Hawks lead the NBA in dead cap space

[JTB]

Ok HawkSquawk Experts!...Any good out of this? I’m thinking NO!...What good is it for Schlenk to buy out all these contracts (Crawford, Belinelli, Illayasova, etc)?

Why not just let them fall off at the end of the season?

 

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/249432/Hawks-Lead-NBA-In-Dead-Cap-Space-At-$32M

“The Atlanta Hawks lead the NBA in dead cap space with $32 million (32 percent of total salary), which means salaries for players not on the roster.

Jamal Crawford represents $10.9 million of that amount following his release in July. Marco Belinelli, Ersan Ilyasova and Richard Jefferson are also included on the dead money.

The Chicago Bulls rank second at $26.3 million, followed by the Phoenix Suns at $18.6 million, Sacramento Kings at $18 million and Milwaukee Bucks at $16.1 million.“

Edited April 2, 2018 by JTB

[AHF]

55 minutes ago, JTB said:

Ok HawkSquawk Experts!...Any good out of this? I’m thinking NO!...What good is it for Schlenk to buy out all these contracts (Crawford, Belinelli, Illayasova, etc)?

Why not just let them fall off at the end of the season?

 

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/249432/Hawks-Lead-NBA-In-Dead-Cap-Space-At-$32M

“The Atlanta Hawks lead the NBA in dead cap space with $32 million (32 percent of total salary), which means salaries for players not on the roster.

Jamal Crawford represents $10.9 million of that amount following his release in July. Marco Belinelli, Ersan Ilyasova and Richard Jefferson are also included on the dead money.

The Chicago Bulls rank second at $26.3 million, followed by the Phoenix Suns at $18.6 million, Sacramento Kings at $18 million and Milwaukee Bucks at $16.1 million.“

Crawford was done to acquire a draft pick.  The others were people we wanted to flip for value but who were ultimately cut so we could lose more games and get a higher draft pick this year.  We keep people like Plumlee in the hopes we can get rid of them in the future by using them as filler in a trade (in contrast to expiring deals like Beli and Ilya).  If you are going to miss the playoffs anyway, why finish with the 7th best chance for the #1-3 picks if you can do better?

[Peoriabird]

38 minutes ago, AHF said:

 If you are going to miss the playoffs anyway, why finish with the 7th best chance for the #1-3 picks if you can do better?

I got this KB so you don't have to respond....Because it create a losing mentality and once you develop that mentality you stay in the lottery forever.  Once a GM gets the taste of losing, he'll want to lose all of the time. He'll start trading anyone with potential away for nothing just to lose some more.  Also He'll fire his coach to bring in someone that really knows how to lose.  He'll convince the owners that it is profitable to lose.  He'll convince the fan base that losing is good so we can get high draft pick and then trade them away for nothing and start over again. He'll sign injured players and Free agent know for losing to lose, Lose, lose!!!  The franchise's goal is to lose at least 60 games per year over the next 5 years...Longer if possible!  After the owners have made tons of money from losing, maybe the team can sneak into the playoffs as an 8th but after that go back to losing!

[JTB]

2 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

I got this KB so you don't have to respond....Because it create a losing mentality and once you develop that mentality you stay in the lottery forever.  Once a GM gets the taste of losing, he'll want to lose all of the time. He'll start trading anyone with potential away for nothing just to lose some more.  Also He'll fire his coach to bring in someone that really knows how to lose.  He'll convince the owners that it is profitable to lose.  He'll convince the fan base that losing is good so we can get high draft pick and then trade them away for nothing and start over again. He'll sign injured players and Free agent know for losing to lose, Lose, lose!!!  The franchise's goal is to lose at least 60 games per year over the next 5 years...Longer if possible!  After the owners have made tons of money from losing, maybe the team can sneak into the playoffs as an 8th but after that go back to losing!

