|
|
Post by kdp59 on Jun 29, 2023 12:42:35 GMT -5
To clarify because all this is confusing: there are three "hard cap" statuses 1. Get capped at 172 (use the NTMLE, the bi-annual exception, or receive a player via Sign and trade) 2. Get capped at 182.5 (use the MLE, but cant: use the NTMLE, the biannual exception, or receive a player via s+t) 3. No hard cap - do not use the MLE, NTMLE, bi-annual exception also cannot recieve a player via S+T I believe the second "super-tax Line" is not a hard cap. you just lose certain team building things passing it. but a team can go over it, unlike the hard cap apron. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 29, 2023 12:43:09 GMT -5
If they really wanted Bridges, the best way to do it would be through an RFA offer. Becuase if he accepts an RFA offer and the Hornets do not match, there is NO hard cap triggered (but they would subsequently trigger the 182.5 hard cap if they also used the MLE on a diff player). If they plan to use the MLE - they could only offer Bridges like 10-12M and I think Hornets match. If they say f it (and I do believe the pitfalls of being above the super apron are overblown) and do NOT use the MLE at all, then they can offer Bridges as much as they want. Hornets may not match 19M. But again, then we cant trade a first 7 years out (who cares), use the MLE (already known and accepted casualty), and wont be able to get buyout players (unlikely to get playoff minutes anyways). You could still S+T Grant away. You could even still keep Grant (match the offer he receives) and Brogdon (cuz no hard cap). So this is the route I would go, but its me spending Wycs money. Our payroll if we retained Grant, Brogdon, and Bridges (obtained through RFA contract) would be roughly 210M. If we didnt retain Grant (not matching an RFA offer or S+T him for very little money coming back), our payroll would be around 195M hmmm.. you have to have the cap space to make a RFA offer. www.spotrac.com/nba/boston-celtics/cap/$173M now with 11 players signed, they can sign grant to anything they want and keep him, but they cannot offer another RFA anything due to being over the cap. they only have the TP-MLE and vet minimums for outside free agents.Lets say they Re-sign grant at $13M next year. Boston would have 12 players and $186M in salary. one more vet minimum guy makes it $188 and maybe the rookie sticks putting them around $190 or so. its all right there at the link. to be CLEAR. Boston is already over the hard cap apron which is usually $7m above the now first tax line. which would be $172M. They cannot sign someone in a sign and trade OR used the Bi annual exception and be hard capped if they are over the hard cap...LOL
That makes sense - must have cap room to make an offer to a RFA
So to pursue Bridges then we'd have to cut Grant loose (ok since Mazz won't use him anyway) and maybe Kornet to get the added cap space to pursue an offer sheet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 29, 2023 12:56:53 GMT -5
"You leave 1-2 roster spots open and fill the mandatory 13 spots with vet or rookie minimum types that don't count toward the cap." all players signed COUNT against the cap, there is only a lower number used for older vets on minimum deal ( I don't think they changed that), but the numbers still count (even if lower than the amount signed) see Blake last year who signed for around 2.9m and only counted 1.9M or so on the cap. Drew is spot on about there being TWO aprons now with different rules. But brining in a player in a sign and trade hard caps you at the LOWER apron, which boston is already over ( or would be after signing that player). not gonna happen. you keep saying I say things I never did. I fully understand the Celtics have ONLY the MLE and vet minimums To add FREE AGENTS. you seem to think there is some way they can skirt the rules and do things they cannot. I never said Boston couldn't trade players and take back less salary to free up other moves. you seem to get pissed when someone shows what you said can't happen. Thicker skin man
Ok ... you keep saying we can only do this or that but essentially no major moves yet we just got Porzingis for Smart (who I believe you gave little value to as a trade piece - I could be mixing you up with some else tho) and I just posted an article by B Robb with multiple means (using Brogdon or MLE) to add any number of players.
