After the signings...A look at the cap situation
by ohmangoAs on Jul 27, 2008 7:00 PM PDT
86 comments
After all the signings, a look at the salary cap situation for the next 6 years.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Ellis- 11 M 11M 11M 11M 11M 11M
Maggette- 10.0M 10M 10M 10M 10M
Biedrins- 10.5M 10.5M 10.5M 10.5M 10.5M 10.5M
Turiaf- 4M 4.0M 4.0M 5.0M
Wright 2.5M 2.7M 3.4M
Belinelli 1.45M 1.55M 2.4M
Azubuike 3M 3M 3M
Randolph 1.4M 1.5M 2.5M(opt.)
Harrington 9M 10M
Jackson 7.1M 7.6M
Foyle (buyout) 6.9M
Total 66.91 61.91 45.96 36.6 31.66 21.66
This years Cap is at 58.68M so, we are 8.23 M over the cap right now, which is 4.3 M below the Luxury tax threshold of 71.15M.
I REALLY like some of the things Mullin has done here.
- He didn't backload the Ellis and Biedrins contracts. This is awesome because it means we get them at 11 and 10.5 M dollars respectively right in their prime years of 2010 and 2013. Having three (Maggette included) position players locked in at good prices through their prime is a huge luxury, and will make us an appealing destination for free agents as cap space clears up.
- Since Foyle, Jackson, and Harrington come off the books by 2010, we'll have 12M in cap room then. Since 2010 is such a deep FA class, we could get a pretty solid piece (though not a max player) then. You have to expect one of Bosh, Amare, Ray Allen, Tyson Chandler, Ginobili, Richard Jefferson, Joe Johnson or Steve Nash to fall into our price range. Not picking up our option on Wright, Randolph or Belinelli (whoever doesn't pan out) might open up another few million of space as well.
- in 2011, assuming we don't do anything big in 2010, we have 22M with which to resign our pick of Wright, Belinelli, or Randolph, or to sign a max player.
Basically, the warriors set themselves up nicely with cornerstones Biedrins, Ellis, and Maggette. They have enough flexibility to make more moves in the future. With this core, I feel confident the W's will be playoff bound many years, and might very well contend for a championship if they add the right piece in 2010 or 2011.
The only thing I might change, if I were Mully, would have been to be really creative with the Ellis and Biedrins contracts. For example, use the 4M of space under the Lux tax this year to give both players 13M this year, and give Monta 16M next year, and Beans 14 M next year as well. Then, starting in 2010, pay Ellis 9.5M the rest of the way, and Andris 8.5 M the rest of the way.
Doing those crazy contracts would give both players the same money (but sooner) AND give the Warriors 17.4 MILLION dollars in cap space in 2010, 26.6 MILLION in 2011. The warriors would be able to sign a max contract AND a mid-level exception in the 2010 summer, and I bet, they'd be contenders. Basically, this strategy uses the fact that we're well below the lux tax now to create space under the cap in the huge 2010 summer.
Just sayin...
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
4 recs |
86 comments
Email
Print
Comments
im down for amare in 2010
no one wants rj, old nash and old allen in 2010.
by Foulacy on Jul 27, 2008 7:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well with 12M
we’re not going to get Amare.
Also, I reran the numbers, and had a small mistake.
we’ll have closer to 13M by my count (12.88)
the one big caveat is that I assumed none of the contracts signed this summer were backloaded (and I really really hope they weren’t, since more space under the lux tax right now is useless).
by ohmangoAs on Jul 27, 2008 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
isnt maggette's contract escalating?
starting at 8.5ish this year?
by dso on Jul 27, 2008 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Link?
All I’ve seen is 5 years, 5ish Million. I haven’t seen specifics.
