(07-25-2023, 02:06 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: Williams plays for Dallas, my man. I think you're thinking of Robert Williams, but we're talking about Grant Williams.

(07-25-2023, 02:18 PM)Ghost of Podkolzin Wrote: Do y'all think they'll start KP and R.Williams?

(07-25-2023, 12:33 PM)omahen Wrote: I am not sure why you are assuming Boston didn't try everything you described. I think it is obvious it was Brown wanted nothing less than supermax. He is 26 and he is an elite two way player. Perhaps not the best on any end, but likely top 30 in each category. Not many players like that in the league. I think he is far from worst contract in the league. Beal, Lillard, Gobert, Towns are supermax (or near supermax) deals that are all far worse than Brown contract, imho. All offer much less than Brown either on offense or defense. All also much older. Brown is only entering his prime. 

I am also not sure trading him would be a better move. What chance there is to find a player nearly as good as him. Thinking more about it, it will be possible to build around 2 super max contracts. There just won't be place for 30 mil players. 6 or 7 guys paid on average some 12 or 13 mil can still be very good supporting cast.

(07-25-2023, 01:28 PM)omahen Wrote: Boston will have two supermax deals in 2025-2026. With projected continous rise of the salary cap, the second apron could be over 200 mil by then. Two supermax contracts in 2025-2026 will be roughly 110 mil. This leaves 90 mil for rest of the team.

Edit: corrected the numbers

(07-25-2023, 03:53 PM)F Gump Wrote: Wishful. But your math (or understanding of how NBA cap and payroll works) is way off.

If the cap is $200M, the other payment levels increase too. Each supermax (35%) will be $70M, for a total of $140M for 2. You may think $60M for the rest of the team would be sufficient, but each MLE-sized deal then will cost $18.25M each. Each veteran minimum will be $3M or more.

If we just talk about splitting the 200M cap on 2 supermaxes, plus as many MLE guys as possible, it looks like this:

supermax  70
supermax 70
MLE 18.25
under MLE  11.75
10 minimums 30

The 200M wouldn't begin to scratch the surface, so you'd work over the cap to try to add talent. But the point is that ALL the contract levels go way up when the cap goes up, at the same pace. Going on up to the tax line, you can spend more, and amend the above to make the "under MLE" into a full MLE, and add 2 more MLE's -- and just that fast, you're out of money.

Your roster? Supermax (2), MLE [today's $12-13M players you mentioned] (4), minimums (8).

(07-25-2023, 03:53 PM)F Gump Wrote: Wishful. But your math (or understanding of how NBA cap and payroll works) is way off.

If the cap is $200M, the other payment levels increase too. Each supermax (35%) will be $70M, for a total of $140M for 2. You may think $60M for the rest of the team would be sufficient, but each MLE-sized deal then will cost $18.25M each. Each veteran minimum will be $3M or more.

If we just talk about splitting the 200M cap on 2 supermaxes, plus as many MLE guys as possible, it looks like this:

supermax  70
supermax 70
MLE 18.25
under MLE  11.75
10 minimums 30

The 200M wouldn't begin to scratch the surface, so you'd work over the cap to try to add talent. But the point is that ALL the contract levels go way up when the cap goes up, at the same pace. Going on up to the tax line, you can spend more, and amend the above to make the "under MLE" into a full MLE, and add 2 more MLE's -- and just that fast, you're out of money.

Your roster? Supermax (2), MLE [today's $12-13M players you mentioned] (4), minimums (8).

(07-26-2023, 12:27 AM)omahen Wrote: I think my understanding of NBA math is just fine   I said second apron would be 200 mil, not salary cap. An increase of less than 10 % in 2 years. Two supermax deals today are 100 mil, 2 supermax deals with projected increase will be roughly 110 mil (as I said).

I consider second apron as a hard cap where contenders will be. If you are giving away multiple supermax deals and want to be a contender, you will have to spend up to the second apron.

To make math easier and not complicate with 2 seasons ahead. Second apron today is 182 mil. 2 supermax deals are roughly 100 mil. This leaves 80 mil for rest of the roster. Easily 5 players with an average salary of 13 mil (65 mil) and the remaining 15 mil for rookies and vet min deals.

(07-26-2023, 04:08 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: The roster you're describing is MIN. They currently have 2 super* max contracts on their books, although Towns' supermax won't kick in till next year. 

They're currently at 213 mil in salary. True that they filled out their roster with some good to great role players and they aren't as bereft as Phoenix. But one can't help think that their roster building strategy is pretty dumb. 

In 2024 when Towns' supermax kicks in (and they retain their guys) they'll be at a total roster salary of  roughly ~264 mil. At the minimum they'd be at 220 mil if they let Gobert walk. 

The key though, is that MIN found their 13mil guys before they got their supermaxes on the books. The new CBA will prevent a team like Minny filling out their roster after making the Gobert trade. 

*Gobert's contract isn't technically a supermax, but it might as well be.

(07-26-2023, 04:08 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: The roster you're describing is MIN. They currently have 2 super* max contracts on their books, although Towns' supermax won't kick in till next year. 

