JaVale McGee waived by Sixers

[twslam07]

Yeah with the smoothing rejection today it's pretty much confirmed now the cap is going to sky rocket.

So won't be any need most likely to worry about his salary that season.

With the cap increase, we may be better off holding on to Landry too rather than give anyone incentive to take him.

Yes, we should start taking into consideration the future cap when determining player value. Most everyone here would agree that Landry is overpaid at $6,750,000 a year (salary cap next year is projected to be $67,400,000). If Landry's contract increased at the same rate as the jump between the salary cap in 15/16 ($67.4 mil) and 16/17 ($91.2 mil), Landry's contract would be $9,133,531. Since Landry is considered overpaid, we would also conclude signing a player of Landry's caliber for that amount of money would be considered overpaying in the new CBA. However, Landry will still be making $6.75 mil in the 16/17 season. $6.75 mil relative to the $91.2 mil would be the same as making $4,988,487 during the 15/16 season.

Under the current CBA, would Landry on $5 mil be more valuable? Of course. If the Kings were a team that actually had a good fit for Landry, I would have only gave him a max of $4 mil per year, so I still consider him overpaid, but the point is we must factor in the new cap when making all moves and trades. It's even possible that in the 16/17 season, we could amnesty Landry. Thompson's contract isn't completely guaranteed that year which means we could cut another ~$10 mil in cap space if needed. However, if we're not going to get anything of value with that cap room, we might as well hang on to Landry and Thompson as their deals would have more value since they signed them under the old CBA and they would be expirings the next offseason.

 

[Gilles]

You are incorrect, both JT and Landry were signed under new CBA, so they are not eligible for amnesty. JT can be waived, but it will only be extra $4 million.

 

[twslam07]

You are incorrect, both JT and Landry were signed under new CBA, so they are not eligible for amnesty. JT can be waived, but it will only be extra $4 million.

No, you are misunderstanding. When the new CBA comes around in 16/17, I'm sure teams will have the option to amnesty a player again. That's what I'm referring to...

And yes I understand that Thompson's contract will only be an extra $4 mil. $4 mil and change + $6 mil and change (Landry) = an extra $10 mil in cap space.

 

[Gilles]

Then you're missing the fact that decision to opt out, if it's made by either party, will come into effect in 2017, when both are FAs.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

No, you are misunderstanding. When the new CBA comes around in 16/17, I'm sure teams will have the option to amnesty a player again. That's what I'm referring to...

And yes I understand that Thompson's contract will only be an extra $4 mil. $4 mil and change + $6 mil and change (Landry) = an extra $10 mil in cap space.

It might be just a bit too early to think about dumping salary in anticipation of The Salary Bump Of '16-'17. With the players we have now (and our guys currently on rookie contracts) we're committed to a bit less than $56M that summer. With a cap projected to be around $90M that leaves $34M in space already. Now, it's unlikely that we'll have all of that, because at the very least it's beginning to look like we'll have another rookie contract (so call it $30M with some change) and there are the deals we make this offseason, but consider this: with the salary cap set to jump about 140% in the summer of '16 and most teams set to have massive massive amounts of cap space, who is going to want to sign a multi-year deal this offseason? Maximum raises even for Bird exceptions are going to be 7.5% - compare that to 40% right off the bat, PLUS the fact that all the schlubs currently already under contract in '16-'17 NOT getting that raise...let's just say that the pot is friggin' huge for anybody who is a free agent in the summer of '16.

I would predict that the vast majority of those who are free agents in the summer of '15 are going to sign one-year deals and hit the market again in a year. Anybody who isn't worried about falling off of the age or injury cliff is a good candidate for a one-year deal. I wouldn't be surprised to see us add very little salary for '16-'17 this offseason - not because we don't want to but because players won't be looking for multi-year deals that cut off a potential '16-'17 payday. Things will be very conservative this summer, and then go absolutely bonkers next summer.

(Completely side note: I have long advocated for tying player contracts directly to league revenues, for instance a player signing for a contract that pays 5.25% of the salary cap rather than $3.5M. This sort of system would have eliminated the chaos we are about to see in the summer of '16, because the players currently under contract for '16-'17 would have gotten their contracts bumped too - it's a built-in "smoothing" mechanism. But no. That's too sensible to ever be implemented.)

 

[twslam07]

It might be just a bit too early to think about dumping salary in anticipation of The Salary Bump Of '16-'17. With the players we have now (and our guys currently on rookie contracts) we're committed to a bit less than $56M that summer. With a cap projected to be around $90M that leaves $34M in space already. Now, it's unlikely that we'll have all of that, because at the very least it's beginning to look like we'll have another rookie contract (so call it $30M with some change) and there are the deals we make this offseason, but consider this: with the salary cap set to jump about 140% in the summer of '16 and most teams set to have massive massive amounts of cap space, who is going to want to sign a multi-year deal this offseason? Maximum raises even for Bird exceptions are going to be 7.5% - compare that to 40% right off the bat, PLUS the fact that all the schlubs currently already under contract in '16-'17 NOT getting that raise...let's just say that the pot is friggin' huge for anybody who is a free agent in the summer of '16.

I would predict that the vast majority of those who are free agents in the summer of '15 are going to sign one-year deals and hit the market again in a year. Anybody who isn't worried about falling off of the age or injury cliff is a good candidate for a one-year deal. I wouldn't be surprised to see us add very little salary for '16-'17 this offseason - not because we don't want to but because players won't be looking for multi-year deals that cut off a potential '16-'17 payday. Things will be very conservative this summer, and then go absolutely bonkers next summer.

(Completely side note: I have long advocated for tying player contracts directly to league revenues, for instance a player signing for a contract that pays 5.25% of the salary cap rather than $3.5M. This sort of system would have eliminated the chaos we are about to see in the summer of '16, because the players currently under contract for '16-'17 would have gotten their contracts bumped too - it's a built-in "smoothing" mechanism. But no. That's too sensible to ever be implemented.)

I disagree with this to some degree. I think you'll see teams that do have cap space this year be willing to "act" as if the new salary cap has taken its course. Knowing that this overpaid contract under the old CBA would be looked at as a fair deal the next year.

I agree that many players will end up signing one year deals this year (especially since the players that do get signed with likely take over the majority of cap space for teams), but the bigger names will probably have a fair amount of teams coming after them with offers that take into account the $90+ mil salary cap. Why you might ask? Because they don't want to compete with all of those teams that have cap space next year. If a team is willing to act like the new salary cap is in place, I don't see why a free agent wouldn't be okay with signing a multi-year deal.

Now for upper echelon players who have the max to think about, then yeah it makes no sense for them to sign a multi-year deal this year, but for those players who's 2016/2017 contract value is below whatever the max amount they could make in 2015/2016, I don't see why they wouldn't mind signing a multi-year deal this offseason.

 

[twslam07]

Then you're missing the fact that decision to opt out, if it's made by either party, will come into effect in 2017, when both are FAs.

The first year a team can amnesty might depend on when the two parties have come to an agreement. It's likely that it might end in another lockout thus 2017 might be the first season to use the amnesty like you mentioned. Regardless, thanks for the info.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I disagree with this to some degree. I think you'll see teams that do have cap space this year be willing to "act" as if the new salary cap has taken its course. Knowing that this overpaid contract under the old CBA would be looked at as a fair deal the next year.

I agree that many players will end up signing one year deals this year (especially since the players that do get signed with likely take over the majority of cap space for teams), but the bigger names will probably have a fair amount of teams coming after them with offers that take into account the $90+ mil salary cap. Why you might ask? Because they don't want to compete with all of those teams that have cap space next year. If a team is willing to act like the new salary cap is in place, I don't see why a free agent wouldn't be okay with signing a multi-year deal.

Now for upper echelon players who have the max to think about, then yeah it makes no sense for them to sign a multi-year deal this year, but for those players who's 2016/2017 contract value is below whatever the max amount they could make in 2015/2016, I don't see why they wouldn't mind signing a multi-year deal this offseason.

You're right, but I think that we're looking at a couple of circumstances to make that really make sense:
1) The player cannot be a max or near-max player
2) The player has to think they are going to be unable to increase their value on a one-year deal
3) The team has to have a lot of cap space
4) The team has to be willing to overpay (that is, "waste" cap space) this year for future benefits

So sure, if the Sixers find the right deal they can overspend this year to make it happen. But I think a lot of teams won't be willing to do this. The Kings will want to get into the playoffs next year, for instance. If they end up with about $10M in cap space, would they rather lock up a $7M guy at $10M for the next few years, or grab a different-but-about-equally-talented $7M guy who wants a one-year deal and then another guy at $3M? Obviously there won't be exclusively one-year deals signed this offseason, but a lot of players are going to be looking to next summer and you'll see a lot more one-year deals than normal.

 

[twslam07]

You're right, but I think that we're looking at a couple of circumstances to make that really make sense:
1) The player cannot be a max or near-max player
2) The player has to think they are going to be unable to increase their value on a one-year deal
3) The team has to have a lot of cap space
4) The team has to be willing to overpay (that is, "waste" cap space) this year for future benefits

So sure, if the Sixers find the right deal they can overspend this year to make it happen. But I think a lot of teams won't be willing to do this. The Kings will want to get into the playoffs next year, for instance. If they end up with about $10M in cap space, would they rather lock up a $7M guy at $10M for the next few years, or grab a different-but-about-equally-talented $7M guy who wants a one-year deal and then another guy at $3M? Obviously there won't be exclusively one-year deals signed this offseason, but a lot of players are going to be looking to next summer and you'll see a lot more one-year deals than normal.

In agreement with you.

I think in regards to the Kings, we need to get serious about bringing in long term fits. I think that's why I'm more in favor of paying a $7 mil guy $10 mil if it means he's going to be on our team for a few years. I'm a big proponent of finding that core group of players and letting them learn how to play together. I'm not in favor of bringing in a couple guys to make a playoff push if it's likely we'll lose them the next offseason (thus the rest of our players have to adjust to the new players tendencies).

 

[bajaden]

You're right, but I think that we're looking at a couple of circumstances to make that really make sense:
1) The player cannot be a max or near-max player
2) The player has to think they are going to be unable to increase their value on a one-year deal
3) The team has to have a lot of cap space
4) The team has to be willing to overpay (that is, "waste" cap space) this year for future benefits

So sure, if the Sixers find the right deal they can overspend this year to make it happen. But I think a lot of teams won't be willing to do this. The Kings will want to get into the playoffs next year, for instance. If they end up with about $10M in cap space, would they rather lock up a $7M guy at $10M for the next few years, or grab a different-but-about-equally-talented $7M guy who wants a one-year deal and then another guy at $3M? Obviously there won't be exclusively one-year deals signed this offseason, but a lot of players are going to be looking to next summer and you'll see a lot more one-year deals than normal.

I think that's a very good question. I think it would come down to how much your value said player. If your looking at him long term, then why not lock him up if he's willing, because to wait will probably cost you more money for the same player, or a player of equal ability. I believe the players association is already talking about the likelyhood of a lockout prior to the 2016/17 season. Something to look forward to... Their going to screw with my summer league again.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I believe the players association is already talking about the likelyhood of a lockout prior to the 2016/17 season. Something to look forward to... Their going to screw with my summer league again.

I think the lockout would be before the '17-'18 season. So you've got two summer leagues before you have to worry!