Offseason Rumors/News

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,884
It’s actually quite irrelevant to the point.
Sorry. From now on I'll try to only make posts that are relevant to your point & not whatever thoughts come into my head which are unrelated to your point but instead relate to my thoughts.

I think we need to grab a beer or something while you're in town lol
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
25,086
Sorry. From now on I'll try to only make posts that are relevant to your point & not whatever thoughts come into my head which are unrelated to your point but instead relate to my thoughts.

I think we need to grab a beer or something while you're in town lol
Lol true. I meant to reach out to you prior to getting here and forgot. I fly back tomorrow. Next trip for sure.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,230
The Nets are going to be disappointed with the offers they get for KD. The rule that precludes a team from trading for a second player with a max salary off his rookie deal has cut down on the number of young all stars that are available to the Nets. Jaylen Brown is probably the most desirable player
The best single assets the Nets get are probably Jaylen Brown, Brandon Ingram or Scottie Barnes. I don’t think any of those players are actually going to be offered.

In terms of players who would be legitimately offered it’s probably Pascal Siakam and Mikal Bridges.

To me, I think the Raptors trading Siakam, Anunoby (and salary filler) plus picks for Durant and Joe Harris seems like the best offer Marks is going to get. And even that may not be on the table.

If it isn’t on the table then Bridges, Ayton, Cam Johnson and a shitload of picks
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,174
The best single assets the Nets get are probably Jaylen Brown, Brandon Ingram or Scottie Barnes. I don’t think any of those players are actually going to be offered.

In terms of players who would be legitimately offered it’s probably Pascal Siakam and Mikal Bridges.

To me, I think the Raptors trading Siakam, Anunoby (and salary filler) plus picks for Durant and Joe Harris seems like the best offer Marks is going to get. And even that may not be on the table.

If it isn’t on the table then Bridges, Ayton, Cam Johnson and a shitload of picks
Feels right to me.

In thinking about where Nets are, my assumption has been they are looking to move Kyrie and just trying to wait out Lakers, by far the most likely trade partner.

On Simmons, I tend to think they are going to hope he shows up and plays well and rebuilds some value....then decide whether to cash him in or keep him as part of the rebuild. But that one could go a lot of directions, seems to me. I don't think especially likely that he's moved in order to acquire one of the guys on that rookie extension list, but I have toyed in my head with whether there's a three-way formulation that sends Durant somewhere, Mitchell to BKN, and picks to Utah.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
27,495
Apparently Windhorst said on TV that Ayton to IND is likely to happen soon, they are debating whether to do a S&T or just give him an offer sheet.

Makes sense as we discussed last week, this feels like IND telling PHX... "hey stop chasing a KD deal with Ayton, or we'll just give him an offer sheet"
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
8,009
around the way
Apparently Windhorst said on TV that Ayton to IND is likely to happen soon, they are debating whether to do a S&T or just give him an offer sheet.

Makes sense as we discussed last week, this feels like IND telling PHX... "hey stop chasing a KD deal with Ayton, or we'll just give him an offer sheet"
Fascinating that they juat solved their 2bigz redundancy by trading the better of their 2bigz (albeit for a great young player) and are now bringing in another expensive big.

Is this real or posturing? With Windhorst, could be either.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
27,495
Fascinating that they juat solved their 2bigz redundancy by trading the better of their 2bigz (albeit for a great young player) and are now bringing in another expensive big.

Is this real or posturing? With Windhorst, could be either.
My guess is the S&T is planned to be with Turner going out.
So they solve their 2 bigs who make each other worse problem by turning the better one into a great young guard, and the worse one into a better big on the same timeline as that guard.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,432
Fascinating that they juat solved their 2bigz redundancy by trading the better of their 2bigz (albeit for a great young player) and are now bringing in another expensive big.

Is this real or posturing? With Windhorst, could be either.
Should be real. Turner only has 1 year left and should be easy to move. Possibly to Phoenix who would have a need if Ayton left.