Far from being backloaded, I hope its frontloaded. That’d help the cap later.
by ohmangoAs on Jul 27, 2008 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
bring jae or pree in here
i got my info from them
by dso on Jul 27, 2008 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure
A team can only frontload a contract of a FA of their own. I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure I’ve read it more than once.
by Psion on Jul 28, 2008 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You heard wrong. Any contract can be front loaded. The only requirement is that the first year salary fit under the present season’s cap rules. Turiaf’s contract is front loaded and he was not our free agent. Ben Wallace had a front loaded contract when he signed with the Bulls as well.
by jae on Jul 28, 2008 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jae is correct
Ben Wallace is the best example of this that I can think of that very point.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Jul 28, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do not believe those numbers are correct. If Pree is right, the contracts for Maggs and Monta are progressive (backloaded if you will) and I suspect so it is with Andris. It would be nice to front load the contracts, and I’m not really sure why they wouldn’t-It does make things easier down the line-but that’s not the story that’s being told. Maybe the truth will come out at some point in the future.
Randolph’s contract is closer to 1.7mil this year. The rookie ‘scale’ actually allows for an offer up to 20% higher than scale. In practice, all offers wind up being 120% of scale.
Perovic is still on the books.
by jae on Jul 27, 2008 8:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Boy, I really hope the Biedrins contract isn’t progressive. I can understand the Maggs contract being backloaded, and even the Monta contract to some degree… but Biedrins is our last piece, and we seemingly have the space to make it a flat 10.5mil per. Would really be a missed opportunity if they didn’t structure it that way.
by onlxn on Jul 27, 2008 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no point in guessing at numbers
I mean, there’s nothing published on this. Has Pree even published an article? progressive is likely, given that’s how the NBA does it most of the time, but there is one published report that Monta starts at 11M. If it turns out that the contracts ARE backloaded, you can look at this diary as a what-if scenario investigating how much better our situation would be if Mullin was really using his cap flexibility.
Link for Randolph’s contract being 1.7M? I have his own website saying it pays 1.4M. I doubt he’d underestimate his own salary:
by ohmangoAs on Jul 27, 2008 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt that Randolph puts that content in his own blog. I suspect it’s written and updated by someone else. Since more or less every contract signed has been for the max 120% allowable for rookie scale, either Randolph has the dumbest agent on the planet or that figure is wrong.
Pree has indicated on this board that Monta’s contract does not start at 11mil.
by jae on Jul 27, 2008 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All right, you got it
I’m surprised his blog was wrong. A lot of media outlets use the scale w/o the adjustment.
Espn on Randolph:http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3491069
But you’re right, and the SJ Merc has it at 1.7 too:http://www.mercurynews.com/othersports/ci_9896016
by ohmangoAs on Jul 27, 2008 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Janny Hu’s comments were that Randolph would get about $3.5mil over the next two years. That’s consistent with the 1.7 mil starting point.
While I don’t consider them verbatim, it’s consistent with what Hoopshype has reported.
Insidebayarea’s report spells out exactly what I’ve said:
Randolph signed his rookie contract with the Warriors on Tuesday, his 19th birthday. As is standard, he signed for 20 percent (the maximum) above the rookie scale, which guarantees him $1.7 million this season and $1.8 million next season.
by jae on Jul 27, 2008 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As is standard, he signed for 20 percent (the maximum) above the rookie scale,
Why is it standard? Why not just make the base scale what they want and eliminate the 20%? We don’t know if they are worth a bonus till 2 or 3 years later anyway.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 27, 2008 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s the way it got written in to the CBA. It allows for 20% more than “scale”. What this effectively means is that there’s a tiny bit more play for making salaries match if you’re trading a drafted, but yet unsigned player and there’s some more play with the cap room in same situation.
For the team, being a hard ass about the 20% doesn’t do the team much in terms of saving money but sets up bad will immediately. No agent lets his guy sign for less than the 20% bump. It’s not a bonus. It’s how it winds up playing out. Just the way it goes.
by jae on Jul 27, 2008 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not a bad thing
It’s better that teams have the option to sign a FA for less than that amount the farther the 1st round gets too. For a lottery pick getting that extra 20% makes sense, but if you’re a team with a lowish 20’s pick do you give that same 20%? I say no depending.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Jul 28, 2008 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For starters, the whole rookie scale comes from arbitrary numbers, so the “extra” 20% only makes more “sense” if you somehow see the compensation for the top picks as low. The early picks already get more money.
