Our off-season salary cap situation

[GVC]

I did not know that they had to be your own players. Didn't the Nets go over when they brought in everybody from boston?

The Nets brought players over in trades with matching salaries, and then their payroll ballooned after Brook Lopez's extension kicked in.

If teams could sign players up to and over the luxury tax, there'd be no reason for the lower cap line at all. The idea is to give teams an opportunity/advantage to re-sign their own players above the cap (the lower line), with a luxury tax line well above the cap to even the playing field (i.e. to prevent big market teams from acquiring and then extending loads of young talent well above the cap/tax).

 

[♪alt13]

The Nets brought players over in trades with matching salaries, and then their payroll ballooned after Brook Lopez's extension kicked in.

If teams could sign players up to and over the luxury tax, there'd be no reason for the lower cap line at all. The idea is to give teams an opportunity/advantage to re-sign their own players above the cap (the lower line), with a luxury tax line well above the cap to even the playing field (i.e. to prevent big market teams from acquiring and then extending loads of young talent well above the cap/tax).

This kinda makes the kanter trade look a whole lot worse. They should have held onto him and traded him after the TV deal kicked in.

 

[GVC]

This kinda makes the kanter trade look a whole lot worse. They should have held onto him and traded him after the TV deal kicked in.

Perhaps, although I actually think Kanter was a pretty good candidate to just accept the QO, play out next season, and become an unrestricted free agent in 2016. It's unclear whether a disgruntled Kanter approaching unrestricted free agency would have brought back more in a trade over the course of the next year.

 

[♪alt13]

Perhaps, although I actually think Kanter was a pretty good candidate to just accept the QO, play out next season, and become an unrestricted free agent in 2016. It's unclear whether a disgruntled Kanter approaching unrestricted free agency would have brought back more in a trade over the course of the next year.

rock and a hard place

Well at least we will be able to use the space Kanter would have ate up. DL needs to deliver this summer in the draft and FA.

 

[Coach Ellis]

Perhaps, although I actually think Kanter was a pretty good candidate to just accept the QO, play out next season, and become an unrestricted free agent in 2016. It's unclear whether a disgruntled Kanter approaching unrestricted free agency would have brought back more in a trade over the course of the next year.

Better then to use the salary to match on a contract that we wanted to trade for, and essentially use him as a very talented expiring contract in a bigger trade. For the $7+ million QO, that wouldn't have been a bad option - except that it would have tied the team's hands during free agency.

 

[GVC]

Better then to use the salary to match on a contract that we wanted to trade for, and essentially use him as a very talented expiring contract in a bigger trade. For the $7+ million QO, that wouldn't have been a bad option - except that it would have tied the team's hands during free agency.

Not really, unless you think it's likely the Jazz sign a restricted free agent to an offer sheet. The Jazz would have had the whole July moratorium to figure out if there was a free agent willing to sign with the Jazz. If so, the Jazz could rescind Kanter's QO, and sign that free agent. If not, the Jazz can see what happens with Kanter, whether he signs an offer sheet with another team or accepts the QO.

Reasonable people can disagree on the value of that flexibility, and it largely depends on how big a problem Kanter was going to be moving forward and what he and his agent said about accepting the QO/seeking offers from other teams in the offseason. If they knew he wanted to go, was threatening to accept the QO, and sat on their hands and/or rejected better offers earlier in the process, it was definitely a terrible mistake.

 

[oldtimer]

GVC you can be really mean, but you know you stuff. Very knowledgeable.

 

[Coach Ellis]

Not really, unless you think the Jazz are going to sign a restricted free agent to an offer sheet. The Jazz would have the whole July moratorium to figure out if there was a free agent willing to sign with the Jazz. If so, the Jazz could rescind the QO, and sign that free agent. If not, the Jazz can see what happens with Kanter, whether he signs an offer sheet with another team or accepts the QO.

Reasonable people can disagree on the value of that flexibility, and it largely depends on how big a problem Kanter was going to be moving forward and what he and his agent said about accepting the QO/seeking offers from other teams in the offseason. If they knew he wanted to go, was threatening to accept the QO, and sat and their hands and/or rejected better offers earlier in the process, it was definitely a terrible mistake.