Ayton/Haliburton is a pretty good start.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,230
I wonder if the Pacers would be adding a pick with Turner in a Sign and Trade? In a vacuum they probably would need to but with everything surrounding Ayton and the Suns trying to get Durant, Im not sure if they actually would..,,

Regardless, you have to imagine whatever the Suns get from the Pacers is going to Brooklyn for Durant
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,505
I wonder if the Pacers would be adding a pick with Turner in a Sign and Trade? In a vacuum they probably would need to but with everything surrounding Ayton and the Suns trying to get Durant, Im not sure if they actually would..,,

Regardless, you have to imagine whatever the Suns get from the Pacers is going to Brooklyn for Durant
The Suns would probably need the picks to sweeten the package. If the Nets can wait the requisite time Turner instead of Ayton makes the trade numbers a little cleaner/more appetizing.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
46,351
Everyone who follows the NBA hot stove every summer and trade deadline MUST have a toast to Myles Turner if he is finally actually moved.
 
Jan 22, 2006
172
Excellent. I hope the penalties for the bench decorum stuff have some teeth.

The free throw + possession should be enough of a deterrent to mitigate most or all take-fouls, right? I'd imagine the expect value of 1 FT + possession is higher than the EV of a fastbreak. Might depend slightly on who has possession of the ball, i.e., you're ok fouling Shaq or Jaylen
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
5,770
The best single assets the Nets get are probably Jaylen Brown, Brandon Ingram or Scottie Barnes. I don’t think any of those players are actually going to be offered.

In terms of players who would be legitimately offered it’s probably Pascal Siakam and Mikal Bridges.

To me, I think the Raptors trading Siakam, Anunoby (and salary filler) plus picks for Durant and Joe Harris seems like the best offer Marks is going to get. And even that may not be on the table.

If it isn’t on the table then Bridges, Ayton, Cam Johnson and a shitload of picks
If the Nets could get JB and Smart or Derrick White, or Siakam and Anunoby, they’d be on their way to a very solid team defensively, assuming Simmons plays and Nic Claxton continues to improve. Get something for Kyrie, like Harrison Barnes and Davion Mitchell, (with Holmes, or Len and Lyles as trade ballast), and the Nets would be scrappy, and will have some future draft ammo from whatever draft picks they can get in those two trades
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,244
Toscana via Kyiv
Excellent. I hope the penalties for the bench decorum stuff have some teeth.

The free throw + possession should be enough of a deterrent to mitigate most or all take-fouls, right? I'd imagine the expect value of 1 FT + possession is higher than the EV of a fastbreak. Might depend slightly on who has possession of the ball, i.e., you're ok fouling Shaq or Jaylen
Yeah, I think it will deter most take fouls. EV way worse unless the guy is a truly horrific FT shooter.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,230
If the Nets could get JB and Smart or Derrick White, or Siakam and Anunoby, they’d be on their way to a very solid team defensively, assuming Simmons plays and Nic Claxton continues to improve. Get something for Kyrie, like Harrison Barnes and Davion Mitchell, (with Holmes, or Len and Lyles as trade ballast), and the Nets would be scrappy, and will have some future draft ammo from whatever draft picks they can get in those two trades
Maybe I’m wrong but I just don’t see the Celtics making that type of offer for KD. They just made the finals and the team should improve so I don’t think Brad would want to blow up the core of the team like that.

Siakam-Anunoby-Simmons is a pretty good start. Lots of length and multi-positional defense. They have some shooting cover for Simmons with Curry and Joe Harris.

If nothing else, I am sure that the Brooklyn fans would appreciate being able to root for a team where the players show up and appear to actually care
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,144
Maine
Maybe I’m wrong but I just don’t see the Celtics making that type of offer for KD. They just made the finals and the team should improve so I don’t think Brad would want to blow up the core of the team like that.

Siakam-Anunoby-Simmons is a pretty good start. Lots of length and multi-positional defense. They have some shooting cover for Simmons with Curry and Joe Harris.

