Amare Stoudemire
 Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416 
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 23, 2021 4:32:44 GMT
Sacramento Kings Trade:(89) Russell Westbrook $32,400,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000(70) Noah Vonleh $4,300,000 Total Salary $36,700,000 Washington Wizards Trade:(81) DeAngelo Russell $27,285,000 $29,331,375 $31,377,750 $33,425,125(79) Johnny Issac $5,609,590 $7,522,460 (76) Robert Williams $2,467,600 $3,790,234 $5,351,810 (?) Joshua Primo Total Salary $35,362,190 I accept Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
|
|
|
|
Post by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Sept 23, 2021 6:19:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Sept 23, 2021 11:45:00 GMT
These salaries are messed up, you’ve got some guys posted on their 2020 salary and some on their 2021 salary
|
|
|
|
Post by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Sept 23, 2021 12:26:33 GMT
Sacramento Kings
| Player Name | 2020-2021 | 2021-2022 | 2022-2023 | 2023-2024 | 2024-2025 | | 89 Russell Westbrook | $32,400,000 | $30,000,000 | $30,000,000 | $30,000,000 |
| | 70 Noah Vonleh | $4,300,000 | $4,622,500 |
|
|
| | Total | $36,700,000 |
|
|
|
|
for Washington Wizards
| Player Name | 2020-2021 | 2021-2022 | 2022-2023 | 2023-2024 | 2024-2025 | 81 D'Angelo Russell
| $27,285,000
| $29,331,375
| $31,377,750
| $33,424,125
| $35,470,500
| | 79 Jonathan Isaac | $5,609,590
| $7,522,460
|
|
|
| 76 Robert Williams
| $2,467,600
| $3,790,234
| $5,351,810
|
|
| | Total | $35,362,190 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 23, 2021 12:34:15 GMT
Accept
|
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 23, 2021 12:50:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Sept 23, 2021 15:42:26 GMT
It is September 23, 2021. This trade increases the Kings salary cap obligations by $6,021,569 for the 2021-22 season, bringing their total salaries to $170,876,242 (after the Wiggins trade). "Trades must not take a team above the Hard Cap. If you are over the Hard Cap every trade must decrease your team's total salary." Hard Cap RulesSee this trade: dynasty5ive.proboards.com/thread/13719/orlando-houston |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Sept 23, 2021 16:13:50 GMT
It is September 23, 2021. This trade increases the Kings salary cap obligations by $6,021,569 for the 2021-22 season, bringing their total salaries to $170,876,242 (after the Wiggins trade). "Trades must not take a team above the Hard Cap. If you are over the Hard Cap every trade must decrease your team's total salary." Hard Cap RulesSee this trade: dynasty5ive.proboards.com/thread/13719/orlando-houstonAfter consideration, I don't actually think this violates hard cap rules because we are still able to trade previous year's salaries. |
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 23, 2021 16:25:00 GMT
Correct
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Sept 23, 2021 18:35:17 GMT
The hard cap rule does not specify seasons. It's just simple blanket statement: "Trades must not take a team above the Hard Cap." This trade will take the Kings over the hard cap. The fact that it's for the 2021-22 season and not the 2020-21 season isn't relevant. This trade is against the rule.
All these trades based on grey areas and loopholes are getting pretty annoying...
|
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 23, 2021 19:32:57 GMT
Annoying or not it's not against the rules right now since osfa hasn't started and the salaries haven't flipped!
