RealGM

FireMorey wrote:

youngcrev wrote:

FireMorey wrote:Isn't the problem not the money but the fact that they don't have anything on the books to match salary in a trade? You can go over the cap with trades so that shouldn't be the issue. I think it's just if they signed a max guy, they wouldn't just be able to trade picks for a guy like Butler. And they literally have no salaries on the books to match Butler.

You can use cap space to absorb salary. Clearly they couldn't absorb his salary and still have enough to sign a guy like PG though

Does absorbing salary in trades when under the cap count the same as signing outside free agents? That you can go over the cap with your own free agents but can't go over with outside. Does that apply to trades when you're under the cap as well? If so, that's really stupid.

For example, if the Sixers were over the cap right now, they could trade for Butler as long as they matched salaries within a percentage.

But if they were under the cap they wouldn't be allowed to trade for Butler if it put them over the cap? That seems completely illogical, that a team that was over the cap would have more trade freedom than a team under it.

That's how it works. If they want to stay over the cap, then they could potentially trade for both if they have enough matching salary, but they can't go under the cap to sign one, and then trade for the other.

I think Butler's max market may not exist given the injury and mercurial nature. Because he was a good fit for Embiid I think it's important to remember Butler himself requires a curated ecosystem for his game to work. He benefitted the Heat but it was a two way street there.

Arsenal wrote:

FireMorey wrote:

youngcrev wrote:
You can use cap space to absorb salary. Clearly they couldn't absorb his salary and still have enough to sign a guy like PG though

Does absorbing salary in trades when under the cap count the same as signing outside free agents? That you can go over the cap with your own free agents but can't go over with outside. Does that apply to trades when you're under the cap as well? If so, that's really stupid.

For example, if the Sixers were over the cap right now, they could trade for Butler as long as they matched salaries within a percentage.

But if they were under the cap they wouldn't be allowed to trade for Butler if it put them over the cap? That seems completely illogical, that a team that was over the cap would have more trade freedom than a team under it.

That's how it works. If they want to stay over the cap, then they could potentially trade for both if they have enough matching salary, but they can't go under the cap to sign one, and then trade for the other.

Absolutely absurd, the NBA is a clown league. How a team way over the cap has more trade freedom than a team under the cap makes absolutely no sense.

But given this ridiculous situation, I think they could technically trade for Butler, but it wouldn't become official right away. For example, they could use all their cap space, then re-sign Maxey, go over the cap. Then reroute some of the guys they signed with picks to Miami for Butler. But the trade wouldn't be able to be made official for a few months because of the rules.

FireMorey wrote:

Arsenal wrote:

FireMorey wrote:
Does absorbing salary in trades when under the cap count the same as signing outside free agents? That you can go over the cap with your own free agents but can't go over with outside. Does that apply to trades when you're under the cap as well? If so, that's really stupid.

For example, if the Sixers were over the cap right now, they could trade for Butler as long as they matched salaries within a percentage.

But if they were under the cap they wouldn't be allowed to trade for Butler if it put them over the cap? That seems completely illogical, that a team that was over the cap would have more trade freedom than a team under it.

That's how it works. If they want to stay over the cap, then they could potentially trade for both if they have enough matching salary, but they can't go under the cap to sign one, and then trade for the other.

Absolutely absurd, the NBA is a clown league. How a team way over the cap has more trade freedom than a team under the cap makes absolutely no sense.

But given this ridiculous situation, I think they could technically trade for Butler, but it wouldn't become official right away. For example, they could use all their cap space, then re-sign Maxey, go over the cap. Then reroute some of the guys they signed with picks to Miami for Butler. But the trade wouldn't be able to be made official for a few months because of the rules.

Yeah this type of trade can't be done until Jan. 15th when the newly signed guys become trade eligible. That may end up being the path as all the moves can't be made in the summer due to lack of tradable salaries.

FireMorey wrote:

youngcrev wrote:

FireMorey wrote:Isn't the problem not the money but the fact that they don't have anything on the books to match salary in a trade? You can go over the cap with trades so that shouldn't be the issue. I think it's just if they signed a max guy, they wouldn't just be able to trade picks for a guy like Butler. And they literally have no salaries on the books to match Butler.

You can use cap space to absorb salary. Clearly they couldn't absorb his salary and still have enough to sign a guy like PG though

Does absorbing salary in trades when under the cap count the same as signing outside free agents? That you can go over the cap with your own free agents but can't go over with outside. Does that apply to trades when you're under the cap as well? If so, that's really stupid.

For example, if the Sixers were over the cap right now, they could trade for Butler as long as they matched salaries within a percentage.

But if they were under the cap they wouldn't be allowed to trade for Butler if it put them over the cap? That seems completely illogical, that a team that was over the cap would have more trade freedom than a team under it.

I don't even know where to start. I don't think it's illogical how the cap works. Convoluted? Absolutely.

