Why does CJ and Manu need to be renounced to sign LMA?

[Rogbok]

I will be the first to admit I am not a cap expert in the slightest, but I was pondering the numbers.

Since we have not heard any more specifics on the Tiago Splitter ($8,500,000.00) deal with Atlanta, I would say that deal has technically not happened as of yet, but has only been reported to be agreed that Atlanta will take Tiago for some non-roster assets, in essence eating his salary for us. The only other players we have under contract are Tony ($13,437,500.00), Boris ($7,500,000.00), Patty ($3,578,947.00), Reggie ($1,185,784.00), and Kyle ($1,142,880.00). The figures in parenthesis are from http://www.spotrac.com/nba/san-antonio-spurs/cap/ which seems to match for what http://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/SAS.html. That is a total of $26,845,111.00.

Since Aron ($2,596,250.00) and Marco ($3,735,875.00) have signed or agreed to sign with other teams, there cap holds do not apply to our salary cap anymore. That does leave us with cap holds for Tim ($15,542,169.00), Manu ($10,500,000.00), Danny ($7,647,500.00), Kawhi ($4,045,894.00), Cory ($3,034,091.00), Jeff ($2,377,375.00), and Matt ($947,276.00). This brings our cap (current and holds) to a total of $70,939,416.00.

The order in which actions occur is paramount though. IE, for any player that has a bigger cap hold than what they are willing to sign for will occur before signing LMA and any current players that are going to sign for more than their cap hold will not be signed until after LMA signs using their bird rights. It also means that any remaining players would be signed after LMA under whatever exceptions such as maybe West/Bonner as a vet minimum. This means that Tim, Manu (hopefully), and CJ would be signed before LMA and West/Bonner/Danny/Kawhi will be signed after LMA signs.

Assuming that LMA (4.5% per year), Danny (7.5% per year), and Kawhi (7.5% per year) are getting the largest raises allowed, that would put the starting years of the contracts for LMA at $18,699,492.00, Danny at $10,060,537.00
and Kawhi at $15,494,824.00.

It is rumored that Tim will sign for around $6,000,000.00. If Manu would in turn also sign for half of that at $3,000,000.00. Cory signs for his cap hold of $3,034,091.00 or less (wishful thinking). This would put us at roughly the possible higher cap figure of $69,200,00.00. Then we would sign Danny and Kawhi. It would also leave us with only whatever exceptions we would be allowed to utilize for any further signings. This would also be with renouncing Matt and Jeff, which I do not think anyone is against that and Matt may come back for the vet minimum exception too. Of course, this would also put up right near or possibly over the luxury cap for this year.

If LJC is intent on forcing us to sign him, we could renounce/buyout Reggie and that cap amount would be close to the amount of the rookie scale for LJC I think. This is assuming if Reggie's second year was not guaranteed in full and that removes the cap hold it currently has.

So given the above, am I missing anything, other than the players cooperating, that would force the renouncing of Manu and CJ?

[Chinook]

Yes. There are explanations in plenty of other threads.

[Mr. Body]

That's a dick response. This is a good chance to consolidate information for everyone.

[Chinook]

That's a dick response. This is a good chance to consolidate information for everyone.

Nah. There are a billion threads on this, in addition to a salary thread in the Think Tank. There's no need for ANOTHER consolidation thread. At all. No amount of butt-hurt from you changes that.

[Nathan89]

Link it or don't bother posting. Dude typed up all that and you give that lame ass comment.

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

:lol

[Chinook]

Link it or don't bother posting. Dude typed up all that and you give that lame ass comment.

This isn't a classroom. You can link as well as I can. Or explain it. Instead you fancy it helpful to comment on my comment.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If Manu and TD are willing to play for the min they can do a lot more than that. People think they know but they really don't.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This isn't a classroom. You can link as well as I can. Or explain it. Instead you fancy it helpful to comment on my comment.

Saying nothing at all was an option. What he said actually subsumes most of the discussion you fronted as certain.

[Chinook]

If Manu and TD are willing to play for the min they can do a lot more than that. People think they know but they really don't.

Indeed. Right now, at least one of them has to. But even if Manu plays for the min, he has to be renounced.

[Chinook]

Saying nothing at all was an option. What he said actually subsumes most of the discussion you fronted as certain.

I made a comment. He thought saying my comment was unhelpful was helpful. It wasn't any more helpful than what I said. No one has answered the OP's question.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I made a comment. He thought saying my comment was unhelpful was helpful. It wasn't any more helpful than what I said. No one has answered the OP's question.

You don't get to speak for the OP, chachi. You also don't get to arbitrate what is helpful for anyone but yourself. You already told us right off the bat that you get nothing out of the discussion.

[Rogbok]

Nah. There are a billion threads on this, in addition to a salary thread in the Think Tank. There's no need for ANOTHER consolidation thread. At all. No amount of butt-hurt from you changes that.