|
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 23, 2021 19:38:32 GMT
I accept
I love Russ and the team but we haven't gotten past certain teams and with the spurs getting AD now there a even harder team to compete with. With this deal with Washington I feel now's the time to gather assets and build up with se young guy's
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Sept 23, 2021 19:52:24 GMT
Annoying or not it's not against the rules right now since osfa hasn't started and the salaries haven't flipped! But it is against the rules because it takes you over the hard cap. The rules don't specify which season. |
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 23, 2021 19:55:30 GMT
Annoying or not it's not against the rules right now since osfa hasn't started and the salaries haven't flipped! But it is against the rules because it takes you over the hard cap. The rules don't specify which season. It hasn't flipped yet which makes it legal, it's not my fault osfa took this long but it has and there are no rules broke bc you can go over the next year as long as not the current year which me are currently in! |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Sept 23, 2021 20:05:53 GMT
you can go over the next year as long as not the current year which me are currently in! Says who? And where? The actual rules don't specify which season. We even take draft picks from teams based on if they're expected to go over the cap once the salaries advance to the following year. Going over the cap for the next season is technically allowed earlier in the year because we don't know what the hard cap actually is yet. By the time we get to the draft and we do know, we start drawing the line in the sand based on the following year's expected hard cap, which is how we've had teams default on their draft picks in the past. |
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 23, 2021 20:11:09 GMT
It's happened before and I'm not arguing anymore about Let's see what Ian Noble says |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Sept 23, 2021 22:44:49 GMT
The hard cap rule does not specify seasons. It's just simple blanket statement: "Trades must not take a team above the Hard Cap." This trade will take the Kings over the hard cap. The fact that it's for the 2021-22 season and not the 2020-21 season isn't relevant. This trade is against the rule. All these trades based on grey areas and loopholes are getting pretty annoying... Sorry to disagree with you after being the GM that brought this up in the first place, but that line of reasoning doesn’t really work. The Hard Cap Rule doesn’t need to specify seasons. The trading seasons don’t specify seasons either. If the Hard Cap rule applied to future season salaries, it would have to say so - and it doesn’t. |
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 23, 2021 22:47:31 GMT
The hard cap rule does not specify seasons. It's just simple blanket statement: "Trades must not take a team above the Hard Cap." This trade will take the Kings over the hard cap. The fact that it's for the 2021-22 season and not the 2020-21 season isn't relevant. This trade is against the rule. All these trades based on grey areas and loopholes are getting pretty annoying... Sorry to disagree with you after being the GM that brought this up in the first place, but that line of reasoning doesn’t really work. The Hard Cap Rule doesn’t need to specify seasons. The trading seasons don’t specify seasons either. If the Hard Cap rule applied to future season salaries, it would have to say so - and it doesn’t. Direct Quote from rules Trades must not take a team above the Hard Cap. If you are over the Hard Cap every trade must decrease your team's total salary. On the day the Rookie Draft starts, if your team is projected to be over the Hard Cap when salaries progress on the following July 1st (usually less than a week later), you lose all your picks in that Draft It has not changed over yet which makes this trade legal |
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 23, 2021 22:48:54 GMT
I. Not over the Hard Cap for this season and nothing rolls over for a week
This trade is legal james
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Sept 24, 2021 2:48:09 GMT
Sorry to disagree with you after being the GM that brought this up in the first place, but that line of reasoning doesn’t really work. The Hard Cap Rule doesn’t need to specify seasons. The trading seasons don’t specify seasons either. If the Hard Cap rule applied to future season salaries, it would have to say so - and it doesn’t. Why would it have to specify? Where is that coming from? Besides, even if it doesn't outright specify, it implies it. The part of the rule about draft picks being taken away if your team will exceed the hard cap in the following season implies the forward looking nature of the hard cap rule. The fact that team's can't exercise team options if it would take them over the hard cap for the following season also implies the forward looking nature of the rule. When it comes to trades it's a very broad statement: "Trades must not take a team above the Hard Cap." Question: Would this trade take the Sacramento Kings over the hard cap? Answer: Yes, this trade would take the Kings about $3 million over the hard cap for the 2021-2022 season. Result: This trade is against the rules. Simple as that. Amare can repeat the line about when salaries roll over all day long, but it's a complete red herring in my opinion. Nothing in the rule limits the hard cap to only applying to the current season, and the draft pick and team option parts even imply future seasons are part of the rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Sept 24, 2021 4:41:22 GMT
I think I'm with Amare on this one. It doesn't seem to be a loop hole at all in my book and I think people are reading into the rule too much. We've never looked at future salaries when doing trades.
You don't look to see if the trade is within 125% of salaries next year or the year after. The rule doesn't specify that it needs to be within 125% this year. It just says within 125%. What about within 125% of the total owed amounts?
