Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

Hawks Free Agent Targets


AHF

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
37 minutes ago, AHF said:

As I understand it, you are correct but that doesn't limit your spending.

Example:

$10M in free space with 5 empty roster spots

$6M in free space

$800k cap charge for each spot = max offer to a single free agent of $6.8M ($800k roster charge + $6M in free space)

If we traded a player into the free cap space, that player could cost only $6M more than the player we traded them.  I.e., we trade $3M Player A for $9M Player B.  $6M in free space means we just maxed out that trade and couldn't have done a trade for a $10M player.

If we don't make a trade, we could sign players for:

$1M

$1.5M

$1.5M

$2M

$4M

 

Example 2:

$1M in free space with 1 empty spot 

$200k in free space

We can trade a player earning $2M for a one earning $2.2M.

We can sign a free agent for up to $1M.

 

Is that consistent with how you understand it?

You hold the amount in reserve until the spot is filled.

So if we are signing one player the one roster charge goes away, but until then it's kept in reserve to calculate our initial usable capspace if we renounce all FAs and RFAs. It's actually 12 players.

 

This explanation:

 

Screenshot_20200429-113556_Samsung Internet.jpg

@thecampster can offer some insight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

You hold the amount in reserve until the spot is filled.

So if we are signing one player the one roster charge goes away, but until then it's kept in reserve to calculate our initial usable capspace if we renounce all FAs and RFAs. It's actually 12 players.

 

This explanation:

 

Screenshot_20200429-113556_Samsung Internet.jpg

But this is only relevant if we plan to exceed the cap.  For purposes of thinking about how much we can spend this summer, I am assuming we don't exceed the cap and therefore I cannot come up with a scenario where the cap holds are relevant to discussing how much space we have to use.  

The above text you site is right on point - relevant to max contracts that would put you over the cap.  If we aren't planning on going over the cap, then we should assume the money is available to spend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
11 minutes ago, AHF said:

But this is only relevant if we plan to exceed the cap.  For purposes of thinking about how much we can spend this summer, I am assuming we don't exceed the cap and therefore I cannot come up with a scenario where the cap holds are relevant to discussing how much space we have to use.  

The above text you site is right on point - relevant to max contracts that would put you over the cap.  If we aren't planning on going over the cap, then we should assume the money is available to spend.

Maybe I'm just not understanding or we're saying the same thing in different ways.

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with exceeding the cap or max contracts but rather how you calculate your available spending money.

So if the Hawks renounce everyone and we have 8 players under contract and $50 million cap. You'd need to subtract $4 million for the 4 empty roster charges so our capspace is now $46 million to spend on FAs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Sign either Harris or Bertans for shooting off the bench - that's our 1 high dollar FA. ($10-$15)

Our high dollar splash has to be a guy that impacts winning more than a Harris or Bertans. I’m personally not sure if I’m forking huge money to Harris or Bertans. If we walk away with either of these guy as our main FA piece, I’m gonna be slightly disappointed. Specially since we have the most money of any team.

 

We need to leave this free agency with either a major splash in Trez or somehow be able to manipulate the money and save the entire lot for Giannis. I don’t wanna play the bridesmaid 👰 game anymore. 
 

We have the most money, let’s do this right. If Trez is the guy, go out and get him. He’s 26 and he just proved to be one of the leaders (both statistically and a voice in the locker room) for a Clipper team that was top 5 in the league, possibly a top 3 team. 


Trez is a natural born leader, he can be Trae’s bodyguard and is a perfect fit for our roster specially because we have the best passer in the league (yes I said it) in Trae who can set the table for a dawg like Trez.

 

We gotta go big or go home with the spending. Trez, FVV, save and roll the money for Giannis or bust. We gotta get one of these scenarios to work for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
31 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Maybe I'm just not understanding or we're saying the same thing in different ways.

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with exceeding the cap or max contracts but rather how you calculate your available spending money.

So if the Hawks renounce everyone and we have 8 players under contract and $50 million cap. You'd need to subtract $4 million for the 4 empty roster charges so our capspace is now $46 million to spend on FAs.

We can spent all $50 on filling the roster.  Not $46M.  You must account for the empty roster charges if we trade for someone or if we are looking to hand out a big contract that would take up >~$47M of that cap room (or the remaining room where you have to account for the applicable roster charges at the time of making that big contract).

That is my point.  We still can spend all $50M.  We don't have to write $4M off as unusuable.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
40 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Our high dollar splash has to be a guy that impacts winning more than a Harris or Bertans. I’m personally not sure if I’m forking huge money to Harris or Bertans. If we walk away with either of these guy as our main FA piece, I’m gonna be slightly disappointed. Specially since we have the most money of any tea

There are none in this class. These FAs a need fillers. None are game changers IMO.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

You hold the amount in reserve until the spot is filled.

