Understanding the NBA Salary Cap when it reaches $100M.

[Fallen Angel]

http://i.gyazo.com/f0937e507c30bc8b3b95db107f5db7d4.png

This is what was negotiated in the most recent CBA lockout in 2011. So barring another lockout and a change to occur in this graph, then a guy like Reggie Jackson in two years (when the salary cap jumps to $100M) could earn up to $20M from another team from a max contract, but because Detroit has his Bird Rights he would earn 7.5% more than that. So that's $21.5M Reggie Jackson could have had in the new CBA.

$21.5M vs. $16M

I'd take giving Reggie Jackson the $80M over 5 years now than giving him $107.5M over five years when the cap increases.

When some dude got mad over Westbrook (2 years remaining) and Jackson's (5 years remaining) contracts being similar in dollar amount:

Westbrook will be making upwards of $30M per year when the cap hits $100M because he's been in the league between 7-9 and players in that circle can get max contracts up to 30% of the league salary cap.


So I'd say Detroit got Reggie Jackson for a good deal, as with every team that's retaining their players for long extensions this offseason.

You keep looking at dollar figure amounts and expecting the guys getting paid a lot of money to be hogging the cap, therefore having are expected to have the bigger contribution to the team, but when the salary cap increases players that are signing longterm contracts are actually doing a huge favor for their teams by essentially taking a paycut of what they'd be able to get in two years.

[Jameerthefear]

When some dude got mad over Westbrook (2 years remaining) and Jackson's (5 years remaining) contracts being similar in dollar amount:




You keep looking at dollar figure amounts and expecting the guys getting paid a lot of money to be hogging the cap, therefore having are expected to have the bigger contribution to the team, but when the salary cap increases players that are signing longterm contracts are actually doing a huge favor for their teams by essentially taking a paycut of what they'd be able to get in two years.
http://i.imgur.com/ACQMW4U.gif

[gts]

Thank you capt. obvious...

[Fallen Angel]

Thank you capt. obvious...
clearly you haven't seen the overreactions to contracts the past week

[Bandito]

Yet you still whining about the Lakers picking up Hibbert in his last year of his contract just because the Lakers lost a second round pick :oldlol:

[Springsteen]

http://i.imgur.com/ACQMW4U.gif

:roll:

[Fallen Angel]

Yet you still whining about the Lakers picking up Hibbert in his last year of his contract just because the Lakers lost a second round pick :oldlol:
two second rounds for 0 additional salary cap from before the trade


are you so stupid that you don't understand you gave away two picks for nothing

[FireDavidKahn]

Just because the cap is increasing doesn't mean it's ok to hand out terrible contracts.:oldlol:

[Fallen Angel]

Just because the cap is increasing doesn't mean it's ok to hand out terrible contracts.:oldlol:
are you retarded?

[Bandito]

two second rounds for 0 additional salary cap from before the trade


are you so stupid that you don't understand you gave away two picks for nothing
If Hibbert pan out, we could trade him or pick him. If he doesn't, then adios. It's a bet I would've risk. A proven commodity for 2 unknowns for the possibility of getting a nice role player or use him for the future (seeing as he was an all star in the past in is mighty good at defense) as a 7 footer role player. Not a bad trade at all. If it was a first round pick then I would've "suicide myself"...

[Bandito]

Just because the cap is increasing doesn't mean it's ok to hand out terrible contracts.:oldlol:
I agree with this. Houston Rockets stay losing...since 1995.

[DMAVS41]

Just because the cap is increasing doesn't mean it's ok to hand out terrible contracts.:oldlol:

True, but locking guys up to 4 year and 5 year deals now on good deals is going to be a huge asset for teams.

Crowsder at 5 years 35 million is going to look great in 2 years.

Biyombo looks great.

Middleton is a great contract.

I think Lou Williams at 3 for 21 is a nice contract.

Despite his age, I think Monta Ellis at 4 for 44 is a sneaky good contract given the fit on the Pacers.

Danny Green and Patrick Beverly are great....

The point is...last year and this year there was a market, imo, for certain types of guys on 4 year deals that will pay huge dividends in the long run.

This is what I was talking about last summer. Ariza, IT, Avery Bradley...those guys are on amazing contracts now going forward.

Reggie Jackson is now making more than double per year over the next 3 years than IT...it's absurd how good that IT contract is.

[Bandito]

True, but locking guys up to 4 year and 5 year deals now on good deals is going to be a huge asset for teams.

Crowsder at 5 years 35 million is going to look great in 2 years.

Biyombo looks great.

Middleton is a great contract.

I think Lou Williams at 3 for 21 is a nice contract.

Despite his age, I think Monta Ellis at 4 for 44 is a sneaky good contract given the fit on the Pacers.

Danny Green and Patrick Beverly are great....

The point is...last year and this year there was a market, imo, for certain types of guys on 4 year deals that will pay huge dividends in the long run.

This is what I was talking about last summer. Ariza, IT, Avery Bradley...those guys are on amazing contracts now going forward.

Reggie Jackson is now making more than double per year over the next 3 years than IT...it's absurd how good that IT contract is.
Wait what? I have to get current 0.o

[kshutts1]

When some dude got mad over Westbrook (2 years remaining) and Jackson's (5 years remaining) contracts being similar in dollar amount:




You keep looking at dollar figure amounts and expecting the guys getting paid a lot of money to be hogging the cap, therefore having are expected to have the bigger contribution to the team, but when the salary cap increases players that are signing longterm contracts are actually doing a huge favor for their teams by essentially taking a paycut of what they'd be able to get in two years.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=381826

The thread barely got noticed, but please take a moment to read my thoughts, Fallen Angel. My take on the lunacy that is free agency.

[kshutts1]

True, but locking guys up to 4 year and 5 year deals now on good deals is going to be a huge asset for teams.

Crowsder at 5 years 35 million is going to look great in 2 years.

Biyombo looks great.

Middleton is a great contract.

I think Lou Williams at 3 for 21 is a nice contract.

Despite his age, I think Monta Ellis at 4 for 44 is a sneaky good contract given the fit on the Pacers.

Danny Green and Patrick Beverly are great....


The bolded are good deals in THIS market, no matter the team situation.

Danny Green is a good deal in THIS market for the Spurs.

And Middleton is a terrible contract in this market, bad next season (unless he really takes off, which is possible), and good in 2017. He's making 14m per right now.. which equates out to (relative to today's market, as that's what most understand) 14m this year, then 10.69 then 8.86.

I will not admit that Middleton at 11m per year in the current market is a good deal, much less 14m.. not until he shows me something more. He is on his way, and one of my favorite up-and-coming players, so I expect he will get there. But he's in a curious case of being a FA right before he's truly proven something, but he has flashed so much potential that it's worth the risk.

I would have signed Middleton to 9-11m per year for 4-5 years, to make it a good signing. Right now, it's fraught with risk.

[DMAVS41]

The bolded are good deals in THIS market, no matter the team situation.

Danny Green is a good deal in THIS market for the Spurs.

And Middleton is a terrible contract in this market, bad next season (unless he really takes off, which is possible), and good in 2017. He's making 14m per right now.. which equates out to (relative to today's market, as that's what most understand) 14m this year, then 10.69 then 8.86.

