John Collins(Max)

[REHawksFan]

8 minutes ago, sillent said:

Point is Trae Young's max in 4 years can reach 160 + because he's reached certain criteria (allstar and other record breaking numbers). John didn't reach criteria for his max to be that high which leaves John closer to a 120mil max. That's why I said take "max" out the picture because all max's are not the same.

If Trae young makes an all nba team his max could go to 200mil. John didn't make any of that and his contract is up so his max is limited.

I've already calculated his max.  As far as I can tell it's $123M over 4 years or $167M over 5 yrs.  That's based on a Year 1 salary of $28,560,000 which is 25.5% of the Cap.  The 4 yr calculates in 5% raises while the 5 yr is 8% per the CBA.  The avg annual salary (and the starting salary) are each similar to Tatum, Brown, Adebayo, and Mitchell.  So what are you even talking about? 

23 minutes ago, sillent said:

Besides OO John Collins will still have great value because of position. Most of our other players do not and cannot play his position. You don't make trades based on what number of ranking you are on the team. 

You make trades based on positions of need. No team is going to be like we really need an athletic guy who can rebound well, shoot 3's, improve every year but we need Trae in the trade because we don't want your 4th best player. He's the 1st and could possibly be the second best at his position on our team if you're trying to use that logic. Just like if I need a wing or guard I'm not looking JC. 

People trade because they value what you have and have a need for them. It doesn't matter where they rank on your team. If you got a contending team you could have 5 - 10 good players. That doesn't mean the 10 guy doesn't have high value. The 10th guy is typically the 2nd guy at his position.

Yeah I don't even follow what you are trying to say here.  I've never suggested trading Trae or that trades are based on how impactful a player is within the team.  Your post makes no sense in light of what I'm saying. I'm saying trading a guy who isn't a top player worth a max but on a max contract is not and easy deal to make.  That's it.  You keep making ancillary arguments that don't pertain to the discussion at hand.  

Again, the bottom line is JC isn't worth the max based on his current level of play.  Giving him the max could very well hinder the team's title chances in the future.  And yes, I still want him on the team next year.  I just want him on a reasonable deal.  Not the max.  

[REHawksFan]

33 minutes ago, Diesel said:

I would actually take the max off and add a 5th year.   I think I said 5 years 133 starts at 21 Million.  This opens the door for us to sign him for less than the max.  I would also give him a 4th year opt out.   In the case that he believes that he can get more than we're offering then. 

 

A deal like that is perfectly fair.  And it wouldn't hamstring the team in future years.  

[sillent]

27 minutes ago, sillent said:

Besides OO John Collins will still have great value because of position. Most of our other players do not and cannot play his position. You don't make trades based on what number of ranking you are on the team. 

You make trades based on positions of need. No team is going to be like we really need an athletic guy who can rebound well, shoot 3's, improve every year but we need Trae in the trade because we don't want your 4th best player. He's the 1st and could possibly be the second best at his position on our team if you're trying to use that logic. Just like if I need a wing or guard I'm not looking JC. 

People trade because they value what you have and have a need for them. It doesn't matter where they rank on your team. If you got a contending team you could have 5 - 10 good players. That doesn't mean the 10 guy doesn't have high value. The 10th guy is typically the 2nd guy at his position.

To clarify teams with a 10 deep roster usually have 2 players in each position. Starting PG, Bench PG, Starting SG, Bench SG and ect, etc. You could be the 5th best player on our actual squad but our number 1 power forward.

Nobody says because you're the 5th best player we want Trae Young your #1 although we clearly need a PF.

Makes no sense. Teams trade and have value for the position they need. The only reason a Golden State Warrior Dame trade is even a thought is because it is known and believed that Steph could play the 2 if need be. Other than that they would have to be traded for each other. I don't care how good teams #1 player is no team is going to have a team full of PG's only. That means every position carries its own individual value. There are usually only 2 -4 players that play the same position. 

Teams don't make trades based on the whether you're the 4th best player on your team. They make the trade because you are the best player or player of need at your position. 

I'm not posting to argue though. There's an understandable reason why everyone can't be GM's. I just want to make sure we are all informed and clear about the situation. 

The name of this post is John Collins max. Not Trae Young or anyone else's max. John Collins total max is no more than 29mil. More than likely he will get closer to 25mil. It's a reasonable and moveable price for us if necessary.