No, we understand it means this year. And the hard cap rule also means this year. If it takes you over next year or the year after, then that's what happens, but we aren't bound by that salary constraint yet
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Sept 24, 2021 5:20:07 GMT
I think I'm with Amare on this one. It doesn't seem to be a loop hole at all in my book and I think people are reading into the rule too much. We've never looked at future salaries when doing trades. You don't look to see if the trade is within 125% of salaries next year or the year after. The rule doesn't specify that it needs to be within 125% this year. It just says within 125%. What about within 125% of the total owed amounts? No, we understand it means this year. And the hard cap rule also means this year. If it takes you over next year or the year after, then that's what happens, but we aren't bound by that salary constraint yet It's clearly up for debate if this is against the rule as written, but I don't see how it's not obviously against the spirit of the rule. It should be impossible to voluntarily exceed the hard cap no matter the situation, otherwise it's not really a hard cap. The only exceptions are for player options and making the minimum roster limit, which makes sense and aren't actions fully controlled by a GM. Anyways, I'm out. I've spent enough time arguing this. Ian will decide what he decides. |
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 24, 2021 9:31:19 GMT
It's honestly a mood point as I have a deal lined up today that will take me back under the Hard Cap
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Sept 24, 2021 13:49:10 GMT
Sorry to disagree with you after being the GM that brought this up in the first place, but that line of reasoning doesn’t really work. The Hard Cap Rule doesn’t need to specify seasons. The trading seasons don’t specify seasons either. If the Hard Cap rule applied to future season salaries, it would have to say so - and it doesn’t. Why would it have to specify? Where is that coming from? Besides, even if it doesn't outright specify, it implies it. The part of the rule about draft picks being taken away if your team will exceed the hard cap in the following season implies the forward looking nature of the hard cap rule. The fact that team's can't exercise team options if it would take them over the hard cap for the following season also implies the forward looking nature of the rule. When it comes to trades it's a very broad statement: "Trades must not take a team above the Hard Cap." Question: Would this trade take the Sacramento Kings over the hard cap? Answer: Yes, this trade would take the Kings about $3 million over the hard cap for the 2021-2022 season. Result: This trade is against the rules. Simple as that. Amare can repeat the line about when salaries roll over all day long, but it's a complete red herring in my opinion. Nothing in the rule limits the hard cap to only applying to the current season, and the draft pick and team option parts even imply future seasons are part of the rule. Exactly what Tom said (and I already mentioned) - the other rules don’t specify the current season, and we don’t apply it to future seasons - why would this one be any different ? |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Sept 27, 2021 16:51:39 GMT
The rule does not apply to future seasons because you've still got time to get under the Hard Cap before salaries progress to whichever season we're talking about, even if it's the season that starts this Saturday.
Either way I reject.
Kareem can torch the Wizards with declining, ageing or injured vets all he likes but I'm not going to watch as the draft picks disappear as well. Once this experiment fails and Kareem leaves, the team will need all the draft picks it can get.
|
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 27, 2021 17:35:15 GMT
The rule does not apply to future seasons because you've still got time to get under the Hard Cap before salaries progress to whichever season we're talking about, even if it's the season that starts this Saturday. Either way I reject. Kareem can torch the Wizards with declining, ageing or injured vets all he likes but I'm not going to watch as the draft picks disappear as well. Once this experiment fails and Kareem leaves, the team will need all the draft picks it can get. I told you that rule didn't exist about nexts years cap bit everyone on here is rules experts and crybabies just shut your mouth if you don't know the rules |
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Sept 27, 2021 18:30:32 GMT
Having Russ kawaii Wiggins plus whoever will keep kawaii and his team will be decent
His pick won't be top 5, Issac and Williams are injury prone, DeAngelo is in for salary and my insurance is a 2023 pick and primo who's 18
He needs to build a team around Kawaii
I'm sure kawaii would rather have Russ than these young guys if he had a voice in this
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Sept 27, 2021 18:54:11 GMT
I told you that rule didn't exist about nexts years cap bit everyone on here is rules experts and crybabies just shut your mouth if you don't know the rules  |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Sept 27, 2021 23:16:29 GMT
The rule does not apply to future seasons because you've still got time to get under the Hard Cap before salaries progress to whichever season we're talking about, even if it's the season that starts this Saturday. Either way I reject. Kareem can torch the Wizards with declining, ageing or injured vets all he likes but I'm not going to watch as the draft picks disappear as well. Once this experiment fails and Kareem leaves, the team will need all the draft picks it can get. I told you that rule didn't exist about nexts years cap bit everyone on here is rules experts and crybabies just shut your mouth if you don't know the rules Amare. Are you okay? |
|
|
|
Post by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Sept 27, 2021 23:18:46 GMT
Vote standing here? ^^
|
|
Washington Wizards
Brooklyn Nets
Charlotte Hornets
Denver Nuggets
Houston Rockets
Boston Celtics
Cleveland Cavaliers