I will not admit that Middleton at 11m per year in the current market is a good deal, much less 14m.. not until he shows me something more. He is on his way, and one of my favorite up-and-coming players, so I expect he will get there. But he's in a curious case of being a FA right before he's truly proven something, but he has flashed so much potential that it's worth the risk.

I would have signed Middleton to 9-11m per year for 4-5 years, to make it a good signing. Right now, it's fraught with risk.

Dude....you just don't know Middleton if you think that is a bad contract. It's arguably the best deal of free agency so far.

Go read up on Middleton and listen to people in the know about him. He's 23 years old...already a great shooter...and a very good defender. His contract is amazing.

You are really really really off here.

That contract is being universally praises by the smart guys in the basketball community.

[UK2K]

Just because the cap is increasing doesn't mean it's ok to hand out terrible contracts.:oldlol:

A terrible contract now =/= A terrible contract after the cap increase.

[kshutts1]

Dude....you just don't know Middleton if you think that is a bad contract. It's arguably the best deal of free agency so far.

Go read up on Middleton and listen to people in the know about him. He's 23 years old...already a great shooter...and a very good defender. His contract is amazing.

You are really really really off here.

That contract is being universally praises by the smart guys in the basketball community.
You mean the same people that draft, and sign, based on potential?

I think Middleton has tons of upside still. He had a great, great year. Ended on a high note. 17/4/4 with great splits and legit D.

But if I'm running a business, where contracts are guaranteed, I'm not tossing 14m that players' way just yet. Now, one can argue that the Bucks are in a unique situation to offer that kind of money (a la Cleveland) in that they have their young pieces, and they're ready to stop drafting and start winning. I can buy in to that. But as a Bulls fan, I'm not sitting here upset that we didn't get him at that price.

[DMAVS41]

You mean the same people that draft, and sign, based on potential?

I think Middleton has tons of upside still. He had a great, great year. Ended on a high note. 17/4/4 with great splits and legit D.

But if I'm running a business, where contracts are guaranteed, I'm not tossing 14m that players' way just yet. Now, one can argue that the Bucks are in a unique situation to offer that kind of money (a la Cleveland) in that they have their young pieces, and they're ready to stop drafting and start winning. I can buy in to that. But as a Bulls fan, I'm not sitting here upset that we didn't get him at that price.

But it's not even on potential as much as it is on the market trends.

It's not like you only evaluate a player on what he's done...you also factor in things like skillset, ability, and age. Every sign points to Middleton improving his game and being the exact type of player teams need so badly now...a versatile player on both sides of the ball that can shoot. It's just exactly the skills needed for where the game is going.

Next season Chandler Parsons will likely get a 5 year over 100 million dollar contract offer if he's healthy.

He's maybe 10% better than Middleton...maybe....I'm not even sure he is given Middleton's defense is much better and Parsons needs the ball more.

But let's say he's 10% better....he'll be making over 30% more money a year essentially....and that trend is only going to grow over the length of the Middleton deal.

You are basically saying you'd rather pass on Middleton than sign him to what the Bucks did...which I just think is absolutely absurd.

[SwishSquared]

The bolded are good deals in THIS market, no matter the team situation.

Danny Green is a good deal in THIS market for the Spurs.

And Middleton is a terrible contract in this market, bad next season (unless he really takes off, which is possible), and good in 2017. He's making 14m per right now.. which equates out to (relative to today's market, as that's what most understand) 14m this year, then 10.69 then 8.86.

I will not admit that Middleton at 11m per year in the current market is a good deal, much less 14m.. not until he shows me something more. He is on his way, and one of my favorite up-and-coming players, so I expect he will get there. But he's in a curious case of being a FA right before he's truly proven something, but he has flashed so much potential that it's worth the risk.

I would have signed Middleton to 9-11m per year for 4-5 years, to make it a good signing. Right now, it's fraught with risk.Somebody gladly would have given Middleton $14M if you didn't. He would have even sought & secured a 2+1 max deal potentially (a la Chandler Parsons) if you, acting as the Bucks, didn't sign him to a sufficient deal.

I get that right now he's not a $14M/year player for a $69M cap (or less), but he will be next year. Easily. Klay is making $17.5M/year going forward and is older and better on offense, but Middleton is a better defender. Demarre Carroll just got $15M/year for 4 years in his late 20s vs. at 23 for KM.

The Middleton contract will be very valuable in 2 years.

[DMAVS41]

Somebody gladly would have given Middleton $14M if you didn't. He would have even sought & secured a 2+1 max deal potentially (a la Chandler Parsons) if you, acting as the Bucks, didn't sign him to a sufficient deal.

I get that right now he's not a $14M/year player for a $69M cap (or less), but he will be next year. Easily. Klay is making $17.5M/year going forward and is older and better on offense, but Middleton is a better defender. Demarre Carroll just got $15M/year for 4 years in his late 20s vs. at 23 for KM.

The Middleton contract will be very valuable in 2 years.

Yep.

I actually think the Lakers and Sixers made a mistake by not going after him for the full max.

Worst case is the Bucks match....best case is you get a great 23 year old player on a very good contract....that will be excellent for trading if you don't want to keep him long term.

That is the kind of deal the Lakers should have been looking to pull off rather than chasing aging stars like LMA.

The Bucks got a steal...very nice.

[SwishSquared]

Yep.

I actually think the Lakers and Sixers made a mistake by not going after him for the full max.

Worst case is the Bucks match....best case is you get a great 23 year old player on a very good contract....that will be excellent for trading if you don't want to keep him long term.

That is the kind of deal the Lakers should have been looking to pull off rather than chasing aging stars like LMA.

The Bucks got a steal...very nice.100% Agree. I told my friend (big Laker fan) months ago to hope to chase with a max, even if it's aggressive like Parsons' deal. That guy is going to be really, really good.

I'm a little surprised Hinkie didn't even try to max him out b/c he's a perfect fit for how they play on offense and defense. Also thought the Blazers should have targeted him once it became apparent that LMA was gone, as he would have been a really great fit there too.

I think Middleton should have demanded a max from the Bucks honestly. I think he/his agent sold him short to a degree. Is the last year a player option, or has that not been released yet? Maybe that was the trade-off

[DMAVS41]

100% Agree. I told my friend (big Laker fan) months ago to hope to chase with a max, even if it's aggressive like Parsons' deal. That guy is going to be really, really good.

I'm a little surprised Hinkie didn't even try to max him out b/c he's a perfect fit for how they play on offense and defense. Also thought the Blazers should have targeted him once it became apparent that LMA was gone, as he would have been a really great fit there too.

I think Middleton should have demanded a max from the Bucks honestly. I think he/his agent sold him short to a degree. Is the last year a player option, or has that not been released yet? Maybe that was the trade-off

Yep....worst case scenario is you make another team pay more for a player.

Best case...you get said player that is key to what every team wants.

Love the Blazers idea. I think that would have been a better idea than going for Aminu and some of the guys they did.

I still like what the Blazers have done, but they could have done that if the Bucks matched anyway. In fact, they might have ended up getting a better deal on Aminu if he lingered the first 3 days. Although I'm not sure what the market actually was for him....but 7.5 a year for Aminu isn't anything worth going crazy over.

