Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

Spotrac: Krejci deal leaves ATL $1,786,723 under the tax line


sturt

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
50 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

Pacers and Spurs are two teams with capspace that could take Harkless's deal without having to send out salary. OKC doesn't have capspace.

(So exhausting.)

 

Right. As they did for all these weeks into the new season before, of course.

 

And yet they never made a deal in all that time with ATL... not IND, not SAS, nor others who at one time had cap space for that matter (... and obviously, not OKC, though as I recall they could have manipulated things to make capspace if they chose to, but I don't recall specifics now).

Why not?

Was ATL really just not that interested in getting below the cap line (as you and your partner here argued tooth and nail... and accurately as it turns out... they were)? Was it that ATL was holding out for Krajci?

Krajci???

(Oh c'mon.)

Or was it that IND and SAS and others weren't (that interested)?

 

What changed?

What changed was that OKC got a new $4.5m exception.

And almost immediately after, the Harkless trade was made.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
9 minutes ago, sturt said:

(So exhausting.)

 

Right. As they did for all these weeks into the new season before, of course.

 

And yet they never made a deal in all that time with ATL... not IND, not SAS, nor others who at one time had cap space for that matter (... and obviously, not OKC, though as I recall they could have manipulated things to make capspace if they chose to, but I don't recall specifics now).

Why not?

Was ATL really just not that interested in getting below the cap line (as you and your partner here argued tooth and nail... and accurately as it turns out... they were)? Was it that ATL was holding out for Krajci?

Krajci???

(Oh c'mon.)

Or was it that IND and SAS and others weren't (that interested)?

 

What changed?

What changed was that OKC got a new $4.5m exception.

And almost immediately after, the Harkless trade was made.

 

 

I don't at all believe that IND and SAS were not interested in picks.  That suggests two possible explanations to me:

(1) there was interest in Krajci

(2) the price was cheaper with OKC than with IND or SAS.

Since you scoff at the first explanation, I'll focus on the second.  The pick we gave up was a 2029 2nd round pick.  It is easy to imagine SA and IND insisting on 2nd rounds picks years before 2029 and the Hawks waiting to see if they could do better.  Then the Hawks conclude they would not ever get a deal done for less than a 2029 2nd rounder.

Unless I am remembering the rules wrong, there is also an advantage in terms of trade flexibility to getting Krajci (or another player) back over trading Harkless to be absorbed into a team's cap space.  By getting a player back, the Hawks can do a trade including Krajci to trade for a bigger salary than they could do without him and they can do it tomorrow (as long as the team they are trading with is not OKC).  If the Hawks traded Harkless to IND a week ago and signed a minimum salary free agent, they could get a salary to do the same thing but would have to wait 3 months until they could trade that FA which restricts flexibility on that type of theoretical deal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
21 hours ago, AHF said:

I don't at all believe that IND and SAS were not interested in picks.  That suggests two possible explanations to me:

(1) there was interest in Krajci

I don't at all believe that IND and SAS were not interested in picks, either....

That said, I do believe that they were/are in a position that they have multiple teams making offers to them, and ATL would have been among them... but what ATL was offering didn't, by definition of the evidence, persuade them to do a deal.

21 hours ago, AHF said:

(2) the price was cheaper with OKC than with IND or SAS.

Since you scoff at the first explanation, I'll focus on the second.  The pick we gave up was a 2029 2nd round pick.  It is easy to imagine SA and IND insisting on 2nd rounds picks years before 2029 and the Hawks waiting to see if they could do better.  Then the Hawks conclude they would not ever get a deal done for less than a 2029 2nd rounder.

Unless I am remembering the rules wrong, there is also an advantage in terms of trade flexibility to getting Krajci (or another player) back over trading Harkless to be absorbed into a team's cap space.  By getting a player back, the Hawks can do a trade including Krajci to trade for a bigger salary than they could do without him and they can do it tomorrow (as long as the team they are trading with is not OKC).  If the Hawks traded Harkless to IND a week ago and signed a minimum salary free agent, they could get a salary to do the same thing but would have to wait 3 months until they could trade that FA which restricts flexibility on that type of theoretical deal. 