Welp! ....glad that’s out the way

 

3 hours ago, AHF said:

Crawford was done to acquire a draft pick.  The others were people we wanted to flip for value but who were ultimately cut so we could lose more games and get a higher draft pick this year.  We keep people like Plumlee in the hopes we can get rid of them in the future by using them as filler in a trade (in contrast to expiring deals like Beli and Ilya).  If you are going to miss the playoffs anyway, why finish with the 7th best chance for the #1-3 picks if you can do better?

I understand all that but I’m not understanding the dead cap space part I guess. So does all this dead cap affect the available cap this summer? 

[thecampster]

I got this.

Dead cap is salary that has been spent that can't be reused.  For example, had we traded Belli instead of a buyout, we would have taken salary back.  But we did not and the salary left on the board is dead...meaning it can't be turned into anything....this year.

The benefit is they act the same as an expiring contract at the end of the year.  The dead cap figure for Crawford goes down to 2.3 million on next year's cap. Belli, Illysova, Dunleavy, Stone, Mac, etc all come off the books at the end of this year. The effective benefit is our current cap number (per hoopshype which is always a bit off) is 98.8 million but next year (2018/19) we start with a cap number of 71.6 million. That is mostly because of the dead contracts. In 2019/20 the starting cap figure drops to 47 million.

As for the current year, there is a small benefit.  The cut player agrees to a buyout so he can join a better club. Usually there is a small salary savings that year. Also, if the player signs with another team, there is another small savings for the original club. It is a cost savings move because a tanking team is drawing less fans and is making less money.

The last benefit is that vets always play over developing rooks not named Lebron, Durant, etc. By buying out the vet, you clear the way for more playing time for the developing players. Basically it got a few more minutes for Dorsey, Collins and friends, against better players. It is the only way they'll get better.

[Watchman]

On 4/2/2018 at 6:47 PM, AHF said:

Crawford was done to acquire a draft pick.  The others were people we wanted to flip for value but who were ultimately cut so we could lose more games and get a higher draft pick this year.  We keep people like Plumlee in the hopes we can get rid of them in the future by using them as filler in a trade (in contrast to expiring deals like Beli and Ilya).  If you are going to miss the playoffs anyway, why finish with the 7th best chance for the #1-3 picks if you can do better?

I think you are looking at the only team stupid enough to take on Plumlee's contract.

[JTB]

On 4/2/2018 at 10:48 PM, thecampster said:

I got this.

Dead cap is salary that has been spent that can't be reused.  For example, had we traded Belli instead of a buyout, we would have taken salary back.  But we did not and the salary left on the board is dead...meaning it can't be turned into anything....this year.

The benefit is they act the same as an expiring contract at the end of the year.  The dead cap figure for Crawford goes down to 2.3 million on next year's cap. Belli, Illysova, Dunleavy, Stone, Mac, etc all come off the books at the end of this year. The effective benefit is our current cap number (per hoopshype which is always a bit off) is 98.8 million but next year (2018/19) we start with a cap number of 71.6 million. That is mostly because of the dead contracts. In 2019/20 the starting cap figure drops to 47 million.

As for the current year, there is a small benefit.  The cut player agrees to a buyout so he can join a better club. Usually there is a small salary savings that year. Also, if the player signs with another team, there is another small savings for the original club. It is a cost savings move because a tanking team is drawing less fans and is making less money.

The last benefit is that vets always play over developing rooks not named Lebron, Durant, etc. By buying out the vet, you clear the way for more playing time for the developing players. Basically it got a few more minutes for Dorsey, Collins and friends, against better players. It is the only way they'll get better.

That is part I needed to know most! 

Thanks for the breakdown! Very helpful!

[AHF]

15 hours ago, Watchman said:

I think you are looking at the only team stupid enough to take on Plumlee's contract.

I expect that is the case but we've seen in the past that even dead money contract like Terrell Brandon's deal have value as filler in trades -- especially as they get closer to expiring.  If a team had a star that was disgruntled and they looked to move them, Plumlee's contract could be an important part of a deal like that in a year or two.  On its own, it is clearly a toxic deal that no one would want.