- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
So how would the stretch provision work on EG this offseason?
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:17 am
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:17 am
Let's say he continues to be a bum, or even marginally better, and there is no shot of trading him. Because he's a bum, he opts in.
If we used the stretch provision on him, this offseason, someone with knowledge explain to me how that would work and affect the cap for the next few years. What would the dollar amounts be? Can you work out a lower number with the player and then stretch it out?
If we used the stretch provision on him, this offseason, someone with knowledge explain to me how that would work and affect the cap for the next few years. What would the dollar amounts be? Can you work out a lower number with the player and then stretch it out?
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:28 am to Fun Bunch
Stretch provision is taking the salary owed and stretching it out over 2 x seasons remaining + 1. So if we do it next offseason we stretch out the money owed Gordon in the last year of his deal over 3 years. If it's the full $15.5 million, it'd be a $5 million cap hit for 3 years. If he can return to form, you'd hope he could get at least $5 million on the open market (Jodie Meeks got $7) and accept a $10 million buyout which would lead to a $3.3 million cap hit over 3 years if stretched. Here's an article from MM on it last year LINK /
Running the cap numbers I think this played a part in not picking up Rivers' option. If the cap goes up to $67 million (projection before the TV deal) and you keep Asik for $12 million, then you'd have about $9 million in cap space stretching Gordon's full salary and $11 million if you can get him to take a $10 million buyout. Keeping Rivers turns those numbers into $6 - $8 million in cap space which probably wouldn't be enough to get the caliber of SF we're hoping for.
Running the cap numbers I think this played a part in not picking up Rivers' option. If the cap goes up to $67 million (projection before the TV deal) and you keep Asik for $12 million, then you'd have about $9 million in cap space stretching Gordon's full salary and $11 million if you can get him to take a $10 million buyout. Keeping Rivers turns those numbers into $6 - $8 million in cap space which probably wouldn't be enough to get the caliber of SF we're hoping for.
This post was edited on 11/7/14 at 10:29 am
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:31 am to TigerinATL
quote:
TigerinATL
Still interested in you giving out the details of who's available at the numbers you're expecting and who isn't.
Also, if I'm the team the words "stretch provision" or "buyout" don't even cross my mind until Gordon decides on his option. Don't give that weasel any more incentive to just pick his option up to get an instant payday from us.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:37 am to ShamelessPel
Well I don't think they would even mention or discuss it until he picked up his option.
I'd almost rather just let next season play out, endure another year with that bum and get an MLE SF, and then take our chances in the Summer of 2016 with some serious cash to work with. It might be better to just endure another year of this guy than for him to frick us for 3 years
I'd almost rather just let next season play out, endure another year with that bum and get an MLE SF, and then take our chances in the Summer of 2016 with some serious cash to work with. It might be better to just endure another year of this guy than for him to frick us for 3 years
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:41 am to ShamelessPel
quote:
Still interested in you giving out the details of who's available at the numbers you're expecting and who isn't.
You mean SFs? Near max guys like Leonard and Butler (if we stole him it'd take near max) are out of our price range. Marvin Williams got $7 per last year, the cap is escalating and the guys we're talking about should be in the same tier or better than Williams, which means we'll probably pay at least $8-$10 per year and the odds are high that his last name will be Green.
I think the bigger problem to solve might actually be where you get depth from after upgrading SF. Hopefully you can resign Rivers with an exception like they did for Aminu, but you still need a better backup SF. The roster may still be paper thin next year, but it should be more balanced.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:45 am to TigerinATL
My hatred for EG grows...
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:51 am to Fun Bunch
The stretch provision is when EG inevitably gets hurt again, he will have to do a lot of stretching during his rehab so that he can get back out on the court as soon as he can.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:52 am to TigerinATL
quote:
TigerinATL
That's what I'm saying though.
1) The crop isn't that great.
2) We're betting that we will be able to sign the couple guys out there at face value.
3) We're also betting that Austin Rivers is going to want to stick around for less money than his option contact. He's as good as gone. That edge he plays with that the believers think will make him a valuable player someday, is also the same edge that will see him leave for more playing time before taking less money from us.
Dell isn't perfect, and I'm a pretty big fan of his. I'd be just like every other NBA fanboy though if I said he made the right move here. I don't think it was the right call. You mention resigning Rivers for less. What if we lose Rivers and strike out on our targeted SF? We end up with some overpaid body at SF and even less depth than your hypothetical paper thin bench.
What if Benson isn't willing to pay $12 million for this jackass to just go away?
Giving up Rivers at $3m and losing his future RFA rights was a dumb arse move just to have to accommodate Eric Gordon's contract.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 11:10 am to ShamelessPel
quote:
lose Rivers
I think Rivers will be a solid player, but combo guard has a pretty healthy supply in the league. Guys like Jarrett Jack, Jeryd Bayless, Courtney Lee seem to do nothing but hop from team to team.
