|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Jan 26, 2019 8:37:39 GMT
This is the kind of obsessive planning and strategizing that really gets my meme-juice flowing.
I agree that the hard cap doesn't really have an impact on the decision, other than the fact that the Hornets would need to dump at least Nerlens Noel, and probably either Amir Johnson or Tony Snell (depending on the actual cap number) before the 2020 offseason in order to have room to even sign a max contract.
The real talking-point that the Hornets have is that 5th year. Paul George's decision is really rather he wants to take a guaranteed contract now, or wait another year in the hopes of getting the 5 year max. James has called his own conditional-extension next summer as "guaranteed money" in his analysis, but has not done the same for any other team who could "conditionally guarantee" an extra year at the max as well. IMO, this "monopoly money" part of the analysis shouldn't be counted. The real numbers are as follows:
Option 1: Pick up PO and re-sign with CHA the next season. Guaranteed money: $34,000,000
Option 2: Pick up PO and sign with another team the next season Guaranteed money: $34,000,000
Option 3: Decline PO and sign 1-year deal, then 4-year max Guaranteed money: $32,700,000 (30% max for 9-year vet)
Option 4: Decline PO and sign 4-year max Guaranteed money: $146,000,000 (30% max at 7.5% raises)
If you want to talk guaranteed money, then he would obviously opt out and choose option #4. If you want to include conditional offers, such as promising to offer a max next summer, then it's still proabably advantageous for him to opt out:
Option 1: Pick up PO and re-sign with CHA the next season. Monopoly money: $260,000,000
Option 3: Decline PO and sign 1-year deal, then 4-year max, then another 1 year deal: Monopoly money: $268,000,000 -- [$218,000,000 ($32.7m + a 35% max over four years) + $50,000,000 (additional max on the end to make options same length of 6 years total)]
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 26, 2019 16:31:40 GMT
Josh, your point about me referring to my offer next season as guaranteed when it is actually not is a good one. That's absolutely a misstatement on my part. But then you proceed to over-simplify and basically ignore most of what I wrote - which is that he's taking the risk of salary struggles earlier in his career rather than later. What I referred to as guaranteed earnings in Options 1, 2, and 3 is basically guaranteed if he stays healthy. Again, a mistake on my part to refer to it as guaranteed absolutely, but you've done nothing to weaken the reasoning of the risk-analysis which could guarantee him over $113 million more in earnings. Lastly, if you're going to engage in your own hypotetheticals, I'd appreciate if you didn't pull salary numbers out of your ass. You can't just tack on $50 million "on the end to make options same length of 6 years total." The Salary Cap would need to be over $142 million for that to be the 35% cap - which is not happening. He'd also be 35 years old at that point, so it should really say "$218,000,000 + whatever deal 35 year old Paul George gets to make it the same length of 6 years total." Which I think we'd both agree can't and won't be anywhere approaching 50 million, and would be equally unlikely to approach the 42 million needed to make Option 3 as lucrative as Option 1. If you want to include conditional offers, such as promising to offer a max next summer, then it's still proabably advantageous for him to opt out: Option 1: Pick up PO and re-sign with CHA the next season. Monopoly money: $260,000,000 Option 3: Decline PO and sign 1-year deal, then 4-year max, then another 1 year deal: Monopoly money: $268,000,000 -- [$218,000,000 ($32.7m + a 35% max over four years) + $50,000,000 (additional max on the end to make options same length of 6 years total)] So, your first point still stands, somewhat, but Option 3 makes no sense unless you're arbitrarily adding 50 million dollars to the total for no good reason. But I'd still be interested if you'd actually address the larger point I'm making about Paul George rather taking the risk regarding salary sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Jan 26, 2019 16:55:38 GMT
Fwiw PG could've signed a 2 year deal this season IRL and waited for a 35% max 2020 offseason but he didn't and signed for the 30% max.
