Wikileaks informant sturt reveals Schlenk's Projected Oct 2020 Salary Cap Spreadsheet

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

That's not how it works when it comes to market value looking at players production at a point in time at a specific age.

The totally of work matters. 

Wow. I guess we really need to be talking exclusively about Paul Millsap, if that's truly what you think.

But it's really not what you think. You're not hard to figure out, just defending a judgment to its brutal death.

ALL OF IT, rather, matters, but what matters most is what has happened most recently, of course. A year ago, for instance, there was no clear cut court of public opinion verdict on whether Ingram was even worth an extension. Today, you yourself are arguing he's earned a max (!) contract, and too good for NOP to let go. (I've agreed with that, btw, of course.)

The argument that Harrell's ceiling has been hit, and that Wood's ceiling has not is especially compelling here. There's not a $5 million difference there.

[JayBirdHawk]

10 minutes ago, sturt said:

Wow. I guess we really need to be talking exclusively about Paul Millsap, if that's truly what you think.

But it's really not what you think. You're not hard to figure out, just defending a judgment to its brutal death.

ALL OF IT, rather, matters, but what matters most is what has happened most recently, of course. A year ago, for instance, there was no clear cut court of public opinion verdict on whether Ingram was even worth an extension. Today, you yourself are arguing he's earned a max (!) contract, and too good for NOP to let go. (I've agreed with that, btw, of course.)

The argument that Harrell's ceiling has been hit, and that Wood's ceiling has not is especially compelling here. There's not a $5 million difference there.

You missed my point!

I've never once argued that Ingram is worthy of a Max contract. I said it's more likely than not at 99% that NOP retains him on a max deal and I've maintained that TS will not attempt to sign him either....that's what I've 'defended to it's brutal death.'  Just like you keep pushing Ingram to the Hawks.

A year ago Ingram was dealing with a serious medical condition. This year he has played well for most of the season.

Wood has played well in the games after Detroit traded Drummond - sample size matters.

Yes, ALL OF IT matters, including Woods inability to have a consistent role with the many teams he has been traded to so far in his short NBA career.

 

[sturt]

Um. Nice try, but all you actually said there is "well, I didn't say he is worth it, but I am 99% convinced that NOP thinks he's worth it." Either way. Same point still holds--NOP didn't think he was worth an extension before (his health surely was a factor, but so was his underwhelming production for such a high draft pick previously). You say you think NOP thinks he's worth it now. So, the phrase "you missed my point" is actually, more appropriately my words here.... Ingram's situation testifies to the relevance and salience of recent history.

Sample size matters, yes. All of it matters... again, my words. And no one is blind to the fact that Harrell is 26 and seems to have hit his ceiling... a good player... while Wood is on a breakout pace, and at 24 is doing what Harrell did at 24, and it's reasonable to think he could be more than just a good player.

 

 

 

[gurpilo]

Market will value that Harrell played a significant role on a winning team. And matket do also realize that Pistons are not winning starting Wood. That is why I think Harrell will be paid more. Also Harrell has been performing all year while Wood has only played 15 games with significant role, no team will pay 20 million for a player with such a small sample. That is what I think their market value are now.

Having said that is difficult for me to understand why Wood got so small attention this summer after a similar explosion and also difficult to understand why he has played so low minutes for 45 games. I always thought that his ceiling was real high, in my opinion higher than Harrell but the lack of winning is concerning. Is also true that Pistons roster is trash. I really believe Wood cam be a significant player on the league and has thought the same since he was MVP of the summer league 2 years ago.

[sturt]

18 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

TS will not attempt to sign him either....that's what I've 'defended to it's brutal death.'  Just like you keep pushing Ingram to the Hawks.

By the way... it's a free world, so of course, you have all the latitude you want in believing what you want to believe. Of course. But whereas I've offered supporting reasons why Schlenk will pursue Ingram if... if... Schlenk considers Ingram worthy of a max contract... you, otoh, offer? Nothing other than your omniscience that you're 99% sure Schlenk does not value him... and 99% sure NOP's GM does.

Funny how that works. That is, when a poster like yourself really really wants something not to happen.

But one more time... even I grant a better than even-odds chance NOP will keep him.

Tell you what. If you can give me  some grounded support (ie, not just random other NOP fans blogging or more-of-the-same front office propaganda intended to discourage anyone from bothering with making an offer for an RFA they want to keep) for believing in your omniscience that the Hawks FO doesn't like Ingram and that the Pels office does... perhaps a story about a time when you had a seyonce, and something happened that you divined would happen, or maybe a picture of your crystal ball showing Dell Demps at his desk... then perhaps I'll have to come around to your conclusions.

Until then, I'll be content that my reasoning is solid.

[sturt]

14 minutes ago, gurpilo said:

That is why I think Harrell will be paid more.