My point is there are ways to improve other than the finite options you seem to be locked into or at least restricted by with that "glass half empty" philosophy. No, I don't mean to imply that the C's should or will break any NBA rules to get there but their braintrust is very creative in working things out to their advantage - in Mike Zarren I trust!
|
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Jun 29, 2023 13:46:32 GMT -5
To clarify because all this is confusing: there are three "hard cap" statuses 1. Get capped at 172 (use the NTMLE, the bi-annual exception, or receive a player via Sign and trade) 2. Get capped at 182.5 (use the MLE, but cant: use the NTMLE, the biannual exception, or receive a player via s+t) 3. No hard cap - do not use the MLE, NTMLE, bi-annual exception also cannot recieve a player via S+T I believe the second "super-tax Line" is not a hard cap. you just lose certain team building things passing it. but a team can go over it, unlike the hard cap apron. But you cant use your MLE over the super tax line. So if you used it, you have to be below it, making it a hard cap. Its only a hard cap in this situation. You can go over it if you dont use any MLE |
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Jun 29, 2023 13:47:48 GMT -5
you dont get to use your MLE, then get over the second apron. Because then you would have circumvented the rule. SO if you use your MLE. Your hard capped at the number.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Jun 29, 2023 13:49:57 GMT -5
hmmm.. you have to have the cap space to make a RFA offer. www.spotrac.com/nba/boston-celtics/cap/$173M now with 11 players signed, they can sign grant to anything they want and keep him, but they cannot offer another RFA anything due to being over the cap. they only have the TP-MLE and vet minimums for outside free agents.Lets say they Re-sign grant at $13M next year. Boston would have 12 players and $186M in salary. one more vet minimum guy makes it $188 and maybe the rookie sticks putting them around $190 or so. its all right there at the link. to be CLEAR. Boston is already over the hard cap apron which is usually $7m above the now first tax line. which would be $172M. They cannot sign someone in a sign and trade OR used the Bi annual exception and be hard capped if they are over the hard cap...LOL
That makes sense - must have cap room to make an offer to a RFA
So to pursue Bridges then we'd have to cut Grant loose (ok since Mazz won't use him anyway) and maybe Kornet to get the added cap space to pursue an offer sheet.
Yup, you are right and I overlooked that. But its way more than that (letting Grant and and Kornet go) to get under the cap which is like 135M lol. So its not realistic for us to get him. |
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Jun 29, 2023 13:55:09 GMT -5
"You leave 1-2 roster spots open and fill the mandatory 13 spots with vet or rookie minimum types that don't count toward the cap." all players signed COUNT against the cap, there is only a lower number used for older vets on minimum deal ( I don't think they changed that), but the numbers still count (even if lower than the amount signed) see Blake last year who signed for around 2.9m and only counted 1.9M or so on the cap. Drew is spot on about there being TWO aprons now with different rules. But brining in a player in a sign and trade hard caps you at the LOWER apron, which boston is already over ( or would be after signing that player). not gonna happen. you keep saying I say things I never did. I fully understand the Celtics have ONLY the MLE and vet minimums To add FREE AGENTS. you seem to think there is some way they can skirt the rules and do things they cannot. I never said Boston couldn't trade players and take back less salary to free up other moves. you seem to get pissed when someone shows what you said can't happen. Thicker skin man
Ok ... you keep saying we can only do this or that but essentially no major moves yet we just got Porzingis for Smart (who I believe you gave little value to as a trade piece - I could be mixing you up with some else tho) and I just posted an article by B Robb with multiple means (using Brogdon or MLE) to add any number of players.
My point is there are ways to improve other than the finite options you seem to be locked into or at least restricted by with that "glass half empty" philosophy. No, I don't mean to imply that the C's should or will break any NBA rules to get there but their braintrust is very creative in working things out to their advantage - in Mike Zarren I trust!
So the Smart/Porz trade is a great example of why we cant get Bridges. Porz had to opt into his deal. This is not a S+T. If he opted out, and was then signed and traded to us - it would have hard capped us at 172 which maybe we could have pulled it off but very unlikely. Certainly would not have been able to keep Brogdon or Grant. Because it was an opt-in, and not a S+T it didnt hard cap us at all. |
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Jun 29, 2023 14:08:13 GMT -5
But to Admins points, there are things savvy GMs can do that appear to skirt around some rules. For example, lets say you have the bird rights to an UFA who is worth 22M on the open mkt, but your cap hold on this player is only 12M. Lets say you have 8M in cap room. You can use that cap room, to sign an 8M player from outside your org. Bringing you right up to the cap. Then use your bird rights to retain your own free agent (w bird rule) at 22M.
You couldnt have done this in reverse order because if you sign the player for 22M using your bird rights, your cap room would have would have decreased by 10M (22M new contract - 12M cap hold) putting you 2m over the cap, and you cant then go sign that other 8m/yr player.
Another example was Hayward / Cha deal. Regardless of how it worked out, nobody had them on the radar because they didnt seem to have the cap room to make Hayward a competitive offer. But they used the stretch rule (taking one cap hit and normalizing it over 3 years) to get the room. And it was a savvy move that nobody saw coming.
Trading out of hte first round was one savvy thing we did this year because it gave us the ability to use the MLE.
So yes there are some things savvy GMs can do. But of course, not every rule can be circumvented w craftiness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 29, 2023 17:30:54 GMT -5
Look at the Lakers ...
Reaves is undrafted and they can only offer him a max 2 yrs at $25mm total. But if another team offers 4 yrs with 1st 2yrs total of $25mm they can offer max on final 2 yrs for $73mm or $98mm over 4 yrs (but must use avg contract or $25mm/yr as cap space needed to be able to do so - SAS can do this).
Here's the kicker ... if that happens the Lakers can match and have threatened to do so if any team makes that big offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by elvissurfs on Jun 29, 2023 19:50:55 GMT -5
Bridges allegedly choked his girl friend until she passed out, broke her nose, and gave her a concussion, all in front of the kids! Let some other team give him a second chance! Wow...just changed my vote from 'wait' to 'no felon'... |
|
|
|
Post by hedleylamarr on Jun 29, 2023 21:18:55 GMT -5
Bamba waived by Lakers
|
|
|
|
Post by kdp59 on Jun 30, 2023 6:33:06 GMT -5
Bamba has had some interested here in the past, would seem to be a solid fit behind Rob. Did take a step back last year when Orlando got some better players though and couldn't seem to get much playing time after the trade to the Lakers.
I would put him in as another option along with T. Bryant IF they want another big in the mix, especially since3 my favorite there A. Drummond stayed at Chicago.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Jun 30, 2023 10:59:43 GMT -5
When you run the double big, teams are going to 3 you to death. Interestingly, both Rob and Al have surprisingly low "% of defensive plays made at the rim." Als 35% rim defense frequency (28th percentile), Robs 28% rim defense frequency (1 percentile, lol - which means 99% of players defend at the rim more than Rob does!)
Im sure part of that is because they are splitting them. So when both out there sometimes its one , sometimes its the other - which means that both would have a higher % of defensive plays played at the rim if the other wasnt out there. Als out there without Rob more than Rob is out there without Al, so that prob explains why Robs is so low (hes rarely out there without Al, so he rarely gets all the rim protection duties to himself).
But Im sure part of it is because teams know traditional Centers struggle to defend the perimeter, and are feasting on that when we run the double big.
But to me, when deciding which bigs we should add, we should continue to look for ones who can defend the perimeter. Which is why I love bringing in Porz.
Im not even sure that theres a place in the NBA for bigs who just cant defend the perimeter at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 30, 2023 11:42:37 GMT -5
When you run the double big, teams are going to 3 you to death. Interestingly, both Rob and Al have surprisingly low "% of defensive plays made at the rim." Als 35% rim defense frequency (28th percentile), Robs 28% rim defense frequency (1 percentile, lol - which means 99% of players defend at the rim more than Rob does!) Im sure part of that is because they are splitting them. So when both out there sometimes its one , sometimes its the other - which means that both would have a higher % of defensive plays played at the rim if the other wasnt out there. Als out there without Rob more than Rob is out there without Al, so that prob explains why Robs is so low (hes rarely out there without Al, so he rarely gets all the rim protection duties to himself). But Im sure part of it is because teams know traditional Centers struggle to defend the perimeter, and are feasting on that when we run the double big. But to me, when deciding which bigs we should add, we should continue to look for ones who can defend the perimeter. Which is why I love bringing in Porz. Im not even sure that theres a place in the NBA for bigs who just cant defend the perimeter at all.
Traditional Bigs defending other Bigs on the perimeter or everyone?
When I check defensive chartsm most Bigs defend the position they play. Only wings seem to cover multiple positions. In that vain, Josh Richardson is great guarding 1-3 and some 4's ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 30, 2023 11:56:06 GMT -5
Look at Myles Turner ... he defends other centers 55%+ of the time and 5% or less on the other 4 positions whereas Christian Wood defends centers 35% but 10% 1-3 and 25% on 4's. Yet Turner's rated higher on defense and both are fairly even on offense while physically nearly the same measurements and both equal on threes with Turner having a slight advantage on overall FG% scoring 1.6 pts more/gm.
Point being, Turner gets more credit for defending other centers and they aren't the better shooters compared to other positions whereas Wood is challenging better shooters from 1-3 positions.
So now I've got a woody for Christian Wood! Hope you are right and he becomes available for the MLE though I think LT Bamba may be a better option to replace Al if he is doable for MLE.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Jun 30, 2023 12:38:52 GMT -5
Look at Myles Turner ... he defends other centers 55%+ of the time and 5% or less on the other 4 positions whereas Christian Wood defends centers 35% but 10% 1-3 and 25% on 4's. Yet Turner's rated higher on defense and both are fairly even on offense while physically nearly the same measurements and both equal on threes with Turner having a slight advantage on overall FG% scoring 1.6 pts more/gm. Point being, Turner gets more credit for defending other centers and they aren't the better shooters compared to other positions whereas Wood is challenging better shooters from 1-3 positions. So now I've got a woody for Christian Wood! Hope you are right and he becomes available for the MLE though I think LT Bamba may be a better option to replace Al if he is doable for MLE. I take defensive advanced ratings with a grain of salt because they focus on on opponents fg% when defended by the player being assessed vs their usual fg%. But lets say Turner vs Heat. Heat run 5 out, so with Turner out there - who isnt a perimeter defender, the Indy defense is 4 vs 5 at the perimeter. So lets say Heat move the ball around the perimeter , sending the D scrambling cuz they down a man, which leads to the drainage of an open 3. Turner wouldnt get dinged because hes not covering the shooter. But he is responsible for the open 3. |
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Jun 30, 2023 12:46:49 GMT -5
When you run the double big, teams are going to 3 you to death. Interestingly, both Rob and Al have surprisingly low "% of defensive plays made at the rim." Als 35% rim defense frequency (28th percentile), Robs 28% rim defense frequency (1 percentile, lol - which means 99% of players defend at the rim more than Rob does!) Im sure part of that is because they are splitting them. So when both out there sometimes its one , sometimes its the other - which means that both would have a higher % of defensive plays played at the rim if the other wasnt out there. Als out there without Rob more than Rob is out there without Al, so that prob explains why Robs is so low (hes rarely out there without Al, so he rarely gets all the rim protection duties to himself). But Im sure part of it is because teams know traditional Centers struggle to defend the perimeter, and are feasting on that when we run the double big. But to me, when deciding which bigs we should add, we should continue to look for ones who can defend the perimeter. Which is why I love bringing in Porz. Im not even sure that theres a place in the NBA for bigs who just cant defend the perimeter at all.
Traditional Bigs defending other Bigs on the perimeter or everyone?
When I check defensive chartsm most Bigs defend the position they play. Only wings seem to cover multiple positions. In that vain, Josh Richardson is great guarding 1-3 and some 4's ...
If you are going against a team with a big who cant shoot 3's, having a C that cant defend the perimeter isnt a liability. But generally, guys who wont even shoot open 3s are becoming more and more rare. Very few teams are looking to pound you inside these days as their primary point of attack, and the ones that do never go anywhere. They lose the transition game, commit too many turnovers, cant defend the perimeter... A stay back big is playing zone, really. But even so many of them cant cover guards, forwards even at the net. THe attacker just too much body contortion. Rob is an exception here (a good thing). He can block anyone one on one at the rim. But to your question, going against a team w a traditional big, you can have your traditional big double duty. Because hes already at the rim. So he can cover his man but also peel off for help at the rim if a slasher gets by his man. But if you have Porz, Horford who can handle the inside D while being an offensive perimeter threat, they are still the better option because they can create mismatches at the other end. The problem is there are so many bigs, and you get to pick and choose which ones you want. I dont see why someone would choose the traditional variety who cant shoot, defend the perimeter, dribble, cover multiple positions. The traditional big can protect the rim. But the problem is there are many bigs who can protect the rim but can also do some of the other things too (shoot, defend the perimeter, dribble, cover multiple positions). |
|