So if we are signing one player the one roster charge goes away, but until then it's kept in reserve to calculate our initial usable capspace if we renounce all FAs and RFAs. It's actually 12 players.

 

This explanation:

 

Screenshot_20200429-113556_Samsung Internet.jpg

@thecampster can offer some insight?

Okay so this is tricky. The real reason for that charge in in figuring for teams up against the cap.

First things first, NBA rosters consist of 15 players Maximum but 13 players minimum. The cap charges begin when you fall below 13 players. So 12 players on roster = 1 cap charge.

Currently the Hawks have 8 players on the roster and 2 first round picks incoming (Hawks + Nets). That's 10. So we would see 3 cap charges (assuming no free agents are resigned).

So pretend the Hawks sign 2 free agents in the off-season with 10 on roster. That's 12.  Signing 1 keeps you under the cap because of our space. Signing 2 however must account for 1 additional player required to get the team to 13.

2 slots - 1 goes to the free agent, 1 to slot protection. Only that 1 slot counts against the cap.

So scenario...Say cap 117 million (we don't know it yet). Hawks have 11 players on Roster @ 100 million....17 million to sign right?....Wrong!

100 million + 1 roster spots at $946,543 = $80,000,000 + $946,543 = $80,946,543 - 117 million = $16,053,457 available for the new salary.

But even that isn't the whole story. The cap space is configured based on the free agents on your roster from the previous year. 

Free agents from the previous season on your own roster hold the following cap holds heading into the next season unless signed by another team or you renounce your rights to the free agent.

 

 

  • Bird free agent:
    • If not coming off a rookie scale contract, and salary was at or above the estimated average salary, 150% of previous salary.
  • If not coming off a rookie scale contract, and salary was below the estimated average salary, 190% of previous salary.
If coming off the fourth season of a rookie scale contract, and salary was at or above the estimated average salary, 250% of previous salary. If coming off the fourth season of a rookie scale contract, and salary was below the estimated average salary, 300% of previous salary. If coming off the third season of a rookie scale contract, the maximum amount that the team can pay under the Bird exception. Early Bird:
  • If coming off the second season of a rookie scale contract, the maximum amount that the team can pay under the Bird exception.
Otherwise, 130% of previous salary. Non-Bird: 120% of previous salary.

 

So see Jeff Teague - last year's salary was 19 million. His rule = 150% of salary (I need to check this. not sure how Sham got that). So his cap is $28,500,000.

No problem you say, we can renounce Teague and get his $28,500,000 back. Again NO! Because renouncing Teague is how you got to 12 slots in the first place.  Every player you don't renounce is a roster slot occupied but not at 946k per year but at their old salary + a modifier of 20 to 200% more.

 

Short answer. Assuming nothing changes. We will start free agency with 3 cap holds if we renounce all free agents. Each free agent kept lessens the holds but decreases our total cap number.

All that said.

Our current cap number if we renounce everyone and sign both draft picks at slots 8 and 17 is $ 66,518,866 with $ 50,481,134 in cap space. That includes all holds.  This assumes a cap number of $117 million which is going to change because of Corona.

 

 

36 minutes ago, AHF said:

We can spent all $50 on filling the roster.  Not $46M.  You must account for the empty roster charges if we trade for someone or if we are looking to hand out a big contract that would take up >~$47M of that cap room (or the remaining room where you have to account for the applicable roster charges at the time of making that big contract).

That is my point.  We still can spend all $50M.  We don't have to write $4M off as unusuable.

Minor correction. With each signing the hold changes slightly. Its not all or nothing. I know you know this but I'm stating it to clarify for all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
7 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

There are none in this class. These FAs a need fillers. None are game changers IMO.

Agree.  Even if the cap is reduced in one big plunge and we end up being one of the only teams with any money to spend, you are really adding quality starters and outstanding role players.  Guys like Trez and FVV will be near the top of the food chain for what is available.  If you can add several of them, it could really shoot the team forward but those guys won't be the engine of a championship roster.  We'd need Trae, JC, Reddish, Hunter, etc. to become the enginer and then these guys would be great pieces around them in a best case scenario.

It makes for some very interesting decision-making from TS.  One potential upside to a reduced cap scenario is that the contract these guys sign might be the opposite of the Turner / Baze / etc. contracts that became out of line with market rates basically the day they were signed.  We might be able to get deals that are significantly more movable in trades because they represent long-term discounts if the cap adjustment isn't smoothed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Minor correction. With each signing the hold changes slightly. Its not all or nothing. I know you know this but I'm stating it to clarify for all.

Agree.  You said that more clearly.  I was trying to say that same thing with the reference to the "applicable roster charges at the time of making that big contract."   What applies changes with each signing.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boise 'n gurls, just pos(t)ing a question ... SAC edition:

Would Bodganovic represent a significant enough upgrade to warrant offering him enough to lure him away from SAC?

I kinda think he represents probably the best version of what we hope Heurter ultimately becomes.  So this would be paying for it now rather than waiting and hoping Heurter achieves his potential.

Surely SAC won't pay him and Bud E. Healed.  Just doesn't make sense.  That'd be a really expensive team that's not really that good.  I think he's more available than the eggsperts are suggesting.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
48 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Boise 'n gurls, just pos(t)ing a question ... SAC edition:

Would Bodganovic represent a significant enough upgrade to warrant offering him enough to lure him away from SAC?

I kinda think he represents probably the best version of what we hope Heurter ultimately becomes.  So this would be paying for it now rather than waiting and hoping Heurter achieves his potential.

Surely SAC won't pay him and Bud E. Healed.  Just doesn't make sense.  That'd be a really expensive team that's not really that good.  I think he's more available than the eggsperts are suggesting.

Thoughts?

🤔 Are you reading my mind?

I just came to post that I haven't seen Bogdanovic mentioned much on The Squawk.

The consensus is that Kings want to bring him back. It doesn't make sense to pay him and Buddy especially since Buddy is coming off the bench.

They may look to trade Buddy to reduce salary and resign Bogi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

🤔 Are you reading my mind?

I just came to post that I haven't seen Bogdanovic mentioned much on The Squawk.

The consensus is that Kings want to bring him back. It doesn't make sense to pay him and Buddy especially since Buddy is coming off the bench.

They may look to trade Buddy to reduce salary and resign Bogi.

We are all the same person.  Haven't you figured it out?

I do get the feeling that they want to choose Bogi over Buddy but I can't imagine anyone trading for Buddy old arse.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
9 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Harrell is almost a waste in my opinion with Capela in the rotation now.

Bertans on the other hand could play alongside Capela while Collins rest, with Collins while Capela rest, or with Dedmon when they both rest. He is a 100% better fit in my opinion. We can go chase Grant or Crowder for the toughness. Lets leave the twenty million dollar tough man who can't shoot for the Knicks or Hornets.

My opinion, when we got Capela that eliminated Harrell as a target. Capela, Dedmon, Fernando is enough old style clog the lane big men for one team.

We aren't signing Harrell as a free agent for his market value.  He most definitely would command starter salary and we have our starters already.  No need to pay a guy that much to play under 20 minutes per game.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
6 minutes ago, kg01 said:

We are all the same person.  Haven't you figured it out?

I do get the feeling that they want to choose Bogi over Buddy but I can't imagine anyone trading for Buddy old arse.

Aren't Bogi and Buddy the same age?  (Both 27)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, kg01 said:

We are all the same person.  Haven't you figured it out?

I do get the feeling that they want to choose Bogi over Buddy but I can't imagine anyone trading for Buddy old arse.

Of course it’s be mentioned but Bird 🐦 never remembers my posts 🤔 

 

BB, aka the other Bogi is restricted FA and seems to be in the future plans of Vlade just because Vlade is weird. Why didn’t Vlade select Luka, who knows 🤷‍♀️ Why do the Kings wanna double up on shooting guards 🤷‍♀️ 

He would fit here but I wouldn’t wanna offer too much. 💰 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

There are none in this class. These FAs a need fillers. None are game changers IMO.

Ohhhhh I’m gonna have to kind of disagree here...yeaaaaa (Bill Lumberg voice) I honestly think Trez can make us a 50 win team and be a starter and play 30+ minutes a game for us. To me, that’s a game changer. I realize we have Capela and Collins but there are minutes available if distributed well imo. We need his girth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
6 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Of course it’s be mentioned but Bird 🐦 never remembers my posts 🤔 

 

BB, aka the other Bogi is restricted FA and seems to be in the future plans of Vlade just because Vlade is weird. Why didn’t Vlade select Luka, who knows 🤷‍♀️ Why do the Kings wanna double up on shooting guards 🤷‍♀️ 

He would fit here but I wouldn’t wanna offer too much. 💰 

I do kinda ignore most of what you say Spud 😀.

I kid, I kid. I knew someone mentioned him awhile back.

Again, before you ask....your check is in the mail.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

My opinion, when we got Capela that eliminated Harrell as a target.

Not necessarily. Also, Dedmon doesn’t figure in our short term plans let along long term. Trez should still be a target. I do like Bertans a lot but I don’t want to overpay for him or anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...