|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Jan 5, 2020 16:28:04 GMT
D5 Hard Cap Non-Implications With the projected 2020-21 NBA cap set at $116m, the D5 Hard Cap for 2020 OSFA is estimated at $174m ($116m * 150%). While this number may seem like an impossible metric to reach for some, that's because... well, it sorta is. Our 150% hard cap might actually have very little influence on the 2020 offseason free agency period, and I'm here to tell you why. Assumptions: Salary Cap: $116m Hard Cap: $174m 10 year max: $40.6m (Paul George, LeBron James, Russell Westbrook 7-9 year max: $34.8m (Kawhi Leonard, Tobias Harris) Chicago Bulls The Bulls are sitting at $169m for 2020, which is very close to our $174m hard cap number. But who cares? Even if Kawhi Leonard opts out, the Bulls can pick up his bird rights and offer him a max deal that is actually lower than what he is already slated to make in 2020. Sure, the Bulls won't have much room to sign bench players, and might lose some of their MLE, but the entire core of their team (Lillard, Leonard, Favors, Cousins) can stay in tact without any concerns for the hard cap. Chicago even has room to pick up Josh Okogie's team option without second thought. Charlotte Hornets The Hornets are a bit trickier, and James Kay does need to do a bit of legwork to guarantee he has the space, but it is all actually quite reasonable and achievable. Let's assume best case scenario, where LeBron and Westbrook both opt into their contracts. This puts the Hornets' 2020 salary at $143m, meaning that the Hornets will not have enough cap space to claim bird rights on Paul George. Further, the Hornets realistically need to get below $133.4m in salary so that they can offer Paul George a max contract, as pitched to him during his opt-in decision this year. This is actually quite easily done, as the Hornets will just need to move some combination of Nerlens Noel, Amir Johnson, and Tony Snell in order to get below this mark. Cap space will be at a premium, but I'm sure James would be willing to package his very late 1st rounder if it meant keeping Paul George. The Russell Westbrook opt in/out decision really has no cap implications, as his max contract and/or bird rights cap hold is very similar to what his actual salary would be. And with BRs on Westbrook, Charlotte can re-sign him regardless of his decision. If LeBron opts out, then he is gone, but not really for any hard cap reasons. The Hornets do not have bird rights on LeBron and won't be able to re-sign him under the normal cap. Much like Paul George last year, this opt in/out is going to end up being a huge decision for the league. Denver Nuggets The Nuggets are sitting at $160m for the 2020 offseason, but it doesn't really matter. The one contingency for Alex this year is Tobias Harris' player option, but Alex has bird rights and a max contract to Harris is almost equivalent to what he is slated to make anyway. The Nuggets don't have anyone else of note to re-sign, so Alex will get his full MLE and still be under the hard cap. Orlando Magic The Magic are surprisingly at $166m for the offseason, with player options for Paul Millsap and Evan Fournier. Blake is probably hoping that Millsap opts out, but it seems likely that he takes the $35m on the table for him. If Evan Fournier opts out, Blake will have bird rights to re-sign him. I guess there is some scenario where another GM offers Fournier a max that Blake cannot match, but it seems rather unlikely. The Magic might realistically lose a bit of their MLE due to the hard cap, but they should still have about $7.5m of it to spend assuming Fournier opts in.
|
|
Larry Bird
Indiana Pacers
Starter
Posts: 1,672
Mar 5, 2024 13:29:26 GMT
|
Post by Larry Bird on Jan 5, 2020 17:25:53 GMT
Interesting ... 🧐
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 7, 2020 7:40:24 GMT
Perhaps it needs tightened a little more. Obviously not for next off-season because that's a bit unfair, but perhaps the year after.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 12, 2020 23:51:40 GMT
I fully support continuing to lower the hard cap until we get the competitive balance we want. What's the point in the hard cap if it doesn't accomplish anything?
