- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- 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
0
Posted on 7/14/12 at 6:12 pm to OBUDan
Does the 6.4 million include the trade exception we got from Jack?
Posted on 7/14/12 at 6:19 pm to Witecoco
im so confused. I thought for sure the Rohan guy was complaining all day about wastin the money on the JAck trade. Which is it?
Posted on 7/14/12 at 7:20 pm to OBUDan
The link in the OP is completely wrong which is odd since Rohan is usually pretty sharp and he showed enough work that he should have come to the right conclusions. He does not include the contract of Darius Miller and the other minimum guys like Dyson. He even points them out but for some reason doesn't count them in his calculation. They add up to roughly $1 million and change so the cap space should be closer to $5 million than $6.4 million
I think he is also wrong about having access to the MLE and BAE. If we are $5 million under the cap now and were $10 million under, we lost access to those exceptions, but the team would have then new $2.5 million cap room MLE.
I think he is also wrong about having access to the MLE and BAE. If we are $5 million under the cap now and were $10 million under, we lost access to those exceptions, but the team would have then new $2.5 million cap room MLE.
This post was edited on 7/14/12 at 7:21 pm
Posted on 7/14/12 at 7:52 pm to TigerinATL
I'll work the numbers when I get home, but I didn't see the roster charge mentioned. I think he also overlooked renouncing some of the exceptions.
He may have nailed it, but I think TigerinATL is right.
He may have nailed it, but I think TigerinATL is right.
Posted on 7/14/12 at 8:06 pm to TigerinATL
You guys seriously blow my mind with how much y'all know about all these numbers. I keep trying to pick up on some these exceptions and stuff, but can't grasp it.
Rezpek!
Rezpek!
Posted on 7/14/12 at 8:15 pm to TigerinATL
I'll work the numbers when I get home, but I didn't see the roster charge mentioned. I think he also overlooked renouncing some of the exceptions.
He may have nailed it, but I think TigerinATL is right.
He may have nailed it, but I think TigerinATL is right.
Posted on 7/14/12 at 8:29 pm to ATLienTiger
quote:
quote:
get some nice pieces
you can get "nice" pieces for only 6.4?
We still need a center/big, and possibly a wing player right?
6.4mil+multiple 2nd rnd picks+our 1st rnd picks+29 other teams=almost any possibility
Posted on 7/14/12 at 8:33 pm to Lester Earl
So right now, our team is basically
PG: Vasquez, Rivers
SG: Gordon, Henry, Dyson
SF: Aminu, Miller
PF: Anderson, Thomas
C: Davis, Smith
That's assuming we give minimum deals to Dyson and Thomas, and I think that's fine. So we basically need 4 more players if we want to utilize all 15 spots.
The biggest weaknesses are at point guard and either the 4 or 5. I don't like Aminu starting at SF, but we aren't really going to be a 4 or 5 seed next year, so we can't be too particular. Scola would be incredible, but how the hell are we going to put Anderson, Scola, and Davis on the court at the same time?
PG: Vasquez, Rivers
SG: Gordon, Henry, Dyson
SF: Aminu, Miller
PF: Anderson, Thomas
C: Davis, Smith
That's assuming we give minimum deals to Dyson and Thomas, and I think that's fine. So we basically need 4 more players if we want to utilize all 15 spots.
The biggest weaknesses are at point guard and either the 4 or 5. I don't like Aminu starting at SF, but we aren't really going to be a 4 or 5 seed next year, so we can't be too particular. Scola would be incredible, but how the hell are we going to put Anderson, Scola, and Davis on the court at the same time?
Posted on 7/14/12 at 8:40 pm to Keys Open Doors
quote:
So right now, our team is basically
PG: Vasquez, Rivers
SG: Gordon, Henry, Dyson
SF: Aminu, Miller
PF: Anderson, Thomas
C: Davis, Smith
I like
PG: Vasquez, Rivers
SG: Gordon, Henry, Dyson
SF: Anderson,Aminu, Miller
PF: Davis,Thomas
C: Smith
Posted on 7/14/12 at 8:43 pm to Keys Open Doors
quote:
but how the hell are we going to put Anderson, Scola, and Davis on the court at the same time?
Play Davis at SF. My main concern about this is him getting into foul trouble if he's guarding a good SF.
Posted on 7/14/12 at 8:45 pm to BayouFann
talk about versitility and matchup problems from 1-5
Posted on 7/14/12 at 9:58 pm to Keys Open Doors
quote:
The biggest weaknesses are at point guard and either the 4 or 5.
SF is the biggest hole on the roster, then Center.
A viable center slides Davis to the 4 making that the strong point of the team.
Posted on 7/14/12 at 10:19 pm to Lester Earl
Who could be realistic targets for the Center and SF positions?
I keep looking for lists of unsigned free agents, not lists of players who were free agents at the end of the 2012 season, and I can't find anything particularly good.
I keep looking for lists of unsigned free agents, not lists of players who were free agents at the end of the 2012 season, and I can't find anything particularly good.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 3:07 am to TigerinATL
I didn't include Darius Miller because he hasn't officially been signed yet (as far as I know), and didn't include Dyson, Thomas, or Watkins because their contracts don't become guaranteed for a few months down the road.