[kshutts1]

Just not my style to hand out max contract offers to players that, at best, averaged 17/4/4.

And using other bad contracts to show why this one is not-as-bad (which I agree with) is silly, IMO. Maybe not realistic, but silly nonetheless.

[SwishSquared]

Just not my style to hand out max contract offers to players that, at best, averaged 17/4/4.

And using other bad contracts to show why this one is not-as-bad (which I agree with) is silly, IMO. Maybe not realistic, but silly nonetheless.You may disagree with the dollar amounts, but view these deals as % of expected cap in 2016-2017. That's how you should judge these. A supermax next year is $30M or so. Isn't Middleton worth roughly half that?

The market spoke and that's what people are paying for these guys. What's silly to reacting to how the market set the prices? Reacting to these deals based on today's dollars is the wrong view because the reality is this cap doesn't matter as much as you're thinking. It's using space this summer to snag bargains going forward, locking up as many prime years as possible.

Do you dislike the Leonard or Klay contracts? Because nobody I know is bashing those deals nor the KM deal.

[DMAVS41]

Just not my style to hand out max contract offers to players that, at best, averaged 17/4/4.

And using other bad contracts to show why this one is not-as-bad (which I agree with) is silly, IMO. Maybe not realistic, but silly nonetheless.

At some point you can't claim every contract is a bad contract though. The market is the market.

If Brandon Knight and Reggie Jackson get 70 and 80 million...yea, those are bad deals imo, but they are kind of the norm...and it's only trending more in that direction over at least the next 2 years.

There is nothing about the Middleton contract that is bad.

You can choose not to pay him, but I think that is a huge mistake to not pay a 23 year old player that can shoot and play good defense...that is exactly what every NBA team is looking for.

[kshutts1]

You may disagree with the dollar amounts, but view these deals as % of expected cap in 2016-2017. That's how you should judge these. A supermax next year is $30M or so. Isn't Middleton worth roughly half that?

The market spoke and that's what people are paying for these guys. What's silly to reacting to how the market set the prices? Reacting to these deals based on today's dollars is the wrong view because the reality is this cap doesn't matter as much as you're thinking. It's using space this summer to snag bargains going forward, locking up as many prime years as possible.

Do you dislike the Leonard or Klay contracts? Because nobody I know is bashing those deals nor the KM deal.
No, that's not how it should be viewed. Because we need to take in to account the upcoming season, as well. Skews the numbers.

And I'm not "bashing" the deal in particular. It's one of the better deals of the summer, though that's not saying much. Just used it as an example of a team overpaying in the current market because they have the fall-back of the increased cap as insurance.

[DMAVS41]

No, that's not how it should be viewed. Because we need to take in to account the upcoming season, as well. Skews the numbers.

And I'm not "bashing" the deal in particular. It's one of the better deals of the summer, though that's not saying much. Just used it as an example of a team overpaying in the current market because they have the fall-back of the increased cap as insurance.

What?

You just got done calling it a terrible contract....:confusedshrug:


And you should absolutely view a long term deal with a 23 year old...in the long term. Why on earth would you only look at if for 1 year when the dude is 23 and he's on a team that isn't contending for a title now anyway, but rather building something long term.

I'm so confused as to your position.

[HurricaneKid]

The bolded are good deals in THIS market, no matter the team situation.

Danny Green is a good deal in THIS market for the Spurs.

And Middleton is a terrible contract in this market, bad next season (unless he really takes off, which is possible), and good in 2017. He's making 14m per right now.. which equates out to (relative to today's market, as that's what most understand) 14m this year, then 10.69 then 8.86.

I will not admit that Middleton at 11m per year in the current market is a good deal, much less 14m.. not until he shows me something more. He is on his way, and one of my favorite up-and-coming players, so I expect he will get there. But he's in a curious case of being a FA right before he's truly proven something, but he has flashed so much potential that it's worth the risk.

I would have signed Middleton to 9-11m per year for 4-5 years, to make it a good signing. Right now, it's fraught with risk.

You are insane. He was top 10 in the NBA in RAPM, is probably the best defensive 2 in the league (and at 6'8" can guard 2, 3, even switch on most 4s), has a career 3pt% > 40%. And he is 23. He checks ALL the boxes. You think you are going to get that for 9M? Freaking Jerebko makes almost that.

C'mon man. There are only a handful of posters here I demand more from and you are one of them.

[Levity]

It's going to be a painful time when this new CBA kicks in and the Chandler Parsons of the world are expecting 20+ a year. That's where this is headed.

[DMAVS41]

It's going to be a painful time when this new CBA kicks in and the Chandler Parsons of the world are expecting 20+ a year. That's where this is headed.

Yep. The most under-rated bad thing about that Parsons was contract was his opt out after this coming season.

Which he'll do...and Dallas really can't afford to lose him unless we got Durant...and we'd probably just pay both of them anyway.

He's gonna get like 5 years 110 million from us.

Dude better keep recruiting....because that is the only way he's worth it.

[Legends66NBA7]

I'd rather have Middleton at the max over what DeMarre Carroll got, anyday.

[DMAVS41]

I'd rather have Middleton at the max over what DeMarre Carroll got, anyday.

For sure. Carroll is 28 years old.

Middleton is 5 years younger and has way more potential.

[kshutts1]

What?

You just got done calling it a terrible contract....:confusedshrug:


And you should absolutely view a long term deal with a 23 year old...in the long term. Why on earth would you only look at if for 1 year when the dude is 23 and he's on a team that isn't contending for a title now anyway, but rather building something long term.

I'm so confused as to your position.
Terrible contract in this market. Emphasis on this. As in.. 14m with a cap of 68/69m. As in a near-max deal.

Middleton of 2014/2015 with a cap hit of 11m (next season) is even a touch high. I called it bad. Maybe bad was too strong, but it's also not good.
2014/2015 Middleton with a cap hit of 8.8m (two years from now) is good.

Now, assuming he improves, which is only logical (but the question remains.. how much), then the deal looks better.

But I see a Milwaukee team with Parker and Giannis as the stars of the future and, with Monroe, Middleton is a 3/4 option. By the numbers, Middleton barely improved from 2013/14 to 2014/15. So why am I to expect a quantum leap forward, particularly when he's not expected to be a main option?

Maybe I'm way off base, because everyone is touting him as an elite defensive player, and I only know him as a good one. If he's elite on D, that changes things, as he's already an elite 3p shooter.

And I totally understand contracts take into account age and potential but, for the sake of argument, let's say he remains static as a third-option, 15/4/4, elite-3p-good-D kind of player. I don't want to pay him 14m next season. Or 11m equivalent the following.

If I were the Bucks, I would have offered 2/22, and sold it to him as "we expect you to be awesome, so you'll be a FA when the cap spikes, then we can really give you the money you deserve".

That type of contract mitigates the short term risk to a huge degree and, because of team situation (on the up) and Bird Rights, re-signing him should be relatively easy. I just really don't like the short-term risk involved in this deal. Long term? Should be great.

And those are my misgivings on one of the better FA deals this summer.