The way it’s done is that every team gives the extra 20%. I’d disagree that it’ makes less sense for late first rounders. Good will is good will and bad will is bad will. Late first rounders are already paid far less than lottery picks, so the 20% amounts to less money. Bucking the trend to save these bucks shows that your management team is cheap, that they’re out to screw you from the get go. IF one of these later picked guys does develop, you’re gonna have to negotiate with him in the future. Why start with bad will from day one?
“For starters, my client will entertain offers from other teams who weren’t d$%ks and decided he wasn’t worth as much as anyone else with that draft slot would have paid. My client believes that your past dealings with him indicate that you did not have confidence in his abilities, and now that you’re forced to negotiate rather than use a fixed scale, my client believes that he’d rather speak with professional franchises that value their players.”
by jae on Jul 28, 2008 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just saying it's not a bad thing Jae
I didn’t say it wouldn’t potentially hurt marketing position down the line, but if a player is a true stretch, and whatever, I can see a team doing it. You’re probably right because if the team really didn’t want the player they would just renounce him like the Bulls did with Travis Knight in 1996.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Jul 28, 2008 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh, and perovic is a good point...
that takes care of most of the 4M I thought we had under the Lux tax. Actually, the numbers are working out really well if you think the contracts aren’t progressive. The fact that non-progressive flat contracts bring us almost exactly to the lux tax suggests that this is how Mullin planned the budget.
If the contracts were progressive, we’d have 3-5 Million under the Lux, which is worthless. I bet Mullin (or other Front Office staff) were intelligent enough to realize this, and didn’t make the contracts progressive.
Progressive contracts make most sense for teams that are squeezing something they can’t afford into their budget now. The warriors are not in that position (thanks to the very well planned Salary management of the past few years)
by ohmangoAs on Jul 27, 2008 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
15.6 million?!
w’s roster this year at very least will be competitive. roster looks pretty deep, although still unsure of williams, morrow, and perovic. hopefully we’ll be good enough to be fighting for a spot in the final weeks of the season.
will the west really be as good as last year? i doubt it. so even though we may not be as good as last year, i think the same can be said of several western teams (nuggets, suns, mavericks, rockets, spurs).
that being said, portland has huge potential to break out just like new orleans did last year. brandon roy has mvp potential. surprised league doesn’t hype him more (yeah i know he beat out bd for the last all star spot)
w’s really need 1 of or both of these players to step up and they will put themselves in great position: cj watson and/or marcus williams. they don’t need too much from these players, just solid play.
if this is mully’s version of a rebuilding year, it sure beats st. jean’s version…
good oncourt product, plus flexibility to keep improving in the future.
dang, 15.6 million goes to harrington and foyle this year? ouch. just think what that 15.6 mil could “potentially” get you.
by automatyk1 on Jul 27, 2008 9:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
progressive disadvantage
is that the club pays more now, while the player & a cheaper contract may get traded later to another club who benefits from our paying more up front
I understand the rationale for frontloading a contract, but there is an operating budget somewhere
by hardcore on Jul 27, 2008 10:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I assume up to the Lux tax is fair
I mean, few teams set their limit at the Cap, and based on Biedrins signing, it looks like the warriors are willing to go up to the cap.
by ohmangoAs on Jul 27, 2008 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but those more favorable contracts make said players more attractive to potential trade partners.
Adoptive father of howtheyscored. The beatings will begin momentarily.
by Goofus on Jul 28, 2008 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One more thing
Your scenario assumes that the cap won’t go up. Except for 1 or 2 years in the last 10-12 years, the cap has always gone up at least $2-3 mil per year. If everything else in your chart is accurate (which it may not be) and you include Kosta P at $1.8M for 1 more year, you are looking at the potential for offering a max deal in 2010.
