|
Post by James Kay on Dec 18, 2018 18:58:22 GMT
I just want to re-emphasize my main point - I don't think the Player Option portion of the hard-cap is necessary because I don't think it will be that common, and isn't a choice a GM is making. But if you guys want to give the hard cap some "bite," whatever, fine.
But I don't see how in good conscience you could support a rule that substantially affects contracts that were signed prior to the rule's announcement. I don't see how you could support a rule that affects only one team. The knowledge of this rule would have significantly impacted my contract negotiations with PG, and most likely would have impacted PG's decision to request a PO.
and honestly this is bullshit because even if you change your mind its going to sour everyone on PGs decision to potentially stay, when he actually can't re-sign with my team unless he picks up the player option because I don't even have his BRs, so he'd have to pick it up even if I wasn't above the hard cap.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Dec 18, 2018 19:01:01 GMT
I agree with James on this one. A player should not be limited by actions of the GM in a contract that is already agreed to, and it’s a bit late to institute the rule.
Besides, what if you had a massive Derrick Rose contract with a P.O.? A strategy would be to go over the hard cap so he is forced to opt out.
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Dec 18, 2018 19:43:52 GMT
I agree with James on this one. A player should not be limited by actions of the GM in a contract that is already agreed to, and it’s a bit late to institute the rule. Besides, what if you had a massive Derrick Rose contract with a P.O.? A strategy would be to go over the hard cap so he is forced to opt out. Agreed that it could be manipulated to get a GM out of a bad deal, and ultimately if a player wants to exercise an option they should be able to— its contractually agreed and their money.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 18, 2018 20:40:52 GMT
A big problem with this decision is that we can't use the NBA as a guide like usual because they have the luxury tax, which doesn't work with our imaginary money. what if you had a massive Derrick Rose contract with a P.O.? A strategy would be to go over the hard cap so he is forced to opt out. Good point. So we have two competing points: (1) I think the strongest, most legitimate point against allowing Player Options is the third one I made earlier: "(3) the player knows that if they opt-out then they cannot re-sign, this constitutes an gigantic incentive to opt-in and continue their contract with their team at a discount, it is an extra unfair advantage for the team when the purpose of the Hard Cap is to address inequality." (2) And as Andrei Kirilenko pointed out above, on the flip side: Teams can manipulate the Hard Cap to rid themselves of undesirable contracts, when those contracts are Player Options. I think both these points are quite weak though? (1) It's not much of an incentive to opt-in if you can't then re-sign, and (2) what are the chances of a team using that obscure strategy really? I'm happy to allow POs. I'm going to think on this though. It's almost like the best method for deciding this will be based on What If scenarios like these, where we try to predict the consequences of our action and make the decision based upon it. Sometimes it's impossible to foresee the consequences so we could start with a Softer Hard Cap (lol), allowing POs like these and just assessing the consequences, phasing-in changes in the distant future.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 18, 2018 20:44:05 GMT
A big problem with this decision is that we can't use the NBA as a guide like usual because they have the luxury tax, which doesn't work with our imaginary money. what if you had a massive Derrick Rose contract with a P.O.? A strategy would be to go over the hard cap so he is forced to opt out. Good point. So we have two competing points: (1) I think the strongest, most legitimate point against allowing Player Options is the third one I made earlier: "(3) the player knows that if they opt-out then they cannot re-sign, this constitutes an gigantic incentive to opt-in and continue their contract with their team at a discount, it is an extra unfair advantage for the team when the purpose of the Hard Cap is to address inequality." (2) And as Andrei Kirilenko pointed out above, on the flip side: Teams can manipulate the Hard Cap to rid themselves of undesirable contracts, when those contracts are Player Options. I think both these points are quite weak though? (1) It's not much of an incentive to opt-in if you can't then re-sign, and (2) what are the chances of a team using that obscure strategy really? I'm happy to allow POs. I'm going to think on this though. It's almost like the best method for deciding this will be based on What If scenarios like these, where we try to predict the consequences of our action and make the decision based upon it. Sometimes it's impossible to foresee the consequences so we could start with a Softer Hard Cap (lol), allowing POs like these and just assessing the consequences, phasing-in changes in the distant future. How does it incentivize players to stay at a discount? That VERY rarely happens in real life and only with players who made the absolute max for many years before doing so. And they don't ever really take that big of a discount anyways. Any player doing good should decline their player option uniformly because it's the smartest thing for them to do. Players have loyalty to their team pretty much only if they make the max the whole time.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 18, 2018 23:04:22 GMT
Been mulling over all of this for a few hours and here's what I think is best: TL;DR: No transaction should allow a team to exceed the Hard Cap.Each year on July 1st, when salaries progress to the following year, the following year's total team salaries might exceed the Hard Cap - and that is the only time the Hard Cap can be exceeded. TradingTrading seems to be an easy one: If you're under the Hard Cap, you can't go over it with a trade. If you're over the Hard Cap already, every trade must decrease your salaries. Draft PicksIf you're over the Hard Cap on the day the Draft starts you lose all your picks in that Draft. Not just your own team picks but any other picks you also own.
