I agree with you, but winning games is the only thing that counts now.
GAME thread: Rising Jazz @ "Setting" Suns : Sat. 2/6/16 ; 7:00 MST
- Thread starter Stifle Tower
- Start date
I agree with you, but winning games is the only thing that counts now.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Salaries generally don't stay the same; they can increase by either 4.5% per annum (if a player signs with another team) or 7.5% (max raise that the current team can give). IINM, the table you cited does not adjust for the new broadcast agreement.
From what I read, contracts can only be renegotiated in year 3 of a 4 yr deal and only if the team has cap space for that season. And salaries can't be reduced. Really doesn't make much sense to do this. Perhaps an outside chance Favors gets more money on a wink-wink deal for '17'-18' in exchange for agreeing to a discounted contract in '18-'19. I doubt that's technically legal to agree to, but we all know stuff like that goes on with deals and agents shopping players/gauging interest before they're officially free agents. I don't think Jazz could give a new max to Gordon or increase Gobert's salary to $18M beginning next year even if they wanted.
This is an old article, but apparently the league informed teams it expects the cap to be $89M next year and then a whopping $108M in 2017.
https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/4/17/8447839/nba-salary-cap-projection-free-agency-2016-2017
To make the math simpler, I'm just going to go with $100M for '17-'18 when Gordon will opt out and Gobert's new deal will go into effect. Next season, Gobert will still be under his rookie deal, even if he agrees to an extension. And it might be better if he and the Jazz don't. IINM, his QO for '17-'18 would only be $3.2M if he doesn't sign an extension. Gives Utah some cap room to work with before they give him a HUGE deal. And there's no risk; he'll be a RFA and he knows Utah is going to re-sign him.
Assuming $100M in BRI for 2017-18
1. Max for Rudy at a 25% contract would be 5yrs/$143.8M (7.5% increases, which are not compounded). There is an outside chance Gibert could be eligible for a 30% contract. He'd need to be named to the all-NBA 1st, 2nd or 3rd team this year and next (or win league MVP this season or next).
2. Hayward can opt out and get a 30% deal. Max from another team would be 4 yrs/$130.8M (4.5% raise). With Utah he could get 4/$133.5M or 5/$172,5M.
3. Favors will be eligible for a bit more per year than Hayward since his new contract would start 1 yr later under a presumably higher cap.
Last edited:
Miggs
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Max them all or make close to max deals for all this summer if we can. With the cap going to 109M the following year and presumably more in years thereafter, their figures, especially if they were a little under max deals, wouldn't kill us.
20M per for Rudy, 24M per for Hayward, 22M per for Favors. That's 66M and wouldn't cripple us going forward imo.
Think those guys would "settle" for that?
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Are you sure we can cancel their contracts and pay them more this summer? Pretty sure Gobert has to play out his rookie contract, even if he signs an extension. I'm seeing that's the case with Westbrook and Davis. Also appears it was that way with Durant and Rose. I know AD signed a record extension last fall, but he's still earning $7M THIS season. That extension doesn't kick in until next year when he's in year #5 of his career.
https://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16
I certainly think you pitch them on taking less. Actually, Rudy has the first shot at setting the tone since he can negotiate the terms of an extension next summer. Cap wise, it's better to hold off since his QO would be so low. But face it, Utah doesn't have to reserve space for a LaMarcus Aldridge or hope they can get Bosh like Houston did in making Parsons wait. And it backfired on Houston. If Rudy would agree to 5/$100M, Lindsey should JUMP at that. It would show Hayward that Rudy was leaving money on the table to try to keep everyone together. SOMEONE would certainly offer Gobert a max 4/$100M deal, perhaps even with an opt out clause like Hayward so at 7 years of service he'd be eligible to negotiate a 30% deal. He's so dominant defensively I think a few teams would be willing to give him that amount.
Last edited:
Miggs
Well-Known Member
No, I have no idea. I think we can throw an offer at Gobert this summer and that Hayward can opt out this summer, so those two perhaps. No? I'm not sure about Favors but tbh, I feel like he'd get the least league-wide. I don't think teams look at him as some big get.
Bawse Dawg
Well-Known Member
What's the difference between being above the salary cap but below the luxury tax? Does it just mean you don't get luxury tax money from other teams? Because if we have a chance to build something special then I'd be pissed if we weren't at least willing to spend up to the luxury tax limit. So we can add about $20 million onto previous predictions.