He might be. I've not said either way.

I've said, taking the totality of all the evidence that they'll end up in the same neighborhood, and a $5 million gap is not the same neighborhood.

I think people are thinking NBA executives aren't as smart as they are to see Wood's value. But to the contrary, even going back to his draft year scouting reports, NBA execs had him on their radar as someone who could be a breakout candidate after he matured. (I have a fairly vivid recall of that, reading the after-draft commentaries about UDFAs.)

He's matured. And I'm confident virtually all of them are paying attention.

[JayBirdHawk]

7 minutes ago, sturt said:

Um. Nice try, but all you actually said there is "well, I didn't say he is worth it, but I am 99% convinced that NOP thinks he's worth it." Either way. Same point still holds--NOP didn't think he was worth an extension before (his health surely was a factor, but so was his underwhelming production for such a high draft pick previously). You say you think NOP thinks he's worth it now. So, "you missed my point" is actually my words.... Ingram's situation testifies to the relevance and salience of recent history.

Sample size matters, yes. All of it matters... again, my words. And no one is blind to the fact that Harrell is 26 and seems to have hit his ceiling... a good player... while Wood is on a breakout pace, and at 24 is doing what Harrell did at 24, and it's reasonable to think he could be more than just a good player.

Just another rabbit hole with you! 

In all the threads you've been pushing Ingram, all I've maintained is that it's more likely than not NOP will resign him and TS won't attempt to sign him. NOP was in discussions with him.

His health was the reason:

Quote

The fourth-year forward has blossomed into a star in his first year with the Pels despite the fact that his third-year in the league came to a premature end when it was revealed that he struggled with a blood clotting issue.

“They wanted to know if I was going to be extremely healthy, if something was going to come back,” Ingram told Dan Feldman of NBC Sports. “Once I figured out the reason why they didn’t want to do the extension, we didn’t go any further with it. I knew it was not going to be the number we wanted.”

https://www.slamonline.com/nba/brandon-ingram-eyes-max-deal-after-refusing-to-settle/

 

4 minutes ago, sturt said:

By the way... it's a free world, so of course, you have all the latitude you want in believing what you want to believe. Of course. But whereas I've offered supporting reasons why Schlenk will pursue Ingram if... if... Schlenk considers Ingram worthy of a max contract... you, otoh, offer? Nothing other than your omniscience that you're 99% sure Schlenk does not value him... and 99% sure NOP's GM does.

Funny how that works. That is, when a poster like yourself really really wants something not to happen.

But one more time... even I grant a better than even-odds chance NOP will keep him.

Tell you what. If you can give me  some grounded support (ie, not just random other NOP fans blogging or more-of-the-same front office propaganda intended to discourage anyone from bothering with making an offer for an RFA they want to keep) for believing in your omniscience that the Hawks FO doesn't like Ingram and that the Pels office does... perhaps a story about a time when you had a seyonce, and something happened that you divined would happen, or maybe a picture of your crystal ball showing Dell Demps at his desk... then perhaps I'll have to come around to your conclusions.

Until then, I'll be content that my reasoning is solid.

Have at it sturt! Do you.

[sturt]

20 minutes ago, gurpilo said:

Wood has only played 15 games with significant role

What are you calling a "significant role?"

 

 

[sturt]

24 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Just another rabbit hole with you! 

Again. My words to you.

I offer support. And meanwhile, your response is "Yeah, no. I just believe what I believe."

24 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

In all the threads you've been pushing Ingram, all I've maintained is that it's more likely than not NOP will resign him and TS won't attempt to sign him. NOP was in discussions with him.

So, which is it. "More likely than not"... or "99%"... ?

Those are two different things.

24 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

His health was the reason:

According to... him? Really?

So... tell me about your world where players are just as likely to reply to that question with, "Well, part of it was my health, and then, I have to admit, I was widely considered to be an underperformer and there was some doubt that I would ever live up to my draft slot."

Look, I don't doubt that NOP was willing to extend him. Just not willing extend him at the high-end as Ingram wanted. We can agree on that much (right?).

But the point that was being made was that in the course of not even a complete season, Ingram's value has, at least, become arguably max or near-max worthy... and... the point was being made that there is no actual reason you can produce that would support that the NOP GM thinks of Ingram one way, and/but the ATL GM thinks of Ingram in a different way.

That is... unless you can upload a pic of that crazy crystal ball of yours. I'd like to see that. It would make a difference in how I think about this. Or, at least, how I think about you.

Circling back, lest we get off track... good heavens, no, let's not do that ... hence, the reason why Wood's value is arguably in the neighborhood of Harrell's, and vice-versa.