Given what he did irl it seems pretty obvious what he'd do here. He has shown he cares about immediate security over completely maximizing long term earnings (which makes sense given his past injury)
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 26, 2019 17:20:22 GMT
Fwiw PG could've signed a 2 year deal this season IRL and waited for a 35% max 2020 offseason but he didn't and signed for the 30% max. Given what he did irl it seems pretty obvious what he'd do here. He has shown he cares about immediate security over completely maximizing long term earnings (which makes sense given his past injury) Certainly relevant but 1) Players don't always do in D5 what they did IRL; 2) as I explained in this thread it seems inconsistent to apply realism now when realism wasn't used in the creation of the initial contract; and 3) to the main point of your post, 2 years is a lot different than 1 year, especially when that 1 year is simply picking up an option that allows you to earn more than you could make otherwise. And the contract he signed IRL includes a PO after three years (as mine should have done) which will allow him to sign a new contract at the age of 31 instead of 33 or 34 - which is why I'm saying Paul George wouldn't want to do Option 4 because he's be worth so much less at that age.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Jan 26, 2019 17:30:29 GMT
This doesn't matter to me, I certainly won't be signing PG this offseason. But I think we should defer to real life when we have the information.
Also it's almost guaranteed PG gets a max at 34, unless he has a debilitating injury, in which case he will be glad to have signed a long term deal sooner anyway.
I realize this sucks for you James but I think if somehow IRL PG was controlling D5 PG's it's clear he would opt out to sign a long term deal this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 26, 2019 17:40:27 GMT
It's really crazy just how much a 7-9 or 10 year veteran can earn at the maximum: just two of them and you're almost at the salary cap, three of them and you're pretty stuck, and yet it does still make sense to throw that money at free agents sometimes because otherwise you come out of OSFA with nothing. To be honest, James Kay, if Paul George does opt in this summer and does re-sign with you on BRs the following year, without some extra moves on the side you're going to have an extremely weak supporting cast in tow. I'm just saying this because it's interesting to note the effects for all teams across the league, not just yours. The 4 options you outline aren't the only 4 options available to PG, he could sign a shorter deal elsewhere and bet on the fact he can still get the max at 31 or 32 years of age - he probably could both here at D5 and IRL. But nevertheless you illustrate some convincing reasons why PG would opt-in, and if we're trying to be impartial we should preference the path he chose to take IRL. He obviously seems to like Westbrook as a teammate IRL, there's no outward reason I can see why the presence of Durant would affect that either, clearly your team is the best (numberically, in terms of overall rating) in all of D5 and represents a great chance for success etc.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 26, 2019 18:25:17 GMT
I realize this sucks for you James but I think if somehow IRL PG was controlling D5 PG's it's clear he would opt out to sign a long term deal this offseason. I think the opposite. Also it's almost guaranteed PG gets a max at 34, unless he has a debilitating injury, in which case he will be glad to have signed a long term deal sooner anyway. What in the world are you talking about? Name one player besides Lebron - and I'll even lower the threshold all the way down to 31 years - ONE player - that you'd give a max contract to that's 31 years or older. Name one. www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2019_per_game.htmlLMA - maybe? CP3 - maybe? Your point about the debilitating injury supports what I'm saying. It's like you guys aren't reading my post lol. He has to make it through just one year - at his physical peak - and then he can secure a full 5 year 35% max contract. OR he can sign a 30% 4 year deal and hope that somehow his value is high enough at age 34 to secure another long-term max. Which will never happen.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 26, 2019 18:28:00 GMT
It's really crazy just how much a 7-9 or 10 year veteran can earn at the maximum: just two of them and you're almost at the salary cap, three of them and you're pretty stuck, and yet it does still make sense to throw that money at free agents sometimes because otherwise you come out of OSFA with nothing. To be honest, James Kay, if Paul George does opt in this summer and does re-sign with you on BRs the following year, without some extra moves on the side you're going to have an extremely weak supporting cast in tow. I'm just saying this because it's interesting to note the effects for all teams across the league, not just yours. The 4 options you outline aren't the only 4 options available to PG, he could sign a shorter deal elsewhere and bet on the fact he can still get the max at 31 or 32 years of age - he probably could both here at D5 and IRL. But nevertheless you illustrate some convincing reasons why PG would opt-in, and if we're trying to be impartial we should preference the path he chose to take IRL. He obviously seems to like Westbrook as a teammate IRL, there's no outward reason I can see why the presence of Durant would affect that either, clearly your team is the best (numberically, in terms of overall rating) in all of D5 and represents a great chance for success etc. Yeah the presence of three pretty much makes it extremely difficult to get a supporting cast. Even GSW IRL struggles to find good bench players. I suspect that you will encounter this problem soon enough lol. Then again, you still have another 2 full seasons of your core on rookie contracts, so maybe you won't! But as far as these options not being the only 4 options, they are the only 4 remotely rational options. Signing a shorter deal elsewhere makes no sense. To time it so he is signing at age 31 or 32 he'd have to sign a 2 or 3 year deal - on the 30% structure. Which is much less than the 35% structure and which lengthens the period for which he has to stay healthy and suffer zero setbacks in his play.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 26, 2019 19:08:00 GMT
