Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 29101112
Results 221 to 239 of 239

Thread: The offseason.

  1. #221
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by LA_33 View Post
    It's not "clearly wrong". Having to move out a $15m salary, not sign literally anyone for more than one year this summer, assume that the 2018 1st goes to ATL (which it probably won't if you don't sign any legit FAs this summer), and hold off on giving Wiggins and LaVine extensions in order to open significant space is really unlikely. It's technically possible, but not particularly realistic.

    They'd have to basically punt on next year, while dumping a bunch of young, useful players for nothing (e.g. Dieng, Bjelica, Shabazz). People here were mad that they kinda-sorta punted this year, and it would need to be MUCH more blatant next year to even have a shot at significant space.

    It's a much better, more realsitic use of assets to just try and use the space this summer on guys you like around the Towns/Wiggins/Rubio/LaVine core, and not worry about having to make drastic roster changes and wait to lock up up Wiggins and maybe LaVine, just to open space a year later instead.
    It is a patently false statement that if we don't use it this summer we lose it. It packs in a whole bunch of assumptions that I outlined above. Also, my calculations included Bjelica's contract. I just didn't include Shabazz's because I doubt we'll match on him. So that leaves only Dieng, and I've already explained how you lose him either way. So if you think you can keep Dieng and still retain the core and max FA, you should show me how you do that because my math says you can't unless you are assuming Glen is willing to pay out around 150min salary in 2018, and 200m the year after, which is absolutely nuts-o.
    As cavaliers triumph over warriors and the sun goes down in Golden State, the hungry Wolves remain poised for the night to come.

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by rackshaq View Post
    It is a patently false statement that if we don't use it this summer we lose it. It packs in a whole bunch of assumptions that I outlined above. Also, my calculations included Bjelica's contract. I just didn't include Shabazz's because I doubt we'll match on him. So that leaves only Dieng, and I've already explained how you lose him either way. So if you think you can keep Dieng and still retain the core and max FA, you should show me how you do that because my math says you can't unless you are assuming Glen is willing to pay out around 150min salary in 2018, and 200m the year after, which is absolutely nuts-o.
    Weren't you just asking for information on the cap yesterday?

    Sure it's possible to do all sorts of stupid stuff like giving away good players for empty cap space, but be realistic. Did you remember to include cap holds for draft picks and sufficient players to fill out the roster?

  3. #223
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Oppenheimer View Post
    Weren't you just asking for information on the cap yesterday?

    Sure it's possible to do all sorts of stupid stuff like giving away good players for empty cap space, but be realistic. Did you remember to include cap holds for draft picks and sufficient players to fill out the roster?
    Yeah because Dschroeder01 said that I must not understand the cap, so I was inquiring to see where my misunderstanding was. After spending an hour on the site you provided, I feel like I understand the key aspects of the cap that relate to the assumption I was testing the validity of.

    Regarding your questions, I included a cap hold for our draft pick this year. I didn't touch the mid level exception or min exception so those exceptions can be used to fill out the roster.

    Dude, you aren't giving away a player for nothing. I explained how Dieng is gone either way. If you don't want to believe that, I don't know what to say. Thinking that Glen is willing to pay out 200m in salary in 2019 in order to keep Dieng is delusional. I explained how that is unavoidable if you sign a max FA this summer and keep Dieng for this upcoming year. So if you think we can keep Dieng and sign Millsap, show me how you do that because my math says it can't be done in any realistic scenario where you keep your core and aren't paying out 200m in salary when you sign Towns. 200m is not realistic and I think we can all agree on that.
    Last edited by rackshaq; Yesterday at 01:02 AM.
    As cavaliers triumph over warriors and the sun goes down in Golden State, the hungry Wolves remain poised for the night to come.

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    17,039
    Admittedly, I'm just glancing through three pages and I started wondering if there is wisdom in shopping Wiggins around quietly to see what kind of market there is for him before we pony out $25 mil (or so) for a guy who has been sub-replacement value each season in his career, shooting below league average on 2's and eFG, has regressed defensively each season in the league, and essentially is a one trick pony that is still struggling to be consistently good at that one trick.