If I am correct a max deal can chew up 25% of the cap. With $2.5mil cap increases for the next two years you are looking at a probable cap of $65m in 2010 or a max deal at $16.25m first year. The Warriors will have this available if the current deals are front loaded or flat. Unfortunately, I think MEs deal is the only one that is flat.
My understanding is that deals for your own players can escalate at a max 10.75% per year on average over the life of the deal. FA signings can only escalate 8% per year over the life of the contract. If ABs contract escalates progressively you get:
Yr 1 $8m
Yr 2 $8.9M
Yr 3 $9.95M
Yr 4 $11.1m
Yr 5 $12.2M
Yr 6 $13.5 m
Maggette’s Deal would look like this:
Yr 1 $8.5m
Yr 2 $9.2M
Yr 3 $10M
Yr 4 $10.8m
Yr 5 $11.7 m
Again assuming an average increase of $2.5m per year in the cap over the next 2 years and that Maggettes and AB’s contracts are progresssive, you would have a 2010 cap of $65m and Warriors contracts of $45m. You can go max in 2010. Mullin and his numbers crunchers are pretty capable guys.
by NBEJ on Jul 27, 2008 11:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm aware the cap goes up
but why not frontload anyways? As it is, a progressive contract buys us nothing this year. The only argument in favor of backloading it is some hazy claim of the business end of it. But I would think the Lux Tax would probably be the only real cap.
by ohmangoAs on Jul 27, 2008 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Butting complete up against the lux tax before the season starts has some risk. If the Warriors want to make a trade this year, they’d have to make sure that they took back less salary, else go over. Having some room to operate isn’t a bad idea. It’s also useful if they need to sign someone, even at the minimum, in case of injury. With front loaded contracts, they wouldn’t have had even that without entering tax space.
by jae on Jul 28, 2008 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that only points
to having 1-2 million of space below the tax. Not backloading all or even some of the contracts. Backloading Maggette, Biedrins, and Monta, for example, might put us 4.5 million below the tax. I think that’s too much. Making the contracts flat seems to come near the tax, but leave some space to work.
I never said stand directly on the line, I just said that the line is the tax, and that we should come near it.
by ohmangoAs on Jul 28, 2008 1:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ohmango
The cap doesn’t necessarily go up. It only goes up when Basketball Revenue goes up, and it’s entirely dependent on that. It could easily go down this season too. (Unlikely, alot would have to happen for that to come about, but it’s still likely.) What is likely, though, that you won’t see a huge bump in the salary cap and luxury tax threshold that you saw from last season to this season.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Jul 28, 2008 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The actual answer is more technical than that
But I figured more people would understand the first explanation than this one. The salary cap is set at 51% of BRI (Basketball related Income) and the Luxury tax is triggered at 61%. Every year BRI is calculated at the beginning of the season, and that’s when the salary cap is set. Then the luxury tax threshold is also calculated which was a change in the previous CBA. For all of Larry Coon’s goodness read here. I won’t quote him anymore.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Jul 28, 2008 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was aware that the cap is set according to revenues
but it has gone up every year for the last 20 years besides the 2002-2003 season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Salary_Cap
so unless the league revenues decrease for some reason, we can expect it to go up.
by ohmangoAs on Jul 28, 2008 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if Coon wrote that for Wiki
Cuz that’s wrote nearly identical to Coon’s own FAQ.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Jul 29, 2008 6:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably, Someone copied coon's page
and put it on wiki.
Unfortunately, wiki is just one big tool for stealing others’ work.
by ohmangoAs on Jul 31, 2008 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking at all these charts and numbers reminds me of when I used to play Franchise mode in NBA Live 06, which gave me a good idea of how backloading works and how to balance budgets under the cap.
Of course, to show how unrealistic that game was, the best GM move I was most proud of was trading for the late Eddie Griffin, whose video game form was such a killer two-way threat—shoot 3’s and block shots all day!
by J-Triumf on Jul 28, 2008 1:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Is it worth it?
Look at that roster and tell me with a straight face we are going to go to the NBA finals with that talent. Because we are locked in with that talent even until the 10/11 year when big name free agents hit the market. Maybe we have enough to make an offer to one superstar caliber player. And after the Elton Brand saga, it is clear that free agency is definately an opportunity to steal talent.
Mullin has been consistently improving his performance as a GM, but I think he has taken a few steps back this offseason.
1. Correy Maggette – He is a ball stopper. Doesn’t pass, doesn’t shoot the 3 that well until last year, can’t take a player one on one. He got his numbers last year on a bad team. His options during free agency were severely limited and he could be had at 7-8mil a year without really upsetting him since that was equivalent to his old contract. Yet he gets rewarded with a 10mil/year contract. Stupid move!
2. Baron Davis – I’m ok with letting him go. Even though he was the face of the franchise and a star caliber player, he was a whiner and a black plague with managment everywhere he went in his career. Lets put it this way. If Baron was willing to opt out of 17.8 mil to skip a year of free agency, it makes it look like even he didn’t trust his knees will hold up. Maybe if he missed 5 less games in the regular season, the Warriors would have made the playoffs.
3. Anthony Randolph – an awesome sleeper pick later on in the draft. It looks like he has a bright future as a dynamic player. The only question is will the strength of real NBA players disrupt his game? Can he make the same plays on real NBA talent?
4. Ellis and Biedrins – Now officially the cornerstones of our franchise. I definately agree we had to resign them, but both have their deficiencies. Ellis is an undersized shooting guard meaning he is a liability on defense. Biedrins has no outside shot, no free throws, and he cannot rebound over the best players in the league. Hell I bet Kendrick Perkins would own him on the glass every time. So what does Mully do? He has the nba equivalent of beer goggles for big men and gives him a fatty long term contract.
So bottom line is…we are not going to win this roster and we lost the salary cap space we’ve been waiting so long for. Not to mention, losing a big player in Jason Richardson.
It’s not a complete failure, but it’s nowhere near success.
by balleerj on Jul 28, 2008 2:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maggette sounds like garbage
In your book. He scored 22 a game last year and makes 80% of his free throws. I’ve seen him take guys off the dribble as well. The warriors will be a pass happy, shoot happy running team – and passing is contageous. Plus, Clippers play stop ball basketball. Let’s wait and see how he plays in our system before judging him. Finally, one thing I think he brings that we have lacked is a guy who can help us when teams throw the zone at us. If this happens we can iso him and get him to the line.
Warrior fan for life - where we are "always just a big man away" from total domination
by buttafingas on Jul 28, 2008 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, in our system...
If you watched summer leagues, our team’s philosophy was stated by Keith Smart I believe. He said we want dynamic players that have many different aspects to their game. We want perimeter players that can pass, shoot and dribble.
You can argue Maggette does 2 of those 3, but to expect an old dog (Maggette) to learn new tricks (passing) is not a good bet ($10 mil).
by balleerj on Jul 28, 2008 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maggette has gotten damn near the same numbers every year independent of what the team as a whole did. You make it sound like as the team got bad, he somehow went from a 3ppg bench warmer to the 20+points he scored. This is not the case. Your notion of what he “could be had” for assumes you have some clairvoyance else inside knowledge of the negotiations. Do you? Or is it just your opinion that you’ve morphed into fact?
How exactly did Biedrins rank among the top rebounders in the league if someone like Perkins would “own him ever time”? I’m having difficulty with this inconsistency.
by jae on Jul 28, 2008 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your notion of what he "could be had" for
At one time we were talking about trading little Dun for Magette so why be too anxious to sign him this year? I’d have tried to pay less since we already had a younger version in Montay.
