2020 Free Agency Thread

[LoPo]

Do any of you actually know what the exact figures are on the Jazz payroll?

I can honestly say I don't.

I'm making an assumption that our salaries are razor thin enough to the luxury that we had to use an asset to dump the $340k on Tucker's guarantee.

So it's conceivable we are slightly under the luxury which might make all the "use 2nds to dump contracts" moves worth it since we know we are a luxury team next year (unless Rudy just walks).

However, if we are within $340k of the luxury and we only have 13 players, we don't really have any flexibility at all to add much should we hit an injury crisis right? We could do a couple 10 day contracts but that's it right?

Sent from my SM-G970U using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Do any of you actually know what the exact figures are on the Jazz payroll?

No but we know enough to do the math. The only thing I’m uncertain on is if you can count two ways as contracts to get you to the minimum 14 players under contract.

 

[candrew]

Do any of you actually know what the exact figures are on the Jazz payroll?

This is not a topic l typically devote a great deal of attention to, but it appears The Jazz are about $250k over the cap.

Spotrac seems to have the most accurate/up to date info on this.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I can honestly say I don't.

I'm making an assumption that our salaries are razor thin enough to the luxury that we had to use an asset to dump the $340k on Tucker's guarantee.

So it's conceivable we are slightly under the luxury which might make all the "use 2nds to dump contracts" moves worth it since we know we are a luxury team next year (unless Rudy just walks).

However, if we are within $340k of the luxury and we only have 13 players, we don't really have any flexibility at all to add much should we hit an injury crisis right? We could do a couple 10 day contracts but that's it right?

Sent from my SM-G970U using JazzFanz mobile app

The rules on 2-ways mean you can have those guys on the main roster way more than past years. Even if the Jazz are at 13, they essentially have 15 with Brantley and Forrest.

 

[LoPo]

The rules on 2-ways mean you can have those guys on the main roster way more than past years. Even if the Jazz are at 13, they essentially have 15 with Brantley and Forrest.

I understand, but 2 way contracts allows you to have 15 full roster players plus the 2 2 ways right?

My point is that we really won't be able to add to our 13 full roster guys since we are capped/luxuried out. Is that correct?

Sent from my SM-G970U using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The rules on 2-ways mean you can have those guys on the main roster way more than past years. Even if the Jazz are at 13, they essentially have 15 with Brantley and Forrest.

That’s fine but I’m not sure they count towards the minimum 14 contracts that the cba says you have to have. You can be at 13 for a while but not all season... that I’m not sure on.

 

[infection]

Don’t literal vet minimums not count toward cap? They count as $0 in trades, too, if I’m recalling correctly.

 

[Piso]

Luxury tax threshold : 132,627,000$

Conley+Gobert+Bogdanovic+Clarkson+Ingles+Favors+O'Neale+Mitchell+Azubuike+Niang+Hughes (11 players) = 129,853,416$
Oni+Williams-Goss (13 players) = 132,889,378$ (-262,378$)
Juwan Morgan (14 players) = 134,407,359$ (-1,780,359$)

MLE : Favors

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Don’t literal vet minimums not count toward cap? They count as $0 in trades, too, if I’m recalling correctly.

That doesn’t feel right. The vet minimums have a different cap number than actual salary based on years of service. But they all count towards the cap and tax in some form or fashion.

 

[Gameface]

So did this Qualtrics guy walk into a meeting 3 days ago and start with, "So explain this luxury tax thing to me from 30,000ft."

 

[framer]

Also, the LT isn't calculated until the trade deadline, right? I think trading Tucker was a move to allow us to grab waiver wire debris, probably somebody they are waiting on in particular, like Ingles.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

So did this Qualtrics guy walk into a meeting 3 days ago and start with, "So explain this luxury tax thing to me from 30,000ft."

That’s how I imagine it tbh.

 

[NAOS]

Also, the LT isn't calculated until the trade deadline, right? I think trading Tucker was a move to allow us to grab waiver wire debris, probably somebody they are waiting on in particular, like Ingles.

That’s the position for people who are rushing to a positive or hopeful spin on the situation. The problem that crowd will have, though, is explaining why we traded Tucker along with a pick instead of just cutting him.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

That’s the position for people who are rushing to a positive or hopeful spin on the situation. The problem that crowd will have, though, is explaining why we traded Tucker along with a pick instead of just cutting him.