You just aren't capable of having an unbiased opinion on Rivers. Many of us overrated Marcus Thornton the same way. Between the local connection, the exciting offense, and the long term hole that we had had at SG, there was a lot to like. But it turns out he was "just a guy" and not as special as many of us initially thought.
I'm not saying losing Rivers and striking out on an SF would be a good thing, but the striking out on the SF would be a much bigger problem to fix than the losing Rivers part.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 11:12 am to TotesMcGotes
Sounds like something my 13 year old would come up with. Good try for him tho.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 11:21 am to TigerinATL
quote:
Many of us overrated Marcus Thornton the same way. Between the local connection, the exciting offense, and the long term hole that we had had at SG, there was a lot to like
TigerinATL, we are not talking about a 5yr/$40 million contract for Rivers here. It's a $3m option on a just-turned-22 year old that allows you to control his rights as a RFA afterwards vs. letting him go for nothing. You are just dismissing anything I say as a Rivers honk who knows nothing about what's going on.
I'm even looking at it objectively as at this point, I'm not even sure Rivers makes it to the end of the season (cue Thornton example again). His playing time may be just as much an opportunity to showcase him if anything. It will just suck if he makes a 3rd year jump with that playing time, and we're stuck with freaking Gordon. I'm sure declining the option was a means to make him a more tradeable asset in Demps' mind, but the logic is faulty. Rivers' value isn't in his 2.4m expiring contract, it's in his potential upside. We just flushed the upside part away as any team trading for him will also be thinking, we don't control where he goes after this year.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 11:36 am to ShamelessPel
quote:
You are just dismissing anything I say as a Rivers honk who knows nothing about what's going on.
I'm saying it'd take signing an obvious upgrade for you to let go of Rivers, and with all the uncertainty in the SF market you want to cling tightly. We may strike out and it ends up being the wrong call in hindsight, but in foresight I think most would agree a starting caliber SF is more important to the team than Rivers. If people are unhappy about the state of the roster this year, and there have been quite a few complaints, do you think they'd be any happier next year if all we did was wait out Gordon and add a 2nd string caliber SF with the MLE? I think most would be calling for Demps' head about not moving Gordon and improving the team enough. Sitting still next year isn't an option for Demps.
This post was edited on 11/7/14 at 11:37 am
Posted on 11/7/14 at 11:42 am to TigerinATL
quote:
I think most would be calling for Demps' head about not moving Gordon and improving the team enough. Sitting still next year isn't an option for Demps.
If we don't make the playoffs this year, it might not be Dell's...or Monty's call.
We may have another GM who decides to sit tight and go for a big splash in 2016. Hard to know at this point.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 11:55 am to TigerinATL
quote:
I'm saying it'd take signing an obvious upgrade for you to let go of Rivers
Rivers is gone. How many times do I have to say that? Quit putting words in my mouth. If anything, for purposes of this discussion, your deflecting on to my Rivers fanhood is becoming the distraction. I'm saying that I've looked at the free agents, and I don't see this massive $3million discrepancy in who we can sign or who we can't. You think $10mil / year will get it done for Jeff or Draymond? Maybe the latter. Again, restricted though.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 12:33 pm to ShamelessPel
I believe he's probably referring to Danny or Gerald, too.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 12:39 pm to Epic Cajun
Danny or Gerald better not cost us $10 million though is my point.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 12:40 pm to Epic Cajun
quote:
I believe he's probably referring to Danny or Gerald, too.
Don't leave Jeff out either. He can either be a trade target or opt out.
quote:
I'm saying that I've looked at the free agents, and I don't see this massive $3million discrepancy in who we can sign or who we can't.
There are a lot of Greens on the market this offseason, which in theory should suppress their value, but if you want your first choice of Green (or any other SF) you are going to have to bring at least $8 million to the table IMO, probably closer to $10. Would it be better to get your 4th choice for $7 instead of your 1st choice for $11? Maybe, but who has plan A as landing their 4th choice?
quote:
Danny or Gerald better not cost us $10 million though is my point.
Sticker shock is to be expected when in 2 years the cap is expected to explode possibly more than 50% compared to the $58 million cap we've gotten used to. If the cap gets to $90 million as some have speculated then the new MLE will be roughly $7.75 million. $10 million will be the new $6.5 million.
This post was edited on 11/7/14 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 11/7/14 at 1:00 pm to TigerinATL
Jeff green is going to get a 13-14 mil offer and I don't think we have the pieces for a S&T and we just declined an option on a $3m one. Do you see my points now?
This post was edited on 11/7/14 at 1:01 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News