I recognize and admit that I'd be a bad FA-signing GM, in that I wouldn't let other teams' bad deals/offers affect my position. I wouldn't get many "big fish". But when I see other teams make bad deals, or other agents lock down awesome deals for their players, I don't think that that's the new market. I think that they're mistakes. DMavs made the argument that bad deal or not, it IS the market, and I see his point. I just won't bend to that, if that makes sense. So I'd be a bad FA-signing GM, but at least my team would have value?

[Jameerthefear]

middleton was arguably the best player on the bucks last year

[DMAVS41]

Your broad methodology is seems fine and I agree with it...if we were talking about a guy like Reggie Jackson.

I think you really under-rate the value of this contract long term though...and seem to not realize that Middelton does everything that every team in the NBA is paying out the ass (and for good reason) to get.

It's always player specific.

And not bringing back Middleton this year for the Bucks would be a costly mistake going forward.

You say it's a terrible contract in this cap, but that isn't even true. Contracts are based on the market. You can't call every contract terrible.

[HurricaneKid]

Terrible contract in this market. Emphasis on this. As in.. 14m with a cap of 68/69m. As in a near-max deal.

Middleton of 2014/2015 with a cap hit of 11m (next season) is even a touch high. I called it bad. Maybe bad was too strong, but it's also not good.
2014/2015 Middleton with a cap hit of 8.8m (two years from now) is good.

Now, assuming he improves, which is only logical (but the question remains.. how much), then the deal looks better.

But I see a Milwaukee team with Parker and Giannis as the stars of the future and, with Monroe, Middleton is a 3/4 option. By the numbers, Middleton barely improved from 2013/14 to 2014/15. So why am I to expect a quantum leap forward, particularly when he's not expected to be a main option?

Maybe I'm way off base, because everyone is touting him as an elite defensive player, and I only know him as a good one. If he's elite on D, that changes things, as he's already an elite 3p shooter.

And I totally understand contracts take into account age and potential but, for the sake of argument, let's say he remains static as a third-option, 15/4/4, elite-3p-good-D kind of player. I don't want to pay him 14m next season. Or 11m equivalent the following.

If I were the Bucks, I would have offered 2/22, and sold it to him as "we expect you to be awesome, so you'll be a FA when the cap spikes, then we can really give you the money you deserve".

That type of contract mitigates the short term risk to a huge degree and, because of team situation (on the up) and Bird Rights, re-signing him should be relatively easy. I just really don't like the short-term risk involved in this deal. Long term? Should be great.

And those are my misgivings on one of the better FA deals this summer.

I recognize and admit that I'd be a bad FA-signing GM, in that I wouldn't let other teams' bad deals/offers affect my position. I wouldn't get many "big fish". But when I see other teams make bad deals, or other agents lock down awesome deals for their players, I don't think that that's the new market. I think that they're mistakes. DMavs made the argument that bad deal or not, it IS the market, and I see his point. I just won't bend to that, if that makes sense. So I'd be a bad FA-signing GM, but at least my team would have value?

You would never sign a FA ever. Not even your own. Which means you wouldn't be a GM long. This is a phenomenal signing at great value. Maybe you just never saw the Bucks this year.

Middleton played ~85% of his minutes at the 2. And look at the starting lineup. MCW, (Middleton), Giannis, Jabari, Monroe. Who on that team is going to make a shot from >15 ft?

He should have gotten more.

2/22 offer makes you the laughingstock of the league with agents. And it also means you are removing the part of the deal that you say is the most valuable (when the cap is 108M+).

Locking in top 10 RAPM players who are 23 for Amir Johnson money is a no brainer. I think less of you because of this conversation.

[HurricaneKid]

middleton was arguably the best player on the bucks last year

I don't think its even possible to argue otherwise. No Bucks fan would. The front office traded away Knight to clear room for him. After the Knight trade he was 17/4.4/3.1 on elite %s. And keep in mind, the Bucks play slower pace defensive slugfest games.

[DMAVS41]

I don't think its even possible to argue otherwise. No Bucks fan would. The front office traded away Knight to clear room for him. After the Knight trade he was 17/4.4/3.1 on elite %s. And keep in mind, the Bucks play slower pace defensive slugfest games.

I still can't believe rebuilding teams like the Lakers and Sixers and Blazers didn't offer this guy a max deal.

Just stupid.

Bucks are so lucky that none of these damn teams do their ****ing homework.

[kshutts1]

You would never sign a FA ever. Not even your own. Which means you wouldn't be a GM long. This is a phenomenal signing at great value. Maybe you just never saw the Bucks this year.

Middleton played ~85% of his minutes at the 2. And look at the starting lineup. MCW, (Middleton), Giannis, Jabari, Monroe. Who on that team is going to make a shot from >15 ft?

He should have gotten more.

2/22 offer makes you the laughingstock of the league with agents. And it also means you are removing the part of the deal that you say is the most valuable (when the cap is 108M+).

Locking in top 10 RAPM players who are 23 for Amir Johnson money is a no brainer. I think less of you because of this conversation.
Laughingstock why? I'd rather give a player more money IF they earn it than to give them less money (but still a lot) before they earn it. I feel like agents would prefer this approach.

2/22 is a HUGE pay raise for Middleton, and represents a very solid deal for HIM. If he improves, which we all think he will, but it is still a risk, then he's becoming a FA just in time for the Bucks to offer him WAY MORE money.

I'd prefer to pay for what I'm getting, even if the number is significantly higher, on a much less risky deal than to do take on additional risk to save a few bucks.

If Middleton does not improve much, then his current deal is a bad deal this year and next, with it being a good deal the following three years. Net result is a good deal, but barely.

If he does improve, and significantly, then it's an amazing deal for the team, but Middleton seriously shorted himself.

With my method, if he doesn't improve, it's a slightly bad deal this year and next, for a net result of slightly bad.

And if he does improve, then it's a good deal this year and next, and then he can resign for what he's worth instead of playing for pennies on the dollar.

I guess I fail to see what's so terrible about my idea.

[Rooster]

Laughingstock why? I'd rather give a player more money IF they earn it than to give them less money (but still a lot) before they earn it. I feel like agents would prefer this approach.

2/22 is a HUGE pay raise for Middleton, and represents a very solid deal for HIM. If he improves, which we all think he will, but it is still a risk, then he's becoming a FA just in time for the Bucks to offer him WAY MORE money.

I'd prefer to pay for what I'm getting, even if the number is significantly higher, on a much less risky deal than to do take on additional risk to save a few bucks.

If Middleton does not improve much, then his current deal is a bad deal this year and next, with it being a good deal the following three years. Net result is a good deal, but barely.

If he does improve, and significantly, then it's an amazing deal for the team, but Middleton seriously shorted himself.

With my method, if he doesn't improve, it's a slightly bad deal this year and next, for a net result of slightly bad.

And if he does improve, then it's a good deal this year and next, and then he can resign for what he's worth instead of playing for pennies on the dollar.

I guess I fail to see what's so terrible about my idea.

Your idea is good business wise. An owner has done it that way. Never overpay players even it was your own. He made a lot of money but its terrible to be fan of that team.

