Cap Clearing trade?
- Thread starter Cellar-Door
- Start date
In a Marvin Williams hypothetical, it'd be AB+Crowder going, which is within the 25% of Williams' salary (18% to be exact), so it should be ok. And if they decide not to re-sign AB, it actually saves them ~8m/year over the next few seasons.
Pau Gasol makes a lot more sense than Marc Gasol. Not sure how much cap space you would need to clear to sign him though. Also not sure how well he'd play alongside Al.
(0.75+ blocks per game)
Alex Len (RFA)
Mason Plumlee (RFA)
James Johnson
Pau Gasol
Nerlens Noel (RFA)
Roy Hibbert
JaVale McGee
Dewayne Dedmon
Nicola Mirotic
Festus Ezeli (DNP in 16-17)
That's what I had assumed and was surprised he was still listed as FA. I guess they are still working the roster.
Big Hibbert fan here but I'm afraid the game has passed him by. I did watch some of his games last year and showed flashes that leads me to believe he could be an effective big when deployed in the right match ups and when you need him, but not a central figure for the roster. I would kick the tires on him if I were the C's.
That is a pretty uninspiring list. I'd rather they just go with the best available player than pigeon hole themselves into a rim protector who is an overall bad player. Mason Plumlee would be an interesting fit with his passing game though. Plus they really, really need a big who can stretch the floor besides Horford. Unless they think Theis is a rotational player getting 20-25 minutes a night, anyway.
Quick question and may be foolish. How much cheaper is the minimum contract than the corresponding cap hold? Or put differently, how luck cap space would they gain by actually not having those cap holds?
It will never happen but it's a trade that actually makes sense and would clear the required cap space while making both teams significantly better imo.
Crowder+AB+Smart/picks for ... wait for it... DeMarcus Cousins. Beating a dead horse though. I guess it's easier to add role players but it doesn't look like NO has had much luck adding any.
Crowder+AB+Smart/picks for ... wait for it... DeMarcus Cousins. Beating a dead horse though. I guess it's easier to add role players but it doesn't look like NO has had much luck adding any.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but no, the idea is that you do this first, and it saves you enough cap space to then sign Hayward. Swapping AB+Crowder's salaries for Williams, and then cutting Mickey (and adding a cap hold), puts you max+410k under the cap.
I'm not sure I totally understand your question, but if you have fewer than 12 players under contract there is a roster charge for each open slot equal to the rookie minimum salary. For players that you hold rights to their cap hold is a formula based on their previous salary. This cap hold remains on the books until they are renounced or sign with another team.
Last edited:
You have to carry at least 13 but you get charged for 14 regardless iirc. You can now carry up to 17.
Per question 13 of Larry Coon's CBAFAQ:
However I do see additional sections that say the roster size is 13 or even 14. Is this something that changed in the new CBA? Maybe that's where the confusion is coming in.
No idea, but here's confirmation on roster sizes now being 17. https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/12/14/13198978/nba-cba-new-details-changes-differences-lockout
Also, it's been 13 players since 2012.
Also, it's been 13 players since 2012.
13 is the minimum roster.
12 is the cap hold number because the cap number after holds is supposed to reflect what is left for the player of interest (the 13th roster spot)
Players 14 and 15 are NBA players but optional
Players 16 and 17 are GNBA players on two-way contracts, but also optional.
12 is the cap hold number because the cap number after holds is supposed to reflect what is left for the player of interest (the 13th roster spot)
Players 14 and 15 are NBA players but optional
Players 16 and 17 are GNBA players on two-way contracts, but also optional.
Those guys all make it harder to get under the cap though.
The Diallo suggestion is of a guy who might be a better piece to get back in a salary dump than a heavily protected 1st. I think he has some ability to play a small role this year. And who could play smallish minutes this year, I'd still expect to add a vet big w/ the 4.8M room exception.
Most notably, he's more of a 5 than a 4 in the current NBA, and his potential as a rim protector is much higher than the hybrid 3/4s like Yabu and Tatum, or even Zizic. Diallo may not reach it, but his upside is a borderline elite defender who can hit the glass, stretch the floor and won't kill you with turnovers or bad FT%.
Also, roster holds are based on rookie minimum. There is no way to pay a player on the roster less than the hold that I can think of.
https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2017/07/celtics-shopping-crowder-smart-bradley.html
Interesting info in that article, including the following:
Interesting info in that article, including the following:
Why would Celtics do that? What could Utah offer that would be beneficial to the Celtics over any other team?
Edit: I understand now. Yes do this. It's a no-brainer if you can keep Bradley/Crowder/Smart.
Edit: I understand now. Yes do this. It's a no-brainer if you can keep Bradley/Crowder/Smart.
Last edited:
Talking about it on summer league game. Allows them to get him max contract and clear up cap space by sending player(s) back to Utah
The guy on NBATV is speculating Smart could go the other way but there has been smoke around Crowder with the Jazz.
I'm listening, and I don't get it. If they S&T for Hayward, they either have to be under the cap, in which case they just sign him, or they need to send something like 24m in contracts back, right? (within 5mil if you go over the cap or something is the rule, i thought).
edit: he's over 19m, so 25%, not 5mil. Though it works out similarly-- they'd need to be sending ~23m, i believe.
edit: he's over 19m, so 25%, not 5mil. Though it works out similarly-- they'd need to be sending ~23m, i believe.
Last edited:
Tweet for those on mobile: Also, according to the transaction wire, the Celtics rescinded Kelly Olynyk's qualifying offer, but did NOT renounce him. This is important.
Tweet: By not renouncing Olynyk BOS could still use him as part of a S&T with relative ease. Still could after renouncing but bit more complicated.
I don't get it at all unless you're going to sign another FA, then use Olynyk+ in a S&T to get Hayward. Otherwise you're throwing away assets since you can get at least something for those guys from another team.
Edit- basically there is no advantage to a S&T for Hayward, you're sending out the same guys you have to anyway, but instead of getting something for them PLUS Hayward, you're just getting Hayward.
Now if they were say... to sign someone with their cap space, then get Olynyk to agree to a double S&T, or sugn someone in the 7-10M range and send out Bradley/Smart or Bradley/Crowder that also makes sense, but I don't see anyone I'd want to give up those two for left on the market.
Edit- basically there is no advantage to a S&T for Hayward, you're sending out the same guys you have to anyway, but instead of getting something for them PLUS Hayward, you're just getting Hayward.
Now if they were say... to sign someone with their cap space, then get Olynyk to agree to a double S&T, or sugn someone in the 7-10M range and send out Bradley/Smart or Bradley/Crowder that also makes sense, but I don't see anyone I'd want to give up those two for left on the market.
Not to be a downer, but I am starting to feel we were better off drafting Fultz if the alternative was Tatum (now #3 on the depth chart at SF) + losing Bradley or Smart. Beyond Porter and Doncic, next year's draft isn't anything special, so the extra 2018 pick we got to move down wasn't really worth it.
NBA Twitter is talking about a trade that allows the Celtics to keep Bradley, Smart and Crowder.
In your scenario, are they not signing Hayward? Tatum's lower salary slot actually means its easier to only lose one of Crowder, Bradley or Smart with that signing.
Yeah, moving Rozier/JAckson.
Personally I think it's dumb to get rid of Rozier who is cheap to keep Smart or Bradley for 1 year. One of those guys is gone after the season if not both, much prefer keeping Rozier and getting some value for one of them.
Hasn';t been since 2011, he's repeating what the guy at SL said, and both are morons.
Yeah, they also mentioned the jazz maybe holding the cs hostage for multiple players like they have any leverage here. I can't see any incentive to sign and trade unless the Jazz have some other small asset the Cs would want in exchange for Bradley/Crowder/Smart.
Also, can someone clarify this:
"The starting salary in a contract signed for a sign-and-trade may be any amount up to the player's maximum, however if the player meets the 5th Year 30% Max criteria (see question number 24) he cannot receive a salary greater than 25% of the cap. Raises are limited to 5%. The player also may be considered to have a lower outgoing salary for trade purposes, which can complicate the trade (see question number 93)." http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q92
Doesn't that imply his max would be 25% of the cap (24.9m) in this scenario, instead of 30% (29.9m). Or is Hayward a 30% max for some other reason?
"The starting salary in a contract signed for a sign-and-trade may be any amount up to the player's maximum, however if the player meets the 5th Year 30% Max criteria (see question number 24) he cannot receive a salary greater than 25% of the cap. Raises are limited to 5%. The player also may be considered to have a lower outgoing salary for trade purposes, which can complicate the trade (see question number 93)." http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q92
Doesn't that imply his max would be 25% of the cap (24.9m) in this scenario, instead of 30% (29.9m). Or is Hayward a 30% max for some other reason?
This has to be Jazz leaking to suggest Celtics have interest doesn't it? Don't blame them, just don't see a scenario it makes sense. At least, outside of an odd one with Olynyk I guess/
Well, I guess if we think of it as trading Rozier for Bradley there is some logic.
Well, I guess if we think of it as trading Rozier for Bradley there is some logic.