To me this seems like the best method when it comes to timings. Previously the Rule stated that if you're over the Hard Cap when team salaries progress on July 1st, when OSFA starts, then you lose all your picks in the following year's Draft, but those dates are too removed from one another, I'd rather make it applicable instantly and then not have to think about it again and/or forget about it when the next year's Draft happens and cause mishaps.
If you're under the Hard Cap when Draft starts you get to keep your picks, even if the picks then take you above the Hard Cap, again partly because logistically it is far too exorbitant to police whether each draft pick pushes you over the Hard Cap when those draft picks are happening. It is a 100% certainty that teams will make picks, we'll realize they've gone over the Hard Cap, but 10 picks will have happened before that realization and the fairness and continuity of the Draft will be ruined.
It's impossible to ban teams from trading Draft Picks based only on the possibility that they might be over the Hard Cap when the Draft starts. Teams expecting to be above the Hard Cap will obviously trade away their picks during the season and not necessarily be harmed by this rule, but since there is absolutely no way of knowing whether a team will be over the Hard Cap when the Draft begins it's logically impossible to police a ban on trading draft picks.
Barber suggested teams should keep their 2nd Rounders, but I don't see why we need that variable thrown into the mix to further complicate things. Team OptionsYou cannot pick up a Team Option if it takes you over the Hard Cap.
Team Options are an option that disappears for the team when it takes them over the Hard Cap. Player OptionsPlayer's cannot exercise the right to use their Player Option if it takes their team over the Hard Cap.
This is the controversial one because of (1) Paul George and (2) a Player Option is a previously signed and binding contractual agreement in which the player has all the power to make a decision whether to stay or leave their team. Surely it goes against the nature of what constitutes a Player Option if we don't allow them to use it?
The arguments I'm thinking that cancel this out are: (1) The health of the league is more important than a Player Option, (2) teams approaching Hard Caps will love to hand out massive Player Options and (3) the player knows that if they opt-out then they cannot re-sign, this constitutes a gigantic incentive to opt-in and continue their contract with their team at a discount, it is an extra unfair advantage for the team when the purpose of the Hard Cap is to address inequality.
I'm open to suggestions as to why this should/should not be the rule but on balance, with these points taken into consideration, I feel like this is the best decision on POs. I'm totally on board with all of this, except for the player options. I think Andrei Kirilenko is right that this rule would be used like a backdoor amnesty clause. Just look at the Clippers salary chart. This would be fantastic news for them and give them a way to dump Carmelo Anthony. They just need to add like $15-20 mil for next season and they'd be able to get rid of the $70+ million they owe Melo after this season. But on the other hand, not only could James Kay lose Paul George, but Shane Battier could also lose DeMarcus Cousins... so maybe I'm for this after all...
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 18, 2018 23:12:08 GMT
I stand with my friend James. There is no need to sacrifice a GM by hardening a rule that was not properly elaborated in the past.
It is actually downing that Ian himself did not have a clear plan on how to implement the HC and just through this thread has come up with his own interpretation.
If that interpretation will go through as scheduled I actually believe that it will hurt the health of the league because we are again allowing the Man in Power to hurt a team without proper administrative processes.
We already allow him to do the Whiteside-move in the 2018 offseason WITHOUT A LEGAL BASIS. I hope that will not be repeated.
Just to clarify, I am not against the interpretation. I am against implementing it as scheduled. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 19, 2018 0:46:06 GMT
Look at it this way. LBJ left a perennial title contender Cavs team to join the Heat. He then left a perennial title contender in the Heat to join the Cavs. He then left a perennial title contender to join the Lakers. Kevin Durant 9 seasons with the same team. One finals appearance, left to join the GSW. LaMarcus Aldridge 9 seasons with the same team, no finals appearances, left to join the San Antonio Spurs. I think in terms of player options, the player declines it no matter what. It happens in almost every single case and the player moves unless they just won a title. I think that loyalty matters when it comes to that first resigning, it'd be kind of ridiculously unfair if it didn't, us making BRs trade-able kinda fixed that for the most part as long as someone is willing to offer the right money. But when it comes to players just staying with a team because they've been there a long time I think we have to take a real long look at that metric in general. And right now, the hard cap is gonna fuck Alex English into making a bold move if he wants to keep Pascal Siakam. One he might not be able to accomplish because you know dang well someone is offering him big money and Alex has a few contracts that may or may not be moveable. In a way Alex is a victim of his own drafting success in the same way that real life teams can be sometimes. And that totally sucks admittedly but I mean, that's kind of the way its supposed to work and how parity is going to be accomplished in the league.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 19, 2018 0:57:40 GMT
To James Kay 's point about Paul George's player option. I don't think it should be a rule that you can't have players accept their player options if they are at the salary cap. Quite frankly because I think in many cases a player accepting a player option can actually make the Hard Cap bite harder since they tend to be given to players who are older and thus more likely to decline. I do question that, outside of a Championship run, at 29 years old he even accepts the player option in the first place and foregoes 140+ million dollars of guaranteed money. I railed against giving all these players options in the first place because I thought it was cheesy and dumb. But giving a player option comes with substantial risk and should.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 19, 2018 1:37:48 GMT