[DMAVS41]

Laughingstock why? I'd rather give a player more money IF they earn it than to give them less money (but still a lot) before they earn it. I feel like agents would prefer this approach.

2/22 is a HUGE pay raise for Middleton, and represents a very solid deal for HIM. If he improves, which we all think he will, but it is still a risk, then he's becoming a FA just in time for the Bucks to offer him WAY MORE money.

I'd prefer to pay for what I'm getting, even if the number is significantly higher, on a much less risky deal than to do take on additional risk to save a few bucks.

If Middleton does not improve much, then his current deal is a bad deal this year and next, with it being a good deal the following three years. Net result is a good deal, but barely.

If he does improve, and significantly, then it's an amazing deal for the team, but Middleton seriously shorted himself.

With my method, if he doesn't improve, it's a slightly bad deal this year and next, for a net result of slightly bad.

And if he does improve, then it's a good deal this year and next, and then he can resign for what he's worth instead of playing for pennies on the dollar.

I guess I fail to see what's so terrible about my idea.


So you are basically not trying to win ever...right?

It's a terrible idea because it gives you 0 chance to retain Middelton and alienates every other player on your team...and your coaching staff.

Made even worse by the fact that 5 years 70 million for Middelton is a great deal.

So not only does your way hurt the relationship with your fans, players, and coaches....but it also shows them you have no ****ing clue how to evaluate talent or how good a deal is in given market conditions.

You are essentially describing the Donald Sterling method....LOL

[kshutts1]

Your idea is good business wise. An owner has done it that way. Never overpay players even it was your own. He made a lot of money but its terrible to be fan of that team.
I'd happily pay players what they're worth. If they're worth a max deal, I'll pay the tax to do it.

But I'm not gonna pay someone, that's been in the league three years and shown minimal improvement the last two years, like they're a star.

[kshutts1]

So you are basically not trying to win ever...right?

It's a terrible idea because it gives you 0 chance to retain Middelton and alienates every other player on your team...and your coaching staff.

Made even worse by the fact that 5 years 70 million for Middelton is a great deal.

So not only does your way hurt the relationship with your fans, players, and coaches....but it also shows them you have no ****ing clue how to evaluate talent or how good a deal is in given market conditions.

You are essentially describing the Donald Sterling method....LOL
Why do I have zero chance to retain him? He was a RFA this summer. If he didn't like the offer, he could have sought out something else, that I may or may not have matched. But then I was telling him he'd be getting a HUGE max in 2 years. He wouldn't like that? Ok then.

Current deal nets him 70m
My idea would net him 22m in two years, with the potential for a huge, huge deal, that far eclipses his 70m. But I have zero chance of retaining him. Ok.

[DMAVS41]

I'd happily pay players what they're worth. If they're worth a max deal, I'll pay the tax to do it.

But I'm not gonna pay someone, that's been in the league three years and shown minimal improvement the last two years, like they're a star.

Does it matter to you if what you are saying is accurate...or are you just going to continue down this road no matter what?

Middleton has made real improvements to his game....and it shows it what kind of player he is on the court.

If you are just looking at broad stats...and haven't watched him at all...you simply don't know what you are talking about.

[DMAVS41]

Why do I have zero chance to retain him? He was a RFA this summer. If he didn't like the offer, he could have sought out something else, that I may or may not have matched. But then I was telling him he'd be getting a HUGE max in 2 years. He wouldn't like that? Ok then.

Current deal nets him 70m
My idea would net him 22m in two years, with the potential for a huge, huge deal, that far eclipses his 70m. But I have zero chance of retaining him. Ok.

Because it's an insult...and you just said you wouldn't pay him anywhere near his market value.

So you aren't keeping him.

And stop saying he hasn't improved. He went from being a negative RPM player (ESPN's rapm metric essentially) to number 10 in the league.

He's definitely gotten better.

[kshutts1]

Does it matter to you if what you are saying is accurate...or are you just going to continue down this road no matter what?

Middleton has made real improvements to his game....and it shows it what kind of player he is on the court.

If you are just looking at broad stats...and haven't watched him at all...you simply don't know what you are talking about.
It definitely matters to me if I'm wrong. I'm one of the few on here that will say I'm wrong when I'm wrong. But in what areas did he improve?

And what is RAPM? Why should I care about it solely? I'm not a fan of one single stat showing a picture of a player. I use them as part of a larger picture.

[DMAVS41]

It definitely matters to me if I'm wrong. I'm one of the few on here that will say I'm wrong when I'm wrong. But in what areas did he improve?

And what is RAPM? Why should I care about it solely? I'm not a fan of one single stat showing a picture of a player. I use them as part of a larger picture.

It's not using it solely...anyone that watched Middelton throughout his career knows he's improved. You have clearly not watched him.

You are just going to stats and looking at his basic stats. But that isn't a good way to evaluate a player regardless, but especially a guy like Middelton that wasn't getting huge minutes.

He was playing 30 mpg the last 2 years...in a specific role. As that role grows....his numbers will improve because he has the game to excel in an expanded role.

Also, just looking at broad stats...going up 1.5 points per game and up 2.2% TS in the exact same number of minutes is not something to ignore.

For anyone that has watched him...it's obvious he has and will continue to improve. He's got the ability to do so...

Nothing is ever a lock, but if there is ever a case of paying a guy 5 for 70...it's for Middleton in this market.

And the reason why I said you have 0 chance to keep him...is that you said you wouldn't do that. And that is what it would take to keep him.

[Nash]

how much more is lebron and the other veteran superstars going to make a year with the new cap? 35?

[SwishSquared]

how much more is lebron and the other veteran superstars going to make a year with the new cap? 35?It depends on the # of years they have under their belt. I think FAs with more than 9 years of experience get 35% of the cap, 7-9 years earn 30%, etc. So LBJ should get 35% of wherever next year's cap falls (I guess ~$31.5M if cap's around $90M).

[Fallen Angel]

It depends on the # of years they have under their belt. I think FAs with more than 9 years of experience get 35% of the cap, 7-9 years earn 30%, etc. So LBJ should get 35% of wherever next year's cap falls (I guess ~$31.5M if cap's around $90M).
That's why I have no problem with the contracts teams are signing players to right now.

I also don't think a lockout is ensuing because both parties (players and owners) are happy with the new TV Deal. If there is one thing that should be fixed is giving teams the ability to add the possibility to gain an amnesty clause (max. 1 per team) every 7 seasons because I think clubs that have used their amnesty clause aren't getting another one.

[SwishSquared]

Yep....worst case scenario is you make another team pay more for a player.

Best case...you get said player that is key to what every team wants.

Love the Blazers idea. I think that would have been a better idea than going for Aminu and some of the guys they did.

I still like what the Blazers have done, but they could have done that if the Bucks matched anyway. In fact, they might have ended up getting a better deal on Aminu if he lingered the first 3 days. Although I'm not sure what the market actually was for him....but 7.5 a year for Aminu isn't anything worth going crazy over.I was expecting Aminu to land on a contender-type team for $15M/3 years or so with a player option on the last year. Maybe that would have been selling him short, but I thought his stock was really low last summer for some reason. Like New Orleans retracted or didn't even offer a QO or something. I didn't expect 1 great year in Dallas to boost his stock quite this much.