If nothing else, I am sure that the Brooklyn fans would appreciate being able to root for a team where the players show up and appear to actually care
Wait are they trading Simmons as well?
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
3,988

jmcc5400

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
3,865
And immediately comes a ton of Mitchell to Knicks buzz. The Knicks blowing all their assets on Mitchell is a good outcome from a Celtics perspective, no? I can’t imagine a Brunson/Mitchell backcourt pairing will have any success defensively.
The Knicks would be ideal from the Celtics perspective. Two 6'1" guys in the backcourt? Good luck.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,884
What is that trade? Evan Fournier, Obi Toppin, Quintin Grimes, Miles McBride & 8 1sts for Mitchell?
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,884
It's crazy how old the Jazz are for a teardown team...

They'll also want to move off Mike Conley who's almost 35 & has $22.7m this year & $24.4m next year ($14.3m guaranteed). He is yet another 6'1 guard so probably can't throw him to the Knicks with Mitchell.

Bojan Bogdanovich is 33 and is on a $19.6m expiring (including the likely incentives).

Jordan Clarkson is 30, but not really the type of guy I would think fits in a rebuilding team as he uses so many possessions. He makes $13.3m with a $14.3m player option next year.

Patrick Beverley turned 34 today (happy bday PBev!). He's got 1 year at $13m.

Rudy Gay is almost 36 & makes $6.2m with a $6.5m player option for next year.

If Kyrie to the Lakers doesn't work, can the Jazz become an RW destination? Conley/Bojan/Clarkson ($55.6m) for Westbrook/THT ($57.3m) & all the picks maybe?

Leaves the Lakers with Conley/Clarkson/Bojan/LeBron/AD backed up by Austin Reeves/Stanley Johnson/Thomas Bryant etc., & leaves the Jazz with...a lot of picks & the chance to buyout RW? THT is only 22 & isn't awful, even if the Lakers had to overpay him.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
5,179
Imaginationland
The Knicks would be ideal from the Celtics perspective. Two 6'1" guys in the backcourt? Good luck.
Mitchell plays a lot bigger than his height (his wingspan is a ridiculous 6'10), but it would still be a problem for them. Unfortunately it's pretty unlikely to happen, as the Knicks are always rumored to be a destination until everyone remembers that no one wants to play there.
 

jmcc5400

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
3,865
Mitchell plays a lot bigger than his height (his wingspan is a ridiculous 6'10), but it would still be a problem for them. Unfortunately it's pretty unlikely to happen, as the Knicks are always rumored to be a destination until everyone remembers that no one wants to play there.
Yeah, he’s a great player and didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. But better he go to the Knicks, which almost certainly is a dead end from a championship standpoint, than to Miami (for example) where he could put a rival contender over the top.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
38,680
I want to repost this news here because we recently had a post here claiming the new TV rights contract is "speculative" with the implication that teams acting off the expectation of the deal were being foolish.

That may be the case but this CNBC piece from last year suggests that teams actually employ budgeting and forecasting off of expected revenues just like every other business in the world. Not everyone understands the time value of money but if we are going to chide NBA teams for doing transactions predicated on future revenue flows, how do we feel about tech companies, investors in financial markets and just about every other money making endeavor?

One person familiar with sports media deals said the NBA could get $70.2 billion over nine years, using metrics including total viewer hours, which helps networks determine the value of sports league rights. The person also said tier-one sports rights are important to streaming services.

The reason I posted this is because if we are going to judge deals, we ought to have as much information as possible. That doesn't mean people will change their opinions but at leat we can be more informed . This deal, if consummated at the levels being discussed, will likely yield the league somewhere between $5-6B per year vs the current $2.6B. Even if the estimates are high - and major sports were seeing inflation before the rest of is were all the way around - that likely means 10s of millions more to each team just a few years from now.

We don't need to relitigate past discussions but we should probably use these estimates when trying to grade transactions. It feels very likely that NBA economics mean that even ostensibly bad deals aren't fatal.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,884
Mitchell plays a lot bigger than his height (his wingspan is a ridiculous 6'10), but it would still be a problem for them. Unfortunately it's pretty unlikely to happen, as the Knicks are always rumored to be a destination until everyone remembers that no one wants to play there.
Good thing he has 3 years left on his contract (plus a player option)! Oh wait, those things don't really matter so much anymore...but still, if they have the best offer, it could certainly be a thing. Mitchell has a 15% trade kicker, which can be used as some sort of steering leverage I suppose, too.