    Is it worth $25 mil to have the 2010's version of Jeff Malone or Darrell Griffith (which is what Wiggins looks a helluva lot like) on our roster? He's got the fourth worst DBPM (BB-ref) in the 3 point era. And I don't think any of these guys in the top parts of this list ever became quality defenders.

    http://bkref.com/tiny/L3pvP

    Yeah, he's only 21...yeah, it's 3 seasons...but is it fair to ask whether this is our last, good chance to shop him for reasonable value?

    I'd also include Zach in this but I think Zach's contract won't be as terrible and I can gulp that down if it's $20 mil or so.

    I go back and forth on Wiggins almost daily - there's value in keeping the core together but given that our flexibility is likely done after this offseason for a while, is this the time to make such a move before we have to sit on Wiggins' contract for several more seasons? Obviously, there's risk that Wiggins figures it out and becomes a better defender, better shooter, better player and makes such a move look bad in hindsight but what if Wiggins continues on this half-bass trajectory that he's been on so far in his career, that contract is going to suck in a couple of years.
    Inching back towards the wagon...slowly...

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by rackshaq View Post
    Yeah because Dschroeder01 said that I must not understand the cap, so I was inquiring to see where my misunderstanding was. After spending an hour on the site you provided, I feel like I understand the key aspects of the cap that relate to the assumption I was testing the validity of.

    Regarding your questions, I included a cap hold for our draft pick this year. I didn't touch the mid level exception or min exception so those exceptions can be used to fill out the roster.

    Dude, you aren't giving away a player for nothing. I explained how Dieng is gone either way. If you don't want to believe that, I don't know what to say. Thinking that Glen is willing to pay out 200m in salary in 2019 in order to keep Dieng is delusional. I explained how that is unavoidable if you sign a max FA this summer and keep Dieng for this upcoming year. So if you think we can keep Dieng and sign Millsap, show me how you do that because my math says it can't be done in any realistic scenario where you keep your core and aren't paying out 200m in salary when you sign Towns. 200m is not realistic and I think we can all agree on that.
    I never said anything about signing a max free agent to a long contact. That's not the only way to use cap space. If you expect to be a contender without paying the luxury tax, you are being unrealistic.

    I'm talking about cap holds to reserve minimum salaries to get to the minimum number of players. Those subtract from the cap space too. You will also need to include a hold for next years draft pick if you are talking about using cap space next offseason. If you have cap space you do not get all the same exceptions as capped out teams(I do believe there is an exception you still get to use though), so most of those exceptions won't be able to be used to fill out the roster.

    If you are afraid of paying diengs salary, there would be opportunities to trade him, but doing so for open cap space in order to waste next season doesn't seem like it's very realistic to me. The method you are proposing would **** me and a lot of fans off, because it's not very logical. I can't imagine it would make glen or the players or thibs very happy either. Who wants to go into next year stripping the team down and denying extensions to one of your cornerstones just to wait an extra year to use cap space? It is silly.

    <edit> also, trading players and taking $0 salary back has nothing to do with the wolves being under or over the cap. The team that takes the salary is the team that has to have the cap space to take in the salary. Giving up dieng for cap space is not a good idea. If you start taking back players or draft picks they start taking up the cap space too.

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    5,361
    Quote Originally Posted by rackshaq View Post
    Yeah because Dschroeder01 said that I must not understand the cap, so I was inquiring to see where my misunderstanding was. After spending an hour on the site you provided, I feel like I understand the key aspects of the cap that relate to the assumption I was testing the validity of.

    Regarding your questions, I included a cap hold for our draft pick this year. I didn't touch the mid level exception or min exception so those exceptions can be used to fill out the roster.

    Dude, you aren't giving away a player for nothing. I explained how Dieng is gone either way. If you don't want to believe that, I don't know what to say. Thinking that Glen is willing to pay out 200m in salary in 2019 in order to keep Dieng is delusional. I explained how that is unavoidable if you sign a max FA this summer and keep Dieng for this upcoming year. So if you think we can keep Dieng and sign Millsap, show me how you do that because my math says it can't be done in any realistic scenario where you keep your core and aren't paying out 200m in salary when you sign Towns. 200m is not realistic and I think we can all agree on that.
    Could you explain this please? If you are under the cap, you don't get these exceptions. You get your cap space and minimum contracts. That is why we say if you sign a guy this year, you can use the MLE next year to get another player. If you sign a 1-year contract and clear contracts for a maximum contract, you don't have the opportunity to use those exceptions.