To James Kay 's point about Paul George's player option. I don't think it should be a rule that you can't have players accept their player options if they are at the salary cap. Quite frankly because I think in many cases a player accepting a player option can actually make the Hard Cap bite harder since they tend to be given to players who are older and thus more likely to decline. I do question that, outside of a Championship run, at 29 years old he even accepts the player option in the first place and foregoes 140+ million dollars of guaranteed money. I railed against giving all these players options in the first place because I thought it was cheesy and dumb. But giving a player option comes with substantial risk and should. Just in regard to Paul George specifically, he's currently in his 9th season, so after next season he can go after the 10-year 35% max contract. His salary for next season, if he picked up the option, would be higher than he could make for that season if he opted out. So, it would be something of a risk for him to opt in and not secure a longer contract, but if he keeps up his level of play even remotely, he'd be a lock for the 35% contract and therefore opting in would actually maximize his earnings. Even in the signing thread, it was heavily implied that the player option was there to be a safeguard against disaster. Paul is excited to join the Charlotte Hornets for at least the next 2 seasons. If the team is disappointing (not going deep into the playoffs) by the end of season 2, he would likely opt out and look for a 1 year deal elsewhere. His contract structure at this time lines up so that in "year 4", no matter where he'll be at that time, he'll be eligible for the full 35% max contract by that year. So, it works to his advantage to stay in Charlotte and earn his BR's to get the full max plus get the raises over 5 years for that last huge contract of his career (most likely). (emphasis added). I also want to question that we should be "realistic" (according to you players would opt out any chance they get), if we're not being realistic with the contracts themselves. Why apply one method to the contract negotiation and then an entirely different one to the execution?
This holds even more true for the PG signing. Why have that in the signing page if its complete bullshit? lol
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 19, 2018 1:38:09 GMT
Last Year's Real Life Player OptionsWhat do we notice based on real life. First things first, player options are MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely to be given to players in the Cory Joseph, Wes Johnson sub 8 million type players. It's a way to encourage youngish players to come to a team, perhaps for a slightly lower per year salary and have the option to either stay if they don't improve much or leave/get a new salary if they do improve. The players we'll focus on are the high salary options by position and a few interesting ones: PG: Jeremy Lin, Nets ($12,516,746): Opted in : Turned 30 this year but had a season ending injury game 1 last year. One would have to think he'd likely have declined this if his stats had stayed the same so he could net more money into his mid 30s. SG: Danny Green, Spurs ($10,000,000): Opted in : One of the worst seasons in his career, had to take the money. Austin Rivers, Clippers ($12,650,000): Opted in : Is garbage and didn't deserve this contract to begin with. Iman Shumpert, Kings ($11,011,234): Opted in : Suffered injury issues all year and a decreased role. SF: Kevin Durant, Warriors ($26,250,000): Opted out : He could get more money, so he did. Rudy Gay, Spurs ($8,826,300): Opted out : Quite frankly the least Spursy player in the world but he had a good year and was rewarded for the risk of declining by them needing a replacement due to Kawhi drama. Paul George, Thunder ($20,703,384): Opted out : He could resign for more money. LeBron James, Cavaliers ($35,607,968): Opted out : Best player in the world can literally do whatever he wants, not really a good comp for anything in D5 because no one here is as bad as Dan Gilbert. PF: Carmelo Anthony, Thunder ($27,928,140): Opted in * : Declined in a major way with the Thunder. Had to opt in. Thaddeus Young, Pacers ($13,764,045): Opted in : Didn't really improve or get worse. But he likely wasn't making much more than the total of this contract long term given his age. C: DeAndre Jordan, Clippers ($24,119,025): Opted out : Wanted more money and also was in bad need of change of scenery. Enes Kanter, Knicks ($18,622,514): Opting in : He's just not getting this deal again. Even with a long term contract he's likely making nearly double the 10 or so million per year I estimate he'd get on a longer deal. Plus he's 26 so he can pretty reliably sign a new long term deal next season even with an injury. Kyle O’Quinn, Knicks ($4,256,250): Opted out : He's 28 and basically got this same contract for an extra 2 more years than what he had originally, he's also one of the only low salary guys who declined. Joffrey Lauvergne, Spurs ($1,656,092): Opted out : Not really a big deal just thought it was neat, he declined and went back to Europe. ------------------- What kind of conclusions can we draw from this? If you are already elite and didn't decline in skill and aren't 35 years old, you decline your player option. Period. If you make a lot of money and decline even a little bit or get hurt, you accept your player option. If you make a little amount of money and are either old or didn't do much different that last season or got worse, you stay put. ------------------- The major issue I have with all of these problems with the Player Options is that GMs were flat out offering them without ever once considering that those players might decline those options simply by virtue of them not moving their star player or being good. Well it's a catch 22 really isn't it? If you have a star player your team will be good and you aren't trading away your star player unless you're ready to blow it up and tank. Also, it's no death knell that a player leaves if they decline their player option, as Paul George did in real life, declining and just resigning for the new max. "Teams cannot re-sign even Bird Rights players if they are over the Hard Cap after the signing. The only time a player can be signed is if a team is under the 12 player roster limit for the league minimum." This rule was always in the hard cap rules. It's not new and several years of planning were there to be ready for it. 165,000,000 is the projected hard cap I believe. As of right now I don't believe that it is against the rules to resign a player and have that take you into the hard cap. (I don't think it should be a rule) In theory Paul George could decline this option and James Kay merely has to trade away a player or two and he could resign him to a new max. Outside of Durant, George and Westbrook the rest of his team is gonna be chodes but that's the price of having 3 max guys on your team.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 19, 2018 2:01:32 GMT
None of these players had to make a decision between leaving their team and opting out. Like I said, it doesn't make sense to point to all these real life player decisions when the very contract itself isn't consistent with real life player decisions. I also just want to make clear that I did NOT want a player option AND I was basically told that PG would accept the player option. "unless you are getting knocked out early in the playoffs, he would almost certainly stay for his own good." Look at what the negotiations were like: "If Paul chose to sign with you, we would be comfortable with a 2 year deal with 3rd year as Player Option. Max contract with max raises.