I don't really see what a Heat trade would look like.

Herro/Duncan/Caleb/Jovic '23 1st & '28 1st? Don't think they have much else they can offer.
 

jmcc5400

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
3,865
Good thing he has 3 years left on his contract (plus a player option)! Oh wait, those things don't really matter so much anymore...but still, if they have the best offer, it could certainly be a thing. Mitchell has a 15% trade kicker, which can be used as some sort of steering leverage I suppose, too.

I don't really see what a Heat trade would look like.

Herro/Duncan/Caleb/Jovic '23 1st & '28 1st? Don't think they have much else they can offer.
Yeah, but Danny and Riles are tight.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,884
I want to repost this news here because we recently had a post here claiming the new TV rights contract is "speculative" with the implication that teams acting off the expectation of the deal were being foolish.

That may be the case but this CNBC piece from last year suggests that teams actually employ budgeting and forecasting off of expected revenues just like every other business in the world. Not everyone understands the time value of money but if we are going to chide NBA teams for doing transactions predicated on future revenue flows, how do we feel about tech companies, investors in financial markets and just about every other money making endeavor?




The reason I posted this is because if we are going to judge deals, we ought to have as much information as possible. That doesn't mean people will change their opinions but at leat we can be more informed . This deal, if consummated at the levels being discussed, will likely yield the league somewhere between $5-6B per year vs the current $2.6B. Even if the estimates are high - and major sports were seeing inflation before the rest of is were all the way around - that likely means 10s of millions more to each team just a few years from now.

We don't need to relitigate past discussions but we should probably use these estimates when trying to grade transactions. It feels very likely that NBA economics mean that even ostensibly bad deals aren't fatal.
I'm not sure if this is too relevant to the Lillard arguments...the player option is for $63.3m in '26/'27 & based on cap rules, it is capped at 35% of the cap in that year - meaning that it is only worth $63.3m if the cap is at $180.9m. The cap this year is $123.7m. Are you expecting the new tv deal to increase the cap so much that it will be significantly higher than $180.9m per season in 4 years? That's a 46% increase.

There is some precedent for that if you look especially as right around the last tv deal, so I guess it's possible, but it seems unlikely that it's going to increase by so much more than 46% over the next 4 years for it not to be a very large chunk of the cap for that year. Even if we match the last largest 4-year increase after the previous deal, the cap would be $198m, of which Lillard's deal would still be 32%.