So I haven't read this full thread, because it's a lot, but I remember we basically had this same argument with LaMarcus Aldridge and his player option a few years ago. I made similar arguments to what James Kay is making. If Paul George (or anyone else) wants to maximize his career earnings, then hitting FA as soon as he's eligible for the 35% max is almost certainly the way to go. If he opts out and takes a 4 year max, then he's getting a 30% max deal for 3 years during which he's eligible 35% max deal. For all you guys who want players to be obsessed with money, then that's just bad math, clearly having a little patience is beneficial in the long run. That's just theoretical, the specifics for PG are even worse. The cap is projected to be $109m. At a 30% max deal that means he'll make $32.7m next season. His current PO is for $34.2m. So you guys want him to opt out to make less money next season? So if you want PG to make the most money RIGHT NOW, then it looks like opting in is his best option. If you want him to make the most money in the long run, then opting in is his best option. That's completely ignoring the basketball side of the equation too, which some people seem to think doesn't really matter because players should only care about money, but I think it can matter a lot. There isn't much of an argument here though, Charlotte is almost guaranteed to be a better option when it come to basketball and winning compared to anywhere else. All in all, I think opting in is definitely the better option. Even for PG I don't think the risk of a career ending injury happening next season is worth opting out to make less money in the short term, less money in the long term, and having to play in a worse situation, just for more guaranteed dollars in the short term.
|
|
Billy King
Former Jazz and Knicks GM
Rookie
Posts: 247
Oct 30, 2023 14:13:22 GMT
|
Post by Billy King on Jan 26, 2019 22:21:15 GMT
Q: Why?
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 28, 2019 21:51:39 GMT
Also notable is that for those of you who think Paul George should opt out, you're essentially saying that Paul George never meant to stay here for longer than 2 years no matter what and it was always a 2 year deal at the end of which he would always leave. There was 0% chance of me being so far below the salary cap that I could sign him to a max deal. I'd have to cut $110 million in salary to sign him without his BRs. So if people vote that he leaves for financial security (which I also disagree with as explained above), then be aware you're also retroactively making his initial signing completely irrational.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 28, 2019 21:56:58 GMT
Also notable is that for those of you who think Paul George should opt out, you're essentially saying that Paul George never meant to stay here for longer than 2 years no matter what and it was always a 2 year deal at the end of which he would always leave. There was 0% chance of me being so far below the salary cap that I could sign him to a max deal. I'd have to cut $110 million in salary to sign him without his BRs. So if people vote that he leaves for financial security (which I also disagree with as explained above), then be aware you're also retroactively making his initial signing completely irrational. Can tell you've thought about this too long now
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 30, 2019 2:37:47 GMT
Also notable is that for those of you who think Paul George should opt out, you're essentially saying that Paul George never meant to stay here for longer than 2 years no matter what and it was always a 2 year deal at the end of which he would always leave. There was 0% chance of me being so far below the salary cap that I could sign him to a max deal. I'd have to cut $110 million in salary to sign him without his BRs. So if people vote that he leaves for financial security (which I also disagree with as explained above), then be aware you're also retroactively making his initial signing completely irrational. Can tell you've thought about this too long now I'm saying that offering someone a 3rd year player option when the cap goes up exponentially every year is irrational especially if you don't have the bird rights. His signing was entirely rational because he got more choice, much sooner than other max free agents. You mean to tell me LBJ signed a bunch of 1+1 contracts because he was being irrational? Nah he wanted to be able to leave when he wanted. When you sign a max player to a 2+1 contract you basically only keep him on that last year if he goes out with a catastrophic injury in year 2. I don't understand why that doesn't make sense. Now in the real NBA bird rights are a bit more fluid than they are here but not so fluid that a team doesn't have to think about it. There is not a team in this league with more at least $32,700,000 in cap space next year who won't offer Paul George the full $140,610,000. We know from evidence that 99.99% of players do not wait to sign a max contract because of expected cap signings because as we all know, one less than stellar season can DRASTICALLY reduce earning potential. What if Gordon Hayward had took his final year in Utah because of a cap increase and then destroyed his ankle. Who's maxing him out?