[TRW]

We're all entitled to our own opinions and that's what makes Hawksquawk what it is but we have to stay with the facts. John Collins could have easily averaged 20 pts. and 10 boards this year if he wanted to. This young man chose to sacrifice his stats and free agency numbers for the betterment of his team. John disappearing in some of the playoffs game were true only because most times he was stuck out on the perimeter or forced to take shots before he could get position in the paint. John has enough skills to get it done in the post if he is given the opportunity to. This man is 23 years old and still improving. I love all our players and no doubt decisions will have to be made down the line. Their is no guarantee that DeAndre will overcome his knee issues and no guarantee that Cam will ever reach his potential(I hope he does). We shouldn't make panicky decisions but in reality the future is always in the now. 

[REHawksFan]

5 minutes ago, sillent said:

To clarify teams with a 10 deep roster usually have 2 players in each position. Starting PG, Bench PG, Starting SG, Bench SG and ect, etc. You could be the 5th best player on our actual squad but our number 1 power forward.

Nobody says because you're the 5th best player we want Trae Young your #1 although we clearly need a PF.

Makes no sense. Teams trade and have value for the position they need. The only reason a Golden State Warrior Dame trade is even a thought is because it is known and believed that Steph could play the 2 if need be. Other than that they would have to be traded for each other. I don't care how good teams #1 player is no team is going to have a team full of PG's only. That means every position carries its own individual value. There are usually only 2 -4 players that play the same position. 

Teams don't make trades based on the whether you're the 4th best player on your team. They make the trade because you are the best player or player of need at your position. 

I'm not posting to argue though. There's an understandable reason why everyone can't be GM's. I just want to make sure we are all informed and clear about the situation. 

The name of this post is John Collins max. Not Trae Young or anyone else's max. John Collins total max is no more than 29mil. More than likely he will get closer to 25mil. It's a reasonable and moveable price for us if necessary.

You are arguing a point that was never made.  I don't know how else to say it.  No one is saying teams would trade for Trae if they need a PF.  WTH does that even mean???  

The point is, in a salary cap sport, teams have to be mindful of how their money is allocated.  It's not good business to pay your 4th best player overall the 2nd most money because the 2nd and 3rd best players are going to eventually want their money and you won't have enough.  That's the point.  It's about roster and salary construction.  

I have no idea what you are even talking about with all this trade nonsense.  The only reason I've brought up trades is because IF JC is thought to be on a bad contract, trading him won't be easy.  If he's on a max deal and isn't a max player, then yes, it will be harder to trade him down the road should the team decide to do that.  You say, if Cam and Hunter are due a raise you just trade JC if necessary as if it's as simple as just making a phone call.  It's not.  That's the point.  

There's a difference in on court analysis and salary analysis.  Just because the team is better with JC than without JC doesn't justify giving him a max contract if it means you are less likely to keep Cam and Hunter down the road.  Your philosophy appears to be to pay JC whatever it takes just to keep the team together which is, in effect, awarding him for being first in line to free agency.  That makes no business sense.  You pay him based on what he's worth.  

We're talking about building a championship team here.  Title teams have 2-3 max players. But the max salaries they have, the less money they have for the supporting players.  Overpaying JC will have a negative impact on someone at sometime. 

The Hawks have 8 players in their "young core" if you throw in Cap and Bogi.  Next season, Capela will make $19M, Bogi will make $18M.  Trae is due a raise and will be paid 25% of cap so another $30M or so.  You want to pay JC $25M so what's left for Cam, Hunter, Huerter, and the rest of the team? 

It's not good business.  If you can bring JC back on a reasonable deal, great. Otherwise, you have to part ways, imo.    

 

[marco102]

56 minutes ago, sillent said:

Point is Trae Young's max in 4 years can reach 160 + because he's reached certain criteria (allstar and other record breaking numbers). John didn't reach criteria for his max to be that high which leaves John closer to a 120mil max. That's why I said take "max" out the picture because all max's are not the same.

If Trae young makes an all nba team his max could go to 200mil. John didn't make any of that and his contract is up so his max is limited.

I think you are confusing the max with the super max.  Trae will be eligible for the super max (it may not be called that, but it's the Derrick Rose Rule) because he may make an All NBA team or be an MVP on his rookie scale contract.  @REHawksFan is correct that any team with the requisite cap space can give John about 25% of the cap regardless of him being an Allstar etc. 

I agree with @sillent that John at the max won't really affect the Hawks ability to sign the young core. It's not likely that everyone will qualify for the max . If the Hawks are in the EFC and finals consistently and everyone is playing up to their potential,  Toni will just have to pay the tax. 