Would you be comfortable with the 2+1 structure?"
"...And yeah, the Hornets would absolutely be comfortable with that."
"Year 1: $29,729,900 Year 2: $31,959,643 Year 3: $34,189,386 (Player Option)
Are you still comfortable with that contract? The 2+1 as discussed above?"
"Hmm..
I guess I don't really have a choice do I? lol"
"But yeah, I mean, if PG wanted a longer deal with 4 years, the fourth being the PO, I'd like that even more..."
"FWIW, it will be in PG's best interest to stay with you for that 3rd year. If he opts out, he'd only want a 1-year deal somewhere else, and he'd only be able to make 30% of the cap in that year, which at that point won't be as high as his 3rd year will be with you. Unless the cap goes up significantly between now and then, but it seems to be leveling off.
If he sticks all 3 years, he then enters his 10+ season in the league with you and with you having his BR's. He can then sign for 35% of the cap and have a 5 year deal.
So, unless you are getting knocked out early in the playoffs, he would almost certainly stay for his own good."
"Well that's why he'd like that one[4 year deal]! So he can opt out the fourth year for the full max of 35% ! With BRs!
In any case, I'd just like to have PG and do NOT want to stall it on these discussions lol.
But, Id rather have the four years. Given his injury history he might want the financial security of four years.
Don't feel required to respond. Either you're persuaded or you're not. Whichever PG decides is fine with me, I just think the 4 year is best"
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 19, 2018 2:07:31 GMT
James Kay : Just in regard to Paul George specifically, he's currently in his 9th season, so after next season he can go after the 10-year 35% max contract. His salary for next season, if he picked up the option, would be higher than he could make for that season if he opted out. So, it would be something of a risk for him to opt in and not secure a longer contract, but if he keeps up his level of play even remotely, he'd be a lock for the 35% contract and therefore opting in would actually maximize his earnings. ---------------------------------------------- Then he can decline and sign a 2 year max contract with a 2nd year player option. I guarantee someone with multiple years of cap room to spare will offer that. ATL, BKN, LAL, NOP, NYK, UTA are all teams with space and good pieces to sign that 1 year contract, let him decline and then reoffer the max if/when he declines to get that major money. What some people aren't realizing is that this is the exact purpose of the rule, it just happens that you're the first to really be bitten by it in a major way, because unlike LAC he's kinda fucked no matter what happens. The purpose of the rule is to spread the best players out a bit to be more realistic. And yes, I 100% agree that the real life Warriors exist but that team's title run was artificially extended by cap luck and even if Durant was making 40 million this year like he should be, they'd still be at around that 150% over cap mark. Title windows in the NBA outside of the Spurs are typically 3 years or so as that's the amount of time it takes after role players and stars sync up and then key role players move on to bigger contracts or decline, star players decline or move on to other opportunities and then the team is stuck with a few shit contracts for a couple years. ---------------------------------------------- Our major flaw in OSFA has always been that we believe that players value going to better teams when in reality that's only a little bit of the equation. Sure an old 33 year old guy might take less to play for GSW but that's the exception and not the rule. This kind of thinking has led us to having extreme disparity in competitiveness. Why did Paul Milsap go to the Nuggets IRL? They offered him a bunch of money and they weren't total ass. That was it. Now before that's really all we had to go on. The hardcap is going to make sure that teams such as yours, such as Alex's such as Chris's aren't able to hoard all of the best players anymore. Now admittedly, almost all of that is because of how talented those respective GMs are at negotiating trades, drafting players worth resigning at decent sized salaries. And it is a tad unfair that now these new cap rules which were previously something you didn't really have to care about, but with exploding cap values it compounded on itself. ---------------------------------------------- Overall the point I'm making is that the D5 Nuggets and Warriors title windows have been almost since I've been in D5. That wouldn't be unrealistic at all but as it stands those windows are poised to extend another 2, 3 even 4 years in some cases. Inevitably everyone, including myself will become victim to the hardcap rules in the same exact way that real life teams are eventually victim to constant luxury tax repeating fines.
|
|
Billy King
Former Jazz and Knicks GM
Rookie
Posts: 247
Oct 30, 2023 14:13:22 GMT
|
Post by Billy King on Dec 19, 2018 2:11:54 GMT
Hey guys,
GM with the most-liked post in the thread here.
