I’m gonna be honest. Love favs...admittedly underrated his value in the past. But I would have been totally ok with rolling with Morgan for these situations. I have concerns that Favs health is fried and also have lots of optimism with Morgan.
2020 Free Agency Thread
- Thread starter Saint Cy of JFC
- Start date
Brantley can inadvertently hurt people. Doest that count?
TLDR overview: possible way to get below luxury tax without trade (though I'm not smart enough to know for sure, so I want feedback on this)
Given what we know now, I'm very confused by the Tucker trade. It seems to only save the Jazz about half a million dollars if they don't go beneath the tax (unless they received a bit more than expected in cash considerations from Cleveland; but even then it's puzzling). If it is something that allows them to go below the tax, then it may be worth up to $10 million or more in the long run (and thus will be well worth it).
The problem is, despite what DL said today in the presser, we don't really know the avenue from there to get below the tax. This problem is compounded by not knowing what certain things (for example, if this seaon's revised CBA makes avenues available that aren't usually there; or whether dollar amounts in the current contracts differ from those publicly reported). Assuming there's nothing in the revised CBA or nothing unknown in the existing contracts, it appears we're in the neighborhood of $1.9 million above the tax level with the 14 contracts we have. So what options do we have for getting below the tax? We (may) have two.
Of course we could make a trade (the OPJ for Conley trade that everyone seems to assume is perpetually on the table from the Bulls, being the easiest).
But it may still be possible through another mechanism. I'm not enough of an expert to calculate this all out. But I have been looking at the CBA (https://cosmic-s3.imgix.net/3c7a0a50-8e11-11e9-875d-3d44e94ae33f-2017-NBA-NBPA-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement.pdf). It looks like there could be a path (this is my plea for someone smarter than me to help figure out whether this is really plausible):
@Handlogten's Heros is right that we generally need 14 players under contract, and 2-ways don't count. But there is an exception. A team can carry 13 players for up to two weeks at a time. I can't find any limit to the number of times per year this can be done.
I also looked at @Saint Cy of JFC's thought of circulating through 10-day contracts if NWG ends up being cut before being guaranteed. That does indeed appear to be a viable option after a certain date (January 5 in normal years; I don't know if the revised CBA makes it different this year). The only requirement for 10-day contracts is that they have to be scaled at least to the level of a minimum contract. There are also stipulations about how many 10-day contracts a team can concurrently have, but I think that this probably won't end up mattering much in our case.
So I'm wondering, if for whatever reason during the season, the Jazz decide that they really do want to go below tax level whether the following strategy would work:
Given what we know now, I'm very confused by the Tucker trade. It seems to only save the Jazz about half a million dollars if they don't go beneath the tax (unless they received a bit more than expected in cash considerations from Cleveland; but even then it's puzzling). If it is something that allows them to go below the tax, then it may be worth up to $10 million or more in the long run (and thus will be well worth it).
The problem is, despite what DL said today in the presser, we don't really know the avenue from there to get below the tax. This problem is compounded by not knowing what certain things (for example, if this seaon's revised CBA makes avenues available that aren't usually there; or whether dollar amounts in the current contracts differ from those publicly reported). Assuming there's nothing in the revised CBA or nothing unknown in the existing contracts, it appears we're in the neighborhood of $1.9 million above the tax level with the 14 contracts we have. So what options do we have for getting below the tax? We (may) have two.
Of course we could make a trade (the OPJ for Conley trade that everyone seems to assume is perpetually on the table from the Bulls, being the easiest).
But it may still be possible through another mechanism. I'm not enough of an expert to calculate this all out. But I have been looking at the CBA (https://cosmic-s3.imgix.net/3c7a0a50-8e11-11e9-875d-3d44e94ae33f-2017-NBA-NBPA-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement.pdf). It looks like there could be a path (this is my plea for someone smarter than me to help figure out whether this is really plausible):
@Handlogten's Heros is right that we generally need 14 players under contract, and 2-ways don't count. But there is an exception. A team can carry 13 players for up to two weeks at a time. I can't find any limit to the number of times per year this can be done.
I also looked at @Saint Cy of JFC's thought of circulating through 10-day contracts if NWG ends up being cut before being guaranteed. That does indeed appear to be a viable option after a certain date (January 5 in normal years; I don't know if the revised CBA makes it different this year). The only requirement for 10-day contracts is that they have to be scaled at least to the level of a minimum contract. There are also stipulations about how many 10-day contracts a team can concurrently have, but I think that this probably won't end up mattering much in our case.
So I'm wondering, if for whatever reason during the season, the Jazz decide that they really do want to go below tax level whether the following strategy would work:
- Jettison two players: likely NWG before guaranteed; Oni also has the same February 27 guarantee date; Morgan and Niang could also be candidates if the right situation emerged
- Once the 10-day contracts are permitted, use the combination of cycling through 10-day players on prorated minimum contracts ($898,310 proration basis) and cycling through the 2-week grace period for a 13-man (non-two-way) roster to cut the ~$1.9 off the salary burden.
framer
Well-Known Member
I mean he booted their asses and drafted a Rookie to replace one of them so the writing is pretty much on the wall there. . .
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
2025 Prediction Contest Winner
Problem is we are at 1.8-1.9M over and this saves us a maximum of like 1.5M I think.
I like the thinking but only way I see it happening is a trade. It would also make some sense if there was another signing... like we wanted to use BAE but were concerned it gets us too close to the hard cap.
Can you give me your assumptions behind the 1.5M figure?
RHJ could be our dollar store Crowder. It's an obvious choice, which means it's not happening.
If I were GM, my off-season would be...
[I could live with Udoka]
Sign Udoh.
Sign Shaq.
Sign RHJ.
Trade Mike for OPJ.
That team's payroll is like $10-15M less and it's a better team.
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
2025 Prediction Contest Winner
I was just using a full waiver of NWG. I don’t think you can go below 13... so you waive NWG and add in a few 10 days which stack up on the cap.
Honestly I just think they are a little sloppy and will pay tax on like 2M in salary over the tax... or they have another addition and want to give themselves maximum breathing room.
homeytennis
Well-Known Member
What happens if they waive Niang, NWG, Morgan and Oni and fill the roster with the bare minimum of minimum wage rookies? Like Toolson and the Seton Hall dude for example.