Edit:  I say it shouldn't affect the rest of the young core because the Hawks can go above and beyond the cap and into the Luxury tax to re-sign their draft picks.  It probably wouldn't make good business since to have four max contracts on your books, but  I don't believe a team will throw a max at Reddish. He'll probably get close to it, but as of yet he's been way too inconsistent and he'll probably be coming off the bench.  If Reddish plays up to his potential and Hunter continues to show great improvement, they'll probably go into the tax for a few years like GWS.  Also the salary cap is supposed to Skyrocket again with the new TV and streaming deals so all of this may be a moot point in three years. I also see Bogi and Gallo being off the team in the next three years as the young guys step up.

Edited July 17, 2021 by marco102

[REHawksFan]

3 minutes ago, marco102 said:

I agree with @sillent that John at the max won't really affect the Hawks ability to sign the young core. It's not likely that everyone will qualify for the max . If the Hawks are in the EFC and finals consistently and everyone is playing up to their potential,  Toni will just have to pay the tax. 

That's the crux of the issue.  If the team thinks JC is actually going to be the 2nd best player on a title contending team (with Trae 1st), then absolutely you pay him the max and wait for the rings.  But personally, I think there's a very good chance that Hunter and Cam both push JC down to the 4th best player on the team. In that regard, it's not really a good team business decision to give him a max.  

I tend to disagree that giving JC the max won't hurt the Hawks in signing the young players.  There's only so much money to go around and for every $1M that goes to JC is one less that could go to Hunter or Cam.  They are more of a priority to me.  

[sillent]

13 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

I've already calculated his max.  As far as I can tell it's $123M over 4 years or $167M over 5 yrs.  That's based on a Year 1 salary of $28,560,000 which is 25.5% of the Cap.  The 4 yr calculates in 5% raises while the 5 yr is 8% per the CBA.  The avg annual salary (and the starting salary) are each similar to Tatum, Brown, Adebayo, and Mitchell.  So what are you even talking about? 

Yeah I don't even follow what you are trying to say here.  I've never suggested trading Trae or that trades are based on how impactful a player is within the team.  Your post makes no sense in light of what I'm saying. I'm saying trading a guy who isn't a top player worth a max but on a max contract is not and easy deal to make.  That's it.  You keep making ancillary arguments that don't pertain to the discussion at hand.  

Again, the bottom line is JC isn't worth the max based on his current level of play.  Giving him the max could very well hinder the team's title chances in the future.  And yes, I still want him on the team next year.  I just want him on a reasonable deal.  Not the max.  

Maybe my calculator doesn't work but 123 divided into 4 is 30.75 based on my calculations. 30.75 is more than 28,560,000.  Times 5% is an extra 1,428,000. Hunter and Cams contract will be up in 2 yrs. In 2yrs John will still be under his 7th year in the league (before any 8% move kicks in).

Maybe I'm the fool but I think John will improve up to his raises within 2yrs. In that time he will have 2 to 3yrs left on his contract. Around that time is when we're going to have to make the decision to trade or keep based on how much we have for the others.

Either way it goes with John we have that leverage to still stay the course by resigning him and then possibly trading him if need be (as everyone hopefully continues to improve). 

At that time John will be 25/26. Prime years typically start at 26 and that's a known fact in the nba. It will be difficult to believe barring injury that someone wouldn't be interested in receiving JC at 25/26 on a 2/3 yr deal at the "beginning" of his prime.

Again I understand why everyone can't be GM's and were just speculating. I trust Travis knows what I'm attempting to explain and I know he is a competent enough GM to do what's best for our team overall.

In my opinion keeping a 23yr old player that has improved every year in some area of his game every year is not a player you let walk for nothing. Our cap want get a significant increase if we let John walk. Nor will it take a significant hit if we match his contract. To me it's a no brainer that since that is the case you keep him and leverage as need be. If a player comes along in a year or two that we really want or need we have JC under a good contract to leverage him (and possibly smaller pieces, picks) for who we believe is worth the max. If John is that player than cool we got him.

If we let him walk for nothing and end up in a Dame/Blazers situation (mid tier) than we're forced to only have Cam, Hunter and possibly even Trae as a max leverage piece to trade. No thank you. 

I'm not a GM yet so I can't say what actually happens but in my opinion I'm keeping as many pieces as possible until I'm forced to leverage a piece. In this case JC is restricted meaning we have all the leverage.  So will the case be for all of our young stars. They will be restricted free agents before unrestricted free agents. Meaning just like with John we will have leverage on each. That's the perks of drafting good and having those bird rights. Bird rights only really hurt when you have players that have passed their peak and no longer are increasing in value. Thankfully for us having guys under 23 and knowing Prime age usually starts at 26 we're in good position. 