I'd have liked more, but I don't think the offers were there. I really do wonder how much the shoulder and knee injury impacted his valuation by other teams. They absolutely could have retained him and then rescinded the offer to get a different FA, or taken the QO and traded for a player under contract as a high-quality expiring in part of a larger deal. Or told him, his agent and every team low-balling the Jazz to screw off. Matched his contract and then try to trade him at the next deadline. All include risk. Kind of just hoping that the Jazz get a good player out of the pick from the Thunder so we can extend this conversation 3-5 years from now.

 

[Ben10]

I'd have liked more, but I don't think the offers were there. I really do wonder how much the shoulder and knee injury impacted his valuation by other teams. They absolutely could have retained him and then rescinded the offer to get a different FA, or taken the QO and traded for a player under contract as a high-quality expiring in part of a larger deal. Or told him, his agent and every team low-balling the Jazz to screw off. Matched his contract and then try to trade him at the next deadline. All include risk. Kind of just hoping that the Jazz get a good player out of the pick from the Thunder so we can extend this conversation 3-5 years from now.

You also have to factor in that if Kanter came back on the QO he has a no trade clause that could have also hindered the Jazz making any trade with him in it. Not that I think that Happens because he wanted out. But the teams willing to take him on next year on the QO knowing that he is a UFA that next summer would have been slim. I don't think we had a chance of getting much more than we got back in this trade if we took any other route personally. Yes we didn't get what he was worth but I don't think we would have no matter what route we took.

 

[fishonjazz]

Yes we didn't get what he was worth but I don't think we would have no matter what route we took.

Agreed
That trade sucked *** but it had to be done.
I was a big fan of kanter and always thought he was pretty good. We lost that trade and okc won but it needed to happen and luckily kanter was not one of our primary pieces

 

[Stifle Tower]

You also have to factor in that if Kanter came back on the QO he has a no trade clause that could have also hindered the Jazz making any trade with him in it. Not that I think that Happens because he wanted out. But the teams willing to take him on next year on the QO knowing that he is a UFA that next summer would have been slim. I don't think we had a chance of getting much more than we got back in this trade if we took any other route personally. Yes we didn't get what he was worth but I don't think we would have no matter what route we took.

His value would have been as a rental to a contender. So late first round pick, which we received from OKC in the deal. I don't think it does anyone good to keep a disgruntled Kanter around. It HINDERS the rebuild because Gobert would still be coming off the bench. Use Kanter as a sub and he'd go ballistic!

 

[freakazoid]

Got this from one of the capologists from realgm, who keeps track of every team.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1317789
-

Updated 2/21 with waiving of Kendrick Perkins.

Current Cap Space: $2,825,812.00
Maximum Cap Space: $2,825,812.00 (if all options/guarantees were not picked up, all FAs renounced, no draft picks were to be signed this season, and all Exceptions were renounced)
Luxury Tax Space: $16,295,257.00
Tax Apron Space: $20,295,257.00
2015-2016 Maximum Cap Space: $17,869,018.00

How I got there:

Guaranteed Contracts (13): Trevor Booker, Trey Burke, Alec Burks, Ian Clark, Jeremy Evans, Dante Exum, Derrick Favors, Ruby Gobert, Gordon Hayward, Rodney Hood, Joe Ingles, Grant Jerrett, Elijah Millsap

Partial/Non-Guaranteed Contracts Kept to date (0): None

Carried Money (13): Dee Bost ($65,000.00), Patrick Christopher ($379,010.00), Jack Cooley ($65,000.00), Carrick Felix ($816,482.00), Jordan Hamilton ($66,929.00), Christapher Johnson ($53,838.00), Elijah Millsap 1 ($29,843.00), Elijah Millsap 2 ($29,843.00), Kevin Murphy ($65,000.00). Toure' Murry ($417,647.00), Kendrick Perkins ($9,654,342.00), Elliot Williams 1 ($53,838.00), Elliot Williams 2 ($53,838.00)

FA Cap Holds (0): None

Draft Pick Holds (0): None

Current Exceptions: Room Exception at $2,732,000.00. No BAE due being under the Cap. No TPEs.