I'm fine with this explanation. Am I supposed to not be? "... Krajci (or another player)..." Fits the assertion that it's not really about Krajci, but Generic Player X's contract.

Bottom line is the bottom line... any previous conversations fell short of one side or multiple sides being convinced a deal was worth their time. OKC has had incentive practically all off-season to deal any and all of these guys they've just dealt over the past several days... it's been widely thought by OKC media that it wasn't if, but when (... with the caveat that in the last month some had become persuaded that maybe Presti wanted to hold on to Favors after all, particularly after Holmgren's injury).

It took the granting of the disabled player exception to set this thing in motion. Until then, nothing discussed (on the basis of the evidence we know) had been acceptable, and that even assumes discussions had occurred (maybe, maybe not).

 

Tapping out now, but as I do, reminding that from where I sit, I'm fine with the acquisition as long as we also make a move to either

(a) keep Krajci and obtain another asset (eg, KJ Martin or Charles Bassey) with the remaining space against the tax line, putting us at the full 15...

(b) cut Krajci in order to make room for a more veteran (iow, more likely to contribute to a contending team) option, though locking us in at 14... or

(c) a trade that sends out Justin and perhaps Krajci, assuming the deal accomplishes either the objective to get us back to a full 15, or improves the roster with at least one asset more likely than Justin to make a positive contribution, or... in my dreams... both.

 

Newest dream sceanrio:

- HOU surprises everyone, and follows their Bruno regular contract signing by buying out Favors...

- ATL swaps Krajci for 2021-22 G-League MVP Trevelin Queen--who is essentially everything Justin Holiday was in his prime, but like Justin, getting his NBA career off the ground later than most of his peers (age 25)... PHI does the deal b/c they're in a pickle, having to cut two players anyhow, and at least cutting Krajci saves them a little bit...

- ATL swaps Justin Holiday for David Nwaba... Nwaba brings a junkyard dawg reputation, and is the defensive asset that you'd have wanted JDay to be... we have to sweeten that deal someway b/c of the $1.3 salary difference, perhaps by sending that amount of cash or a little more...

- Between those two deals, ATL gains the necessary room to sign Favors to a vet min

Outcome:

JDay and Krejci out,

Queen, Nwaba and Favors in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, sturt said:

Until then, nothing discussed (on the basis of the evidence we know) had been acceptable, and that even assumes discussions had occurred (maybe, maybe not).

I would bet a lot of money that TS/Fields were on the line to start talking to teams about deals to get under the tax line the same day that we traded Huerter and it was just a matter of time until they found the deal they wanted.  There is no way the first discussion was had on this topic after OKC created the exception.  

For discussions between Atlanta and OKC, there is a compelling piece of evidence that they had worked this trade out before the OKC/Houston deal.  The OKC/Houston deal was originally reported to have OKC shipping out Atlanta's top 55 protected 2025 second round pick as part of the deal.  When they did the trade, however, the switched it up to hold onto the Atlanta pick and instead send a 2026 second round pick.

Then when the ATL/OKC deal was announced, Atlanta reduced the protection on this pick from 55 to 40.  Pretty sure this was already agreed to happen before OKC did the deal with Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, AHF said:

There is no way the first discussion was had on this topic after OKC created the exception.  

