Your reading is right. This was implemented to reduce max contract sign and trades and incentivize stars to stay with their original teams.
Cap Clearing trade?
- Thread starter Cellar-Door
- Start date
For whatever it's worth, the Jazz were the reason the C's traded up to take Olynyk. He was going to Utah, and supposedly has the the best ever score in some notorious shooting drill Utah does during pre-draft workouts.
This is talking about a player that qualified for the Designated Rookie Contract. That guy would be eligible to sign for 30% with his own team, but not in a sign and trade.
Hayward would still get the 30%.
You can combine cap space and contracts.
Say the Celtics could get to 28M under the cap, and Hayward signs for 29.7M. Boston would only have to send out 1.6M to match. (for whatever reason you're allowed to go 100K over the cap here)
Ahhh, ok, thanks mcpickl. That clarifies things a lot. I'm still not sure what the benefit of that is compared to just trading them 1.6m player elsewhere for some crappy future pick and then having the cap space to do the signing on your own.
edit: unless the 175% rule applies for salaries <6.5m. I.e., if sending DJackson's 1.4m salary meant they could go 175% of 1.4m over the cap (2.4m). In that case there's a clear benefit.
The nba cba is wacky.
edit: unless the 175% rule applies for salaries <6.5m. I.e., if sending DJackson's 1.4m salary meant they could go 175% of 1.4m over the cap (2.4m). In that case there's a clear benefit.
The nba cba is wacky.
Fultz has a higher cap number so the Cs would have to part with more salary to sign Hayward.
Also, don't forget Bamba.
I definitely missed this as a possibility. So, if nothing else it improves Celts bargaining position on AB, Smart, Crowder deals.
If they do this as sign and trade they'd still need to use exceptions to add anyone else right? If they signed other guys before the s&it they'd be right back to having to dump guys I assume as they no longer would have cap space remaining to execute the deal
If they do this as sign and trade they'd still need to use exceptions to add anyone else right? If they signed other guys before the s&it they'd be right back to having to dump guys I assume as they no longer would have cap space remaining to execute the deal
the argument for it is probably this:
Some people think they should keep all 3 of Smart/AB/Crowder. You can do that in a S&T by sending out Jackson and Rozier, you can't do it if you send out those 2 in a separate deal because you come up a few hundred grand short.
Now I don't think it's likely, because... which do you think Ainge would rather have... 1 year of Marcus Smart? or multiple years of Rozier plus whatever Smart nets in a trade? (or Bradley).
It's a move to make the bottom of the rotation slightly better at the expense of future years, that doesn't sound like an Ainge move.
Certainly possible Ainge keeps the cost controlled asset. I like how Rozier showed up in playoffs, personally..
Thinking the other way, in addition to better rotation other things you get are insurance at start of season for IT's health, an option to deal one of those three at deadline for something, and possibly more flexibility operating as an over the cap team in offseason, right?
Well i think it really depends what you think of Marcus as the sole PG on the team. I think he isn't good there at all, another reason to keep Jackson and Rozier, gives you 2 guys who are actual PGs. Offseason shouldn't really matter, holds and raises will put them over the cap no matter what. The only argument would be if you think you can S&T Marcus after the season and want to pay big money for Bradley and IT. Still seems like it's nothing more than an emergency fall-back if they can't find a deal for Smart/AB or Crowder.
Interesting they didn't use a second on a pg, as they knew this scenario possible. Though, they could sign a vet pg anyway, and that person likely as good this year as a deep second round pick.
I'm less down on Smart at the 1 than you, but I do prefer Rozier there.
I'm less down on Smart at the 1 than you, but I do prefer Rozier there.
The Celtics could also use Kelly Olynyk, Jonas Jerebko and/or James Young in a sign and trade with Utah. There's been some talk of mutual interest between Olynyk and Utah.
If they stayed over the cap, there's been some info today that Olynyk wasn't renounced but just that his qualifying offer was retracted, they would be able to use the midlevel and biannual exceptions rather than the room exception.
If they stayed over the cap, there's been some info today that Olynyk wasn't renounced but just that his qualifying offer was retracted, they would be able to use the midlevel and biannual exceptions rather than the room exception.
