Are Marquee Free Agents a Possibility?

[fishonjazz]

The rules of the NBA prevent this.

Then how are teams over the cap?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Then how are teams over the cap?

You can re-sign your own players no matter what.

 

[fishonjazz]

The funniest thing is how ****-ty of a situation Utah is in yet we all worship Lindsey. Lol. He better pray Hayward resigns.

No the funniest thing is this

The Jazz have a MLE(8.4M) and BAE(3.3M).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...4Ns6xhElatXdLpYG1roZtRLyvE/edit#gid=192019492

 

[gregbroncs]

Then how are teams over the cap?

You can sign your own players to go over the cap. He was suggesting that they can just spend tons of money and sign anybody they want. The rules prevent that. Teams are over the cap because of re-signing their own players. You can also under rules I don't understand or care to, use MLE and another exception that allows you to sign players that will also put you further over the cap.

 

[franklin]

I don't have time right now, but from everything I've read, a team has to renounce their MLE to sign with Bird Rights up to the cap. If they're still under after signing they have whatever room is left.

I'll find my old posts on this and update tomorrow.

[MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION], reading back I realized I'm uncertain about this. IIRC, the old CBA disallowed an MLE for teams under the cap. It was something I thought was bull crap that favored large market, over the cap teams.

CBAFAQ.com is unclear on this matter and I attempted to get clarity back when he had a weekly Q/A session online.

If a team is below the cap, then its Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level (either the Taxpayer or Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level, whichever applies to the team) and/or trade exceptions are added to their team salary, and the league treats the team as though they are over the cap1. This is to prevent a loophole, in a manner similar to free agent amounts (see question number 39). A team can't act like it's under the cap and sign free agents using cap room, and then use their Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or trade exceptions. Consequently, the exceptions are added to their team salary (putting the team over the cap) if the team is under the cap and adding the exceptions puts them over the cap. If a team is already over the cap, then the exceptions are not added to their team salary. There would be no point in doing so, since there is no cap room for signing free agents.

I have read online that a team must renounce their MLE to use cap space for player cap holds with Bird Rights. This is consistent with the old CBA but I cannot find the source. [MENTION=133]GVC[/MENTION] do you have any input? Maybe we have to wait and find out. If Hill and Hayward are retained then the Jazz will most certainly attempt to use any non-taxpayer MLE (assuming they are below the apron).

 

[franklin]

I don't have time right now, but from everything I've read, a team has to renounce their MLE to sign with Bird Rights up to the cap. If they're still under after signing they have whatever room is left.

I'll find my old posts on this and update tomorrow.

[MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION], reading back I realized I'm uncertain about this. IIRC, the old CBA disallowed an MLE for teams under the cap. It was something I thought was bull crap that favored large market, over the cap teams.

CBAFAQ.com is unclear on this matter and I attempted to get clarity back when he had a weekly Q/A session online.

If a team is below the cap, then its Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level (either the Taxpayer or Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level, whichever applies to the team) and/or trade exceptions are added to their team salary, and the league treats the team as though they are over the cap1. This is to prevent a loophole, in a manner similar to free agent amounts (see question number 39). A team can't act like it's under the cap and sign free agents using cap room, and then use their Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or trade exceptions. Consequently, the exceptions are added to their team salary (putting the team over the cap) if the team is under the cap and adding the exceptions puts them over the cap. If a team is already over the cap, then the exceptions are not added to their team salary. There would be no point in doing so, since there is no cap room for signing free agents.

I have read online that a team must renounce their MLE to use cap space for player cap holds with Bird Rights. This is consistent with the old CBA but I cannot find the source. [MENTION=133]GVC[/MENTION] do you have any input? Maybe we have to wait and find out. If Hill and Hayward are retained then the Jazz will most certainly attempt to use any non-taxpayer MLE (assuming they are below the apron).

*Edit to add*

Funny thing. I just copy-pasted something from Wiki and the page disappeared before I could grab the link. Here's the new info:

Teams with cap room, previously ineligible for the MLE, have a new MLE, initially $2.5 million with a two-year duration. The MLE was frozen at the stated levels through the 2012–13 season, since then, it has increased by 3% per season (with the percentage based on the initial amount of the exception, and not compounded).[6] In turn, this means that MLEs in the current 2016–17 season are:

$5.6 million for teams without cap room, below the tax apron
$3.36 million for teams over the tax apron
$2.8 million for teams with cap room
Before the 2011 CBA, the MLE was equal to the average NBA salary for all teams over the cap. Teams with cap room were previously ineligible for the MLE.[6] The Mid-Level Exception for the 2008–09 NBA season was $5.585 million.[32] The MLE was $5.854 million for the 2009–10 NBA regular season.[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_salary_cap#Mid-level_exception


Does this or does this not apply to teams with Bird's Rights after they re-sign their players?

 

[ncoloradojazz]

Can someone who understands our cap situation (cap holds), weigh in on the possibility of us resigning Hayward and going after a marquee free agent (e.g. Griffin, Lowry, Millsap)? This would obviously mean that Hill is signing somewhere else, but for the sake of argument, let's hypothetically say that Blake really wants to come here. Could we realistically make that work while retaining Hayward (as I assume if any big FA were to consider coming here they'd want Hayward on board)?