””How exactly did Biedrins rank among the top rebounders in the league if someone like Perkins would "own him ever time"? ”
Probably cause he has no competition among his team mates on the floor? If Dris don’t get it no one else on our team often does. If he was playing with better players they’d grab quite a few from him, He’s pretty weak for a big guy, or at least plays like he can’t bang the big guys out of the way?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 28, 2008 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“A lack of competition among teammates” is oft-cited as a reason for someone’s rebounding being high. Actual analysis suggests that this doesn’t have much impact. Your statement that better teammates would take rebounds away from him is your conjecture. It’s not based on anything real and real data suggests that it’s not a big factor. (And yes, I’ve studied this quite carefully. Have you?)
If he “only” rebounds at the rate he did 3 and 4 years ago, back when the team regularly used better rebounders (Murphy and Richardson were above average for their position, and Dun was an average rebounder for a SF) he’d still be very good. His totals might be padded by a half a rebound a game, but that’s about it.
by jae on Jul 28, 2008 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve studied this quite carefully. Have you?
Not recently, but when I was playing I noticed the effect. Aggressive teammates take rebounds and hurt you :>) ( physically as well as statistically )
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 28, 2008 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The total number of rebounds taken is not large. I suspect that the “math” you did on the number of rebounds you’d have had with or without rebounding teammates isn’t all that much more than your own anecdote and that your perception of how many you’d have had otherwise is probably not a terribly good indicator of the reality of the NBA.
by jae on Jul 28, 2008 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's called deduction...
Only 3 teams had cap room and Memphis made it clear they were interested in saving money this year. Then Philly signed Brand. It was a buyers market and the Warriors still gave out a big contract. If you didn’t know, he was holding out for more than the midlevel because no one was offering him more than that and San Antonio was considered his preference if he had to settle.
by balleerj on Jul 28, 2008 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's a team you're forgetting...
...the Clippers. Once they lost Brand, they had huge cap room. Mullin has said that they increased the offer to Maggette to preclude a bidding with the newly-rich post-Brand Clippers.
Would the Clippers have gone for him? Hard to say. He’s given them a number of good years… on the other hand, there are always whispers that Dunleavy Sr.’s not high on him. My guess is that they would have pursued Maggette, as they needed to make a face-saving move of some sort (which ended up being the Camby trade)... we’ll never know. But Mullin thought they were going to get back into it, and upped the money to Maggette for that reason. Should be factored in to any evaluation of Maggette’s contract.
by onlxn on Jul 28, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hard to believe the Clips were in the picture
His relationship with the Clips were already ruined a year or two ago. There were trade rumors floating around about him for a long time. Plus the Clips only match offers, not outbid them.
It’s a bad addition in terms of talent and pay IMO. We’ll see how it all pans out.
by balleerj on Jul 28, 2008 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you deduce that he could have been had for less? Actually, you’re still just guessing.
The issue is how much would it cost to keep him from taking the MLE to play for a contender. We weren’t bidding against a dollar for dollar. We came up with a figure that made it more acceptable to play for the Warriors, a team unlikely to win a championship, than to take less money to play for a title contender. No, there weren’t other teams bidding at the same dollar value we were, but we still don’t know that he could have been had for less unless that bid came from a contender.
I have no idea how the negotiations went and neither do you. I don’t know if Mullin tossed out a figure then his agent tossed out a figure and they worked from there. You’re free to believe that the Warriors should have driven a harder bargain, but I don’t believe you have any special insight that suggests that you know they could have landed him for less money. Realize though that it’s just your opinion that he could have been signed for less. Opinions are like…well, I hope you get the point.
by jae on Jul 28, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he was a whiner and a black plague with managment everywhere he went in his career.
I agree with almost all your observations except this one. My take is that Boom is just smarter than management and is not willing to take crap. I ‘ll take a guy like that over a herd of sheep any day.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 28, 2008 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe if he missed 5 less games in the regular season, the Warriors would have made the playoffs.
Ummm… BD played all 82 games this year! So I don’t know how he could haved missed 5 less games in the regular season. I thought all Warrior fans knew this.
by Psion on Jul 28, 2008 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Escalators
Guys .. give me a few days and I will further confirm what I have said about these guys getting progressive contracts .. I was sure, then I wasn’t when ESPN.com said Monta was getting $11-million per year, then I was sure again when I talked to some people.
