The future is bright in SLC (salary cap analysis)

[Hotdog]

John Stockton gave 110%

 

[LogGrad98]

John Stockton gave 110%

And got paid for about 60% realistically. Serious value there.

 

[Bodhi]

Really good post, OP, thanks.

 

[Primetime]

A team can sign a rookie for as little as 80% or as much as 120% of the scale salary figure. So for our 2014 #1 Pick I used above it would be as little as $3,673,760 or as much as $5,510,640. This could make things more difficult but with the rise of the salary cap and the luxury threshold it should be not much of a problem.

 

[Primetime]

So what's 120% of the 6-10 picks? That's probably where they end up when it's all said and done.

Here you go...

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

On his podcast, David Locke has addressed this issue a number of times. Now, I don't necessarily consider Locke the final word on this or anything else, but he is relatively well-informed, and according to him, there is not really any significant salary constraints at this point. We could resign Hayward at, say, $12 million without taking a big hit on the salary cap given how the current salary structure exists and the timing when we need to resign other players (Burke specifically). Based on what he says, the oft-expressed concern here that resigning Hayward at or around the above price will hamstring the Jazz financially is simply not true. Locke also seems to think that is it highly likely that Hayward resigns. Whether this is true, we'll see, but it appears that so much worrying and gnashing of teeth about salary and salary cap issues is perhaps not warranted at this point.

 

[LogGrad98]

Have any teams signed a rookie, especially a first rounder, to less than the 100% of the rookie scale for their pick position?

 

[gomretat]

Nice thread. And everyone who complains that we got nothing for Sap and Al needs to understand this is why we did not make a trade. We wanted the flexibility - not more salary with assets that didn't fit. In addition, this flexibility could be a big deal come draft day the next several years. Tanking is not the only way to move up if you have a young player you are willing to move and cap space. Who knows how it will shake out but we are well positioned.

 

[candrew]

Excellent work - we have cap space.

Here are the outstanding issues.

What FA's do you sign?
Where are your trade assets?
Jazz are 28th in salary this year. Do you realistically think they'll crack the top 20 next year? Supposedly they've been losing money the last few years.
The conversation we're having about Hayward now we're going to have about Kanter and Burks next year. And their market value is going to be harder to gauge being Corbin's inability to handle either one of them correctly.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

On his podcast, David Locke has addressed this issue a number of times. Now, I don't necessarily consider Locke the final word on this or anything else, but he is relatively well-informed, and according to him, there is not really any significant salary constraints at this point. We could resign Hayward at, say, $12 million without taking a big hit on the salary cap given how the current salary structure exists and the timing when we need to resign other players (Burke specifically). Based on what he says, the oft-expressed concern here that resigning Hayward at or around the above price will hamstring the Jazz financially is simply not true. Locke also seems to think that is it highly likely that Hayward resigns. Whether this is true, we'll see, but it appears that so much worrying and gnashing of teeth about salary and salary cap issues is perhaps not warranted at this point.

I highly doubt Hay resigns. He's got a good, long career in front of him.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Horrible post and any optimism is NOT allowed here, don't you know the rules? Everything about the Jazz is bad, the FO, the coach, the players. Any other opinion is dumb and a blind homer or working for PR.

So is Lebron going to sign?

Lol.

The money is useless if the free agents we want don't want Utah. I love how folks think that further additions of role players will take us from being a lotto team to a contender. We need a franchise player. That ain't comin via free agency.

 

[Stifle Tower]

On his podcast, David Locke has addressed this issue a number of times. Now, I don't necessarily consider Locke the final word on this or anything else, but he is relatively well-informed, and according to him, there is not really any significant salary constraints at this point. We could resign Hayward at, say, $12 million without taking a big hit on the salary cap given how the current salary structure exists and the timing when we need to resign other players (Burke specifically). Based on what he says, the oft-expressed concern here that resigning Hayward at or around the above price will hamstring the Jazz financially is simply not true. Locke also seems to think that is it highly likely that Hayward resigns. Whether this is true, we'll see, but it appears that so much worrying and gnashing of teeth about salary and salary cap issues is perhaps not warranted at this point.

Agree. Jazz really don't need to worry about tax issues until it comes time to give Favors and Hayward their next contracts. I see the Jazz bringing in a vet or two on 2 year deals. As the OP noted, Jazz could go with a couple that are in the mid-level range, or spend big on a player at $8M or so. I think Lindsey does the latter if the right guy is available. Jazz have/will have pretty good depth after the draft, but need another top player.