Order of preference:

1. Trade for Lauri + use cap space/exceptions to fill roster

2. Trade for Mitchell + use cap space/exceptions to fill roster

3. Sign LeBron + use cap space/exceptions/picks to fill roster
4. Sign Siakam + use cap space/exceptions/picks to fill roster
5. Sign George + use cap space/exceptions/picks to fill roster

6. Trade for Ingram + use cap space/exceptions/picks to fill roster
7. Trade for Butler + use cap space/exceptions/picks to fill roster

I imagine 3-4 of these options won't be available, so it'll come down to the other 3-4 that are.

Would Miami be interested in a Tobias S&T perhaps?

Two straight 1st round exits... does Giannis finally ask out?

youngcrev wrote:

FireMorey wrote:

youngcrev wrote:
You can use cap space to absorb salary. Clearly they couldn't absorb his salary and still have enough to sign a guy like PG though

Does absorbing salary in trades when under the cap count the same as signing outside free agents? That you can go over the cap with your own free agents but can't go over with outside. Does that apply to trades when you're under the cap as well? If so, that's really stupid.

For example, if the Sixers were over the cap right now, they could trade for Butler as long as they matched salaries within a percentage.

But if they were under the cap they wouldn't be allowed to trade for Butler if it put them over the cap? That seems completely illogical, that a team that was over the cap would have more trade freedom than a team under it.

I don't even know where to start. I don't think it's illogical how the cap works. Convoluted? Absolutely.

Well, why would a team that has spent carefully have less freedom to trade than a team that has spent frivolously. A team 10 million over the cap can trade for a max player but a team 10 million under the cap can't. You're gaining flexibility and privileges by being less responsible with your money.

If you can continue to go over and over the cap with trades when you're already over, I think you should be able to go over if you're already under.

Aggregate chalk off-season:
#16/Reed for Caruso
Sign Paul George
Re-Sign Oubre with remaining cap
Re-Sign Batum with room exception
Re-sign Lowry, Payne and Covington to vet min
Sign Andre Drummond

the_process wrote:Would Miami be interested in a Tobias S&T perhaps?

LOL

the_process wrote:Would Miami be interested in a Tobias S&T perhaps?

I can't imagine any team being interested in a Tobias S&T, but then again, most GMs in most sports are idiots...

youngcrev wrote:Aggregate chalk off-season:
#16/Reed for Caruso
Sign Paul George
Re-Sign Oubre with remaining cap
Re-Sign Batum with room exception
Re-sign Lowry, Payne and Covington to vet min
Sign Andre Drummond

That’s Elton Brand way of thinking. I’m sorry bro.

Morey will do way more better

If we punted this postseason for Paul George, Morey is a fraud.

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

FireMorey wrote:

youngcrev wrote:

FireMorey wrote:
Does absorbing salary in trades when under the cap count the same as signing outside free agents? That you can go over the cap with your own free agents but can't go over with outside. Does that apply to trades when you're under the cap as well? If so, that's really stupid.

For example, if the Sixers were over the cap right now, they could trade for Butler as long as they matched salaries within a percentage.

But if they were under the cap they wouldn't be allowed to trade for Butler if it put them over the cap? That seems completely illogical, that a team that was over the cap would have more trade freedom than a team under it.

I don't even know where to start. I don't think it's illogical how the cap works. Convoluted? Absolutely.

Well, why would a team that has spent carefully have less freedom to trade than a team that has spent frivolously. A team 10 million over the cap can trade for a max player but a team 10 million under the cap can't. You're gaining flexibility and privileges by being less responsible with your money.

If you can continue to go over and over the cap with trades when you're already over, I think you should be able to go over if you're already under.

It’s not being more or less responsible, just financial planning within the rules. The Sixers let Butler walk, allowing them to have cap space so they could sign Horford, I wouldn’t call that responsible.

If you’re over the cap you can trade for a guy making 20 but you also have to send out ~20.

If you 20 million under the cap you can just take the guy. You could also take on a guy making 30 while sending out ~10 tbc. I think this might be your issue?

The teams all agreed to it because they want a soft cap so they can resign their own players.

They did recently add a bunch of restrictions on what teams can do if they are too far over the cap, if that makes you feel better.

eyeatoma wrote:If we punted this postseason for Paul George Morey is a fraud.

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

Why? Explain to me the aversion to Paul George vs other realistic options. Particularly as a guy that costs you no draft assets.

No to Jimmy!

Not only will you have to move assets for Jimmy, you're also gonna have to extend him two more max years. He's already hurt more than Jo right now, and that isn't getting better as we go into his late 30's.

If you could take him into cap space only giving up a token asset, and Jimmy wouldn't freak out about not getting an extension? Then sign me up. I don't see that as realistic, though.

Here's what I'm thinking: Jimmy asked Pat for an extension and was told no. Now he's fishing around for a sucker to pay him and then he'll demand out.

youngcrev wrote:

eyeatoma wrote:If we punted this postseason for Paul George Morey is a fraud.

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

Why? Explain to me the aversion to Paul George vs other realistic options. Particularly as a guy that costs you no draft assets.

Age, and poor playoff performance. He's not as bad as Harden, but those two matter. He is also incredibly injury prone, and this was one of his more healthy seasons. The logic for Paul George makes even less sense when you refused to Max Harden for similar reasons.

IMO we need to either go for young star assetts, or just have a bunch of super role players.