There were reports earlier that James Young was going to sign with NO but I don't think that materialized.
Eh?
I would assume, since we all knew that we'd likely lose Bradley or Smart, that Ainge was aware of how this was going to happen. Nothing all that unexpected has happened *except* that Tatum has played pretty well in Utah so far.
I think it's going exactly how Ainge wanted, so why would you now "start to feel" that?
Rajon Rondo. If Smart is moved, Tony Allen makes sense too.
edit: On 2nd thought, a Smart/Rondo back court would be awful.
The difference in the cap number for the #3 pick vs #1 also is a factor as many of these proposed deals have the C's coming up just a couple hundred thousand short
if Smart is gone and they need a back up PG, why not? Assuming he accepts the vet minimum anyway. The bench will need some vets on it.
Assuming Rondo didn't burn the bridge with Stevens, he makes sense. As we saw during the first game against the Bulls in the playoffs, he knew the Celtics sets better than some of the C's did. He is a savvy veteran and a competitor. I suspect he would welcome the chance to come back to Boston to try and help the "rebuilding" effort.
Edit: And I know the guy has quite a few quirks but based on that TNT appearance, the core of that championship team loves the guy. I don't get the hate Rondo gets here - the guy mostly played his ass off in Boston, won a ring and was, at times, the best player on the floor. The fan in me would love to see him back if they had a need for him.
Edit: And I know the guy has quite a few quirks but based on that TNT appearance, the core of that championship team loves the guy. I don't get the hate Rondo gets here - the guy mostly played his ass off in Boston, won a ring and was, at times, the best player on the floor. The fan in me would love to see him back if they had a need for him.
Just the off court shit alone should be a non starter. Granted he was younger but if a vet coach and the most intense player ever couldn't corral his bullshit you really want him on a team where Horford and Hayward don't seem like aggressive personalities? Sure IT in intense but would it surprise you if rondo brushed him off? Then do you want these young guys seeing it? Sure rondo could say all the right things to start the season, but at this point do you trust him not turning toxic when he's playing 10-15 minutes in January?
Totally agreed, still love the guy. One of the fiercest competitors that I have ever seen. However, based on his history I'm guessing that bridge is burnt...
But that was when he, outside of a handful of games in the middle of the season, was the starter. We are talking about him coming in as a bench player for the first time in his career in a place he's started
Then you just cut him because he's on the vet minimum and acquire a PG.
edit: He's also shooting .367 from 3 over his last 357 attempts. And he'd help with rebounding a little too.
If you have him cheap (vet minimum) and he causes trouble you just cut him.
1, I have a feeling we're all going to hate this coming trade.
2. I love Rondo as much as anyone but no no no no. Just think about it for a minute. No. They need to grow as a team and figure out roles for all the new pieces and begin to forge their identity as a team, not rehash every petty controversy that happened in 2010. And let's admit he has a huge ego which is the last thing you want from your back-up point guard.
3. Wow Tatum looks great. Already a beautiful player to watch. What if Hayward turns out be the second most important addition of the off season? Not this coming year, but...
2. I love Rondo as much as anyone but no no no no. Just think about it for a minute. No. They need to grow as a team and figure out roles for all the new pieces and begin to forge their identity as a team, not rehash every petty controversy that happened in 2010. And let's admit he has a huge ego which is the last thing you want from your back-up point guard.
3. Wow Tatum looks great. Already a beautiful player to watch. What if Hayward turns out be the second most important addition of the off season? Not this coming year, but...
The Jazz only have leverage if the Celtics cannot find another deal. The s&t for Crowder is basically the worst case scenario. I'd be very surprised if the Celtics had to resort to doing that deal.
BTW, there is quite a bit of anger at Hayward's camp for not making a decision quicker, as the Jazz believe that their Plan B & C options dried up due to the delay. For instance, UTA was very interested in Otto Porter (yes, WAS would have matched under any scenario).
