Cap Management

[CBS_Take a Report]

Cap Maximum: $112,414,000
Luxury Tax Threshold: $136,606,000

Teams that are under the cap will have their cap holds applied to their overall cap while teams that are over the cap will not have their cap holds applied but must use any exceptions they possess. If a team uses their Bi-Annual, Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level, or Sign-and-Trade they will be considered to be hard-capped and must below the Luxury Tax Apron ($143,096,000).

+++++++++++

So the above indicates we will be hard capped once we use the Bi-Annual, Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level, or Sign-and-Trade and can spend up to $143 if ownership is ready to write the checks.

With current projected cap at $128.5 (with cap holds, etc) this leaves us roughly $16.5m (Which fits Evan Fournier fairly well).

My question is can a sign and trade occur on both sides of equation.

For example Mike Conley is a free agent. Could we effectively sign and trade Fournier (@$16m/year) + other assets for a sign and trade Mike Conley as long as we land below the $143?

This capology stuff is confusing…

[tazzmaniac]

To avoid being hard capped, teams don't use the bi-annual and don't do sign and trades and they use the smaller taxpayer MLE rather than the non-taxpayer MLE. 

Sign and trades can occur on both sides.  If I recall correctly, the Rozier for Kemba trade was a sign and trade on both sides.  Both teams would be hard capped.

[CBS_Take a Report]

TP. As discussed ad nauseum, I believe Fournier doesn’t fit given our bevy of swings and developing young players (Langford + Nesmith). We need to balance roster in the ball handling department which is well underserved as currently constituted.

PF might be an area underserved, as well.

[CFAN38]

TP. As discussed ad nauseum, I believe Fournier doesn’t fit given our bevy of swings and developing young players (Langford + Nesmith). We need to balance roster in the ball handling department which is well underserved as currently constituted.

PF might be an area underserved, as well.

I have been assuming this offseason would include retaining Fournier but the I am starting to question that. If DA was still at the helm I’m sure he would have made it a priority but Steven’s now has the luxury of letting Fournier walk without taking any responsibility for his acquisition.

[jambr380]

TP. As discussed ad nauseum, I believe Fournier doesn’t fit given our bevy of swings and developing young players (Langford + Nesmith). We need to balance roster in the ball handling department which is well underserved as currently constituted.

PF might be an area underserved, as well.

I have been assuming this offseason would include retaining Fournier but the I am starting to question that. If DA was still at the helm I’m sure he would have made it a priority but Steven’s now has the luxury of letting Fournier walk without taking any responsibility for his acquisition.

I believe the Fournier situation will remain quite fluid until a deal is actual done. The Cs probably want him back at a reasonable number, but are willing to let him walk if the number goes too high. I have seen reports ranging from $10-20M/yr from different outlets.

The problem for Fournier is that unless one of the few teams with cap space is targeting him, then he will essentially have to settle for what the Cs have to offer. Things open up however if you allow him to seek offers from teams over or near the cap and you can perform a sign and trade. This may allow us to get a PF type player or more traditional PG.

Personally, I am perfectly happy bringing back Evan for anything under $15M/yr. He is a versatile enough player in our system and would remain a tradeable asset moving forward. I think the least likely scenario is that we let him walk for nothing.

[Goldstar88]

TP. As discussed ad nauseum, I believe Fournier doesn’t fit given our bevy of swings and developing young players (Langford + Nesmith). We need to balance roster in the ball handling department which is well underserved as currently constituted.

PF might be an area underserved, as well.

Fournier is 6’7” and can play the 2 and 3 spot. Langford is 6’4” and his shooting is suspect. Nesmith is 6’5” and he’s still raw. They are both SG’s. I really don’t think the C’s brought Fournier in just to move him. Evan is a really good 3rd option and I was impressed with his passing ability as well. Defense isn’t great, but it’s not terrible and I don’t think it makes sense to do a sign and trade, while keeping 2 unproven young players.

In Regards to Connely, he’s going to be 34 before the season starts. Not really interested in having two starters in their mid 30’s. Would rather give Smart a chance as a the starting PG and see how he does with a new coach. The only position the C’s are thin at is PF, have depth at all other spots. Hopefully they can move Thompson.

Sterters: Smart, Fournier, Brown, Tatum, Horford
Bench: Pritchard, Nesmith, Langford, TimeLord, M.Brown, Semi(re-sign)
Hopefully gone: Edwards, G.Williams, Tacko, Waters

[ETNCeltics]

IMO, the Celtics are targeting Beal, whether it's now or next summer, and they're not going to sign anyone who might interfere with that.

Fournier is gone unless he comes at an extraordinary value.

[BudweiserCeltic]

IMO, the Celtics are targeting Beal, whether it's now or next summer, and they're not going to sign anyone who might interfere with that.

Fournier is gone unless he comes at an extraordinary value.

There are two way to think on things. One is to retain players so that you can trade them [for Beal if you want] and still retain players on your team. The other side is that if you go after Beal in free-agency, you have to be prepared to be able to either dump people without getting salary back AND renounce the rights to just about every free-agent you have (and TPE and Exceptions)... that's with Horford still on, and Beal probably taking a pay-cut.

If you let go of Horford (unable to dump him), and assuming we don't reach the Finals before then, then you still need to pay him $14.5M, but now we're in better range depending on what Beal agrees to and even then probably would need a slight pay-cut.

So you can potentially have Beal-Brown-Tatum and no one else (probably a straggler here and there), or maybe even Horford if Beal takes a substantial paycut on his first year... and pretty much an empty roster including no 1st round picks, etc.

Maybe it'll be worth it, but it's a huge gamble. I'd rather trade for him if possible, if there's actual interest in him here.

Those are the simplified scenarios we may be looking at.

You also want your team competing, in these years else Brown and Tatum won't be quite happy around the franchise... but bringing big names always alleviates that (if they end up working).

Or we could do a Sign & Trade during free-agency, which kinda brings us back to the first scenario... and Washington agreeing as well.

[ETNCeltics]

IMO, the Celtics are targeting Beal, whether it's now or next summer, and they're not going to sign anyone who might interfere with that.

Fournier is gone unless he comes at an extraordinary value.

There are two way to think on things. One is to retain players so that you can trade them [for Beal if you want] and still retain players on your team. The other side is that if you go after Beal in free-agency, you have to be prepared to be able to either dump people without getting salary back AND renounce the rights to just about every free-agent you have (and TPE and Exceptions)... that's with Horford still on, and Beal probably taking a pay-cut.

If you let go of Horford (unable to dump him), and assuming we don't reach the Finals before then, then you still need to pay him $14.5M, but now we're in better range depending on what Beal agrees to and even then probably would need a slight pay-cut.

So you can potentially have Beal-Brown-Tatum and no one else (probably a straggler here and there), or maybe even Horford if Beal takes a substantial paycut on his first year... and pretty much an empty roster including no 1st round picks, etc.

Maybe it'll be worth it, but it's a huge gamble. I'd rather trade for him if possible, if there's actual interest in him here.

Those are the simplified scenarios we may be looking at.

You also want your team competing, in these years else Brown and Tatum won't be quite happy around the franchise... but bringing big names always alleviates that (if they end up working).

Or we could do a Sign & Trade during free-agency, which kinda brings us back to the first scenario... and Washington agreeing as well.

That's all true, except, IMO, paying $20M/yr to Fournier is an overpay that the WW may not want to absorb, or may cost us more in trade if they have to.

[BudweiserCeltic]

IMO, the Celtics are targeting Beal, whether it's now or next summer, and they're not going to sign anyone who might interfere with that.

Fournier is gone unless he comes at an extraordinary value.

There are two way to think on things. One is to retain players so that you can trade them [for Beal if you want] and still retain players on your team. The other side is that if you go after Beal in free-agency, you have to be prepared to be able to either dump people without getting salary back AND renounce the rights to just about every free-agent you have (and TPE and Exceptions)... that's with Horford still on, and Beal probably taking a pay-cut.

If you let go of Horford (unable to dump him), and assuming we don't reach the Finals before then, then you still need to pay him $14.5M, but now we're in better range depending on what Beal agrees to and even then probably would need a slight pay-cut.

So you can potentially have Beal-Brown-Tatum and no one else (probably a straggler here and there), or maybe even Horford if Beal takes a substantial paycut on his first year... and pretty much an empty roster including no 1st round picks, etc.

Maybe it'll be worth it, but it's a huge gamble. I'd rather trade for him if possible, if there's actual interest in him here.

Those are the simplified scenarios we may be looking at.

You also want your team competing, in these years else Brown and Tatum won't be quite happy around the franchise... but bringing big names always alleviates that (if they end up working).

Or we could do a Sign & Trade during free-agency, which kinda brings us back to the first scenario... and Washington agreeing as well.

That's all true, except, IMO, paying $20M/yr to Fournier is an overpay that the WW may not want to absorb, or may cost us more in trade if they have to.

Ignoring the amount paid to Fournier since there's no indication what it would take to keep him yet... and in the hypothetical that Washington wants a trade, Fournier doesn't necessarily need to be the player being moved, he could very well be a player we keep around with Beal and the Jays. And if the trade is done, honestly the amount paid for the players we keep in the roster would be the least of our worries.

[bopna]

Surely the Wizards would have an idea by now whether Beal wants to stay or test FA which in all likelyhood team up with JT...not a given ofcourse but where else will he go where he can actually compete and be teammates with his buddy.

Are the Wizards gonna really risk losing Beal without being compensated back just like how we lost Kyrie or wil they trade him now to his preferred destination since other teams might not take a risk knowing he might bolt anyway next summer.