[terrell]

14 hours ago, sturt said:

 

 

Pay him.....Giannis isnt coming here.(who else are we thinking about in 2021?) Olidipo?Jrue Holiday? Meh.Not worth waiting for imo.... Hawks better go after what they can in 2020(Wood,Trez,Ingram,Van Fleet,Hayward,etc..) and build around the young core..

Edited April 2, 2020 by terrell

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

there is no actual reason you can produce that would support that the NOP GM thinks of Ingram one way, and/but the ATL GM thinks of Ingram in a different way.

 

I'd offer a couple potential reasons:

1. Atlanta has better alternatives.  Cam, Hunter and Collins can all play the SF, SF and PF positions. If the Hawks don't sign Ingram they may have their longterm 2-4 starters and 6th man already on the roster.  NO does not have the same high upside alternatives and if he goes they would have a big hole to fill.  That could lead the NOP to value him more.  (Specifically, players between 6'6''' and 6'10'' on the Pelicans roster are limited to Ingram, Zion, Ball and Favors and one of those is a PG while the other two are likely centers.  Ingram's departure would put a pretty massive hole into that roster construction.)
2. The backlash is very different for NOP if they don't resign Ingram than if Atlanta doesn't sign him.  This functions on two levels:  FANS:  The fan base in NO could flip out if the team doesn't resign their young player which could hurt at the box office.  PLAYERS:  Likewise, letting Ingram walk for nothing could cause NOP players to sour on team management in a way that is unlikely to happen if Atlanta doesn't sign him.  This is all based around expectations and the expectation among fans and players is that if a young player shows significant promise that the team will retain him when he becomes a RFA.
3. GMs may simply value players differently.  There have been lots of media reports that NOP management was very happy with Ingram.  I think we have a black box situation with TS.  No idea if he thinks highly of Ingram or not.  Anyone can argue what they believe TS's opinion is and it could be circling Ingram's name on the FA list to target or scratching him off the list as being someone the Hawks don't want.  I'm neutral on this in the absence of real information but you've put some reasons why you think TS might be very interested while Jay and others have given you their view that they think he likely isn't.  All of that is speculation but a reason that your assessments may differ.

 

[sturt]

Will definitely take Wood over Harrell, me, @terrell.

But the question is, if Schlenk can't get a top tier player, will he just hold off on anything that is guaranteed beyond next season, with the intention of jumping head long into the 2021 free agent pool (with practically everyone else) to try to catch one.

Dunno.

Then again, it's at least plausible that his scouting of Wood convinces him that Wood is a top tier who is right on the cusp of proving it... so, yeah, maybe.

[terrell]

6 hours ago, gurpilo said:

I don't think he will get 20 million with Harrell and other bigs on the market. I think he will be on the 12-15 million $ range. If that is the case we should definately offer him a good contract. Wood is a good defender, long, can block shots and shoot from the outside, can play both PF and C position and is a good firlt for either Collins and Capela. I have been praying to sign him already for 2 seasons, he is going to be an impact player.

Hopefully he hates Detroit..lol,. They have plenty of cap space also..Not as much as us though..

[terrell]

4 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Harrell - $17-$20

Wood $12-$16

Harrell has shown consistency. Wood has been getting traded from team to team.

And I still that's too much.

If we sign Wood, we could let Collins and his MAX contact walk after next season, and draft Toppin or Okungwu to backup Wood. lol

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Atlanta has better alternatives.

 

1 hour ago, AHF said:

The backlash is very different for NOP

 

Preface: My point was specific to Ingram the player, and his talent and associated value.

So, while these first two counterpoints are legitimate considerations, neither one means that Schlenk and Demps would disagree on what a contract for Ingram ought to be, all things being equal and based purely on what he's shown and what is anticipated/projected.

So, so.... let me address this last one you offered which goes to that point, and then come back to these others.

1 hour ago, AHF said:

GMs may simply value players differently.  There have been lots of media reports that NOP management was very happy with Ingram.  I think we have a black box situation with TS.  No idea if he thinks highly of Ingram or not. 

We agree on all of that, and perhaps you would agree with this addendum that it would be especially strange for management of a team to try to put the word out there that they fully intend to re-sign a young All-Star pending RFA on their roster, since common sense tells us they'd like for a team like ATL to come to the table with an offer, potentially driving the price of poker up.

Right?

I think you get my drift.

So, that point remains solid... there is no reason to believe that there is or is not any difference between how any two NBA GM's gauge Ingram's value... and thus, to my point... if one thinks NOP think's he's a future top tier player, then logic dictates there's no reason beyond anecdotal personal preference to assume ATL thinks any different.

 

Okay, now for the ones that weren't specific to Ingram's actual talent...