Year Salary Cap 2022 Dollars Year-to-Year Increase 4-year Increase
1984-85 $3,600,000 $9,793,069 N/A N/A
1985-86 $4,233,000 $11,298,280
17.58%​
N/A
1986-87 $4,945,000 $12,734,751
16.82%​
N/A
1987-88 $6,164,000 $15,248,702
24.65%​
71.22%​
1988-89 $7,232,000 $17,069,461
17.33%​
70.85%​
1989-90 $9,802,000 $21,950,887
35.54%​
98.22%​
1990-91 $11,871,000 $25,499,592
21.11%​
92.59%​
1991-92 $12,500,000 $26,061,180
5.30%​
72.84%​
1992-93 $14,000,000 $28,354,756
12.00%​
42.83%​
1993-94 $15,175,000 $29,954,782
8.39%​
27.83%​
1994-95 $15,964,000 $30,651,995
5.20%​
27.71%​
1995-96 $23,000,000 $42,906,004
44.07%​
64.29%​
1996-97 $24,363,000 $44,402,880
5.93%​
60.55%​
1997-98 $26,900,000 $48,285,994
10.41%​
68.50%​
1998-99 $30,000,000 $52,688,773
11.52%​
30.43%​
1999-00 $34,000,000 $57,763,864
13.33%​
39.56%​
2000-01 $35,500,000 $58,657,395
4.41%​
31.97%​
2001-02 $42,500,000 $69,132,284
19.72%​
41.67%​
2002-03 $40,271,000 $64,048,956
-5.24%​
18.44%​
2003-04 $43,840,000 $67,907,202
8.86%​
23.49%​
2004-05 $43,870,000 $65,719,039
0.07%​
3.22%​
2005-06 $49,500,000 $71,839,551
12.83%​
22.92%​
2006-07 $53,135,000 $74,973,988
7.34%​
21.20%​
2007-08 $55,630,000 $75,594,893
4.70%​
26.81%​
2008-09 $58,680,000 $80,023,973
5.48%​
18.55%​
2009-10 $57,700,000 $77,414,680
-1.67%​
8.59%​
2010-11 $58,044,000 $75,491,545
0.60%​
4.34%​
2011-12 $58,044,000 $73,970,553
0.00%​
-1.08%​
2012-13 $58,044,000 $72,903,264
0.00%​
0.60%​
2013-14 $58,679,000 $72,519,787
1.09%​
1.09%​
2014-15 $63,065,000 $77,841,847
7.47%​
8.65%​
2015-16 $70,000,000 $85,323,721
11.00%​
20.60%​
2016-17 $94,143,000 $112,368,348
34.49%​
60.44%​
2017-18 $99,093,000 $115,455,294
5.26%​
57.13%​
2018-19 $101,869,000 $116,573,245
2.80%​
45.53%​
2019-20 $109,140,000 $123,384,194
7.14%​
15.93%​
2020-21 $109,140,000 $117,838,496
0.00%​
10.14%​
2021-22 $112,414,000 $112,414,000
3.00%​
10.35%​
2022-23 $123,655,000
10.00%​
13.30%​


I looked into that article more carefully (& tried to find anything that was published since then, which seems impossible), & it seems pretty clear that those numbers come from the NBA, but even if they come to fruition, the NBA projected their revenue at about $10b last year, & that would be an increase of around $5b per year, which is a 50% increase. So the numbers seem fairly in line with Lillard still costing at least 30% of the cap in that option year. I could be missing something, but if that's the best case scenario, that's still not a ton of upside (if the purpose of doing the extension now is financial benefit for the team in the future). Especially since there are still a couple more years before the tv contract even expires, & Lillard was already under contract for 3 more years. & even if that $63.3m becomes not ridiculously excessive somehow...Lillard can still decline the option.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
27,495
What is that trade? Evan Fournier, Obi Toppin, Quintin Grimes, Miles McBride & 8 1sts for Mitchell?
Rose, Barrett Toppin and picks works too.

Mitchell plays a lot bigger than his height (his wingspan is a ridiculous 6'10), but it would still be a problem for them. Unfortunately it's pretty unlikely to happen, as the Knicks are always rumored to be a destination until everyone remembers that no one wants to play there.
Not on defense he doesn't, he barely plays at all
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
590
I'm not sure if this is too relevant to the Lillard arguments...the player option is for $63.3m in '26/'27 & based on cap rules, it is capped at 35% of the cap in that year - meaning that it is only worth $63.3m if the cap is at $180.9m. The cap this year is $123.7m. Are you expecting the new tv deal to increase the cap so much that it will be significantly higher than $180.9m per season in 4 years? That's a 46% increase.

There is some precedent for that if you look especially as right around the last tv deal, so I guess it's possible, but it seems unlikely that it's going to increase by so much more than 46% over the next 4 years for it not to be a very large chunk of the cap for that year. Even if we match the last largest 4-year increase after the previous deal, the cap would be $198m, of which Lillard's deal would still be 32%.

Year Salary Cap 2022 Dollars Year-to-Year Increase 4-year Increase
1984-85 $3,600,000 $9,793,069 N/A N/A
1985-86 $4,233,000 $11,298,280
17.58%​
N/A
1986-87 $4,945,000 $12,734,751
16.82%​
N/A
1987-88 $6,164,000 $15,248,702
24.65%​
71.22%​
1988-89 $7,232,000 $17,069,461
17.33%​
70.85%​
1989-90 $9,802,000 $21,950,887
35.54%​
98.22%​
1990-91 $11,871,000 $25,499,592
21.11%​
92.59%​
1991-92 $12,500,000 $26,061,180
5.30%​
72.84%​
1992-93 $14,000,000 $28,354,756
12.00%​
42.83%​
1993-94 $15,175,000 $29,954,782
8.39%​
27.83%​
1994-95 $15,964,000 $30,651,995
5.20%​
27.71%​
1995-96 $23,000,000 $42,906,004
44.07%​
64.29%​
1996-97 $24,363,000 $44,402,880
5.93%​
60.55%​
1997-98 $26,900,000 $48,285,994
10.41%​
68.50%​
1998-99 $30,000,000 $52,688,773
11.52%​
30.43%​
1999-00 $34,000,000 $57,763,864
13.33%​
39.56%​
2000-01 $35,500,000 $58,657,395
4.41%​
31.97%​
2001-02 $42,500,000 $69,132,284
19.72%​
41.67%​
2002-03 $40,271,000 $64,048,956
-5.24%​
18.44%​
2003-04 $43,840,000 $67,907,202
8.86%​
23.49%​
2004-05 $43,870,000 $65,719,039
0.07%​
3.22%​
2005-06 $49,500,000 $71,839,551
12.83%​
22.92%​
2006-07 $53,135,000 $74,973,988
7.34%​
21.20%​
2007-08 $55,630,000 $75,594,893
4.70%​
26.81%​
2008-09 $58,680,000 $80,023,973
5.48%​
18.55%​
2009-10 $57,700,000 $77,414,680
-1.67%​
8.59%​
2010-11 $58,044,000 $75,491,545
0.60%​
4.34%​
2011-12 $58,044,000 $73,970,553
0.00%​
-1.08%​
2012-13 $58,044,000 $72,903,264
0.00%​
0.60%​
2013-14 $58,679,000 $72,519,787
1.09%​
1.09%​
2014-15 $63,065,000 $77,841,847
7.47%​
8.65%​
2015-16 $70,000,000 $85,323,721
11.00%​
20.60%​
2016-17 $94,143,000 $112,368,348
34.49%​
60.44%​
2017-18 $99,093,000 $115,455,294
5.26%​
57.13%​
2018-19 $101,869,000 $116,573,245
2.80%​
45.53%​
2019-20 $109,140,000 $123,384,194
7.14%​
15.93%​
2020-21 $109,140,000 $117,838,496
0.00%​
10.14%​
2021-22 $112,414,000 $112,414,000
3.00%​
10.35%​
2022-23 $123,655,000
10.00%​
13.30%​


I looked into that article more carefully (& tried to find anything that was published since then, which seems impossible), & it seems pretty clear that those numbers come from the NBA, but even if they come to fruition, the NBA projected their revenue at about $10b last year, & that would be an increase of around $5b per year, which is a 50% increase. So the numbers seem fairly in line with Lillard still costing at least 30% of the cap in that option year. I could be missing something, but if that's the best case scenario, that's still not a ton of upside (if the purpose of doing the extension now is financial benefit for the team in the future). Especially since there are still a couple more years before the tv contract even expires, & Lillard was already under contract for 3 more years. & even if that $63.3m becomes not ridiculously excessive somehow...Lillard can still decline the option.
The numbers that have been bandied about the for the new tv deal are somewhere around 2.5X-3X larger. The current deal is 2.6B. BRI is currently around 8.3. If the new deal came in at 2.5X, BRI would go up to 12.2B, putting the cap at around 182M. The current cap is at 123.6M, assuming continued modest growth between now and the new TV deal, you would be looking at 40ish% bump. There were almost certainly some kind of smoothing deal this time around. If local TV deals see a jump as well, then BRI could grow even larger.

That being said, I think the discussion around Lilliard and the rising cap misses the mark. There is a very real chance he is not a serviceable NBA player in those two added years.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
16,708
Somewhere
If the Lakers strike out on Kyrie, I would imagine they might try to swing a deal for Conley + Bojan (or something like that).
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,884
Rose, Barrett Toppin and picks works too.


Not on defense he doesn't, he barely plays at all
Yeah...I just don't think there's much point in the Knicks moving RJ if they want to pretend they're building toward something, & the Knicks probably value Rose more than the Jazz do, so I liked the other construction better, but yeah, that way definitely works, too.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
38,680
I'm not sure if this is too relevant to the Lillard arguments...the player option is for $63.3m in '26/'27 & based on cap rules, it is capped at 35% of the cap in that year - meaning that it is only worth $63.3m if the cap is at $180.9m. The cap this year is $123.7m. Are you expecting the new tv deal to increase the cap so much that it will be significantly higher than $180.9m per season in 4 years? That's a 46% increase.

There is some precedent for that if you look especially as right around the last tv deal, so I guess it's possible, but it seems unlikely that it's going to increase by so much more than 46% over the next 4 years for it not to be a very large chunk of the cap for that year. Even if we match the last largest 4-year increase after the previous deal, the cap would be $198m, of which Lillard's deal would still be 32%.

Year Salary Cap 2022 Dollars Year-to-Year Increase 4-year Increase
1984-85 $3,600,000 $9,793,069 N/A N/A
1985-86 $4,233,000 $11,298,280
17.58%​
N/A
1986-87 $4,945,000 $12,734,751
16.82%​
N/A
1987-88 $6,164,000 $15,248,702
24.65%​
71.22%​
1988-89 $7,232,000 $17,069,461
17.33%​
70.85%​
1989-90 $9,802,000 $21,950,887
35.54%​
98.22%​
1990-91 $11,871,000 $25,499,592
21.11%​
92.59%​
1991-92 $12,500,000 $26,061,180
5.30%​
72.84%​
1992-93 $14,000,000 $28,354,756
12.00%​
42.83%​
1993-94 $15,175,000 $29,954,782
8.39%​
27.83%​
1994-95 $15,964,000 $30,651,995
5.20%​
27.71%​
1995-96 $23,000,000 $42,906,004
44.07%​
64.29%​
1996-97 $24,363,000 $44,402,880
5.93%​
60.55%​
1997-98 $26,900,000 $48,285,994
10.41%​
68.50%​
1998-99 $30,000,000 $52,688,773
11.52%​
30.43%​
1999-00 $34,000,000 $57,763,864
13.33%​
39.56%​
2000-01 $35,500,000 $58,657,395
4.41%​
31.97%​
2001-02 $42,500,000 $69,132,284
19.72%​
41.67%​
2002-03 $40,271,000 $64,048,956
-5.24%​
18.44%​
2003-04 $43,840,000 $67,907,202
8.86%​
23.49%​
2004-05 $43,870,000 $65,719,039
0.07%​
3.22%​
2005-06 $49,500,000 $71,839,551
12.83%​
22.92%​
2006-07 $53,135,000 $74,973,988
7.34%​
21.20%​
2007-08 $55,630,000 $75,594,893
4.70%​
26.81%​
2008-09 $58,680,000 $80,023,973
5.48%​
18.55%​
2009-10 $57,700,000 $77,414,680
-1.67%​
8.59%​
2010-11 $58,044,000 $75,491,545
0.60%​
4.34%​
2011-12 $58,044,000 $73,970,553
0.00%​
-1.08%​
2012-13 $58,044,000 $72,903,264
0.00%​
0.60%​
2013-14 $58,679,000 $72,519,787
1.09%​
1.09%​
2014-15 $63,065,000 $77,841,847
7.47%​
8.65%​
2015-16 $70,000,000 $85,323,721
11.00%​
20.60%​
2016-17 $94,143,000 $112,368,348
34.49%​
60.44%​
2017-18 $99,093,000 $115,455,294
5.26%​
57.13%​
2018-19 $101,869,000 $116,573,245
2.80%​
45.53%​
2019-20 $109,140,000 $123,384,194
7.14%​
15.93%​
2020-21 $109,140,000 $117,838,496
0.00%​
10.14%​
2021-22 $112,414,000 $112,414,000
3.00%​
10.35%​
2022-23 $123,655,000
10.00%​
13.30%​


I looked into that article more carefully (& tried to find anything that was published since then, which seems impossible), & it seems pretty clear that those numbers come from the NBA, but even if they come to fruition, the NBA projected their revenue at about $10b last year, & that would be an increase of around $5b per year, which is a 50% increase. So the numbers seem fairly in line with Lillard still costing at least 30% of the cap in that option year. I could be missing something, but if that's the best case scenario, that's still not a ton of upside (if the purpose of doing the extension now is financial benefit for the team in the future). Especially since there are still a couple more years before the tv contract even expires, & Lillard was already under contract for 3 more years. & even if that $63.3m becomes not ridiculously excessive somehow...Lillard can still decline the option.
Thank you for this well thought out post.

Again, I don't want to relitigate the Lillard extension at all - its no mystery to me why Portland did it but I don't disagree that it carries significant risk. But this sort of post is well past people looking at age+height and saying "so dumb".

If message board posters are going to display their hidden GM skills in analyzing a transaction, show us your work. Otherwise we are no better than sports talk radio.

The numbers that have been bandied about the for the new tv deal are somewhere around 2.5X-3X larger. The current deal is 2.6B. BRI is currently around 8.3. If the new deal came in at 2.5X, BRI would go up to 12.2B, putting the cap at around 182M. The current cap is at 123.6M, assuming continued modest growth between now and the new TV deal, you would be looking at 40ish% bump. There were almost certainly some kind of smoothing deal this time around. If local TV deals see a jump as well, then BRI could grow even larger.

That being said, I think the discussion around Lilliard and the rising cap misses the mark. There is a very real chance he is not a serviceable NBA player in those two added years.
Thank you. Again, I am not taking Portland's side here at all. I think they are definitely taking a risk but from where I sit it seems more calculated than blind stupidity.

In any event, as both of you have shown this upcoming contract represents a significant influx of cash to the league. If past experience holds, this money will be spent and it will almost certainly impact everything from individual contracts to roster building and the also upcoming CBA. This should at least in part form some of our forum discussions.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
15,337
Santa Monica
If the Lakers strike out on Kyrie, I would imagine they might try to swing a deal for Conley + Bojan (or something like that).
Danny hankering for that Russ experience

Really looking forward to RWB giving it all this season after being shopped to 29 other NBA teams this summer.
 

MillarTime

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
1,324
Danny has to be excited about the potential of getting the Knicks draft future. Getting something like Barrett + three or four future Knicks picks would be an incredible haul.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,244
Toscana via Kyiv
Not on defense he doesn't, he barely plays at all
He's such a weird case. He came out of college with more of a defensive than offensive reputation, and has amazing physical tools. He put Tatum in jail in that memorable 2017 summer league.

And then he's just been a tire fire as a pro. You can talk about offensive load all you want, but his defensive clips are vomit-inducing. And he's been on a really good team with a fairly strong culture throughout this.

Odd player.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
8,009
around the way
He's such a weird case. He came out of college with more of a defensive than offensive reputation, and has amazing physical tools. He put Tatum in jail in that memorable 2017 summer league.

And then he's just been a tire fire as a pro. You can talk about offensive load all you want, but his defensive clips are vomit-inducing. And he's been on a really good team with a fairly strong culture throughout this.

Odd player.
I just pulled together a few comparable "alpha" "guards", with the caveats that 1) Luka is big like a forward but is a guard, and 2) Trae isn't on here to skew the numbers (he is one of the few guys that popped into mind as meeting the criteria).

53215

As everyone knows, Trae is historically bad. But what's fascinating is your memory of Donovan. It's like the "alpha guard" union pulled him aside somewhere in season 2/3 and said "Hey Spider, stop working so hard on defense. You're making us look bad. Take a break once in a while."

Donovan was average before the end of season one and trending up...and then just stopped and is now down with Booker, Doncic, and Morant as "Bad" defenders. Nobody is down with Trae as "worse than the chair" defender.