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Jan 30, 2019 11:31:12 GMT
Just a reminder that not only did James Kay pitch Paul George a non-max contract 2 years ago, but Paul George also turned down a 5 year extension from Portland who had Kyrie Irving on the team. Seems ironic that the Hornets' entire argument this year is based on money.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 30, 2019 13:13:59 GMT
So I haven't read this full thread, because it's a lot, but I remember we basically had this same argument with LaMarcus Aldridge and his player option a few years ago. I made similar arguments to what James Kay is making. If Paul George (or anyone else) wants to maximize his career earnings, then hitting FA as soon as he's eligible for the 35% max is almost certainly the way to go. If he opts out and takes a 4 year max, then he's getting a 30% max deal for 3 years during which he's eligible 35% max deal. For all you guys who want players to be obsessed with money, then that's just bad math, clearly having a little patience is beneficial in the long run. That's just theoretical, the specifics for PG are even worse. The cap is projected to be $109m. At a 30% max deal that means he'll make $32.7m next season. His current PO is for $34.2m. So you guys want him to opt out to make less money next season? So if you want PG to make the most money RIGHT NOW, then it looks like opting in is his best option. If you want him to make the most money in the long run, then opting in is his best option. That's completely ignoring the basketball side of the equation too, which some people seem to think doesn't really matter because players should only care about money, but I think it can matter a lot. There isn't much of an argument here though, Charlotte is almost guaranteed to be a better option when it come to basketball and winning compared to anywhere else. All in all, I think opting in is definitely the better option. Even for PG I don't think the risk of a career ending injury happening next season is worth opting out to make less money in the short term, less money in the long term, and having to play in a worse situation, just for more guaranteed dollars in the short term. I imagine team that had a choice were crawling all over themselves to sign LaMarcus Aldridge to 175 mil over 5 years. /s LaMarcus didn't even get a Max contract.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 30, 2019 13:41:27 GMT
We saw Paul George break his leg in half, we saw Haywards ankle move to a different city, we saw Isaiah Thomas have a dark horse MVP season.
If something like that had happened to LaMarcus it would have been the difference between 30 mil and the 175 mil he got.
How much money is Isaiah Thomas making?
I can tell you Paul George and Gordon Hayward both took the max money at the earliest point possible. Gordon actually took a small pay cut to get out of Utah, but he still took long term security.
Would anyone in D5 offer Hayward a Max 4 year contract as of right now? If someone says yes they are lying.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 30, 2019 15:07:32 GMT
Just a reminder that not only did James Kay pitch Paul George a non-max contract 2 years ago, but Paul George also turned down a 5 year extension from Portland who had Kyrie Irving on the team. Seems ironic that the Hornets' entire argument this year is based on money. ? My entire argument is based on money? My last argument is based on money - as I’ve pointed out numerous times in this thread I think he stays to compete and because that makes sense with the initial contract signing. My only point here is that even if you turn to financial considerations as a number of you have, it also makes sense financially for him to opt in. Thank you for your continuing less than useful contributions to this thread
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Jan 30, 2019 15:16:29 GMT
My entire argument is based on money? My last argument is based on money - as I’ve pointed out numerous times in this thread I think he stays to compete and because that makes sense with the initial contract signing. My only point here is that even if you turn to financial considerations as a number of you have, it also makes sense financially for him to opt in. Thank you for your continuing less than useful contributions to this thread You posted an entire novel about finances, so excuse me for assuming it was part of your argument And all I've actually done are call your numbers imaginary, to which you responded that mine are more imaginary. Very convincing, very convincing indeed...
|
|
|
Post by Mike Krzyzewski on Jan 30, 2019 15:49:06 GMT
Seems like most are on the same page except maybe for the options area so I wanted to at least chime in on that.
Team Options - Shouldn't even be a discussion. If you are over the hard cap, you can't keep a guy on a team option or even if you are under and that option takes you over the hard cap.