The NBA isn't stupid it tries to protect its owners as much as it does its players. That's why max's are different based on what a player has accomplished. John has not accomplished goals that would highly increase his incentives which leaves his max reasonable enough for our team to keep him and leverage it.

This is assuming he even gets the max. He's stated since the beginning that he wasn't necessarily after the max. Just near max. In my opinion that's around 25mil a year. Seeing that we've gotten this far and realizing what we can do as well as John saying he wants to play for one team who knows maybe he gives us a discount before any team even gets a chance to offer him anything that could make us gulp.

[marco102]

6 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

That's the crux of the issue.  If the team thinks JC is actually going to be the 2nd best player on a title contending team (with Trae 1st), then absolutely you pay him the max and wait for the rings.  But personally, I think there's a very good chance that Hunter and Cam both push JC down to the 4th best player on the team. In that regard, it's not really a good team business decision to give him a max.  

I tend to disagree that giving JC the max won't hurt the Hawks in signing the young players.  There's only so much money to go around and for every $1M that goes to JC is one less that could go to Hunter or Cam.  They are more of a priority to me.  

I edited my response above.  Your opinion is fair but the likelihood of all four getting a max is slim in my opinion.  I believe they all will be close to maxes.  Depending on the amount of the salary cap increases, John's max may not have the same salary cap implications if there's another huge jump in the salary cap ala allowing GSW to sign KD. 

There are some ridiculous numbers being talked about with that new TV deal. 

Edited July 17, 2021 by marco102

[sillent]

15 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

You are arguing a point that was never made.  I don't know how else to say it.  No one is saying teams would trade for Trae if they need a PF.  WTH does that even mean???  

The point is, in a salary cap sport, teams have to be mindful of how their money is allocated.  It's not good business to pay your 4th best player overall the 2nd most money because the 2nd and 3rd best players are going to eventually want their money and you won't have enough.  That's the point.  It's about roster and salary construction.  

I have no idea what you are even talking about with all this trade nonsense.  The only reason I've brought up trades is because IF JC is thought to be on a bad contract, trading him won't be easy.  If he's on a max deal and isn't a max player, then yes, it will be harder to trade him down the road should the team decide to do that.  You say, if Cam and Hunter are due a raise you just trade JC if necessary as if it's as simple as just making a phone call.  It's not.  That's the point.  

There's a difference in on court analysis and salary analysis.  Just because the team is better with JC than without JC doesn't justify giving him a max contract if it means you are less likely to keep Cam and Hunter down the road.  Your philosophy appears to be to pay JC whatever it takes just to keep the team together which is, in effect, awarding him for being first in line to free agency.  That makes no business sense.  You pay him based on what he's worth.  

We're talking about building a championship team here.  Title teams have 2-3 max players. But the max salaries they have, the less money they have for the supporting players.  Overpaying JC will have a negative impact on someone at sometime. 

The Hawks have 8 players in their "young core" if you throw in Cap and Bogi.  Next season, Capela will make $19M, Bogi will make $18M.  Trae is due a raise and will be paid 25% of cap so another $30M or so.  You want to pay JC $25M so what's left for Cam, Hunter, Huerter, and the rest of the team? 

It's not good business.  If you can bring JC back on a reasonable deal, great. Otherwise, you have to part ways, imo.    

 

Just to be clear you said John may be our 4th best player behind Trae, Hunter, Cam and possibly OO. I was just clarifying that doesn't matter because they play different positions. I don't know how to grab that quote but I was just responding to it or clarifying why I said I don't care if he was the 10th best player on our team. He still has value at his position.

[REHawksFan]

13 minutes ago, sillent said:

Just to be clear you said John may be our 4th best player behind Trae, Hunter, Cam and possibly OO. I was just clarifying that doesn't matter because they play different positions. I don't know how to grab that quote but I was just responding to it or clarifying why I said I don't care if he was the 10th best player on our team. He still has value at his position.

Just to clarify my numbers (I'm not a cap expert but from what I can find):

4-Year Deal

Year 1: $28,560,000 which is 25.5% of $112,000,000 CAP

Year 2: $29,988,000 which is 5% raise

Year 3: $31,487,400 which is 5% raise

Year 4: $33,061,770 which is 5% raise

Add it all up and you get $123,097,170 or $30,774,293 per year.  That's where those numbers come from. 