Yeah, that makes sense. There are so many special cases for the cap rules... another one that would seem to come into play is the BYC rule. Since signing Hayward for a sign-and-trade puts Utah over cap (and Hayward appears to fit the other numerous conditions), his outgoing salary for the purposes of salary matching is his previous salary (16m). So I believe the C's would have to send salaries to get within 25% of that (12.8m). Or do I have this one wrong too?
Bernardoni breaks down the cap mechanics of a S&T here: http://www.celticshub.com/2017/07/05/gordon-hayward-sign-trade-options/
Bottom line is that because a team has to account for one less cap hold when doing a S&T, the Cs go from being $300K short of the max to $500K more cap space if they just give UT Rozier and Jackson.
Bottom line is that because a team has to account for one less cap hold when doing a S&T, the Cs go from being $300K short of the max to $500K more cap space if they just give UT Rozier and Jackson.
I believe you have that wrong since both UT and BOS would end up being under the cap.
Allen has the reputation of a defensive stopper, although he got lit up tonight by Bryn Forbes as apparently no one got the scouting report that this guy can shoot.
They also drafted Jabari Bird.
I guess I just hadn't studied the cap ramifications of signing Hayward to a max deal. I knew Bradley was likely gone after his current contract expired, and that he'd have good trade value during the year. Likewise, I knew Crowder was probably gonna be the odd man out in the rotation, but he also has good value with his contract. I didn't realize we were going to have to dump one or both of them hastily from a position of little leverage just to make the Hayward deal go through.
As I see it, these were the scenarios facing us once the draft order was determined:
Scenario A: draft Fultz, (hopefully) sign Hayward. Then you have two solid SF (Hayward and Jaylen Brown), a somewhat crowded backcourt that would be thinned out with a smart Bradley trade (which you don't mind in this scenario), insurance for Smart's inevitable departure later on (dunno if he's a guy I would commit big dollars to, given his flaws). Get your hands on a decent rim protector to go along with Zizic, and you're golden.
Scenario B: as it unfolded, draft Tatum instead of Fultz and collect an asset for next year. Now, you have three SF (Hayward, Brown, Tatum) and no long-term insurance against the loss of Bradley and/or Smart. I guess in this scenario you're hoping that either Hayward or Brown can log significant minutes at SG with IT4 as your point guard.
I know Tatum has looked good in Summer League so far, but then again, Bryn Forbes just lit us up for 31 in Summer League as well. Can't read too much into these performances. By everyone's account, Fultz was the one can't-miss prospect in the draft.
You're pigeon-holing players into positions in what is almost becoming a position-less game.
And not everyone had Fultz first--it really seems like Ainge wanted Tatum.
And sure, it's summer league. But you can't watch Tatum and Fultz and see that they are both REALLY good.
And not everyone had Fultz first--it really seems like Ainge wanted Tatum.
And sure, it's summer league. But you can't watch Tatum and Fultz and see that they are both REALLY good.
Boston's already loaded on the wing at the moment. Have they signed Donovan Mitchell yet? Because he'd look awfully good in green if the point of this is to move Bradley for someone like JaMychal Green after.
The thing about Ainge (and Stevens) is that they seem to want to get as many wings as possible given the new positionless NBA. Excepting Curry, Kyrie, CP3, Wall, Beal, Thompson (who is actually a wing) and maybe Conley the coin of the realm in today's NBA are wings. Tatum, if he fully realizes his potential, is likely far more valuable than a fully realized Fultz simply because of how the game is played these days.
The byproduct of the rise of the wings is that you can find a competent guards that are cheap on a relative basis (see all the guards who are still on the market). So if you are Ainge, you make the trade he made all day every day because you are getting the better relative value. If you have to backfill at guard, you go on to the market and get some grizzled veteran to add depth. I believe this is why they went this route.
The NBA CBA is weird but if you guys are right then that's a bug and something they missed. As I noted above, you only do cap holds to the 12th roster spot, that's because the 13th is for the player you are trying to sign/trade for. You are doing a "cap room" analysis. So the sign and trade holding a spot for the player being traded is the same math. Now, they have all these little quirks all the fucking time, so fine, but I think what's being missed here is that the C's are trading away two players for one so you have to account for the other roster spot. It may be true that the mechanics of how things get calculated mean you're under the cap until after the trade is completed...and then immediately have zero room with the roster hold accounted for. But if so that's a miss by the lawyers (how often does $800k matter, after all), not some kind of intended consequence.