    Btw, I don't know if someone else has asked this question yet, but who is it that you want to sign next off season? You are doing a whole heck of a lot of math and debating here and I don't even know what your "end game" is. I could maybe get on board if you told me specifically who is going to be signed here that is better than Millsap now. Who's your target?

  7. #227
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,840
    Quote Originally Posted by rackshaq View Post
    It is a patently false statement that if we don't use it this summer we lose it. It packs in a whole bunch of assumptions that I outlined above. Also, my calculations included Bjelica's contract. I just didn't include Shabazz's because I doubt we'll match on him. So that leaves only Dieng, and I've already explained how you lose him either way. So if you think you can keep Dieng and still retain the core and max FA, you should show me how you do that because my math says you can't unless you are assuming Glen is willing to pay out around 150min salary in 2018, and 200m the year after, which is absolutely nuts-o.
    It's technically possible for a team to trade away every player on their roster and have like $90m in cap space. That's not realistic enough to be worth discussing, though.

    Your scenario is a little more realistic than that, but still really, really unrealistic. Just in terms of message you'd be giving to Wiggins and LaVine THIS summer (or that their agents would explain to them if the Wolves tired to pull what you
    re proposing) this is literally what you're saying/signaling to them:

    "We have $25-32m in cap room this summer, but we're only going to use it guys who are willing to take one-year deals, which means they probably won't be better than the guys we signed last summer who barely played. So we're probably not goign to get better around you this year, and the fans and local media will be MAD about that. Next year, we're going to trade away a starter/rotation guy* you guys have been playing with for three years, in order to HOPE that we can make better use of maybe about as much space as we definitely have this year**. Oh yeah, and we're not going to offer you extensions this year and force you to become RFAs next summer instead*** Does that work?"

    That's not a message that any competent organization is going to send to those young core guys, even if they DID want to punt on next year to wait until 2018 to try and use cap room that they'd still have to do drastic stuff to open. This isn't fantasy or 2k, these are people, and you don't want to make them feel like they're not valued, or not ready to compete in the NBA, or any of the multiple messages involved in your plan that could lead to long-term resentment, not just from Wiggins/LaVine, but from Towns, and THAT could be a franchise crippling disaster.

    *(FWIW, I think Rubio is more likely to be the financial casualty than Dieng; Thibs seems to love Gorgui, hes' signed to ableow-market deal for two years longer, and there's a potential long-term PG replacement on the roster)

    **(and you'd have to make that trade before anyone agreed to sign, that's how it always works in practice; didn't go so well for Sacto when they tried that two summers ago)

    ***(after next season, other teams would be able to bid on Wiggins and LaVine, too, and that an actual risk with Zach, at least in tersm of what you end up paying him, because he isn't going to command the max, or probably anything very close to it, if they extend him this summer, but might as a RFA)

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,840
    "Technically possible" just isn't the same as "in any realisitic scenario", and the later should be taken as the obvious context of "this is the summer they need to use their cap space or they will (i.e. are exceedingly likely to) lose it

    Never mind that there might not BE any max level FAs next summer, at least with any realistic chance of switching teams, because of the new, more relaxed extension rules, and the fact that most really good FAs already play for really good teams. Look at this 2018 FA list, remember that at least 2-3 of the best guys, maybe more, will be extended this summer, and tell me who you'd want to pay $30-35m annually ($5-10 more than the current kids can get, remember) and who you think the Wolves would actually have any real shot at signing: https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2016/09/...ee-agents.html

    I really don't think that guys exists next year, which means I don't think it's AT ALL realistic to assume that the Wolves have any shot at a max level guy either summer, so using the space this summer on good complementary guys, and continuing to build around Towns/Wiggins/Rubio(and/or Dunn)/maybe Lavine and/or their 2017 draft pick (or a more established star you can trade a couple of the non-Towns/Wiggins guys for, or maybe even Wiggins) as the future primary core is the far, far more realistic path.

    Take a swing at Millsap, who'd be a great fit (but he's not coming here). Then target younger, proven veteran rotation guys who complement what you have, and either develop your stars, or trade your prospects for them. FA just isn't a good way for a team like the Wolves to add top guys.

  9. #229
    So...what about Kevin Durant or Steph Curry as possible free agent signings for the Wolves?