Back at you with another zinger.
If the hard cap can't be hard, which is obviously the ideal scenario, then what Ian has laid out here seems pretty reasonable. I even agree with the PO stuff, even though it does seem like it could create some weird scenarios in FA and through collusion-y trades. However, James Kay has a very good point and is getting royally fucked by an interpretation that wasn't even put forth until a few hours ago. I think we could all agree that Ians got a good idea here with the hard cap implementation, and James Kay has a good gripe as well.
Let's just have our cake and eat it too. Let's go with the full implementation, and just grandfather the paul george contract (and whomever else it would apply to) in. Just apply all the parts of the hard cap rule that was made obvious from the rules that have been posted up unto this time still apply, but just delay this new PO interpretation until the following season. Everyone's happy.
Well, except for those of us who get hard ons for real hard caps.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 19, 2018 2:18:49 GMT
Then he can decline and sign a 2 year max contract with a 2nd year player option. I guarantee someone with multiple years of cap room to spare will offer that. ATL, BKN, LAL, NOP, NYK, UTA are all teams with space and good pieces to sign that 1 year contract, let him decline and then reoffer the max if/when he declines to get that major money. What some people aren't realizing is that this is the exact purpose of the rule, it just happens that you're the first to really be bitten by it in a major way, because unlike LAC he's kinda fucked no matter what happens. The purpose of the rule is to spread the best players out a bit to be more realistic. I fully realize that, and I'm on board with it. I just don't think that it should apply to Player Options that were given out before anyone had notice that the hard cap would prevent players from picking up player options. *as Billy just said, and as I said in my earliest post, my main issue is having this apply to me when it wasn't a rule when the contract was formed* I also just think that based on what was said to me in the negotiations and in the signing thread, as well as PGs incentive to go for the 35% max, he should opt in to his PO (if I don't get knocked out early in the playoffs, obviously - as was mentioned in the negotiations and signing thread). It's not fair to be totally loose with realism when the contract is signed, and then 2 years down the road take a totally different stance and force him to opt out because that's what players do in real life.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 19, 2018 2:21:23 GMT
None of these players had to make a decision between leaving their team and opting out. Like I said, it doesn't make sense to point to all these real life player decisions when the very contract itself isn't consistent with real life player decisions. I also just want to make clear that I did NOT want a player option AND I was basically told that PG would accept the player option. "unless you are getting knocked out early in the playoffs, he would almost certainly stay for his own good." Look at what the negotiations were like: "If Paul chose to sign with you, we would be comfortable with a 2 year deal with 3rd year as Player Option. Max contract with max raises.
Would you be comfortable with the 2+1 structure?"
"...And yeah, the Hornets would absolutely be comfortable with that."
"Year 1: $29,729,900 Year 2: $31,959,643 Year 3: $34,189,386 (Player Option)
Are you still comfortable with that contract? The 2+1 as discussed above?"
"Hmm..
I guess I don't really have a choice do I? lol"
"But yeah, I mean, if PG wanted a longer deal with 4 years, the fourth being the PO, I'd like that even more..."
"FWIW, it will be in PG's best interest to stay with you for that 3rd year. If he opts out, he'd only want a 1-year deal somewhere else, and he'd only be able to make 30% of the cap in that year, which at that point won't be as high as his 3rd year will be with you. Unless the cap goes up significantly between now and then, but it seems to be leveling off.
If he sticks all 3 years, he then enters his 10+ season in the league with you and with you having his BR's. He can then sign for 35% of the cap and have a 5 year deal.
So, unless you are getting knocked out early in the playoffs, he would almost certainly stay for his own good."
"Well that's why he'd like that one[4 year deal]! So he can opt out the fourth year for the full max of 35% ! With BRs!
In any case, I'd just like to have PG and do NOT want to stall it on these discussions lol.
But, Id rather have the four years. Given his injury history he might want the financial security of four years.