Last edited:
Here's the part I'm having trouble understanding.
Say the C's get to 79m, leaving them 20m under the cap, and they want to do a Hayward sign and trade with Utah. Hayward would put them 9.7m over the cap in that situation. How much salary do they have to send to Utah? I feel like I've seen at least 3 possible answers to this: (1) Hayward gets treated as a 29.7m, meaning the C's would have to send within 25% of that (~24m), (2) he get treated as a 9.7m salary meaning the C's would have to send within 5mil of that (4.7m), or (3) there different rules for this scenario and they have to match 100% of the amount over the cap (9.7m).
I've been working under the assumption that either (1) or (3) is the case, in which case there's no real benefit to the sign and trade, other than the possibility of these cap holds. I'm pretty sure it's not (2), but if it is then there's a real advantage, because it allows you to go over the cap when making the trade. I.e., in this hypothetical, they could actually sign someone right now for ~8mil (putting them around 80mil), then sign-and-trade crowder for hayward, since crowder is within 5mil of the amount of hayward's salary that would be over the cap.
Say the C's get to 79m, leaving them 20m under the cap, and they want to do a Hayward sign and trade with Utah. Hayward would put them 9.7m over the cap in that situation. How much salary do they have to send to Utah? I feel like I've seen at least 3 possible answers to this: (1) Hayward gets treated as a 29.7m, meaning the C's would have to send within 25% of that (~24m), (2) he get treated as a 9.7m salary meaning the C's would have to send within 5mil of that (4.7m), or (3) there different rules for this scenario and they have to match 100% of the amount over the cap (9.7m).
I've been working under the assumption that either (1) or (3) is the case, in which case there's no real benefit to the sign and trade, other than the possibility of these cap holds. I'm pretty sure it's not (2), but if it is then there's a real advantage, because it allows you to go over the cap when making the trade. I.e., in this hypothetical, they could actually sign someone right now for ~8mil (putting them around 80mil), then sign-and-trade crowder for hayward, since crowder is within 5mil of the amount of hayward's salary that would be over the cap.
They have to finish the trade under the cap to not match salaries. That's why I think the analysis done before is wrong, or if it is correct, it's because of a flaw in the system.
So 1 and 3 are both correct, in a sense. 1 is what happens if they end the trade over the cap. They have to send out matching salaries to within 25%. But of course, if they trade away 9.7m they end up under the cap at the end of the trade, so that's all they have to trade away.
Put this way, using your numbers:
Celtics roster has 13-15 players and a total salary of 79m. Or, it has a roster of 12 or less and the salary and holds add up to 79m.
They trade away player x whose salary is 5m to receive Hayward at 29.7. Afterwards, they have 103.7 salary + holds and are over the cap. The League rejects the trade because the salaries don't match.
They trade away player x whose salary is 10m to receive Hayward at 29.7. Afterwards, they have 98.7 salary + holds and are under the cap.
So 1 and 3 are both correct, in a sense. 1 is what happens if they end the trade over the cap. They have to send out matching salaries to within 25%. But of course, if they trade away 9.7m they end up under the cap at the end of the trade, so that's all they have to trade away.
Put this way, using your numbers:
Celtics roster has 13-15 players and a total salary of 79m. Or, it has a roster of 12 or less and the salary and holds add up to 79m.
They trade away player x whose salary is 5m to receive Hayward at 29.7. Afterwards, they have 103.7 salary + holds and are over the cap. The League rejects the trade because the salaries don't match.
They trade away player x whose salary is 10m to receive Hayward at 29.7. Afterwards, they have 98.7 salary + holds and are under the cap.
Cap number is $72,046,273, without Hayward, assuming all cap holds are dispensed with (Yabusele stashed, Green, Jerebko and Young renounced).
Hayward's $29,727,900 would take the cap number to $101,774,173, which exceeds the cap by $2,681,173. Releasing Mickey saves $655,767, which reduces the overage to $2,025,406.