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,972
    Quote Originally Posted by The Country Club View Post
    Admittedly, I'm just glancing through three pages and I started wondering if there is wisdom in shopping Wiggins around quietly to see what kind of market there is for him before we pony out $25 mil (or so) for a guy who has been sub-replacement value each season in his career, shooting below league average on 2's and eFG, has regressed defensively each season in the league, and essentially is a one trick pony that is still struggling to be consistently good at that one trick.

    Is it worth $25 mil to have the 2010's version of Jeff Malone or Darrell Griffith (which is what Wiggins looks a helluva lot like) on our roster? He's got the fourth worst DBPM (BB-ref) in the 3 point era. And I don't think any of these guys in the top parts of this list ever became quality defenders.

    http://bkref.com/tiny/L3pvP

    Yeah, he's only 21...yeah, it's 3 seasons...but is it fair to ask whether this is our last, good chance to shop him for reasonable value?

    I'd also include Zach in this but I think Zach's contract won't be as terrible and I can gulp that down if it's $20 mil or so.

    I go back and forth on Wiggins almost daily - there's value in keeping the core together but given that our flexibility is likely done after this offseason for a while, is this the time to make such a move before we have to sit on Wiggins' contract for several more seasons? Obviously, there's risk that Wiggins figures it out and becomes a better defender, better shooter, better player and makes such a move look bad in hindsight but what if Wiggins continues on this half-bass trajectory that he's been on so far in his career, that contract is going to suck in a couple of years.
    If Gorgui is worth 16ml per, Wigs is worth 25 easy. He's only 21 and better than I thought he'd be coming out of the draft. You don't trade Wiggins at this point. The kid still has tons of room to improve.
    Last edited by Nick K; Yesterday at 12:23 PM.

  11. #231
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,972
    Quote Originally Posted by dschroeder01 View Post
    So...what about Kevin Durant or Steph Curry as possible free agent signings for the Wolves?
    How about Draymond Green?

  12. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick K View Post
    How about Draymond Green?
    Green isn't a FA. We're going discussing only things that are technically possible.

  13. #233
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by dschroeder01 View Post
    Green isn't a FA. We're going discussing only things that are technically possible.
    Yeah, like losing our team to Seattle because we were too dumb to realize that 200 million dollars in salary and running the team at a 100 million dollar loss per year was not a good idea.
    As cavaliers triumph over warriors and the sun goes down in Golden State, the hungry Wolves remain poised for the night to come.

  14. #234
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    601
    Can't argue if you arent willing to do the math. No one is going to be mad if you make a mistake and it will take less time than typing up paragraphs of random retorts to arbitrary arguments that you want to have (and that I dont, without logic and math being the key aspects of the discussion). My point was that there are many realistic scenarios where cap space can be created for next summer. If you don't want to acknowledge any of those scenarios as being realistic, I'm not going to waste my time convincing you based on logical methods, because logic doesn't seem to be convincing enough. Either way, it doesn't matter, because there are even more options that you may dismiss as being unrealistic that could very well happen. For example, Wiggins being traded this summer. What I was doing was pushing back on the assumption that we are pigeonholed into making our big moves this summer. The fact is, there are options other than signing a big FA this summer, some very realistic. The option of signing someone like Millsap this summer is not realistic in my mind.

    But to try one last time to explain why that is unrealistic (this is starting to get annoying how many times I have to repeat this and it is still ignored or dismissed) . If Wiggins, Lavine, and Towns get max contracts, and are part of our core with Rubio and a really good FA or trade addition, then you are surely in the luxury tax in 2018 and 2019. You pay the luxury tax when you are a contender or a big market team with more revenue, but even if you are a contender, you certainly don't pay the amount that you guys are suggesting is ok (200m) by dismissing all of my arguments. Here is the math you should do if you want to actually learn so you're not arguing for the sake of arguing, which is a problem on this board. Calculate what happens when you sign a max (or very big multi year contract) this summer. With wigs and Lavine's holds (not even their extention holds, just standard 2.5 times), you are still over the cap and that means you are locked into your salary from then on because you have to take back equivalent salary in any trade. We are all assuming Wigs, Lavine, and Towns are max guys (and I think that is a good/safe assumption for now). So what happens in 2019? Just explain to me how you keep that core together without paying out 200m in salary or more, and if you believe 200m in salary is fine and Glens problem, then that's OK, at least we know what you think. But by dismissing this, you are showing that you are more interested in arguing with your favorite target on this board, than anything else. TJ asked what my end game was. My end game on this board is, and always has been, learning, teaching (because you have to give if you are going to take) , and arriving at realizations through constructive diologue with people that may have different perspective than I have.
    As cavaliers triumph over warriors and the sun goes down in Golden State, the hungry Wolves remain poised for the night to come.