To be clear and to reiterate:  JC's max is the same as any other player with 6 years of service time or less.  The max contract is not incentive based.  As @marco102 said, there is such a thing as the Super Max which is what Luka will be paid on and what John Wall and other have been on.  That is based on additional % of the CAP resulting from all nba selections.  That's not what we are talking about. 

Tatum is on a regular max deal. So is Adebayo I believe. So is Mitchell.  They are in that same tier as the above numbers.  JC as a player is not worth that, imo.  

Now, in regards to your above note, I still don't follow.  Are you suggesting that because JC is the best PF on the team he should get the max?  That makes no sense.  You can't max all your starters.  As a GM, you have to figure out who the best players are and pay them accordingly.  If you actually believe JC is 2nd best on the team, fine.  Pay him the max.  But if not and you believe Cam or Hunter or OO will be better in the long term, you can't blow your max spot on JC.  If we operate under the reasonable assumption that a title team will only have at most 3 max players, JC has to be one of your 3 best players to warrant max money.  

My preference is to resign him at $20M to $22M per year for 4-5 years.  I doubt he accepts that though. 

  

Edited July 17, 2021 by REHawksFan

[sillent]

10 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

That's the crux of the issue.  If the team thinks JC is actually going to be the 2nd best player on a title contending team (with Trae 1st), then absolutely you pay him the max and wait for the rings.  But personally, I think there's a very good chance that Hunter and Cam both push JC down to the 4th best player on the team. In that regard, it's not really a good team business decision to give him a max.  

I tend to disagree that giving JC the max won't hurt the Hawks in signing the young players.  There's only so much money to go around and for every $1M that goes to JC is one less that could go to Hunter or Cam.  They are more of a priority to me.  

This is the argument I had last year when I posted that getting Gallo and Bogi that this was the making of a dynasty/championship contenders.

Everybody absolutely thought I was crazy and that we couldn't put Gallo on the bench because he was making more than John. 

Sometimes you have to take the numbers out the equation to understand the logic and actual value. I don't even expect that to be understood but that's what it is. Every team has players that may be getting paid more than other players although they are no where near the best player on the team.

Believe me I understand what you're saying and your concerns. If giving a player a contract meant you had to keep them permanently I would understand. If it was a 160mil type contract that would really hinder the growth of our team I would understand. Honestly a max for John does neither which creates the disconnect.

At the end of the day we made the ECF. We have a young core that all signs point to them all getting better. We're in great position to run it back and go further. We have contacts like Gallo and Clint coming off the books in reasonable yrs (2/3yrs) which will increase our cap.

We are in great position and it's a great time to be a Hawks fan!! No argument here.

[REHawksFan]

1 minute ago, sillent said:

Sometimes you have to take the numbers out the equation to understand the logic and actual value. I don't even expect that to be understood but that's what it is. Every team has players that may be getting paid more than other players although they are no where near the best player on the team.

That's true when you figure in young, talented players playing ahead of aging vets that make more.  But not so much when you are equating young players on max deals vs other young players that are more deserving of a max deal.  I know you aren't suggesting that next year with JC on a max contract we put him on the bench and play Hunter over him. That would be insane.  So while I completely agree with the Gallo example (and did last year as well), this is a different deal. 

The bottom line is, you can't pay Trae, JC, Cam, and Hunter the max.  It just isn't possible.  And to me, at this point in time, the 3 that are most likely to play worthy of a max deal, are Trae, Hunter, and Cam.  So I'm extremely leery of paying JC ahead of the others.    

[sillent]

1 minute ago, REHawksFan said:

Just to clarify my numbers (I'm not a cap expert but from what I can find):

4-Year Deal

Year 1: $28,560,000 which is 25.5% of $112,000,000 CAP

Year 2: $29,988,000 which is 5% raise

Year 3: $31,487,400 which is 5% raise

Year 4: $33,061,770 which is 5% raise

Add it all up and you get $123,097,170 or $30,774,293 per year.  That's where those numbers come from. 

To be clear and to reiterate:  JC's max is the same as any other player with 6 years of service time or less.  The max contract is not incentive based.  As @marco102 said, there is such a thing as the Super Max which is what Luka will be paid on and what John Wall and other have been on.  That is based on additional % of the CAP resulting from all nba selections.  That's not what we are talking about. 

Tatum is on a regular max deal. So is Adebayo I believe. So is Mitchell.  They are in that same tier as the above numbers.  JC as a player is not worth that, imo.  