True, particularly since OKC applied for the DPE back on August 27th with the expectation of receiving it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
22 minutes ago, AHF said:

When you keep replying and extending the conversation, I'm not sure that you do.  😃

You and your partner are great at this thing where it's made to be about the other person, never about your own behaviors here... and always having each other's back. I mean always. It's uncanny. I don't read everything you two ever write, of course, but that's been my experience. Am I the only one to notice that? I would bet a lot of money on "no." As much as Diesel wants to align with me on everything I write since he knows if he doesn't he'll "make the list," he still cannot bring himself to do that. Only slightly more seriously, Gray is as polite and calm and congenial as anyone... as I am, of course, and I believe shakes even said as much out loud... but even Gray and I do not see eye-to-eye on every big or little thing. I'm not aware of any two people on this site who have a 100% or near 100% history like the two of you. Hard to figure what's up with that.

To your accusation here...

I agreed with your assertion. I made no new arguments. Thus, I... muah... did not "extend" the conversation, unless by "extending" the conversation one is suggesting that my turning to a different thing under the heading of the OP is "extending." Extending the thread, yes. Extending the conversation, no. Didn't do that. Affirmed your comment, repeated a couple of things already said to demonstrate that your comment folded well with what I'd said... and transitioned to a different subtopic under the bigger (OP) topic.

Your retort was to attempt a new factoid or two in the pursuit of your desired conclusion... that is irrefutably "extending the conversation," and accordingly, prompted the reaction I offered.

 

But it's my fault, anyway. You said so. And she thought so, too.

Well, okay then.

😄

 

With that, turning the page on this thread, and not returning. You're welcome to whatever last word, but I won't even be extending the thread, let alone the conversation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
3 hours ago, sturt said:

You and your partner are great at this thing where it's made to be about the other person, never about your own behaviors here... and always having each other's back. I mean always. It's uncanny. I don't read everything you two ever write, of course, but that's been my experience. Am I the only one to notice that? I would bet a lot of money on "no."

LMAO.  Two independent posters having a normal conversation on this thread and you are crying victim somehow?  What terrible thing was done to you here?  My last post was focused on the timeline for the trade where you were suggesting we didn't even talk to OKC until after they completed the trade to create the exemption and pointing out that behavior suggests very forcefully that they were already in conversation.  Instead of responding to that you are claiming we are in a conspiracy against you?  That is legit puzzling.

Especially puzzling in a thread where jaybird disagreed with me on the previous page of this thread.  I mean we are just having a conversation.  On the prior page of this thread, I was arguing that things suggested the Hawks might be interested in Krejci as a player and you were arguing that they definitively have no interest in him.  Jay actually supported your core position by arguing there were reasons neither of us had articulated why it made sense to trade for Krejci at this point in the offseason even if they had zero interest in him.  But that is somehow her "having my back" to gang up on you?  Please.

That is just normal conversation.

3 hours ago, sturt said:

With that, turning the page on this thread, and not returning. You're welcome to whatever last word, but I won't even be extending the thread, let alone the conversation.

Let's see how true this is.

Oh...immediately walking that back by returning to the conversation.  I see.

3 hours ago, sturt said:

ie, about 60 days into free agency.

But okay.

Back again.  Here without even a new post to which to respond.

And the second time on this thread you claimed you were done and then kept the conversation going.

On 10/5/2022 at 11:57 AM, sturt said:

Tapping out now

 

17 hours ago, sturt said:

[New post]

 

3 hours ago, sturt said:

[Second new post]

 

 

 

3 hours ago, sturt said:

[Third New Post]

But the fact that you keep saying you are done and returning to the conversation is somehow anyone's decision but your own?  

The irony is that I don't even think it is a bad thing.  You are a smart poster who brings up interesting points and you are continuing to do so.  Great.  When people have these discussions it is the whole purpose of the board.  

But when you keep talking about how unbearable it is to have these conversations (sigh) (so exhausting) etc. and claiming you are done and then return to keep posting...that is just you having something more you want to say despite whatever is offending about reading the posts of others.*  Keep going with that as you wish.  Just don't blame me for it.

 

 

* Correction:  Your post above says you agreed with me.  You did not.  You posted a meme saying only that you wished the conversation would end while bumping the thread back up to the top of the page.

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...