I've been a little more optimistic on him as a player, even when he was in college, so I think his new deal is pretty decent, even if it's rich for this year. I don't think he's a difference maker for Portland now, but if they tank properly and kill FA next summer, they'll have a really nice piece as a supporting player.

Blazers did a good job to find young role players this summer as their team fell apart, but I think they should have tried to chase better wings. Aminu's best as a small ball/combo PF to me. I guess they can address wing depth during the draft/FA next year. I think that all their players are fairly easily moved, though, which is a huge accomplishment. Gives them so much flexibility to maybe pull off some trades going forward.

[HurricaneKid]

how much more is lebron and the other veteran superstars going to make a year with the new cap? 35?

My expectation is that in 2 years LeBron is going to sign a 5/221 deal.

[Mirror]

how much more is lebron and the other veteran superstars going to make a year with the new cap? 35?

I could see it.

[aj1987]

My expectation is that in 2 years LeBron is going to sign a 5/221 deal.
:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

He's gonna make ~$50M at age 37?

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[DMAVS41]

I was expecting Aminu to land on a contender-type team for $15M/3 years or so with a player option on the last year. Maybe that would have been selling him short, but I thought his stock was really low last summer for some reason. Like New Orleans retracted or didn't even offer a QO or something. I didn't expect 1 great year in Dallas to boost his stock quite this much.

I've been a little more optimistic on him as a player, even when he was in college, so I think his new deal is pretty decent, even if it's rich for this year. I don't think he's a difference maker for Portland now, but if they tank properly and kill FA next summer, they'll have a really nice piece as a supporting player.

Blazers did a good job to find young role players this summer as their team fell apart, but I think they should have tried to chase better wings. Aminu's best as a small ball/combo PF to me. I guess they can address wing depth during the draft/FA next year. I think that all their players are fairly easily moved, though, which is a huge accomplishment. Gives them so much flexibility to maybe pull off some trades going forward.

You are right to remember Aminu having a low value. The Mavs signed him to a two year minimum deal with a player option for year 2. He had no value whatsoever last summer essentially.

Here is why overpaying right now is ok. He is only 24 and he now knows how to play winning basketball. He knows his lane and he mostly sticks to it. He is an excellent and versatile defender and rebounder for his position.

If he doesn't improve at all...it's a slightly below average contract given the cap increases coming.

If he does improve like you'd expect...starting next year...it will be an amazing contract and you he's an asset whether you keep him or trade him.

Blazers should go for the number 1 pick this year. One of the most under-rated things coming into this season is how there aren't any terrible teams on paper. All the really bad teams from last year got a ton better outside the 76ers.

Blazers should be in contention for Ben Simmons.

I view it as a 2 year rebuild. Hopefully top 3 pick this coming summer. Then in the lottery again in 2017. Then in the summer of 2017 start going hard after building a playoff/contender. By 2019 you could be contending....

The key, imo, is hitting one all star type player in the draft in 2016 or 2017.

[HurricaneKid]

It depends on the # of years they have under their belt. I think FAs with more than 9 years of experience get 35% of the cap, 7-9 years earn 30%, etc. So LBJ should get 35% of wherever next year's cap falls (I guess ~$31.5M if cap's around $90M).

Yes. So RWB in two years will be eligible for 30% of 108M cap with 7.5% raises:

32.40M
34.83M
37.44M
40.25M
43.27M

5/188.19M

LeBron (or any other 10 yr vet) is eligible for 35% of 108M with 7.5% raises
37.80M
40.64M
43.68M
46.96M
50.48M

5/220M

So lets get real about these 14M deals for elite young talent.

[kshutts1]

So lets get real about these 14M deals for elite young talent.
14m per year is a good deal... in two years. But those teams are still saddled with them this year and next. That's my primary argument.

[DMAVS41]

14m per year is a good deal... in two years. But those teams are still saddled with them this year and next. That's my primary argument.

You aren't factoring in long term plans for team...like at all...if that is your argument.

What does a team like the Bucks care if they slightly overpay a player this year...when they aren't trying to win it all this year. They are trying to build a team that can win it all 3 years from now...exactly when you say the deal will be good.

That is why it makes so much sense.

On a side note, the Middleton deal is not a bad deal. It's actually a good deal right now, but even just arguing this on your own criteria....what you are saying still makes no sense whatsoever.

When that deal is is good years from now according to you...that is exactly when it really matters that you have good deals.

Right now the Bucks don't care. What is overpaying Middleton a little this coming season doing to hurt them this season or long term?

[HurricaneKid]

14m per year is a good deal... in two years. But those teams are still saddled with them this year and next. That's my primary argument.

Well its a bad argument.

You need a capologist. Because Amir Johnson just signed a 1 year 12M deal. You just have no understanding of the current market. The current prices of FAs already have the 58% inflation built in (68M now, going up 40M in the next two years).

No FA is going to take a short term deal unless it is an overpay and leaves them able to take advantage even more as the cap goes up.

[Jailblazers7]

I think overpaying a little for a young player like Middleton is like investing in any other asset. You dump resources into the player with the anticipation that the investment pays off in the long run. They got him on a reasonable deal that will increase in value over time (along with Middleton's value). I wish the Sixers were able to use this strategy a little right now given the fact that we have cap space out the ass right now.

[kshutts1]

I have an understanding of the cap, and the market. Just because some other team is willing to over-pay, or nearly all teams, does not mean that I want to.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I sincerely hope that Middleton turns in to a star, and the Bucks look like geniuses. But I just wouldn't want that risk right now.

I dunno, totally different dynamic so it's not a great analogy at all, but I'm the guy that buys one or two top notch players in an auction fantasy football draft, then does nothing and picks up Phillip Rivers at $3 later on. I consider all things by value, not by "value to other teams whose strategies I do not share".

Anyway, I'm done discussing it. It was nice. I enjoy discussing things with you two, as neither of you is prone to flaming... just vehemently disagreeing, then backing up with reasoning.

Much respect :cheers:

[DMAVS41]

I think overpaying a little for a young player like Middleton is like investing in any other asset. You dump resources into the player with the anticipation that the investment pays off in the long run. They got him on a reasonable deal that will increase in value over time (along with Middleton's value). I wish the Sixers were able to use this strategy a little right now given the fact that we have cap space out the ass right now.


Yea.

I really think the Sixers should have maxed out Middleton. Worst thing that happens is you force another team in conference to pay more...

And if they don't match. You have an incredible young 23 year old two way player that is already a great shooter.

He's not so good that he'll add a ton of wins to a terrible roster, but he'll drive up his own value hugely on a team like the Sixers...so keeping him is fine because he's good and exactly what every team wants, but they could also trade him for real shit too.

Hinkie really dropped the ball there imo...and in situations like this. I really think the Sixers should have been more in play doing stuff like that young players.

[Fallen Angel]

Fans don't realize how much of a change there will be in the league when the salary cap expands to 100M. With how "cheap" contracts today would look compared to ones you could get two years in the future it is possible we could see a new Super-Team in the league.