When it’s a difference on the cap of 300k... hell you could waive and stretch the remaining amount to get to 100k.

I wonder how much cash we got in the deal.

 

[infection]

Also, the LT isn't calculated until the trade deadline, right? I think trading Tucker was a move to allow us to grab waiver wire debris, probably somebody they are waiting on in particular, like Ingles.

It’s calculated at the end of the year, but it’s also calculating what you e paid out. For instance, you can’t pay a guy for 3/4 of the year and waive him at the deadline to not have his salary in the books. The 3/4 you paid him is on the books.

But in any case this is a can kicker. We can rationalize the decision now by saying it’s to add someone later. Then we can rationalize not adding someone later because [reasons] and never really connecting the thread. Having to compartmentalize those would, or at least should, be an indicator. It’s this circular logic that perpetually suggests the previous step never happened. It’s kind of like gaslighting.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

It’s calculated at the end of the year, but it’s also calculating what you e paid out. For instance, you can’t pay a guy for 3/4 of the year and waive him at the deadline to not have his salary in the books. The 3/4 you paid him is on the books.

But in any case this is a can kicker. We can rationalize the decision now by saying it’s to add someone later. Then we can rationalize not adding someone later because [reasons] and never really connecting the thread. Having to compartmentalize those would, or at least should, be an indicator. It’s this circular logic that perpetually suggests the previous step never happened. It’s kind of like gaslighting.

If you were going to add someone you can’t escape the tax anyway. And we don’t really have a move left that could help us duck the tax... what contract you trading. Just none of it makes sense. Even if there is a big move that drops us under the tax the 300k won’t be the difference.

I was fine with Ed and TB trades because they helped us do something to improve the team. Even if I don’t agree with how they allocated the resources. The Tucker trade was just weird and symptomatic of the issues I’ve had with the current front office.

 

[infection]

If you were going to add someone you can’t escape the tax anyway. And we don’t really have a move left that could help us duck the tax... what contract you trading. Just none of it makes sense. Even if there is a big move that drops us under the tax the 300k won’t be the difference.

I was fine with Ed and TB trades because they helped us do something to improve the team. Even if I don’t agree with how they allocated the resources. The Tucker trade was just weird and symptomatic of the issues I’ve had with the current front office.

There are a number of things that chap my *** regarding the entire context of the Tucker issue. The first is that I had no problem with them signing him to begin with, but we sold it as this idea that we were asset barren and that this was a way of getting DL his "bite at the apple." The reality was that Ed was hurt and we saw that we desperately needed a backup C. Everyone justified never signing a backup 5 with all kinds of stupid rationalizations, but then we went out and gave guaranteed money to a guy who wasn't expected to play at all. Someone we were taking the long-game on. And it baffles my mind to think that somehow we magically knew this guy can't contribute and need to dump ASAP, but other guys we push this PR nonsense of how we need more time to evaluate them and justify continuing to make major sacrifices to accommodate that. So either we're really efficient in our analysis, or analysis is really slow and needs all the time in the world. But hey, let's not address the elephant in the room of what our actual needs are.

 

[NAOS]

If you were going to add someone you can’t escape the tax anyway. And we don’t really have a move left that could help us duck the tax... what contract you trading. Just none of it makes sense. Even if there is a big move that drops us under the tax the 300k won’t be the difference.

I was fine with Ed and TB trades because they helped us do something to improve the team. Even if I don’t agree with how they allocated the resources. The Tucker trade was just weird and symptomatic of the issues I’ve had with the current front office.

We’re nearing a time when we need to start a thread dedicated to brainstorming different reasons for why that Tucker trade happened the way it did. My mind is clamping down pretty hard right now, but there’s also a side of me who is determined that there must be a better rationale than the one we can see from our positions.

 

[KqWIN]

I agree, Tucker trade does not make much sense. My guess is that the second round pick might be a fake pick. Something to give CLE a headline.

 

[NAOS]

I agree, Tucker trade does not make much sense. My guess is that the second round pick might be a fake pick. Something to give CLE a headline.

They got the only player in the deal. Plenty of headline for a minor transaction.