If our top 5 players could be had for an average of $20 million each then we'd have another $20 or so million to spend on the bench. Which isn't very much considering Burks is getting $10 million by himself.
This sucks. Even being as optimistic as possible I can't make it work. Unless you want to root against Exum so we don't have to pay him. Or say that Hood has peaked and won't get and better.
If it comes to it, I think Hayward would be the odd man out between Hood, Favors, Gobert and Hayward. He'd command more money than Hood and isn't nearly as irreplaceable as Favors and Gobert.
If he lets it be known that he is going to opt out after next year then I'm guessing he's gone at the deadline.
If our top 5 players could be had for an average of $20 million each then we'd have another $20 or so million to spend on the bench. Which isn't very much considering Burks is getting $10 million by himself.
This sucks. Even being as optimistic as possible I can't make it work. Unless you want to root against Exum so we don't have to pay him. Or say that Hood has peaked and won't get and better.
If it comes to it, I think Hayward would be the odd man out between Hood, Favors, Gobert and Hayward. He'd command more money than Hood and isn't nearly as irreplaceable as Favors and Gobert.
If he lets it be known that he is going to opt out after next year then I'm guessing he's gone at the deadline.
This is useful: https://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm (ctrl+F is your friend here as well)
-A team above the cap and below the tax can only spend the Mid-Level Exception* ("MLE", it's essentially the average wage of an NBA player [~$6 million per year]). A team below the cap can spend their cap however they please (so long as the contracts observes the rules of the CBA). A team above the tax gets a mini-MLE (what it sounds like, worth about half as much as the MLE) and only the mini-MLE*.
-A team above the cap and below the tax has to salary match incoming salary within 150% of the outgoing salary, roughly. A team above the tax is allowed to salary match only 125% of outgoing salaries. A team under the cap can absord as much salary as they have under the cap without sending out any. (https://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q84)
That's the big stuff.
* The Bi-Annual Exception, Larry Bird Exception, and others apply universally to teams, regardless of salary picture (IIRC), and thus aren't worth mentioning as a point of comparison.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
What's the difference between being above the salary cap but below the luxury tax? Does it just mean you don't get luxury tax money from other teams? Because if we have a chance to build something special then I'd be pissed if we weren't at least willing to spend up to the luxury tax limit. So we can add about $20 million onto previous predictions.
If our top 5 players could be had for an average of $20 million each then we'd have another $20 or so million to spend on the bench. Which isn't very much considering Burks is getting $10 million by himself.
This sucks. Even being as optimistic as possible I can't make it work. Unless you want to root against Exum so we don't have to pay him. Or say that Hood has peaked and won't get and better.
If it comes to it, I think Hayward would be the odd man out between Hood, Favors, Gobert and Hayward. He'd command more money than Hood and isn't nearly as irreplaceable as Favors and Gobert.
If he lets it be known that he is going to opt out after next year then I'm guessing he's gone at the deadline.
I agree on 'odd man out.' Hayward's a great player, but not nearly as important as Favors and Gobert, IMO. Favors is an elite defender and not too shabby on offense, either. Realistically, he could be a top starter at either the 5 or the 4. If we didn't have Gobert, we'd be talking about Derrick at center and finding a good stretch-4 in free agency. Bigs like him are very difficult to find. Lyles MIGHT develop into a decent shooter, but he's not going to have the impact Derrick does. Favors could demand the same 5/30% contract that Hayward can, but showed once he was willing to accept less. Will he do it again if Gobert also accepts a bit less?
I wouldn't read anything into Hayward opting out. Anyone would in his shoes. He can go from making $16.8M/per to $30M+/per (projected $108M cap). Even if his salary remained the same, he'd opt out to get additional guaranteed years.
I think DL has a sit down with Gordon just like KOC did with DWill to try to gauge his willingness to stay at a reasonable price (say $25M instead of $30M). The difference is Utah can be in a position of being a top playoff team next season. With DWill, Utah was already declining. The key is adding a good vet or two to increase Utah's playoff chances, hopefully this season, but definitely next year. But iIf Gordon's heart is in the MW or Boston, trade him for the best possible assets. Hood then becomes Utah's alpha scorer and Utah hopefully gets a couple of very good draft picks in return to get another wing. In fact, that's what they should target in this year's draft. Have someone to develop just in case.
Again, it will be VERY interesting to see how the extension talks with Rudy turn out. If he sets the tone by agreeing to only $20M/per, that would be a great sign. And that could set the table for others taking less to keep the team together.
Last edited: