We could have done that up until February 28th. We tried doing that with Hill by giving him a $13.6M raise this year and extending his contract. We can't do that anymore, sadly.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
24 Hours until that 17 million disappears.....
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
We could have done that up until February 28th. We tried doing that with Hill by giving him a $13.6M raise this year and extending his contract. We can't do that anymore, sadly.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
elan_prodigy
Well-Known Member
Thats ******! ******** George Hill ****** us!
Should have used that money on Ingles then I guess? Could of had 2 years for free.
I think I understand what people are saying now, you represent it well, but I think others are misrepresenting it.
The salary floor is $84.7. If a team is below the salary floor, they have to take the difference and divide it among the players. The Jazz are a few million under the salary floor, so they will have to pay the players each a few hundred thousand dollars.
People are representing it like the Jazz will have to divide $17 million among the Jazz players. This is not true.
Any way you look at it, this was a mistake by Dennis Lindsey. I know everyone loves and praises him, but I think he should have done a better job managing salaries. Another piece could have gotten us a few more wins and then maybe the Jazz would have faced the Spurs in the second round.
The Jazz haven't spent money for several years now. I'm tired of it. Dennis Lindsey has been selling us this idea of a rebuild and wisely positioned assets. He has promised they will spend when the time comes. Well, the time has come. If the Jazz spend this summer I will forgive them for the past few years. But I feel like they are lying when they say the Jazz are committed to winning a championship and they have the lowest payroll in the league. What if the Jazz had one more piece this year? Boris Diaw should have never been our starting forward in the playoffs. Dennis Lindsey had the cap space and assets to make a trade and find a legit 4 to back-up/replace Derrick Favors.
We could have done something like a 3-year $36M contract with $13.6M up front and it would then be a 3-year $22.4M contract. That would have been pretty awesome.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
You are correct about that. We will only have to divide around $5M among the players if we don't use the cap space.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
The Jazz were under both the cap and the floor. I think it was about $14 million under the cap (not $17 million, but I could be wrong) and about $4-5 million under the floor. (Sorry, don't have the exact numbers handy.) They have to pay the $4-5 million regardless, whether or not they spend the $14 million. But the point is that they can use the $14 million (if that's the right number) of cap space in a trade prior to tomorrow. After then it comes off the books.
Do you suppose the Jazz have worked a deal with Stayward that includes not hitting the floor so him and all his teammates get a nice year end bonus?
Exactly.
Doubt it. It's only a few hundred thousand per player.
Cappy_Smurf
Well-Known Member
No. There are many angles to consider here, and this is the conclusion some people come to when they don't appreciate that. One of DL's biggest priorities was trying to extend George Hill's contract. He just spent a 1st round pick on this guy, which you don't really want to do if you're going to lose him after one year. So If DL had burned that cap space on yet another mid level asset, he loses the ability to extend Hill. Obviously that didn't work out, but it would have been dumb not to leave that option open.
There are also other reasons for maintaining some cap space. It gives teams more flexibility to execute a trade. Otherwise, it can be difficult to meet salary matching requirements, or you might have to give up an asset to get a 3rd team involved that DOES have cap space. It also gives you the possibility of gaining an asset by being that 3rd team, helping someone else make a trade. Or you could gain an asset by taking someone else's bad contract. This is how the Nets were able to acquire Russell.
Anyway, this is a pretty common opinion around here, but wasting cap space on mid level assets can very well take you out of a bigger opportunity that comes later. No doubt if this cap space goes unused, the Captain Hindsights of the board will swoop in to trash DL, but that won't change the fact that there are some very good reasons for maintaining some cap space as opposed to filling it for the sake of filling it.
Fair enough.
Obviously DL got a great value with the team he put together. I shouldn't complain. The Jazz won 51 games with a almost third of their team on the injured least.
I guess he's got to be careful this summer. If memory serves me correctly, the Blazers were the lowest payroll in 2015-2016. Now they are one of the highest for the next few years and they aren't able to compete.
That's what happens when you sign Allen Crabbe and Evan Turner to huge contracts.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Good example of when no move is the best move (as DL constantly preaches at trade deadlines).
I get upset over a few little things that DL says and does, but in the end, I recognize he is brilliant.
I don't think we know how it is distributed. It doesn't make sense to me to have it all be an even cut across the field, although that would be a sweet bonus to the lower paid players and my preference. I like the new 2-way contracts and have long thought the Jazz should gain player respect by cycling through D-League players on 10-day contracts as the 15th man on the bench in a move nothing more than to increase there destitute wages.
Anyway, if it is paid out as a percentage of current wages then Hayward stands to gain a whole lot more.
Keefe
Well-Known Member
What was the actual offer?
Did we offer Ingles an extension? I don't know.. I was just saying we hypothetically could have offered that to him.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
NAOS
Well-Known Member
he wasn't eligible.
I thought I had seen somewhere that it was uniformly distributed, because I remember being surprised by that. A proportional distribution would make more sense to me. But in looking for that info just now I came up empty. Or maybe there aren't any rules about how it needs to be distributed and is just left up to the team?
Later: Aha!! I found it. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/09/05/Labor-and-Agents/NBA-salary-cap.aspx "The NBPA player representatives voted to have the players on the teams under the minimum receive the money in equal shares, based on time on the roster." So it's not proportional to salary but it is proportional to amount of time on the roster. Interesting.
