The Cap Situation
by Fantasy Junkie on Jun 26, 2007 5:44 PM PDT
in Links
19 comments
The Warriors' salary cap situation has been an interesting discussion here on GSoM. Any proposed trade on here always has to go through the inevitable, "do the salaries match up?" question. And each of those trades always takes into account the player being traded and their impact on the cap. It's a way of measuring a player's worth. Is his cap number too big to keep around or so small that you just can't get rid of him at that bargain? Well NBADraft.net decided to break down the Warriors salary cap situation and offer their opinion on the good, the bad, and the future. Here are some of the highlights:
The Bad: Baron Davis and Jason Richardson were injury victims this season with Baron missing 19 games and Richardson missing 31. Unfortunately for the Warriors, they are the two highest paid players on the team.
The Future: Matt Barnes came out of nowhere to become a key reserve and Mickael Pietrus really improved his game. Both are now free agents and with the team already well above the salary cap, it's unlikely that they will be able to keep either player. They also have extensions coming up for Biedrins and Ellis, which could be why Golden State is shopping Jason Richardson. Getting rid of his big contract would make it easier to keep the rest of the team together, though they would be losing one of their best scorers.
The Warriors' cap received an overall grade of a C. Just imagine how bad it would be if Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy were still on the team. In fact, check out the grade the Pacers got. Anyways, the Warriors cap has greatly improved in the span of 6 months and we can now look forward to the day Adonal's dollars come off the cap.
I wish the Warriors were in a better situation cap-wise because it handicaps their ability not only resign their own free agents but also go out and sign the top free agents on the market. As a fan, I couldn't care less whether or not the franchise has to pay the luxury tax. By all means, go over the salary cap if it means we're going to win more games and advance further in the playoffs. It's not my money and I want my team to be the best it can be. The only reason I do care about the cap is because it limits the team's ability to do business with other teams. With too many overpaid players, the Warriors can't make a trade and are essentially stuck with a player until the contract is in an expiring year (e.g. Adonal Foyle). I'm all in favor of having a healthy cap, but not at the risk of missing the playoffs.
Outside of Adonal Foyle, who is the most overpaid Warrior? JRich? Baron? Al Harrington? Project O'Bryant?
0 recs |
19 comments
Email
Print
Comments
what was mully thinking
by houseofprime2 on Jun 26, 2007 5:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Horrendous
As for the remaining contracts on the books- I'm cool with all of them including BD's big money deal and JR's hefty sum. As long as JRich bounces back next season from the injuries I'm not worried about the cap hit from his contract at all.
Get rid of Foyle's contract and this team is fine cap wise- although that's easier said than done of course.
by Atma Brother ONE on Jun 26, 2007 6:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I remember last year...
by Epicurious Cowboy on Jun 26, 2007 6:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
buyout conversation.
by jae on Jun 27, 2007 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no one except foyle
Injuries are a big part of sports so you can't really fault BD and J-Rich, per se, for missing games although I'm not sure why Richardson didn't get his surgery much earlier so he'd be ready for the season. Like everyone else, I think we need a decent back-up point guard so BD doesn't have to play over 40 minutes every game to keep us competitive, thereby sacrificing his kness and body.
I do not think we can fault P.O.B for not fitting into Nellie's system and losing heart. Everyone seems to agree most "bigs" take a while to develop. In addition, non-athletic bigs do not find love in Nelly or his system. Again, blame Mully for O'Bryant, Ike, and so on. Don't blame the players.
I think an interesting question is what will we have to pay Monta and or AB the season following this coming year assuming they are on the team. That is when cap hell will really kick in unless we move J-Rich or Harrington or even BD next year if it looks like he's going to walk after this coming season if he doesn't get the extension he is suggesting. This seems to be what is happening with KG as he enters his last contract year before his option kicks in.
I can see why Fantacy Junkie got his name if he begins to think Cohan is going to pay luxury tax dollars by being over the cap. We should live so long.
by commish on Jun 26, 2007 7:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
BD and The Future (ie monta & ab)
People keep bringing this up but I never saw it. As the NBAdraft.net article said, he's barely earning his current paycheck because he's either hurt or playing fewer minutes to prevent injury. I love the guy to death, but unless he's certain he can repeat his Dallas magic every year in the future for 75 games, he's not worth more than 15 mil.
I think that's what he'll agree to: finally on the west coast playing for a playoff contender. He's too smart to mess with that.
I love it how people come onto GSoM and give their two cents about who the warriors should go after, and then casually mention Biedrins' and Monta's extensions as and after thought. Am I missing something? THIS IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT THE WARRIORS FRONT OFFICE HAS FACED OR WILL FACE FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. not the "yi movement". not who can we get for jrich (who by the way doesn't need to be traded, read below). Its bringing back Monta and his latvian friend.
Speaking of which, and addressing commish's question: I think Monta and Biedrins will make 15 million in their first year combined. By year 3 that number will rise to 20. I'm sure Mullin's spent hours calculating this and I hope he gets Biedrins or Monta to agree to an extension now (that would kick in after the season) or else these two players could both be making 10 million a year next year and one will not be in blue and gold.
Regardin creating cap space: JRich doesn't need to be traded. But if he is not, then Al Harrington must go. If Monta and Biedrins are brought back for 15 million combined (that number would increase but for a couple years they'd make 15 million) and Baron signs for 15 million then thats 30 million in contracts (per year). Add JRich for about 13 million and Jackson for 7 and you get 50 million dollars.
The warriors would need to add 10 more players for about 20 million (assuming the luxury cap increases to 70 soon) which is doable. Think about it: the 5 players that would spend most of their time on the bench combine for about 3 million. You bring in a PF for 6 mil and another "big" (as least a Nellie-sized big) for 4 million. A couple "dime-a-dozen" swingmen who are in the rotation make 2-3 million each as does an insurance PG for BD.
Monta, Baron, JRich, Jackson, Biedrins, and a couple more frontcourt players can all fit under the cap if Harrington is unloaded and the warriors fill their roster out with 2nd rounders/journeyman. Yes, we wouldn't have Dallas or San Antonio-like depth but we'd have a very effective 8-9 man rotation, provided Baron, Monta, and Biedrins can be had for the contracts I projected.
JRich is better at defense (not by much), rebounding (especially for his position), and creating his own shot than TMNT. yes, Harrington can play the 5 and makes 3 million less but if someone has to go its him, not the true warrior.
by BingBluNT on Jun 26, 2007 10:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
YES, thank you.
I would LOVE to see the Warriors make a deal involving him, our 18 and O'Bryant if necessary, To a team with cap room, for a top 10-12 pick. Then I would TRY to do what people have suggested, sit down and have a heart to heart with Foyle. IF he refuses Mullin once again, then we should offer him, Sarunas, and our next years first round pick for Theo Ratliff, who comes off the books after next season. Besides, if we have a good draft, then we will be stocked in the youth/talent department, and wont need a pick for just the next year. We'd probably have a low one anyways.
I appreciate your observations and your ability to see how valuable Monta and Andris really are, and how well they fit in with our long-term, NellieBall scheme. You are one of the much more smarter fans, that I have seen on this website so far. I want to drink gasoline and floss my teeth with rusty barb-wire when I hear people come on here and talk about trading J-Rich and keeping Harrington. Or that Monta has no upside and is a dime-a-dozen gaurd. SICK OF IT. Good to see you coming out. There truly are Warrior fans...and there are unfortunately "Warrior fans"
by BlueNgoldBlood on Jun 26, 2007 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At this point, buying out Foyle
Boston would rather have Theo's contract come off the books & gain the cap space to try & sign a star FA in '08-'09 than pick up 2 bench warmers & a late pick.
Most of the teams picking in the top 10-12 range are REBUILDING. They don't want an overpaid tweener and rebuilding teams typically don't want to move down in the draft.
Besides, Al would play SF on most of these teams. Josh Smith, Paul Pierce, Gerald Wallace, Deng, Artest, AI, w/ the options of Brewer, Jeff Green, Julian Wright, & Al Thornton - but for some unknown reason, they'd rather have Al who makes/will make more money than all except Pierce.
by the evil monkey on Jun 27, 2007 12:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dudes
As has been said before, no one wants to trade JRich. The reasons you give for JRich's value being greater than Harrington's are totally valid. They're also, as Jason points out, the precise reasons JRich is more valuable as a trading chip.
In the end, neither is Top 40 NBA player, and neither plays a position that's hard to replace. Obviously, we shouldn't give either of them away, but if you're Mullin it's your job to listen to offers. If something comes along that you think will improve the team -- on court and in terms of financial flexibility -- you pull the trigger. That's all anyone's trying to do when they put on their amateur GM hats.
In any case, if you want to take issue with something, address it to a specific poster about a specific post, so they can defend themselves. Otherwise, you're just beating on a straw man.
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 27, 2007 5:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what im trying to say...
Thats what a fan is, Jason, supporting your team ESPECIALLY through the hard times. But now you have all these so called fans coming out of the wood-works and saying what should be done with players who have stayed faithful to the organization just as some real Warrior fans have, who refused to give up on them.
IT BURNS ME. That is why I am so quick to dish out criticism. If it offends you, then I apologize. But it doesnt take away from me feeling like those people in Oakland rooting for the other team should have been lined up in the parking lot, and shot. I feel like they're just coming back now, in sheep's clothing. I dont know whether to be happy or sad, because its suddenly turned into this new Bay Area "fad" or "movement".
by BlueNgoldBlood on Jun 27, 2007 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aha
Most of the people on this site are not the Bulls/Lakers fans you want to see lined up and shot. We all love this team and want to see us get better. Some of us think getting better shouldn't preclude trading JRich; others, like you, think it should. Neither group is inherently smarter or truer.
Again, the point is, unless you address a specific post or a specific point, your comments sound a bit like the inane rantings of a madman.
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 27, 2007 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ya
But I do disagree with you saying Jason isnt on the top 40 list of best players. Can you name 39 players better? I would go as far as to say that I believe he's in the top 30, and its not through jaded, fan boy eyes either. Just look at what you got on the table. A big gaurd capable of averaging 24 ppg, 7 rpg, and 4-5 apg, and 1.5 spg. He and Monta's game are perfect contrasts. That is why I believe it would be a great fit to keep both of them on the team. Again, I respect your opinions.
by BlueNgoldBlood on Jun 27, 2007 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why would baron opt out and take less money
in '08-'09, 5 players (BD, JR, Jax, Al, & Foyle) are on the books for $55.5 mill. so barring BD opting out of the $17.2 mill he is owed(& if he does, he'll only do so to get more money), a Foyle buyout (which will probably only save them 2 mill a yr), or a trade for players or picks w/ LESS SALARY than is going out.
Assuming they stand pat & keep their draft picks for the next 2 years, that should put them on the hook for another $4 mill by '08-'09. That's already $59.5 mill. The luxury tax threshold should be about $69 mill.
So by '08-'09 they'd have only BD, JR, Jax, Al, Foyle, the 5 picks, Andris(probably), & Monta(possibly). To get back under the tax, Foyle should be tradeable by then (being that he's basically an expiring since '09-'10 is a team option).
The real problem is the above team is threadbare. If you trade Al beforehand, you need to take back a lot less salary for it to be beneficial. Meanwhile, the other team has to be willing & able to take back more salary. W/ that in mind, a trade involving Al would leave a team that's already bereft of talent even more so.
And how's BD going to feel losing 2 of his 3 best friends on the team in Barnes & Al? He's a FA in '09-'10.
That's why even though Mully loves Jrich, it's pretty obvious why he & Nellie have been shopping Jason this offseason.
by the evil monkey on Jun 27, 2007 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
'08-'09 season
If the warriors have the opportunity to trade Foyle and a #1 for a contract that expires this year, its a no brainer: you do the deal. If Foyle cannot be moved, I can only hope Cohen has something in his hear (and wallet) to go into the luxury for one season to keep the team together.
I don't expect Baron to opt out of his deal but when his deal does expire I don't think he'll make much more than 15 million/year. What if he only plays 30-40 games in one of the next two seasons? teams aren't going to risk their playoff dreams on his health.
To sum up my stance on JRich: only trading richardson won't solve any problems that trading Harrington would solve. If Cohen refuses to go into the luxury to resign Monta and Andris, and Foyle plays out his contract, then trading either one of the above players will not help the salary situation. They both have to go, or one of Monta/Andris does.
But if Cohen does go into the luxury (again, for ONE SEASON) OR Foyle is bought out OR Monta or Andris sustain an injury/off year and get resigned for less money then we're projecting, then trading Al or JRich solves our problem and although I like both, Al's gotta go in this situation.
by BingBluNT on Jun 27, 2007 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like both guys as well,
The reason why Jrich is mentioned in most scenarios is b/c their is some interest in JRich (Cavs, Magic, Bobcats).
Al is NOT going to bring you a lottery pick, in which the cap savings would allow us to keep the rest of the team together if they so choose as well as having the option to add players.
I don't think it's that the majority of GSoMers would rather have Al over JR, it's just that it's less feasible. Of course we'd all rather see Foyle go, but that's next to impossible and at this point, even a buyout does little to help the cap situation.
A buyout spreads the agreed upon dollar amount over the life of the original contract based on the % of money each yr of the original contract. And they usually tend to save only a few million per year (see Webber - he's still on philly's books for 19 mill in '07-'08).
I'm more worried they'll overpay Monta & AB than i'm worried that they'd lose one of them. The real problem is they'll be hard-pressed to add anyone else. Losing Barnes & even the clueless one, Pietrus, will hurt this team.
by the evil monkey on Jun 27, 2007 1:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most importantly
How much will the warriors have to pay Biedrins and Monta to keep them? I'd also ask when should these contracts be negotiated?
If you can lock up Biedrins for 6-7 million/year this offseason do you do it (he'd still be payed 3 million this year and then the new contract would kick in for 08-09) ?
If you don't, he could learn a couple post moves, get bigger, and shoot 60% from the line. Then he'd be asking for a 10 million/year contract.
Same goes with Monta, although he just won MIP so his agent could play hardball.
by BingBluNT on Jun 27, 2007 12:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
if monta falls under the gilbert arenas provision
by the evil monkey on Jun 27, 2007 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the limit with Monta's contract.
Of course, he could take a one year deal here to become completely unrestricted a year later.
by jae on Jun 27, 2007 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Instead of buying out Foyle
by emeyeceeONE on Jun 27, 2007 7:07 PM PDT 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.