I have a call scheduled with someone who would know for sure this week and will let you know. Keep me on it by emailing me so I don’t forget: pbhattacharya@hoopsworld.com
by pree on Jul 28, 2008 3:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
technicality
but i remember reading that turiaf’s contract was a bit frontloaded, to even further discourage the lakers from matching…
by Run Dubz on Jul 28, 2008 7:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well...realgm.com just posted somethign on this
Says we are at 1.15 Mil shy of the Luxury Tax. That leaves VERY little wiggle room.
Here’s the link, but it doesn’t say much else.
http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/53774/20080728/warriors_just_shy_of_luxury_tax/
by esco41510 on Jul 28, 2008 10:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, so the frontloading issue is meaningless now
All I wanted was that we come near the lux tax, so that future cap space would be maximized. 1.15M is the MINIMUM amount of wiggle room we’d want to have, so I’m happy. I think Mullin et al have hit this perfectly. We have four very good players, 2 promising rookies, and so, by 2010, should be an attractive team as a destination. With any luck, we land a big one then, and make a run. Even in the short term, we should be a fringe playoff team, which, all things considered, is good enough for me.
by ohmangoAs on Jul 28, 2008 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you ....
This team, sans Baron, is definitely a competative squad, at least on paper. So at this point, I’m content, whether or not we evolve as a cohesive unit and put it together on the court, only the season will tell. We could go either way, we can be a collection of talent who don’t put it together like the Knicks, or a team that really Gel’s and develops a good Identity.
Can’t wait to find out.
by esco41510 on Jul 28, 2008 11:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Talent on the Knicks?
Put the pipe down slowly and back away…
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 28, 2008 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
they are talented, they just aren’t good basketball players. particularly as a unit. a fair percentage of guys on the knicks have the physical ability and general skills (ie talent) to be good players, but you know, they just don’t have any basketball iq. the team was just put together terribly, with almost everyone on the team having at least one duplicate player (lee being the only exception i can think of), and not well coached. there are a thousand different issues on that team, but talent isn’t one of them.
by cap'n hack on Jul 28, 2008 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You talking about "long, upside, potential"
Talent can be measured in many different ways. Usually, when you say “X is a talented basketball player” you’re saying that they’re a good basketball player. When you say “He’s a talented soccer player”, you mean that he’s good at soccer, not that he has a strong leg and can run forever. Just saying…
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 29, 2008 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Biedrins contract is actually
6 years 54 Mill with up to an aidditional 9 Mill in incentives so his cap figure should only be 9 Mill if a flat contract or as low as 7M for year 1 if it is an escalated contract. Great job Mullie!
by smearthebeard on Jul 28, 2008 2:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is a recent blog post from Kawakami:
The reliability of it sorta speaks for itself: he can’t verify the numbers just yet, but he seems to have been sufficiently in touch with Mullin to know the score on this. I’m inclined to believe that Kawakami’s correct - Bogut’s contract, after all, was initially misreported in this way - but we’ll have to see.
by onlxn on Jul 28, 2008 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That blog post is pure speculation
It’s ridiculous. Blogging is not an excuse for just guessing. I love Kawakami, but that’s not even close to reporting.
As far as KNBR reporting the same numbers, that represents confirmation in some ways, but since I don’t think much of KNBR’s journalism, I’m guessing they’re just reporting what Kawakami says. Which is another reason why Kawakami shouldn’t speculate…
by ohmangoAs on Jul 28, 2008 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that blog has a link to an ESPN article
by Marc Stein
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3508668
the Associated Press’s Greg Beacham is also reporting this
http://ap.cjonline.com/pstories/sports/basketball/20080728/310598184.shtml
by the evil monkey on Jul 28, 2008 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoops forgot to paste this over the statement after the 1st link
the article also says the max is $62 mill which the AP’s Greg Beacham is also reporting…
by the evil monkey on Jul 28, 2008 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The ESPN link changed
read Kawakami- ESPN was reporting a different deal, and then Kawakami disagreed, saying it was an incentives deal. Turns out Kawakami was right. ESPN then changed their article.