They're currently at 213 mil in salary. True that they filled out their roster with some good to great role players and they aren't as bereft as Phoenix. But one can't help think that their roster building strategy is pretty dumb. 

In 2024 when Towns' supermax kicks in (and they retain their guys) they'll be at a total roster salary of  roughly ~264 mil. At the minimum they'd be at 220 mil if they let Gobert walk. 

The key though, is that MIN found their 13mil guys before they got their supermaxes on the books. The new CBA will prevent a team like Minny filling out their roster after making the Gobert trade. 

*Gobert's contract isn't technically a supermax, but it might as well be.

(07-26-2023, 12:27 AM)omahen Wrote: I said second apron would be 200 mil, not salary cap. An increase of less than 10 % in 2 years. Two supermax deals today are 100 mil, 2 supermax deals with projected increase will be roughly 110 mil (as I said).

I consider second apron as a hard cap where contenders will be. If you are giving away multiple supermax deals and want to be a contender, you will have to spend up to the second apron.

To make math easier and not complicate with 2 seasons ahead. Second apron today is 182 mil. 2 supermax deals are roughly 100 mil. This leaves 80 mil for rest of the roster. Easily 5 players with an average salary of 13 mil (65 mil) and the remaining 15 mil for rookies and vet min deals.

(07-26-2023, 10:28 AM)F Gump Wrote: My apologies for not reading your post carefully enough. Originally it wasn't clear at all how you were defining a team's spending room ("Thinking more about it, it will be possible to build around 2 super max contracts. There just won't be place for 30 mil players. 6 or 7 guys paid on average some 12 or 13 mil can still be very good supporting cast") but I read right past it when you then added that as the spending level you wanted to consider. My mistake.

Nevertheless, my reply was on point-- "The numbers to do a roster of 2-supermax, with another 6-7 MLE sized contracts to help them, puts a team far over the 2nd apron." In 2023, 2 supermax + 7 MLE + 6 mins lands you at about 197M. I wasn't suggesting Apron 2 as a preferred spending level, but just a reference point of how deep a team would have to go to carry that sort of roster. While on paper it looks like there is a lot of room to spend, it doesn't go as far as it might look. 

The number of players making above the minimum has to get shorter to even stay under Apron 2, And it's shorter still if you decide that you need the added flexibility of Apron 1 or tax line, which is where I think teams will opt to operate.

As for whether teams will use Apron 2 as their spending level, I'm not sure that will be the outcome, as there are limiting rules in the new CBA that tend to prevent teams from wanting to keep operating in that range between Aprons 1 and 2, but that's a different question.

(07-26-2023, 11:09 AM)omahen Wrote: Yes, I was too optimistic in my first post. 2 supermax deals allows you to have 5 MLE type players (average salary, some can be paid more, some less). Still, that is 7 players over the minimum. Basically the playoff rotation with a couple of rookies or ring chasing vets to complete the playoff rotation.

I think contenders will operate in the area between first and second apron.  At this moment, basically all contenders wannabe with their stars out of their rookie contract, are above the first apron. Denver, Boston, Miami and Milwaukee are over Apron 1. GSW, Phoenix and Clippers are over the second apron. Philadelphia is a bit over 172, too lazy to check if that is right above or below the second apron. These teams are immediately out of contention if they are reducing their salaries below the first apron, imho. That is why I don't see them doing it, until they decide it is time for a rebuild.

(07-26-2023, 10:19 PM)SleepingHero Wrote: https://twitter.com/gtjgotnext/status/1684328144486948869?s=61&t=rkPadt_daenpQ3NDzDCGBA

. (@GTJGotNext)
The Raptors would only consider trading Pascal Siakam if they were to receive a trade involving ‘established players' in return.

-via Mark Medina

(07-26-2023, 10:57 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: This was incorrectly aggregated. Fake news. Medina was speculating based on past Toronto trade motivations.

(07-27-2023, 10:05 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: Here's another rumor from the Hawks "insider":

(07-27-2023, 10:08 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: If true, this tells us a couple of things, imo:

1) Dallas feels they MUST dump McGee in order to add Capela, for financial reasons. Hence the search for a 3rd team.

2) I suspect "overpay slightly" is gonna really suck from our POV, because he's likely talking about the cost of getting Capela (from an ATL interested party POV), and we now have to consider the cost of getting that 3rd team to swallow McGee from our POV. That's draft capital that I was hoping they'd avoid paying. 

That's how I'd interpret things, anyway. I hope this isn't true.

(07-27-2023, 10:08 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: If true, this tells us a couple of things, imo:

1) Dallas feels they MUST dump McGee in order to add Capela, for financial reasons. Hence the search for a 3rd team.

2) I suspect "overpay slightly" is gonna really suck from our POV, because he's likely talking about the cost of getting Capela (from an ATL interested party POV), and we now have to consider the cost of getting that 3rd team to swallow McGee from our POV. That's draft capital that I was hoping they'd avoid paying. 

That's how I'd interpret things, anyway. I hope this isn't true.