  15. #235
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    15,270
    Quote Originally Posted by rackshaq View Post
    Yeah, like losing our team to Seattle because we were too dumb to realize that 200 million dollars in salary and running the team at a 100 million dollar loss per year was not a good idea.
    I would take any "public franchise balance sheets" with a HUGE grain of salt...

  16. #236
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    17,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick K View Post
    If Gorgui is worth 16ml per, Wigs is worth 25 easy. He's only 21 and better than I thought he'd be coming out of the draft. You don't trade Wiggins at this point. The kid still has tons of room to improve.
    He's not going to be a good defender. He *might* become less bad but given his trajectory, I'm seriously beginning to have doubts.

    I also don't know just how good he'll ultimately end up being. Maybe he'll get to DeRozan but it's just as likely he ends up as a volume chucker with bad shot selection. That's not a $25 mil per year guy.
    Inching back towards the wagon...slowly...

  17. #237
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by LEvine View Post
    I would take any "public franchise balance sheets" with a HUGE grain of salt...
    Right, but thinking about the Wolves, I wouldn't be surprised if it is closer to accurate. I'm not sure what the Wolves make from TV deals and all that, but taking average attendance at Target center and multiplying it by average ticket price would get you a ballpark. Probably better to do upper and lower level separately though to get a better estimate. Maybe that info isn't available though. I'm sure if someone was interested enough in verifying the balance sheet numbers, they could do some rough calculations. Actually, (my opinion is evolving fast on this) now that I think about it, verifying the numbers is easy enough (even from video in the broadcasts and what's available online on ticket prices) that I feel like there would be little to no "messing around" being done on the balance sheet. I think ticket sales is primarily where teams make their money. Second to that, TV rights and what the NBA pays the owner on NBA TV and NBA licensed programing. I am sure all those numbers are available and verifiable. Isn't the CBA based on a profit sharing ratio? So wouldn't those numbers have to be accurate as far as the NBA is concerned?

    The flip-side to that, as far as the Wolves, and in relation to the luxury tax hell scenario, is the question of whether past numbers are a good indicator of future numbers, regarding both wins and revenue. I see them tied together, even if in a slightly more elastic way. So essentially, double your wins, double your revenue. That being said, the revenue lags behind the wins in such a way that you need to project out wins in order to decide what you do with salary. If we could say for certain that we are a 60+ win team in 2019, then it actually could make sense to sign Millsap (or similar) this summer, because you would still eek out a profit at the 200m in salary you'd be paying out. Reversed, in a worst case scenario where you only win 40 games, then revenue only increases 11%. That puts you in the situation of probably having to sell the team. You can't hemorrhage a quarter of the value of the team in a single season and expect to come out unscathed. Consider the wolves gone in that scenario because there is only so much Glen can do to keep the team in Minnesota when the team is underwater by that much and he's in the midst of finding a transition option with new owners, because of his age.
    As cavaliers triumph over warriors and the sun goes down in Golden State, the hungry Wolves remain poised for the night to come.

  18. #238
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,972
    Quote Originally Posted by The Country Club View Post
    He's not going to be a good defender. He *might* become less bad but given his trajectory, I'm seriously beginning to have doubts.

    I also don't know just how good he'll ultimately end up being. Maybe he'll get to DeRozan but it's just as likely he ends up as a volume chucker with bad shot selection. That's not a $25 mil per year guy.
    I hear you. That's the million $ question. There are very, very few perfect players who are great on both sides of the ball. MJ. Kobe, Kawhi, Lebron. Wigs has all the physical tools to be a complete player. Patience my friend.

  19. #239
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    5,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick K View Post
    I hear you. That's the million $ question. There are very, very few perfect players who are great on both sides of the ball. MJ. Kobe, Kawhi, Lebron. Wigs has all the physical tools to be a complete player. Patience my friend.
    It's more like a over $100 mln question AW will get the max for 5 years.
    But AW is still very young and has been improving every year.
    “We want to make plays to win basketball games, not to answer any questions or respond to what people have to say about us,” James


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •