Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some more evidence that Colangelo was an incompetent idiot

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    The best info going on team salaries and player contracts is at shamsports.com.

    And, coincidentally, the day after I started this thread Mark Deeks just put up a post talking about this exact issue, and featuring our own beloved Doug Smith mistakenly calling an unguaranteed deal a team option.

    http://www.shamsports.com/2013/07/th...am-option.html

    Comment


    • #32
      Thanks for posting the link, it helped me learn more about the difference between the two. However, I do think your being a bit hard on Coangelo, it's not like being able to include JLIII's salary as part of the trade was the difference between trading for leborn and trading for steve Novak.
      "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

      "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

      "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

      Comment


      • #33
        ezz_bee wrote: View Post
        Thanks for posting the link, it helped me learn more about the difference between the two. However, I do think your being a bit hard on Coangelo, it's not like being able to include JLIII's salary as part of the trade was the difference between trading for leborn and trading for steve Novak.
        A bit? I think it's flat-out ridiculous. Especially, after how long it's been.

        In 2016, when we are rebuilding again. tofu is going to post about how Colangelo fucked up the team too much leaving Ujiri crippled and no choice, but to rebuild..
        If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?

        Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.

        Comment


        • #34
          tkfu, why you haven't managed to make it into one of the 30 NBA front offices, I don't know, because clearly you're smarter than most GMs. Is it too late to apply for the Raptors' position? Masai seems to be quite the incompetent idiot as well:

          http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--ra...202837860.html

          "The Raptors will hold a team option on the second year of the deal."

          Man, it will suck when we have the opportunity to add Stone in a pre-June 30th deal but can't due to Masai's idiocy. What was he thinking??

          Comment


          • #35
            Just throwing this out there (from the shamsports article you quoted, tkfu):

            The downside to doing it this way is that players have to be waived for the savings to take effect, which means they get renounced in the process. In contrast, if a team declines a player's team option, they would still have Bird rights on that player in order to re-sign them, and they could also still extend a qualifying offer (if applicable). By being waived as an unguaranteed contracts instead, those benefits are lost. But that minor inconvenience is more than offset by the benefits to such a team-friendly mechanism, which is why its usage is becoming increasingly prevalent in the NBA.

            ...

            Lowry's contract this season calls for a $6.21 million salary this season, of which only $1 million is guaranteed if he is waived before July 15th. This, then, is not a team option. But referring to it as an option gives rise to speculation that is may be "declined" in order to instead tie Lowry down to a longer deal. (I know such speculation to have arisen because I've seen friends of mine give it.) This, as we've seen above, is not possible precisely because it is not an option - to obtain the savings on the contract means waiving Lowry, which means losing Lowry. It is true that if it had been a team option, the Raptors could have declined it in order to try and tie him up for the long term, but it is also true that if it was an option, it would have been decided by now.
            I mean... I agree that the real life ramifications were probably not that significant for a player like JL3 or a contract as small as JL3's, but there is at least one scenario in which team options are better.

            Comment


            • #36
              Quixotic wrote: View Post
              tkfu, why you haven't managed to make it into one of the 30 NBA front offices, I don't know, because clearly you're smarter than most GMs. Is it too late to apply for the Raptors' position? Masai seems to be quite the incompetent idiot as well:

              http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--ra...202837860.html

              "The Raptors will hold a team option on the second year of the deal."

              Man, it will suck when we have the opportunity to add Stone in a pre-June 30th deal but can't due to Masai's idiocy. What was he thinking??
              http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/...-julyan-stone/

              "The terms of the deal were not immediately disclosed, but it is believed to be a two-year deal in which the second year is unguaranteed."

              Given that reporters often mistakenly report unguaranteed years as team options, that Stone wasn't in any kind of position to demand a team option instead of an unguaranteed year and wouldn't have any reason to do so anyway, and that nobody actually gives them out anymore, I think it's pretty safe to assume it's not actually a team option.
              Last edited by tkfu; Fri Jul 5, 2013, 04:16 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Quixotic wrote: View Post
                tkfu, why you haven't managed to make it into one of the 30 NBA front offices, I don't know, because clearly you're smarter than most GMs. Is it too late to apply for the Raptors' position? Masai seems to be quite the incompetent idiot as well:

                http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--ra...202837860.html

                "The Raptors will hold a team option on the second year of the deal."