Then take a team like the Sixers who BARLEY are over the league minimum for salary cap spent., they are gonna have to either overpay for a free agent or go for a max free agent because they need to fill that gap just to get to the minimum of the required amount of salary cap spent.

[DMAVS41]

I have an understanding of the cap, and the market. Just because some other team is willing to over-pay, or nearly all teams, does not mean that I want to.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I sincerely hope that Middleton turns in to a star, and the Bucks look like geniuses. But I just wouldn't want that risk right now.

I dunno, totally different dynamic so it's not a great analogy at all, but I'm the guy that buys one or two top notch players in an auction fantasy football draft, then does nothing and picks up Phillip Rivers at $3 later on. I consider all things by value, not by "value to other teams whose strategies I do not share".

Anyway, I'm done discussing it. It was nice. I enjoy discussing things with you two, as neither of you is prone to flaming... just vehemently disagreeing, then backing up with reasoning.

Much respect :cheers:


It's cool.

Just don't see what risk you are talking about, but it's cool.

I think the big thing you keep missing is that Middleton doesn't have be a star for this to make sense. Good role players are now and will be paid absurd amounts going forward. I think that is where the real disconnect is...Middleton isn't even being paid like a star in this market....and with the markets going where they are going...it really makes no sense to say he needs to be a star.

That just isn't accurate at all...he needs to be who he already is...

[Jailblazers7]

Fans don't realize how much of a change there will be in the league when the salary cap expands to 100M. With how "cheap" contracts today would look compared to ones you could get two years in the future it is possible we could see a new Super-Team in the league.

Then take a team like the Sixers who BARLEY are over the league minimum for salary cap spent., they are gonna have to either overpay for a free agent or go for a max free agent because they need to fill that gap just to get to the minimum of the required amount of salary cap spent.

I don't really get the cap minimum as a constraint that team HAVE to get to. Is there any other penalty except paying the difference to the existing roster? Seems like a way for the Sixers to give some more money to their young guys to keep them happy on this dogshit team.

[Fallen Angel]

I don't really get the cap minimum as a constraint that team HAVE to get to. Is there any other penalty except paying the difference to the existing roster? Seems like a way for the Sixers to give some more money to their young guys to keep them happy on this dogshit team.
I underestimated how much Philly has to spend, they have a lot of money they need to spend before their over the minimum.

http://i.gyazo.com/cdb18aefa587a43a517c0db11cbc62c3.png

To get to the minimum when the cap raises to $100M they would have to have spent $90M.

[Fallen Angel]

I'm also curious if the money that is spread around the players affect their existing contracts for that season. If it does then that could be a bad thing.

[HurricaneKid]

I have an understanding of the cap, and the market. Just because some other team is willing to over-pay, or nearly all teams, does not mean that I want to.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I sincerely hope that Middleton turns in to a star, and the Bucks look like geniuses. But I just wouldn't want that risk right now.

I dunno, totally different dynamic so it's not a great analogy at all, but I'm the guy that buys one or two top notch players in an auction fantasy football draft, then does nothing and picks up Phillip Rivers at $3 later on. I consider all things by value, not by "value to other teams whose strategies I do not share".

Anyway, I'm done discussing it. It was nice. I enjoy discussing things with you two, as neither of you is prone to flaming... just vehemently disagreeing, then backing up with reasoning.

Much respect :cheers:

And to you as well good sir.

And just how are you going to get those mega stars? You think LeBron/KD/etc are coming to Milwaukee, etc in FA?

Its one reason I would like to see the league get rid of max salaries. Make the teams pay what the big stars are worth and make them use up all their cap space on them. Then they can't bring in a ton of elite "underpaid" max players. Paying them more would spread the talent out farther.

So if you won't pay what others are willing to pay and you won't sign good young guys with upside who are you going to end up with?

[SwishSquared]

You are right to remember Aminu having a low value. The Mavs signed him to a two year minimum deal with a player option for year 2. He had no value whatsoever last summer essentially.

Here is why overpaying right now is ok. He is only 24 and he now knows how to play winning basketball. He knows his lane and he mostly sticks to it. He is an excellent and versatile defender and rebounder for his position.

If he doesn't improve at all...it's a slightly below average contract given the cap increases coming.

If he does improve like you'd expect...starting next year...it will be an amazing contract and you he's an asset whether you keep him or trade him.

Blazers should go for the number 1 pick this year. One of the most under-rated things coming into this season is how there aren't any terrible teams on paper. All the really bad teams from last year got a ton better outside the 76ers.

Blazers should be in contention for Ben Simmons.

I view it as a 2 year rebuild. Hopefully top 3 pick this coming summer. Then in the lottery again in 2017. Then in the summer of 2017 start going hard after building a playoff/contender. By 2019 you could be contending....

The key, imo, is hitting one all star type player in the draft in 2016 or 2017.Very well said. I think they should be a bottom 5 team and contend for the top pick. With so many young guys, this is a good opportunity for them to play extended minutes and develop. Crush the draft, use cap space to sign the right guy(s), and hope to be back in playoffs by the 2017-2018 season.

One cap management question- does Miami have to sign Whiteside with cap space next summer (similarly to ATL this summer with Millsap) or do they have some type of Bird Rights with him?

Also, I want to thank kshutts1 for bringing a different perspective and amicably discussing his points. Sooo refreshing on this board instead of resorting to trolling or making terrible posts.

[DMAVS41]

Very well said. I think they should be a bottom 5 team and contend for the top pick. With so many young guys, this is a good opportunity for them to play extended minutes and develop. Crush the draft, use cap space to sign the right guy(s), and hope to be back in playoffs by the 2017-2018 season.

One cap management question- does Miami have to sign Whiteside with cap space next summer (similarly to ATL this summer with Millsap) or do they have some type of Bird Rights with him?

Also, I want to thank kshutts1 for bringing a different perspective and amicably discussing his points. Sooo refreshing on this board instead of resorting to trolling or making terrible posts.

I think Whiteside has to be signed using cap, but I'm not positive on that.

I think how the Heat get out of that...or at least the plan would be...Wade is only on a 1 year deal....so they could sign Durant and Whiteside...then bring Wade back and go over the cap.

[SwishSquared]

I think Whiteside has to be signed using cap, but I'm not positive on that.

I think how the Heat get out of that...or at least the plan would be...Wade is only on a 1 year deal....so they could sign Durant and Whiteside...then bring Wade back and go over the cap.That could work out very well if their cap math is right. I think they may need to dump McBob next summer, unless they decide not to pick up options on Napier & James Ennis. I think if they keep all rookie-scale guys & McRoberts, they have roughly $36M in cap space. I think Whiteside will be very gettable next summer if Miami tries to bring in a big fish. If Riley strikes out, he's likely back. I don't think they can keep everybody + get Durant at expected market value. Who knows though.

I wonder if they'll change that rule in the next CBA- giving Bird Rights on 2 year deals could be a game changer. I'm expecting the players to opt out in 2017 so that'll be interesting.

[Nash]

wonder if the new salary cap will make teams more restrictive with handing out the max left and right?today everyone is making max money, in the future I'm betting only the top of the top will be getting 5 year 200m contracts.

[HurricaneKid]

I think Whiteside has to be signed using cap, but I'm not positive on that.

