salary for tax purposes.

 

[idiot]

Found the relevant part in Larry Coon's CBA FAQ. It appears as though Dan Clayton's understanding is not consistent with the FAQ, as that salary calculation for rookies and second year players making the minimum is for the Apron, not the cap or LT:

13. Exactly what is included when computing total team salaries? What is cap room? What is a cap hold?

So yeah, the Jazz may be able to keep two of Niang/NWG/Oni/Morgan, and replace the other two with rookie minimum contracts to get under the LT.

The only thing I could find on this (again I'm a complete novice on this) is from the CBA's Article VII, Section 12, part (f) (pg. 259-60 in the CBA):

"For purposes of computing the amount of tax a team owes: ... the Salary attributable to a Contract between a Team and a Free Agent with zero (0) Years of Service or one (1) Year of Service shall be deemed to be the greater of (x) such Salary or (y) the Minimum Player Salary that would be applicable to a player with two (2) Years of Service, or in the event such player’s Contract is terminated during the Regular Season, the Minimum Player Salary that would be applicable to a player with two (2) Years of Service, reduced pro-rata to reflect the player’s post-termination Salary."

This sounds like the considering of any minimum salary at the level of at least a 2-year vet's minimum salary applies to tax payment calculations. I can't find anything that shows the same thing would apply to teams below the tax (though I could have missed it, of course).

 

[GVC]

Check out the post above... Larry and Dan agree... it’s a two year minimum salary for tax purposes.

Good catch.

So the Jazz should still be able to trade 2 of NWG/Morgan/Oni/Niang for drafted players making the rookie minimum to maybe get under the tax.

Do they have any second round picks left to make this happen? Is this why they're hyping Oni and Morgan so much?

 

[GVC]

It's a pretty cool adjustment from both ends. Basically anyone on a minimum contract, irrespective of their service time and the associated salary, counts as a 2-year minimum salary against the LT and Apron.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Good catch.

So the Jazz should still be able to trade 2 of NWG/Morgan/Oni/Niang for drafted players making the rookie minimum to maybe get under the tax.

Do they have any second round picks left to make this happen? Is this why they're hyping Oni and Morgan so much?

Seconds appear out of thin air from what I’ve heard from the front office defenders... we can have 15 of em here tomorrow for a happy meal.

I think they like those guys and we pay the tax unless we make a trade of Mike or someone with some actual salary.

I think Niang could get a second round drafted guy... waive NWG and give someone a million dollars for their guy.

 

[framer]

Yes, and I hear people say this a lot about my profession, but being in my profession I have witnessed people at the highest levels be wrong, and lay people be right, not infrequently. The difference between lay public and expertise on any given specific situation varies significantly on the mean, but the distributions still have overlap, however, and isn't binary.

Yeah, but one guy gets fired for missing, the other gets to move on like nothing happened. My rule of thumb is to look who has the most skin in the game. You are correct though, the absolute worst are "experts" who face no consequences whatsoever for being wrong.