Don't feel required to respond. Either you're persuaded or you're not. Whichever PG decides is fine with me, I just think the 4 year is best"
------------------------------------------------------ The only thing I have to say to this exchange is this: Does it really matter? How many players are told every off season that they are a "building block of the future" or "our team is so loyal to it's players" or "sign this low shit contract and I'll for sure get you back after I have bird rights". And then those players are traded the absolute second the clock ticks over to December 15? The real question is, was this player agent dealing with another equal offer that you had to match to get him? Or was the player option the cherry on top that beat someones 3 year offer? Or was this player agent just seeing what they could get? (Not really nice, but I'm sure it could happen) I remember offering for Paul George I offered him a 4 year max and they asked if I was willing to offer a player option and I said no. ------------------------------------------------------ I will say that this deal was also constructed during the dreaded "player option fever" and "cap jump fever" times we had there and I thought those were really stupid things to base signings off of then and still do considering so many max level players ended up inking max extensions without even considering a cap jump. The only one that didn't I think was LBJ and he could have torn an ACL on his way into the FA meeting and still been offered a max contract. ------------------------------------------------------ For the record James, I don't really have any stake in this as I don't think I'd be able to sign Paul George as I'd not offer a 2 year contract with a PO simply because I wouldn't be able to resign him to that max at the end of it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 19, 2018 2:29:05 GMT
James KayIf your argument is that he shouldn't be barred from picking up a PO, fine. My argument is that he shouldn't pick up the PO regardless, and if you have the cap room could conceivably resign with CHA. I also don't think its fair or right for a player agent to make those kinds of commitments AT ALL. Especially considering the PA isn't likely to stay the same so the new one wouldn't even know about this arrangement which should never be made EVER especially because what it essentially was is a pre-decided contract extension which we aren't supposed to do in the first place and really only serves to give other GMs you were competing against the illusion of you taking any risk. So essentially you got to sign an essentially riskless player option because, quite frankly a team with a 90 overall player especially at the time wasn't likely to be boosted in the early rounds of the Eastern playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 19, 2018 2:32:20 GMT
The only thing I have to say to this exchange is this: Does it really matter? How many players are told every off season that they are a "building block of the future" or "our team is so loyal to it's players" or "sign this low shit contract and I'll for sure get you back after I have bird rights". And then those players are traded the absolute second the clock ticks over to December 15? So because some GMs do it, player agents should be able to do it to? If that's the case, then put everyone on notice, and just accept that everyone on both sides is completely unaccountable for anything they say. IMO the promises of a player are held to a higher standard because there's no natural way to punish failure to complete. When GMs do it, we can call that out and they might suffer in FA from their disloyalty. When a player agent does it - what then? I will say that this deal was also constructed during the dreaded "player option fever" and "cap jump fever" times we had there and I thought those were really stupid things to base signings off of then and still do considering so many max level players ended up inking max extensions without even considering a cap jump. Yeah, and I'm saying that we gave these silly deals without too much thought for realism. Why are you bringing up what players do in real life to say what PG would do - when a player has never been in a situation like this before? FTR, if he opts out I can't keep him regardless of what the hard cap rule turns out to be. I don't have his BRs. Why would a player sign a deal like that lmao
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 19, 2018 2:37:35 GMT
James KayIf your argument is that he shouldn't be barred from picking up a PO, fine. My argument is that he shouldn't pick up the PO regardless, and if you have the cap room could conceivably resign with CHA. nbsp; Yeah, I'm moving past that as I don't see too many people arguing that he shouldn't be barred from picking up the PO b/c of the hard cap. I'm just disagreeing with what you're saying about PG because I obviously want him to stay, and think he should. This discussion has moved far past the Hard Cap discussion lol. I also don't think its fair or right for a player agent to make those kinds of commitments AT ALL. Especially considering the PA isn't likely to stay the same so the new one wouldn't even know about this arrangement which should never be made EVER especially because what it essentially was is a pre-decided contract extension which we aren't supposed to do in the first place and really only serves to give other GMs you were competing against the illusion of you taking any risk. So essentially you got to sign an essentially riskless player option because, quite frankly a team with a 90 overall player especially at the time wasn't likely to be boosted in the early rounds of the Eastern playoffs. I don't agree with that. First, it wasn't only said in our messages, it was posted on the signing thread. Everyone's on notice. And there isn't one player agent for player options anyway, it's a committee decision. Honestly I don't really understand why it was put in there. I was never told that the other GM had offered a PO but the assurances I received made me say yes to it. Like I said right above, I think the player promises should be held to a higher standard and I don't think it's fair to convince me to accept a player option based on things. I was under the assumption that Walt was speaking with authority of a sort of neutral agent on behalf of D5 - not as a zealous advocate for PG that would ruthlessly mislead me to get a pointless player option.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 19, 2018 2:44:30 GMT
The only thing I have to say to this exchange is this: Does it really matter? How many players are told every off season that they are a "building block of the future" or "our team is so loyal to it's players" or "sign this low shit contract and I'll for sure get you back after I have bird rights". And then those players are traded the absolute second the clock ticks over to December 15? So because some GMs do it, player agents should be able to do it to? If that's the case, then put everyone on notice, and just accept that everyone on both sides is completely unaccountable for anything they say. IMO the promises of a player are held to a higher standard because there's no natural way to punish failure to complete. When GMs do it, we can call that out and they might suffer in FA from their disloyalty. When a player agent does it - what then? ---------------------------- My next comment says the exact opposite. A PA should NEVER EVER make a promise in relation to a players next contract.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 19, 2018 2:46:58 GMT
My next comment says the exact opposite. A PA should NEVER EVER make a promise in relation to a players next contract. Wrote that before I saw your comment. But... he did lol.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 19, 2018 15:06:58 GMT
Updated Hard Cap Rules: Hard Cap2019/20: 150% of Salary Cap
2018/19: $178,270,750 (175% of Salary Cap)
2017/18: $198,186,000 (200% of Salary Cap) 2016/17: $207,114,600 (220% of Salary Cap) 2015/16: $161,000,000 (230% of Salary Cap)
Every trade must decrease your team's salary if you are over the Hard Cap.