I think how the Heat get out of that...or at least the plan would be...Wade is only on a 1 year deal....so they could sign Durant and Whiteside...then bring Wade back and go over the cap.

Whiteside is on a 2 yr deal so he has "Early Bird Rights" which in his case are pretty worthless. He can get a 175% raise or the MLE, whichever is greater, using his Bird rights. But that means that Miami can only give him 5.6M using his Bird rights. So yeah, they are coming out of pocket to keep him. And they have no RFA rights. He is unrestricted after this year.

And NO, they can't do that. Wade would have a cap hold of ~20M. They would have to renounce him to get under the cap. Then they would lose his Bird rights.

BTW, I've repeatedly brought this up but no one wants to talk about it: Miami wanted Wade to opt in, then signed him to a 1 year deal when he opted out, so they could get out from under him next year if they can bring in KD/whomever. If they sign KD, with Bosh at 22M+, etc it becomes REALLY hard to keep Wade. For a franchise that preaches loyalty and sacrifice, they keep forgetting to live up to their end of that bargain.

[DMAVS41]

Whiteside is on a 2 yr deal so he has "Early Bird Rights" which in his case are pretty worthless. He can get a 175% raise or the MLE, whichever is greater, using his Bird rights. But that means that Miami can only give him 5.6M using his Bird rights. So yeah, they are coming out of pocket to keep him. And they have no RFA rights. He is unrestricted after this year.

And NO, they can't do that. Wade would have a cap hold of ~20M. They would have to renounce him to get under the cap. Then they would lose his Bird rights.

BTW, I've repeatedly brought this up but no one wants to talk about it: Miami wanted Wade to opt in, then signed him to a 1 year deal when he opted out, so they could get out from under him next year if they can bring in KD/whomever. If they sign KD, with Bosh at 22M+, etc it becomes REALLY hard to keep Wade. For a franchise that preaches loyalty and sacrifice, they keep forgetting to live up to their end of that bargain.


So you are saying there is absolutely no way they can fit Wade, Durant or max player, and Whiteside into the cap next year?

I thought the whole point of this was to be able to do that. Miami screwed up if that is the case.

[HurricaneKid]

So you are saying there is absolutely no way they can fit Wade, Durant or max player, and Whiteside into the cap next year?

I thought the whole point of this was to be able to do that. Miami screwed up if that is the case.

Bosh is making 23.7
Dragic - ~18M
KD (30% of 89M) 26.7M

Thats >68M they would be locked into (out of 89M).

They would have to renounce Deng, Birdman, Chalmers, UD, etc and they would then have to get Wade and Whiteside and anyone else they want to pay over the min to SPLIT <21M. Whiteside will have 1.6M in career NBA earnings and cannot possibly be expected to give a huge discount in a year where 27 teams could have max space. But IMO its pretty evident he would be the one they would keep.

Miami is nowhere NEAR being able to offer that, even though they are presenting it (even tried to talk LaMarcus into signing a 1 yr deal elsewhere). They want KD to give them a shot. But if he does give them a look it is going to come at the expense of Wade. There is no question about it. And if that is what they are doing to their greatest player ever (and it transparently is) its just WRONG.

[DMAVS41]

Bosh is making 23.7
Dragic - ~18M
KD (30% of 89M) 26.7M

Thats 68M they would be locked into (out of 89M).

They would have to renounce Deng, Birdman, Chalmers, UD, etc and they would then have to get Wade and Whiteside and anyone else they want to pay over the min to SPLIT 21M. Whiteside will have 1.6M in career NBA earnings and cannot possibly be expected to give a huge discount in a year where 27 teams could have max space. But IMO its pretty evident he would be the one they would keep.

Miami is nowhere NEAR being able to offer that, even though they are presenting it (even tried to talk LaMarcus into signing a 1 yr deal elsewhere). They want KD to give them a shot. But if he does give them a look it is going to come at the expense of Wade. There is no question about it. And if that is what they are doing to their greatest player ever (and it transparently is) its just WRONG.


Yea...I agree.

But just so I'm clear (I know the cap stuff well, but not well enough it seems)...

The Heat could in theory give Whiteside 14 million a year and Wade 7 million a year...and then max KD...then fill out the roster with any exceptions and vet min contracts...right?

Because I'd imagine they would renounce all the guys you listed pretty much regardless.

Couldn't they also trade Bob at some point to open up more space as well?

[HurricaneKid]

Yea...I agree.

But just so I'm clear (I know the cap stuff well, but not well enough it seems)...

The Heat could in theory give Whiteside 14 million a year and Wade 7 million a year...and then max KD...then fill out the roster with any exceptions and vet min contracts...right?

Because I'd imagine they would renounce all the guys you listed pretty much regardless.

Couldn't they also trade Bob at some point to open up more space as well?

Do you think either of those guys takes that when everyone has space to pay them market rate?

Renouncing them means they can't pay them > league min.

I didn't want to get into it too much. Its actually worse that as
McBob - 5.8
Winslow - 2.6
Napier - 1.35
Ennis - 980k

All count towards the 89M cap. So with them still on Miami they would only have <10M to pay Wade AND Whiteside with. All are easily moved/opted out of so I kind of just ignored them.

Also note: MLE would apply but no other exceptions for them until the following season either. No TPEs, etc. So even if they did keep both, dump everyone else on the team, they can ONLY pay league min for the entire bench.

[SwishSquared]

Yea...I agree.

But just so I'm clear (I know the cap stuff well, but not well enough it seems)...

The Heat could in theory give Whiteside 14 million a year and Wade 7 million a year...and then max KD...then fill out the roster with any exceptions and vet min contracts...right?

Because I'd imagine they would renounce all the guys you listed pretty much regardless.

Couldn't they also trade Bob at some point to open up more space as well?They could trade McBob but I think Wade and Whiteside still would need to take less to feasibly make it all work. I think Riley needs to choose between Wade/Whiteside + decent bench or going for KD + cheapo supporting cast. Of course, if the latter falls through, the former situation will still be presumably available.

I don't think they can just renounce and ignore Wade, since you guys said, it would turn off future FAs.

I still think Whiteside can be had with the right big contract by another team. He can be sold that he'll in more a featured role, much the same Dallas did this summer with DJ.

[DMAVS41]

Do you think either of those guys takes that when everyone has space to pay them market rate?

Renouncing them means they can't pay them > league min.

I didn't want to get into it too much. Its actually worse that as
McBob - 5.8
Winslow - 2.6
Napier - 1.35
Ennis - 980k

All count towards the 89M cap. So with them still on Miami they would only have <10M to pay Wade AND Whiteside with. All are easily moved/opted out of so I kind of just ignored them.

Also note: MLE would apply but no other exceptions for them until the following season either. No TPEs, etc. So even if they did keep both, dump everyone else on the team, they can ONLY pay league min for the entire bench.

Whiteside won't settle for anything than his going market rate.

Wade? I could definitely see Wade taking a long term deal at a favored rate per year.

I was just curious to see if it was even possible to do what the Heat were saying they were gearing up for....because a guy like KD isn't going there unless Whiteside, Wade, and Winslow are all there in addition to Dragic and Bosh.