                Man, it will suck when we have the opportunity to add Stone in a pre-June 30th deal but can't due to Masai's idiocy. What was he thinking??
                Except, that the media got it WRONG. The second year is NOT a team option. This occurs often in the media, just like the article TKFU linked to mentions.

                SO yes, TKFU & Ujiri 1, Quixotic & BC 0.

                I don't really like being an ass, but you were first, and were wrong, so in the grand scheme of things my overall karma isn't going to suffer too much.
                "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

                "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

                "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

                Comment


                • #38
                  Interesting thread to read over, seeing as Ujiri just signed Hansbrough to a deal with a team option on the second year.
                  Twitter - @thekid_it

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I made this post elsewhere but it relates to this thread.

                    http://www.raptorsrepublic.com/forum...ht=#post219972


                    I've been thinking about this because I very much agreed.... and it just hit me.

                    In any transaction you have to look at it from the perspective of both parties.

                    What you notice with non-guaranteed deals, for the most part, is if the option is not picked up by the team there is guaranteed money involved. It might be as little as $500k or as much as $6M (Turkoglu comes to mind - and by the way I just made up those numbers it can really be anything). That guaranteed money does go against the cap.

                    But why wouldn't the team just make it no guaranteed money?

                    As we just witnessed the first 10 days of July are crazy. If a player is not available at that time they are significantly going to lower their options/opportunities come mid-July if a team decides to drop them.


                    So while I definitely agree a non-guaranteed deal with no money guaranteed is in the best interests of the Raptors, or any franchise for that matter, it is not in the best interest of the player and that is why you often see team options versus non-guaranteed deals.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      isaacthompson wrote: View Post
                      Interesting thread to read over, seeing as Ujiri just signed Hansbrough to a deal with a team option on the second year.
                      It's possible that's true, but I think it's extraordinarily unlikely. As I've mentioned several times, media members frequently confuse the two, and team press releases even sometimes call non-guaranteed years team options because it's what fans and the media understand. And if you don't believe me on that read the shamsports article linked above.

                      Let's wait until we've gotten the real scoop from some some reliable sources--this distinction is definitely of the CBA-nerd variety, so it's not wise to trust mainstream sources.

                      Matt52 wrote: View Post
                      I made this post elsewhere but it relates to this thread.

                      http://www.raptorsrepublic.com/forum...ht=#post219972


                      I've been thinking about this because I very much agreed.... and it just hit me.

                      In any transaction you have to look at it from the perspective of both parties.

                      What you notice with non-guaranteed deals, for the most part, is if the option is not picked up by the team there is guaranteed money involved. It might be as little as $500k or as much as $6M (Turkoglu comes to mind - and by the way I just made up those numbers it can really be anything). That guaranteed money does go against the cap.

                      But why wouldn't the team just make it no guaranteed money?

                      As we just witnessed the first 10 days of July are crazy. If a player is not available at that time they are significantly going to lower their options/opportunities come mid-July if a team decides to drop them.


                      So while I definitely agree a non-guaranteed deal with no money guaranteed is in the best interests of the Raptors, or any franchise for that matter, it is not in the best interest of the player and that is why you often see team options versus non-guaranteed deals.
                      I think that's a good point, and I think it's definitely why you see deals that have guarantee dates in the middle of the summer (like Lowry's) having a partially guaranteed portion. The team wants the chance to use the contract as a trade asset during free agency, like you said, but it's disadvantageous for the player, so they negotiate cash compensation instead--works out for both sides.