Player Options - I 100% think that these should be honored as always. No way a player due a big contract (or small one) should be penalized because a team is over the hard cap. This is a team issue, not that player individually. Bottom line is that I feel player options should be handled exactly as they always have but with penalties of it takes you over the hard cap.
|
|
|
Post by Jerry West on Jan 30, 2019 15:58:22 GMT
Can you imagine how the Players association would react to a player not being able to exercise his own player option? Imagine if he was injured. There would 100% be a lockout next time the agreement ended.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Feb 5, 2019 18:49:03 GMT
The John Wall situation is a good example of why players almost always take the max when it’s available.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on May 24, 2019 16:05:28 GMT
Are you allowed to claim BRs if the cap hold results in you being over the hard cap? Obviously you can’t sign someone that results in you being above the hard cap, but what about cap holds putting you over? There’s no instances this year, but this is potentially going to become an issue next season.
Example:
Salary cap: 60 Team salary: 90 Hard cap: 100
Cap hold: 20
The cap hold puts salary over the hard cap, but the team could technically pay the player a 10m contract with BRs. But does he get those BRs if the hold itself puts the salary over?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on May 24, 2019 16:25:45 GMT
Are you allowed to claim BRs if the cap hold results in you being over the hard cap? Obviously you can’t sign someone that results in you being above the hard cap, but what about cap holds putting you over? There’s no instances this year, but this is potentially going to become an issue next season. Example: Salary cap: 60 Team salary: 90 Hard cap: 100 Cap hold: 20 The cap hold puts salary over the hard cap, but the team could technically pay the player a 10m contract with BRs. But does he get those BRs if the hold itself puts the salary over? Good Question.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on May 24, 2019 16:37:09 GMT
Are you allowed to claim BRs if the cap hold results in you being over the hard cap? Obviously you can’t sign someone that results in you being above the hard cap, but what about cap holds putting you over? There’s no instances this year, but this is potentially going to become an issue next season. Example: Salary cap: 60 Team salary: 90 Hard cap: 100 Cap hold: 20 The cap hold puts salary over the hard cap, but the team could technically pay the player a 10m contract with BRs. But does he get those BRs if the hold itself puts the salary over? Ian Noble
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 24, 2019 16:59:55 GMT
Are you allowed to claim BRs if the cap hold results in you being over the hard cap? Obviously you can’t sign someone that results in you being above the hard cap, but what about cap holds putting you over? There’s no instances this year, but this is potentially going to become an issue next season. Example: Salary cap: 60 Team salary: 90 Hard cap: 100 Cap hold: 20 The cap hold puts salary over the hard cap, but the team could technically pay the player a 10m contract with BRs. But does he get those BRs if the hold itself puts the salary over? Yes you can claim a Cap Hold that takes you over the Hard Cap, because there's still time in which to trade away other contracts on your team and get under the Hard Cap. If the team doesn't trade away those contracts then they wont be able to re-sign their player anyway (because it would take them over the Hard Cap) and the Cap Hold itself would handicap their ability to sign anyone else. The alternative way of approaching the issue is to force GMs to trade away contracts before claiming Cap Holds that take teams over the Hard Cap, which would also be fine except we'd have to do using a projected Hard Cap instead.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on May 24, 2019 19:24:11 GMT
It's going to be great fun to watch Sir Ian Noble have to trade some of his players in the coming years. Won't be able to pay all those top 10 picks.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on May 24, 2019 19:28:38 GMT
It's going to be great fun to watch Sir Ian Noble have to trade some of his players in the coming years. Won't be able to pay all those top 10 picks. Eh maybe. Only a couple of em are good enough to pay.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on May 24, 2019 20:41:46 GMT
true. Guess we will have to wait and see what free agents he gets if any
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on May 25, 2019 1:07:50 GMT
true. Guess we will have to wait and see what free agents he gets if any I hate being in the position I'm in, cap space for days, a team someone would love to come to. In a market where literally everyone else has cap room AND the FA class is semi weak.
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Jun 17, 2019 14:35:54 GMT
Ian Noble, quick clarification question as the draft approaches: will the 1st round be two picks shorter— so no first rounders for Orlando or Charlotte due to hard cap— once Cleveland or someone else makes the 1st overall selection, or would Orlando and Charlotte have up until their picks could be selected to get under that hard cap line and be eligible to make their pick?
|
|