When has Utah ever been a major player in free agency? Lowry would never go to Utah and neither would Blake. Millsap maybe but even then I'm not sure. Wasting your n time thinking those two n would even consider utah

 

[Elizah Huge]

Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[franklin]

Thanks White. I missed the response and can't seem to find it on tweeter. I assume Andy has access to people who would know. If this is the case then I'm glad the NBA fixed this small market penalty.

 

[Coach Ellis]

Thanks White. I missed the response and can't seem to find it on tweeter. I assume Andy has access to people who would know. If this is the case then I'm glad the NBA fixed this small market penalty.

Agreed. You shouldn't have to renounce bird rights to keep your MLE. If you're going to start the offseason over the cap (due to cap holds), and you're going to exercise your right to stay over the cap by using Bird rights to extend your own players. . . you should be able to use the MLE to bring in a role player to provide depth.

Depending on how the Jazz navigate the draft, trades and free agency. . . that full non-taxpayer MLE might come in really handy this year.

 

[dy47]

Jabari Parker becomes a restricted free agent in summer of 2018.

 

[GVC]

Agreed. You shouldn't have to renounce bird rights to keep your MLE.

You've never had to renounce Bird rights to keep the MLE. As long as your salaries + cap holds + exceptions are above the cap, you get the full MLE. If you decide instead to sign free agents for which you don't have Bird or Early Bird rights, you have to renounce your exceptions, along with the players necessary to get far enough under the cap to sign said free agents. Under the new CBA, these teams now get a smaller MLE (not available under the last CBA).

 

[footawn]

Could the Jazz sign a free agent up to the cap limit, then re-sign Hayward using bird rights (and pay luxury tax)?

 

[Coach Ellis]

Jazz have more room to maneuver with pre-free agency trades and with the MLE than they do with trying to create cap space before signing Hayward. They'd have to move Favors, Burks, Diaw and probably renounce Hill before they could clear enough space to make an impact.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Could the Jazz sign a free agent up to the cap limit, then re-sign Hayward using bird rights (and pay luxury tax)?

Hayward will have a cap hold of 25 million or so until he is signed or we release his bird rights I believe. So that does not really leave is any wiggle room since the cap holds off all our FAs puts us at or above the cap min.

 

[footawn]

Hayward will have a cap hold of 25 million or so until he is signed or we release his bird rights I believe. So that does not really leave is any wiggle room since the cap holds off all our FAs puts us at or above the cap min.

Damn. Oh well. Guess we're not getting Hayward *and* CP3 after all.

 

[Dr. Jones]

We talkin Marquee Teague?

Dude isn't even in the league.

 

[SCS]

I posted this in another thread. But theoretically I think so...

By my estimation we could conceivably open up roughly 23 million dollars (before re-signing Hayward & Ingles) in cap room if there was someone the Jazz were sure they could get that they thought was an improvement. Unless my cap knowledge is wrong (if it is feel free to correct me).

Right now we are roughly 15.8 mill over the cap. Renouncing the cap holds of Hill, Mack and Withey would give us 5-6 mill in cap space. Releasing Diaw (7 mill) would then give us 12-13. Then we would also have to dump Burks (10.5 mill) somewhere without taking salary back which would give us roughly 23 million to work with.

 

[Coach Ellis]

I posted this in another thread. But theoretically I think so...

By my estimation we could conceivably open up roughly 23 million dollars (before re-signing Hayward & Ingles) in cap room if there was someone the Jazz were sure they could get that they thought was an improvement. Unless my cap knowledge is wrong (if it is feel free to correct me).

Right now we are roughly 15.8 mill over the cap. Renouncing the cap holds of Hill, Mack and Withey would give us 5-6 mill in cap space. Releasing Diaw (7 mill) would then give us 12-13. Then we would also have to dump Burks (10.5 mill) somewhere without taking salary back which would give us roughly 23 million to work with.

You also have to renounce Hill's bird rights as well. Currently have several million from last year that can be used in a draft day trade and some extra assets to use if needed. Who are you going to get for $23 million that's better than Hill? The Jazz are better off making a trade now, trying to flip Diaw's contract to a team looking to get some cap space free and then using the $8.4 full MLE. Unless the trade is a big one, I'm not sure that anything the Jazz do in free agency moves the needle in a positive way.

 

[SCS]

You also have to renounce Hill's bird rights as well. Currently have several million from last year that can be used in a draft day trade and some extra assets to use if needed. Who are you going to get for $23 million that's better than Hill? The Jazz are better off making a trade now, trying to flip Diaw's contract to a team looking to get some cap space free and then using the $8.4 full MLE. Unless the trade is a big one, I'm not sure that anything the Jazz do in free agency moves the needle in a positive way.

I agree a trade seems to be the more likely route if the Jazz FO makes a move. I don't see anyone in free agency that we could get and would entice the Jazz to do this. Unless maybe CP3 decided he wanted to come here on a pay cut lol. I was just pointing out that a move like that could be possible in theory.