If you're over the Hard Cap on the day the Draft starts you lose all your picks in that Draft.
Teams cannot re-sign even Bird Rights players if they are over the Hard Cap after the signing. Team Options cannot be picked up on a player if it takes a team above the Hard Cap. Player Options are still the decision of the player. The only time a player can be signed whilst over the Hard Cap is if a team is under the 12 player roster limit for the league minimum.
* (hard cap discussion, 2018)
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Dec 19, 2018 16:01:15 GMT
So if we all refuse to make a trade with Alex English , then OG Anunoby and Josh Hart will both be free agents?
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 19, 2018 21:33:44 GMT
If you're over the Hard Cap on the day the Draft starts you lose all your picks in that Draft. Maybe I'm being picky, but the way this is worded is slightly different from what we're going for isn't it? On the first day of the 2019 draft, I won't be over the hard cap because the draft starts before the salary charts advance. Only on July 1st would I be over the hard cap. So technically, this wording implies I wouldn't lose my picks. Something like "If, on the day the draft starts, you're set to go over the hard cap when the offseason begins, you lose all your picks in that draft."
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 19, 2018 21:43:28 GMT
If you're over the Hard Cap on the day the Draft starts you lose all your picks in that Draft. Maybe I'm being picky, but the way this is worded is slightly different from what we're going for isn't it? On the first day of the 2019 draft, I won't be over the hard cap because the draft starts before the salary charts advance. Only on July 1st would I be over the hard cap. So technically, this wording implies I wouldn't lose my picks. Something like "If, on the day the draft starts, you're set to go over the hard cap when the offseason begins, you lose all your picks in that draft." I do like this idea more actually. This is what I was referring to by 'timing' in my original big reply: Draft PicksTo me this seems like the best method when it comes to timings. Previously the Rule stated that if you're over the Hard Cap when team salaries progress on July 1st, when OSFA starts, then you lose all your picks in the following year's Draft, but those dates are too removed from one another, I'd rather make it applicable instantly and then not have to think about it again and/or forget about it when the next year's Draft happens and cause mishaps. I think your suggestion is the best. Reworded:
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 20, 2018 10:37:22 GMT
We also need to clarify the trading in the month of June. What is the official salary being counted there? The current season or the following season? Current season. Salaries don't progress until July 1st. Which means they can make a trade a day before the draft, using the current salaries to go below the HC? Like, if Alex remains to be over the HC a few days before the 2020 draft, he can then trade Harden to a team with cap space to keep his picks. Right?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 20, 2018 12:28:43 GMT
Current season. Salaries don't progress until July 1st. Which means they can make a trade a day before the draft, using the current salaries to go below the HC? Like, if Alex remains to be over the HC a few days before the 2020 draft, he can then trade Harden to a team with cap space to keep his picks. Right? I mean he has other guys. But that makes sense and would be fair in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 20, 2018 12:30:14 GMT
Maybe I'm being picky, but the way this is worded is slightly different from what we're going for isn't it? On the first day of the 2019 draft, I won't be over the hard cap because the draft starts before the salary charts advance. Only on July 1st would I be over the hard cap. So technically, this wording implies I wouldn't lose my picks. Something like "If, on the day the draft starts, you're set to go over the hard cap when the offseason begins, you lose all your picks in that draft." I do like this idea more actually. This is what I was referring to by 'timing' in my original big reply: Draft PicksTo me this seems like the best method when it comes to timings. Previously the Rule stated that if you're over the Hard Cap when team salaries progress on July 1st, when OSFA starts, then you lose all your picks in the following year's Draft, but those dates are too removed from one another, I'd rather make it applicable instantly and then not have to think about it again and/or forget about it when the next year's Draft happens and cause mishaps. I think your suggestion is the best. Reworded: Idk I think this is a bit stringent because you never know what kinda trade someone will make. They might have a 20th pick sending em over but they can trade that to someone for a 2nd and come in under. But you won't know till you took their pick.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 20, 2018 14:18:29 GMT
Current season. Salaries don't progress until July 1st. Which means they can make a trade a day before the draft, using the current salaries to go below the HC? Like, if Alex remains to be over the HC a few days before the 2020 draft, he can then trade Harden to a team with cap space to keep his picks. Right? Correct
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 26, 2019 6:42:17 GMT
I'm sorry to beat this horse some more, but I can't stop thinking about it. I've been scheming and plotting a million potential trades to try and get the Hornets out of this situation, but I keep coming back to one conclusion: Paul George leaving makes no sense. Let me first just say that the hard cap has no relevance here, as PG can not opt out and re-sign with my team even if I could fit him under the hard cap, because I would not have his BRs if he opts out. Therefore, let me break down the choices PG could make and how they would shape out financially. If I've made any mistakes, please feel free to let me know. As far as I can tell, by opting out, PG is actually taking a larger chance that he will not get injured later in his career, and sacrificing money along the way as well. Financially, at least, it makes the most sense, in my opinion, for PG to pick up his PO. Risk considerations make the choice somewhat closer, but I believe that opting out simply shifts the risk to a later less-timely position, as I'll explain.