#1... perhaps that will prove to be true. It's not true today. Player A made his first all-star team. Players B and C may eventually do that. So, given that there's no actual downside to adding Player A who already has tasted that level of success, it makes sense that the GM probably prefers the bird in the hand, since that doesn't mean he has to lose the two in the bush anyhow... he can have all three (!). The player who actually gets nudged out of some significant minutes is not Players B and C, but Player D (Huerter).

Anyone really upset about that? Really???

I didn't think so.

 

Then for #2... we agree again. So, that's mainly why I give NOP a 70% chance at bringing him back... none of the rest of it.

But then again, assessing the other side of that ledger, they'd darn well better be sold on him in all truth because there will be hell to pay on their salary cap spreadsheet in terms of adding any new talent unless/until they part ways with Holiday--who arguably in all the games we saw here in Shreveport, was NOP's leader and most consistent player. If Demps doesn't really fully believe in Ingram's future, and not just mouthing those words to appease BI's fans... and if the lack of confidence would prove right... that's going to be one heckuva tragic regret on their part this time next year, if Demps signs him just out of what amounts to popularity cowardice.

This is why Schlenk is in such an enviable position. If he really believes in Ingram, he can go after him full throttle; and if he doesn't, there's likely no negative consequence to that... ie, as long as NOP signs him to a max contract and as long as Ingram goes on to have an elite-level career... the only way it comes back on Schlenk is if Ingram goes on to that kind of career, and Schlenk signs, say, Harrell for virtually the same contract only to see Harrell disappoint.

 

In sum. We don't really seem to disagree much at all here.

 

EDIT: I see Jay "liked" your post now. I'm sure she'll get around to "liking" mine as well, given the degree of agreement, but she just got distracted.

(*holds breath*)

[sturt]

1 hour ago, terrell said:

Hopefully he hates Detroit..lol,. They have plenty of cap space also..Not as much as us though..

Biggest threat is NYK, including for Ingram, since they have so many players they likely won't be keeping. According to EarlyBirdRights.com, they can get into the mid $40m range. That actually is a new realization for me--I think I must have seen a number before that assumed all contracted players will be playing for them, but they have some non-guaranteeds.

[gurpilo]

hace 4 horas, sturt dijo:

What are you calling a "significant role?"

 

 

Start, play 30 mpg

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

 

We agree on all of that, and perhaps you would agree with this addendum that it would be especially strange for management of a team to try to put the word out there that they fully intend to re-sign a young All-Star pending RFA on their roster, since common sense tells us they'd like for a team like ATL to come to the table with an offer, potentially driving the price of poker up.

Right?

I think you get my drift.

 

I'm a little off my game because I'm not sure if there is sarcasm here or not.

My view is that there is a strong incentive for teams with a RFA on their roster to let it be known they intend to resign their guy to try to dissuade other GMs from coming to the table with an offer.  If a bidding war starts, it is to NOP's detriment and since the team that has the young RFA on their roster can always match it has shown to be effective in the past in deterring offers.  (Teams in the past have avoided bidding on RFAs they felt like they would lose to avoid the bad press in losing out, to avoid tying up their money with a contract that will be matched, etc.)

If NO wants him back and would prefer not to pay the max, they should do what they have done - avoid making direct public statements which could be used against them in salary negotiations by the player's agent and leak it to the press that they fully intend to resign him to deter other teams from jumping into the bidding.  Doesn't mean the reports are true, but the type of media coverage we've seen has been consistent with a team that wants to retain their RFA but would also like to see if maybe they don't have to give a max contract to do so.

[sturt]

11 minutes ago, AHF said:

I'm a little off my game because I'm not sure if there is sarcasm here or not.

My view is that there is a strong incentive for teams with a RFA on their roster to let it be known they intend to resign their guy to try to dissuade other GMs from coming to the table with an offer.  If a bidding war starts, it is to NOP's detriment and since the team that has the young RFA on their roster can always match it has shown to be effective in the past in deterring offers.  (Teams in the past have avoided bidding on RFAs they felt like they would lose to avoid the bad press in losing out, to avoid tying up their money with a contract that will be matched, etc.)

If NO wants him back and would prefer not to pay the max, they should do what they have done - avoid making direct public statements which could be used against them in salary negotiations by the player's agent and leak it to the press that they fully intend to resign him to deter other teams from jumping into the bidding.  Doesn't mean the reports are true, but the type of media coverage we've seen has been consistent with a team that wants to retain their RFA but would also like to see if maybe they don't have to give a max contract to do so.

Sheldon, you're doing fine. Your sarcasm detector alarm works.

And yes to all the rest of that. I think I see a pattern developing here.

(Hopefully, I get a "like" this time. )

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, sturt said:

Sheldon, you're doing fine. Your sarcasm detector alarm works.

And yes to all the rest of that. I think I see a pattern developing here.

(Hopefully, I get a "like" this time. )

No like for you...but a nice laughing emoji.