by ohmangoAs on Jul 29, 2008 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i know, that's b/c Stein changed it, not Kawakami
if you read the blog entry where Kawakami confirms it really did change, and not the one where he speculates it, his source is actually Marc Stein. Stein apparently called him while Kawakami is playing golf & whatnot and let Kawakami know that his speculations were correct.
by the evil monkey on Jul 29, 2008 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where did you read this?
Do you have a link?
by balleerj on Jul 28, 2008 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could be wrong
But I just read somewhere last week(can’t remember where) that incentives are included for see what a team has in cap space. Such that incentive doesn’t give us anymore cap space to sigh free agents.
by Psion on Jul 28, 2008 3:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Incentives that are likely to be reached are included in cap computations. I am not sure how they are determined to be “likely”.
by jae on Jul 28, 2008 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry for bag english.
Proofreading might help, but thanks for understanding what I was trying to say and answering jae.
by Psion on Jul 28, 2008 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kawakami said the inccentives were very
difficult to reach. Probably like avgs. 20/12 or something like that. If Beans gets to 20/12 then he deserves his 10M per if not then he gets 9M. Makes sense, so I think 9M s going to be the more accurate cap number.
by smearthebeard on Jul 28, 2008 6:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not confirmed, but
I think both Monta and Biedrins have deals that are even all the way through at $8- for AB and $11.5- for Monta. I don’t know if I can get more on this, but that’s what I’m hearing for now.
by pree on Jul 29, 2008 2:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Byootiful if that’s true… thanks, Pree.
by onlxn on Jul 29, 2008 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that's true
It will take alot more than the players the Warriors just re-signed for them to pay luxury tax since it’s around 71.15 and those numbers suggest the Dubs will be paying about 68.5 mil in salary.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Jul 29, 2008 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
An excerpt from Kawakami’s blog today:
I can now safely conclude that the Warriors are committed to about $68.5M for 14 active players (plus Foyle), if you count Anthony Morrow’s make-good deal. One more player–C.J. Watson or DeMarcus Nelson or whoever–would make it about $69M for 15….The Warriors are very close to the luxury-tax threshold of about $71M.
I don’t know what one can extrapolate from that in terms of AB and Monta, but Kawakami seems pretty confident about these numbers.
by onlxn on Jul 29, 2008 12:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That means the Dubs aren't paying luxury tax in all likelihood
With the big extensions of Monta and Biedrins both kicking in this season. According to ShamSports you have 32 million in salaries already committed without Maggette, Biedrins, Ellis or CJ Watson/DeMarcus Nelson on the roster. Since Nelson will only cost 450 K you can pretty much remove him from this conversation.
Foyle’s buyout is what 6.5 million? Monta got a 11 million salary this season reportedly, and Biedrins got 8.5 or somewhere around there. Maggette’s salary is 10 million.
I would suggest that Kawakami’s numbers are close to accurate as 68.5 million is roughly what you’re looking at for the Warriors roster since most of the players minus the guys they’ve signed and or Nelson/Watson are guaranteed contracts.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Jul 29, 2008 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forgot about Azubuike
But I did just a calculator earnings of everybody I can think of the roster (using most of the guaranteed contracts, and the speculated contracts of Buike, Maggette, Ellis, Biedrins and Turiaf as well), and 68.6 to 69 million seems an accurate guess for where the Dubs salary this season will be.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Jul 29, 2008 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this worked out perfectly. If Monta and Beans continue to develop
we will be very dangerous towards the end of the contracts.
We could have three above-average starters locked up for 29.5 Million a year. That leaves plenty of room, if not in 2010, then definitely in 2011.
by ohmangoAs on Jul 31, 2008 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