I did that to indicate that even if all those guys don't make the team, the Hornets' net salaries without them result in the total team exception figure exceeding the NBA salary cap minus team salary figure, a pre-condition for keeping the MLE and BAE. (Read more about this here: LINK The Hornets keep both exceptions unless they explicitly renounce them, as 42 mentioned; perhaps they've done this (and 42 will know more about that than me), but as far as I know, they haven't.
And so, no, I wouldn't characterize my original post as "completely wrong" at all; $6.4M is indeed very close to what we officially have. If we really wanted to, we could turn around and offer that to a player since those initially mentioned guys can be renounced.
I did that to indicate that even if all those guys don't make the team, the Hornets' net salaries without them result in the total team exception figure exceeding the NBA salary cap minus team salary figure, a pre-condition for keeping the MLE and BAE. (Read more about this here: LINK The Hornets keep both exceptions unless they explicitly renounce them, as 42 mentioned; perhaps they've done this (and 42 will know more about that than me), but as far as I know, they haven't.
And so, no, I wouldn't characterize my original post as "completely wrong" at all; $6.4M is indeed very close to what we officially have. If we really wanted to, we could turn around and offer that to a player since those initially mentioned guys can be renounced.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 6:15 am to atthehive
The reporting of the cap number is also a little bit of "what is the question again" kind of thing.
I brought up the roster charge. This has no real effect if everyone is signed to a middlin deal. It effectively reduces the cap a little but you aren't using your room, so no biggie.
If you want to blow your space on one guy, it matters and things like nonguaranteed guys don't because you can make the space. If they want those guys at more than the vet mid or Room will allow, then they represent yet another, if unofficial, cap hold.
I've seen completely wrong things, but this number is right in the ballpark, well-thoughtout, and well-intentioned.
I also think he has last year's max figure in the calculation. The FAQ doesn't mention it, but there's been a change despite the cap not moving. So, sometimes the reference most people use is wrong... can't win... I made an adjustment for that. The right one?
That's one reason I asked people to pick on my calculation.
I brought up the roster charge. This has no real effect if everyone is signed to a middlin deal. It effectively reduces the cap a little but you aren't using your room, so no biggie.
If you want to blow your space on one guy, it matters and things like nonguaranteed guys don't because you can make the space. If they want those guys at more than the vet mid or Room will allow, then they represent yet another, if unofficial, cap hold.
I've seen completely wrong things, but this number is right in the ballpark, well-thoughtout, and well-intentioned.
I also think he has last year's max figure in the calculation. The FAQ doesn't mention it, but there's been a change despite the cap not moving. So, sometimes the reference most people use is wrong... can't win... I made an adjustment for that. The right one?
That's one reason I asked people to pick on my calculation.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 10:35 am to atthehive
quote:
I didn't include Darius Miller because he hasn't officially been signed yet (as far as I know), and didn't include Dyson, Thomas, or Watkins because their contracts don't become guaranteed for a few months down the road.
But you need to at least include the rookie minimum to get the roster up to 12.
quote:LINK
A roster charge if the team has fewer than 12 players (players under contract, free agents included in team salary, players given offer sheets, and first round draft picks). The roster charge is equal to the rookie minimum salary for each player fewer than 12. For example, if there are 11 players included in team salary, then an amount equal to the rookie minimum salary is added to the team salary1; if the roster is completely empty, then 12 times the rookie minimum salary is added to the team salary. This roster charge only applies during the offseason.
It looks like the rookie minimum is $473,604 LINK You calculated $6.4 million off of 9 roster slots so you need to put in minimum holds for 3 slots which would mean subtracting $1.4 million from the $6.4 million which means the cap space available is about $5 million.
quote:
The Hornets keep both exceptions unless they explicitly renounce them,
Interesting, maybe that's why the team didn't bid on Brand. Although I would think $5 million in cap space + the $2.5 million cap MLE would be better to have than the full MLE and BAE. But I guess Demps could wait until his next move to decide that and renounce them.
quote:
And so, no, I wouldn't characterize my original post as "completely wrong"
I thought that might have been to strongly worded, especially considering your track record so I do apologize, but it got you to post here so
Welcome. Lots of people here are fans of your work.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 11:59 am to Lester Earl
quote:
SF is the biggest hole on the roster, then Center.
Agreed. I am NOT comfortable starting Aminu and his ugly rainbow jumpers.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 12:14 pm to atthehive
I thought about tweeting this at you.
Glad you showed up.
Rohan
Glad you showed up.
RohanPosted on 7/15/12 at 1:06 pm to TigerinATL
The clue to them renouncing the exceptions is the Anderson trade. It was unbalanced, so we must have signed him into space. When you use the space, you renounce certain exceptions... exclusive-or as I read it.
If there was a way to keep them, I hope we did.
I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong here; I'm tossing out the things that needs explanation or provide clues.
If there was a way to keep them, I hope we did.
I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong here; I'm tossing out the things that needs explanation or provide clues.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News