Trading Rozier and Jackson would save $1,742,040, which reduces the overage to $283,366. As noted in the Bernardoni article, trading Rozier and Jackson to UTA in a sign-and-trade with Hayward would allow Hayward's salary to replace one of the traded players which would save an additional $815,615 and keep the Celtics under the cap.
The short answer to finn's question is that BOS only needs to send to UTA that amount of salary that will leave both teams under the cap. In this case, under the assumptions described above, that amount is approx. $2.025mm, plus $815k for each net player sent to UTA.
Hayward's $29,727,900 would take the cap number to $101,774,173, which exceeds the cap by $2,681,173. Releasing Mickey saves $655,767, which reduces the overage to $2,025,406.
Trading Rozier and Jackson would save $1,742,040, which reduces the overage to $283,366. As noted in the Bernardoni article, trading Rozier and Jackson to UTA in a sign-and-trade with Hayward would allow Hayward's salary to replace one of the traded players which would save an additional $815,615 and keep the Celtics under the cap.
The short answer to finn's question is that BOS only needs to send to UTA that amount of salary that will leave both teams under the cap. In this case, under the assumptions described above, that amount is approx. $2.025mm, plus $815k for each net player sent to UTA.
Thanks, smas, that was my assumption/understanding, I'm just trying to figure out why a sign-and-trade might be advantageous. Getting one cap hold worth of space for Crowder seems really light, since they could easily move him elsewhere for pick(s) and then have enough space to just sign Hayward. I know getting a high pick for him is probably unlikely, but his salary almost has to make him appealing to a decent batch of teams.
Does this work? The Celtics trade Crowder into Utah's cap space for one or more picks. Doable if the Jazz hold off signing Ingles. Then the Jazz go over the cap to sign Hayward and then trade him into the Celtics' cap space for cash consideration. Two separate transactions. (I read somewhere that the Hayward sign and trade might be illegal under the current CBA, Is it?) The Celtics get a 7M trade exception for Crowder; the Jazz get a huge trade exception for Hayward.
If this works, the real issue is what the Celtics are getting for Crowder. If it's an unprotected first rounder, I'm fine with it.
If this works, the real issue is what the Celtics are getting for Crowder. If it's an unprotected first rounder, I'm fine with it.
I think the difference is that a S&T is considered a simultaneous transaction and a FA signing is considered a sequential transaction. If you start treating trades like sequential transactions, there would be other consequences (methinks).
I.e., as explained by Dan Feldman, after getting rid of everyone, the Cs would be at 10 roster spots and 2 cap holds. If they wanted to sign GH as a FA, they would have to get under the cap - which means (for exapmle) jettisoning Rozier and Jackson. That puts them at 8 roster spots and 4 cap holds. Then they have to sign GH into a roster spot.
In a trade, they switch out GH for one of the players, leaving them with 9 roster spots and 3 cap holds, saving them $800+K.
I know you are going to say that when GH signs as a free agent, why isn't one of the roster holds dropped when calculating the salary cap? Well, first of all, not dropping the hold reduces the amount of salary that the owners pay. Second, it seems counterintuitive to allow a team to create additional salary cap space by having fewer signed contracts making up the roster.
Interesting thoughts though.
Is this a situation where they could sign someone like Mickey back at the minimum after Hayward is on board, or is there a "no take backsies" rule for releases?
Yeah, I get it, it still seems like a miss to me. Again, it's largely a DGAF miss I guess because how often does a single cap hold really matter. But for the express purpose of why the NBA uses holds in the first place, it's a miss. You can close the loophole in a single phrase by requiring trades to have "holds" sent to the team receiving less players to cover the difference in players (if the roster ends up less than 13) and still have it be a "simultaneous" transaction. Given the extraordinary length of the CBA this is barely a nugget.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what that would do. Isn't Mickey's salary guaranteed? If so, cut him and you still have to pay him his $1.47M and then resign him to the league minimum. In the end, costing ownership more money. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. Guaranteed money doesn't just come off the books because you release a guy.