Now, in regards to your above note, I still don't follow.  Are you suggesting that because JC is the best PF on the team he should get the max?  That makes no sense.  You can't max all your starters.  As a GM, you have to figure out who the best players are and pay them accordingly.  If you actually believe JC is 2nd best on the team, fine.  Pay him the max.  But if not and you believe Cam or Hunter or OO will be better in the long term, you can't blow your max spot on JC.  If we operate under the reasonable assumption that a title team will only have at most 3 max players, JC has to be one of your 3 best players to warrant max money.  

My preference is to resign him at $20M to $22M per year for 4-5 years.  I doubt he accepts that though. 

  

I gotcha but you can stop there at year 2. After year 2 Hunter and Cam are eligible and at that time we can evaluate where our team is at and make moves accordingly. Again a contract does not mean that they are forced to be on the team for that duration of years without the team having an option to make other moves. 

If he's not worth it by the time that 33mil kicks in he's the least of my worries when it comes to trade value. Even if we have to trade John and some picks or John and another player. In the end there's alot of value we can get back from him in return. Even if Travis decides to trade him for expiring contracts so we can free up cap space.

How could we lose? The only way we lose is if we let him walk now for nothing. 

[JayBirdHawk]

JC Max  - 25% of the salary cap with 8% raises from the Hawks

JC max from another team - 25% of the salary cap with 5% raises.

Trae max - same as JC, 25% of cap with 8% raises.

Trae Designated SUPERmax - 30% raises with 8% raises. He has to make ALL NBA, MVP Or DPOY to receive it, otherwise 25%.

[REHawksFan]

1 minute ago, sillent said:

If he's not worth it by the time that 33mil kicks in he's the least of my worries when it comes to trade value. Even if we have to trade John and some picks or John and another player. In the end there's alot of value we can get back from him in return. Even if Travis decides to trade him for expiring contracts so we can free up cap space.

And now we've come full circle back to my first post in this thread.  A simple acknowledgement that trading JC when trying to make room for Cam or Hunter is not as easy as you seem to think it will be.  IF JC is on a contract that is considered "bad" by the NBA, you don't just dump it on another team without attaching assets.  All that can be avoided by signing JC to a reasonable contract or being willing to explore a sign and trade.  

[REHawksFan]

7 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

JC Max  - 25% of the salary cap with 8% raises from the Hawks

JC max from another team - 25% of the salary cap with 5% raises.

Trae max - same as JC, 25% of cap with 8% raises.

Trae Designated SUPERmax - 30% raises with 8% raises. He has to make ALL NBA, MVP Or DPOY to receive it, otherwise 25%.

Thank you.  

If it's 25% flat then my numbers are off a little.  I was using 25.5% which I calculated from this article.  Not sure the actual rule though.  

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2020/11/nba-maximum-salaries-for-202021.html

 

EDIT: So here is where I tuck my tail and realize I calculated the % wrong (fat fingers apparently).  It's 25%. The argument stays the same but the numbers are slightly lower. 

Edited July 17, 2021 by REHawksFan

[sillent]

2 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

And now we've come full circle back to my first post in this thread.  A simple acknowledgement that trading JC when trying to make room for Cam or Hunter is not as easy as you seem to think it will be.  IF JC is on a contract that is considered "bad" by the NBA, you don't just dump it on another team without attaching assets.  All that can be avoided by signing JC to a reasonable contract or being willing to explore a sign and trade.  

I've seen scrubs get moved for worst. It sounds like you think John is a scrub or that Travis isn't shrewd at doing his job.

It's not as difficult as you're making it out to be. If John peaked now he would still be serviceable in 2yrs for alot of teams in need.

[marco102]

2 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

Thank you.  

If it's 25% flat then my numbers are off a little.  I was using 25.5% which I calculated from this article.  Not sure the actual rule though.  

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2020/11/nba-maximum-salaries-for-202021.html

I second Jaybird from what I've been reading it's always 25% flat unless it's the supermax.

[sillent]

5 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

And now we've come full circle back to my first post in this thread.  A simple acknowledgement that trading JC when trying to make room for Cam or Hunter is not as easy as you seem to think it will be.  IF JC is on a contract that is considered "bad" by the NBA, you don't just dump it on another team without attaching assets.  All that can be avoided by signing JC to a reasonable contract or being willing to explore a sign and trade.  

I agree and never argued that we give John the max just because. Again he himself did not even ask for his full max. I'm just saying if that's the worst case it still wouldn't be as bad as many are thinking.

I'd be happy if we could get John under 110mil