 

[Primetime]

He did not count the draft pick against the cap. If you do that (say the cap hit for the 10th pick) we have at best $15,7M in cap space. Basically the figure I had in the OP.

 

[freakazoid]

He did not count the draft pick against the cap. If you do that (say the cap hit for the 10th pick) we have at best $15,7M in cap space. Basically the figure I had in the OP.

Yeah, I posted it so you could check it against yours. His figure for max cap space takes into account every possible thing we could do, including trading away our pick. I haven't looked at it to find the discrepancy, but this guy puts a lot of time into doing this for every team, so he's usually pretty reliable.

 

[Primetime]

Update(11th-14th pick, Trevor cut and no pick at all):

 

[NAOS]

You also have to factor in that if Kanter came back on the QO he has a no trade clause that could have also hindered the Jazz making any trade with him in it. Not that I think that Happens because he wanted out. But the teams willing to take him on next year on the QO knowing that he is a UFA that next summer would have been slim. I don't think we had a chance of getting much more than we got back in this trade if we took any other route personally. Yes we didn't get what he was worth but.... I don't think we would have no matter what route we took.

This might come off as nitpicky, but this oft-repeated phrase is baffling to me. What is a player worth?? He's worth what's being offered for him. Seeing that (a) we traded Kanter within our division (something that is sometimes avoided for competition reasons -- the sending team will accept a lesser offer to send the player further from their competitive niche), that (b) Lindsey appears to be a smart man, and that (c) we weren't accepting a deal that financially hamstrung future movements, then we can assume that this trade is the high-water mark of Kanter's current value.

I think it is reasonable to assume that Kanter could not bring back a productive player that the jazz FO liked, and whose contract was a fit with the FO's portfolio of contracts. That was never part of the discussion; Kanter doesn't (currently) have that value.

I think it is also very reasonable to claim that his value would have dropped going forward. If he accepts the QO, and given the previous point, then he becomes a 1-season or half-season rental (which is a late-first round pick, max). We also have enough flexibility with Booker and Millsap's contract (and any others like it we add before the end of this season), that I don't think we've lost some key ingredient for this upcoming period of asset acquisition.

Then, you also have to account for how keeping Kanter could have reduced the value of the other players (or prevented their increasing in value). It isn't hard to imagine an uncommitted Kanter going out there, breaking the offensive and defensive flows, putting up empty stats, and blocking the finer development of Q's schemes.

Anywhoo, we got what Kanter was worth. Fans have very little idea what the true value of players are in advance of a trade, because they are kept out of the war/negotiation rooms. There are some fans who have better, educated hypotheses, but they absolutely lack critical information.

 

[Siro]

So had we kept Kanter (and paid him his market value), we would have gone over the cap? I'm surprised at these numbers.

 

[Stifle Tower]

So had we kept Kanter (and paid him his market value), we would have gone over the cap? I'm surprised at these numbers.

Define market value. That was the reason we couldn't keep him. His idea of fair value was a max contract. I'm sure DL's idea was in the $10M range. But we would have been on the hook for his cap hold right up until the time he signed his QO. That would have still left us with our exceptions to sign FA's. As far as I know (GVC will correct me if I'm wrong), there's no deadline for signing the QO. Enes could keep negotiating with other teams right up until training camp.

If I had been in Enes' position and the Jazz didn't trade me, I'd try to go to "Team X" on a 1 year deal for as much as I could get over the QO. That guarantees I'm an UFA in 2016. At worst, I have to return to the Jazz on the QO and I just go out there and look for my shot everytime I touch the ball so I can pad my stats.

 

[GVC]

So had we kept Kanter (and paid him his market value), we would have gone over the cap? I'm surprised at these numbers.

Why/how?

 

[Siro]

Why/how?

DL keeps talking about flexibility, and looking at these numbers, it doesn't look like we had much flexibility at all. I just never carefully examined the salaries before. This makes me wonder about the wisdom of paying Burks as much as they did. Or if we even ever seriously considered keeping Kanter (since we would have had to get rid of someone to retain him).