                      But what you see a lot more often are deals where the guarantee date is June 30th. That means the team has to make a decision before free agency starts, at the same time they would on a team option deal (because, like you said, the player wouldn't want to miss out on early free agency wheeling and dealing). The only difference is that the non-guaranteed version of the deal allows a trade to be made between the end of the season and the start of free agency--for example on draft day.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        tkfu wrote: View Post
                        It's possible that's true, but I think it's extraordinarily unlikely. As I've mentioned several times, media members frequently confuse the two, and team press releases even sometimes call non-guaranteed years team options because it's what fans and the media understand. And if you don't believe me on that read the shamsports article linked above.

                        Let's wait until we've gotten the real scoop from some some reliable sources--this distinction is definitely of the CBA-nerd variety, so it's not wise to trust mainstream sources.



                        I think that's a good point, and I think it's definitely why you see deals that have guarantee dates in the middle of the summer (like Lowry's) having a partially guaranteed portion. The team wants the chance to use the contract as a trade asset during free agency, like you said, but it's disadvantageous for the player, so they negotiate cash compensation instead--works out for both sides.

                        But what you see a lot more often are deals where the guarantee date is June 30th. That means the team has to make a decision before free agency starts, at the same time they would on a team option deal (because, like you said, the player wouldn't want to miss out on early free agency wheeling and dealing). The only difference is that the non-guaranteed version of the deal allows a trade to be made between the end of the season and the start of free agency--for example on draft day.
                        That is a great point.

                        I guess the issue becomes with having the guarantee date prior to July 1st is:
                        1) how much is the player asking for,
                        2) how much much of a cap hit does a team want to take on the following season for a guy who won't be on the roster.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Matt52 wrote: View Post
                          That is a great point.

                          I guess the issue becomes with having the guarantee date prior to July 1st is:
                          1) how much is the player asking for,
                          2) how much much of a cap hit does a team want to take on the following season for a guy who won't be on the roster.
                          I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. A (full) guarantee date before July 1 would mean that there's zero cap hit the following season if the player's waived before then; if not it's just the same as a guaranteed deal. That's why these particular types of deals are so popular with front offices, and acceptable to players.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            tkfu wrote: View Post
                            I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. A (full) guarantee date before July 1 would mean that there's zero cap hit the following season if the player's waived before then; if not it's just the same as a guaranteed deal. That's why these particular types of deals are so popular with front offices, and acceptable to players.
                            First bold: still holding the premise most non-guaranteed deals come with some sort of guaranteed cash attached.

                            Second bold: players are negotiating for their best interests and front offices the same. Give and take, negotiation, whatever you want to call it. The player is saying I'll take the uncertainty but it is going to cost you something. Obviously fringe NBA players are not going to get this luxury but established NBA talent is often in demand. Even John Lucas last season had three teams after him: Toronto, Miami, and Chicago.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              While watching the news yesterday, the terms of A Bynum's contract with Cleveland caught my attention. Apparently the second year is a team option with 6 mil. guaranteed. It means that if his second year is not picked up, Cleveland would owe Bynum 6 mil. This could be the part that tilted the deal Cleveland's way. For example maybe another team was offering to guarantee 4 mil. of the 2nd year.

                              In the case of Lucas, maybe we didn't hear of any such thing because the probable amount was very small. My point is, it may be the reason his 2nd year was a 'team option' and not 'non-guaranteed'. May be.
                              Attitude Is A Choice.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Eric Akshinthala wrote: View Post
                                While watching the news yesterday, the terms of A Bynum's contract with Cleveland caught my attention. Apparently the second year is a team option with 6 mil. guaranteed. It means that if his second year is not picked up, Cleveland would owe Bynum 6 mil. This could be the part that tilted the deal Cleveland's way. For example maybe another team was offering to guarantee 4 mil. of the 2nd year.

                                In the case of Lucas, maybe we didn't hear of any such thing because the probable amount was very small. My point is, it may be the reason his 2nd year was a 'team option' and not 'non-guaranteed'. May be.
                                No, only $6M guaranteed TOTAL:


                                Sources told Stein that $6 million of the $24 million offered by Cleveland is guaranteed. Bynum would be forced to reach a variety of incentive benchmarks to collect the full $12 million in Year 1, according to sources, while Year 2 was pitched by Cleveland as a team option year.

                                http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/...um-weigh-risks

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X