Without further ado, here are Paul George's Contract Options based on $109 million cap next year, and let's say $111 million cap the year after that for a very modest estimate based on the increases of the past 5 years: Option 1: Pick up PO and re-sign with CHA the next season.Pick up option, stay with Hornets, make: $34,189,386. Sign 5-year max BRs deal at 35% with Hornets the year after, make: $225,655,991 Total guaranteed earnings: $ 259,845,377Option 2: Pick up PO and sign with another team the next season.Pick up option, stay with Hornets, make: $34,189,386. Sign 4-year max 35% deal - with another team - the year after, make: $173,773,015 Total guaranteed earnings: $ 207,962,401Option 3: Decline PO and sign 1-year deal, then 4-year max. Leave Hornets to play with the Hawks, sign 1-year 30% contract, make: $32,700,000 Sign 4-year max 35% deal the year after, make: $173,773,015 Total guaranteed earnings: $ 206,473,014Option 4: Decline PO and sign 4-year max.Leave Hornets to play with the Jazz, sign 4-year 30% contract, make: $146,264,545 Total guaranteed earnings: $ 146,264,545Hit free agency, eligible for 35% max contract, in 2024 at the age of 34 (PG is currently 28, will be 29 when he hits this FA) (Hypothetically, at age 34, earning that contract, 2-years of 35% of an arbitrarily estimated $118 million salary cap, brings total earnings to $231,962,045).
The raw numbers obviously point to picking up the PO, but we all know what the elephant in the room is. What if he Nerlens Noels himself?
The specter of a potential injury or some sort of drastic drop-off in value is lurking. In Option 1, 2, and 3, it is lurking in the shadows of this next season. Yet, Paul George will be 29 for the length of the season, playing with an MVP in a system that is letting him shine as a scorer and defensive juggernaut. In Option 4, that specter is still present, it's just shifted to the end of the 4-year contract. His next contract will be based on a 33-year old PG's performance. And he'll have to make $113,580,832 in the first two years of that contract to make Option 4 worth it financially. This isn't possible, first of all, and further, is highly unlikely to even approach those numbers. If he was somehow able to secure at least 2 years of 35% increasing salary with a $118 million salary cap (that I just pulled out my ass), he would still fall nearly $30 million dollars short of Option 1 over the same 6-year period. Except - Paul George isn't actually that young. He will be 29 during this FA, and 34 at the end of the Option 4 contract. That's. old. Millsap (33), Conley (31), Horford (32), Gay (32), CP3 (33), Dwight Howard (33). Each of these players are younger than 34. Are you giving them max contracts? I really doubt that. So we have Options 1, 2, and 3 that each equally place the risk earlier. Each involves either picking up or signing a 1-year deal. But the options that involve picking up the PO - Options 1 and 2 - give PG more money. So, with all risks being equal, there is no reason to pick Option 3, and we can eliminate it. Which leaves us with opting in (Options 1 and 2), versus Option 4, which places the risk later.
So, yes, to an extent, opting in with CHA would be a small "gamble." Any potential injury or drastic drop-off would decrease the expected contract values of Options 1, 2, and 3. But PG is a ligament-injury free player at the peak of his prime. If he is able fight off that specter for just 1 year, he guarantees himself an additional guaranteed $113 million dollars. And even if something happens, his value probably still stays relatively high, to the point where I can't envision him not earning nearly the same as Option 4. Paul George is not the type of player where an injury will destroy his value. Even if something happened, I can't imagine him having difficulty signing (not counting CHA - we'd obviously sign him) at least a 100 million 4-year contract with any other team (which would bring his total earnings to $134,189,386 - nearly the same as Option 4). It's Paul George.
But opting out and trying to secure a lucrative contract at age 34 is a much riskier "gamble." There's much more time for something bad to happen, and there's the inevitable decline of age that will be weighing on prospective suitor GM's minds. It would be a much sounder financial decision for PG to gamble now rather than later.
In conclusion, Paul George's decision to stay: 1) has nothing to do with the hard cap b/c PG can't re-sign if he opts out either way; 2) is consistent with the private negotiations with the PA as well as the public signing statement; and 3) is the most financially sound decision to make; 4) likely is also a top 3 destination for competing to boot.
|
|