I think we should drop the hard cap to 140% of the cap for the 2021 offseason. We should then consider dropping it to 130% after that depending on how the league is (or isn't) affected. If the hard cap gets low enough that super teams are impossible to keep together, then that will make competing easier, which will make more teams want to compete, which should then reduce the number of tanking teams. The all or nothing, contending or tanking dynamic we have going on probably isn't great for D5 long term.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 4, 2020 2:23:33 GMT
I fully support continuing to lower the hard cap until we get the competitive balance we want. What's the point in the hard cap if it doesn't accomplish anything? I think we should drop the hard cap to 140% of the cap for the 2021 offseason. We should then consider dropping it to 130% after that depending on how the league is (or isn't) affected. If the hard cap gets low enough that super teams are impossible to keep together, then that will make competing easier, which will make more teams want to compete, which should then reduce the number of tanking teams. The all or nothing, contending or tanking dynamic we have going on probably isn't great for D5 long term. I'm not sure a hard cap will fix this. It's championship or bust in D5 because nothing else matters and we don't answer to an owner or deal with real life consequences or money. There's no pressure to make the playoffs, no pressure to sell tickets, no incentive at all to competing. Teams will bottom out and load up on picks and rookie contracts. I think if we want to discourage the tank/contend dynamic, we should look to incentivize winning in some way. Reward playoff bound teams. And likewise, penalize losing. We would have to get creative. Something that will make people happy they're the 4-8 seed instead of tanking for the lottery.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 4, 2020 2:41:45 GMT
This might not be the best idea, but I'm thinking of something like tiered money for free agents or trade exceptions depending on your seed. Seeds 4-8 maybe get a little extra money to be used for immediate off-season, but if it isn't used then it's lost. Or additional 2nd round picks after pick 60. Just spitballing some ideas
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Feb 4, 2020 2:45:08 GMT
This might not be the best idea, but I'm thinking of something like tiered money for free agents or trade exceptions depending on your seed. Seeds 4-8 maybe get a little extra money to be used for immediate off-season, but if it isn't used then it's lost. Or additional 2nd round picks after pick 60. Just spitballing some ideas I think the additional picks— almost like NFL compensation picks— would add another tracking element that could be difficult to keep up. It’s not a bad idea though to think of ways to disincentivize perpetual bottoming out. One way to do this is “The Wheel” that was devised by the Rockets or 76ers I believe, where regardless of record it’d be completely random for the whole 1st round based on this wheel setup.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 4, 2020 2:45:43 GMT
I fully support continuing to lower the hard cap until we get the competitive balance we want. What's the point in the hard cap if it doesn't accomplish anything? I think we should drop the hard cap to 140% of the cap for the 2021 offseason. We should then consider dropping it to 130% after that depending on how the league is (or isn't) affected. If the hard cap gets low enough that super teams are impossible to keep together, then that will make competing easier, which will make more teams want to compete, which should then reduce the number of tanking teams. The all or nothing, contending or tanking dynamic we have going on probably isn't great for D5 long term. I'm not sure a hard cap will fix this. It's championship or bust in D5 because nothing else matters and we don't answer to an owner or deal with real life consequences or money. There's no pressure to make the playoffs, no pressure to sell tickets, no incentive at all to competing. Teams will bottom out and load up on picks and rookie contracts. I think if we want to discourage the tank/contend dynamic, we should look to incentivize winning in some way. Reward playoff bound teams. And likewise, penalize losing. We would have to get creative. Something that will make people happy they're the 4-8 seed instead of tanking for the lottery. Yes, but the way things currently are, putting together a championship caliber team is so difficult it's almost pointless to even try for most teams. The big benefit of the hard cap should be to lower the bar to creating a contending team. If you no longer need a super team with 3+ all-stars, but instead maybe 2 all-stars, or an MVP candidate and good complimentary players, then that makes the whole task more achievable. Instead of 4-5 contenders we could have 8-10 contenders. More than that, joining the group of contenders should be much easier. The hard cap clearly won't solve all of our problems, but it should definitely help. It's also really easy to understand as a rule, which itself is a benefit since it makes planning around it easier and Ian Noble 's job of managing it easier.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 4, 2020 2:57:17 GMT
For the record, I'm not arguing against the hard cap or even lowering it. But I think the reality remains that if you find yourself in that 4-9 seed range, it's more attractive to bottom out and get top picks instead of compete for the playoffs. Teams will still opt to do this. As long as it's more beneficial to get into the lottery (where now there's an even better chance for the 9-12 seed range to move into the top. 5) instead of push for the playoffs, teams are going to do this
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 4, 2020 2:59:05 GMT
This might not be the best idea, but I'm thinking of something like tiered money for free agents or trade exceptions depending on your seed. Seeds 4-8 maybe get a little extra money to be used for immediate off-season, but if it isn't used then it's lost. Or additional 2nd round picks after pick 60. Just spitballing some ideas I think the additional picks— almost like NFL compensation picks— would add another tracking element that could be difficult to keep up. It’s not a bad idea though to think of ways to disincentivize perpetual bottoming out. One way to do this is “The Wheel” that was devised by the Rockets or 76ers I believe, where regardless of record it’d be completely random for the whole 1st round based on this wheel setup. I'm not saying compensation picks are the answer, but they're also not hard to keep track of. They're just assigned at the end of the regular season. Picks 61 - X. It's just an end of season action that's pretty easy.
|
|
Billy King
Former Jazz and Knicks GM
Rookie
Posts: 247
Oct 30, 2023 14:13:22 GMT
|
Post by Billy King on Feb 4, 2020 22:38:42 GMT
You have to paypal ian every year your # of losses in pounds
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Feb 4, 2020 22:49:12 GMT
You have to paypal ian every year your # of losses in pounds Depending on the next few months, he may want that payment in some other currency lol
|
|