I have read your salary cap thread in the Spurs Think Tank titled "Spurs Salaries, 2014-2015 Edition", which does talk to this years salaries a little at the end. It also shows that you had a bigger cap hold for CJ than what I have seen posted elsewhere. Why would only Green and Leonard's holds along with the holds for LJC and the first-rounder count for the purpose of the salary cap figures and not the various other cap holds? I would think that the roster charges only apply if you drop below 12 active or cap holds. I can understand you discounting Tim and Manu back then since it would not have been expected for them to continue, but until they say they are retiring, does not their cap hold still count until they either officially retire, sign with another team, or resign with the Spurs? It does not makes sense to arbitrarily discount all the other actual or cap holds until they are dealt with though (traded such as Tiago, resigned with the team and thus have an actual figure, signed with another team and possible causing a roster charge, or official retires/quits basketball).

I read this site a lot, just rarely post and I have seen nothing in the other threads that would explain it to me and thus my question. I am not trying to cause any issues for anyone who routinely posts.

[Chinook]

You don't get to speak for the OP, chachi. You also don't get to arbitrate what is helpful for anyone but yourself. You already told us right off the bat that you get nothing out of the discussion.

I didn't say I spoke for the OP. But he asked a question and no one's bothered to answer it. Hell, I'm the only one who's addressed it. You gonna help the OP out? No. Then stoo acting like a hypocrite.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have read your salary cap thread in the Spurs Think Tank titled "Spurs Salaries, 2014-2015 Edition", which does talk to this years salaries a little at the end. It also shows that you had a bigger cap hold for CJ than what I have seen posted elsewhere. Why would only Green and Leonard's holds along with the holds for LJC and the first-rounder count for the purpose of the salary cap figures and not the various other cap holds? I would think that the roster charges only apply if you drop below 12 active or cap holds. I can understand you discounting Tim and Manu back then since it would not have been expected for them to continue, but until they say they are retiring, does not their cap hold still count until they either officially retire, sign with another team, or resign with the Spurs? It does not makes sense to arbitrarily discount all the other actual or cap holds until they are dealt with though (traded such as Tiago, resigned with the team and thus have an actual figure, signed with another team and possible causing a roster charge, or official retires/quits basketball).

I read this site a lot, just rarely post and I have seen nothing in the other threads that would explain it to me and thus my question. I am not trying to cause any issues for anyone who routinely posts.

Nevermind that the previous discussions don't consider the extra $2m on the cap. Has the new tax limit been announced I saw the cap but not the tax.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't say I spoke for the OP. But he asked a question and no one's bothered to answer it. Hell, I'm the only one who's addressed it. You gonna help the OP out? No. Then stoo acting like a hypocrite.

Why are you still here? I'm talking with the OP and not speaking for him. I'll let him arbitrate whether or not responses are germane to what he asked.

[Chinook]

I have read your salary cap thread in the Spurs Think Tank titled "Spurs Salaries, 2014-2015 Edition", which does talk to this years salaries a little at the end. It also shows that you had a bigger cap hold for CJ than what I have seen posted elsewhere. Why would only Green and Leonard's holds along with the holds for LJC and the first-rounder count for the purpose of the salary cap figures and not the various other cap holds? I would think that the roster charges only apply if you drop below 12 active or cap holds. I can understand you discounting Tim and Manu back then since it would not have been expected for them to continue, but until they say they are retiring, does not their cap hold still count until they either officially retire, sign with another team, or resign with the Spurs? It does not makes sense to arbitrarily discount all the other actual or cap holds until they are dealt with though (traded such as Tiago, resigned with the team and thus have an actual figure, signed with another team and possible causing a roster charge, or official retires/quits basketball).

I read this site a lot, just rarely post and I have seen nothing in the other threads that would explain it to me and thus my question. I am not trying to cause any issues for anyone who routinely posts.

I'm on my phone, which I why I didn't post a longer response. I have absolutely no beef with you. This is just the third thread on this topic that's been on the main page in the past day.

Joseph's hold is 250 percent of his previous salary. The hold you're using is the QO.

Anyway, as I said I have nothing against you. I'll give you longer response when I can if someone else doesn't give one first.

[Chinook]

Why are you still here? I'm talking with the OP and not speaking for him. I'll let him arbitrate whether or not responses are germane to what he asked.

Lol. So you're waiting for him to tell you that he considers you criticizing me constructive to his thread?

[024]

Here is a thorough look at the salaries and cap space: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250110

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol. So you're waiting for him to tell you that he considers you criticizing me constructive to his thread?

Your ability to draw logical conclusions is pretty terrible. In short: no.

I'm not criticizing you for his sake. Look at what you finally did but didn't want to because you are on your phone. Think about it.

[spurraider21]

:rollin wasting your time arguing with fuzzy

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Indeed. Right now, at least one of them has to. But even if Manu plays for the min, he has to be renounced.

Why? Min contracts are all counted as the rookie min so vets are not at a market disadvantage. They don't 'need' to do things they way you have figured.

[jhfenton]

So given the above, am I missing anything, other than the players cooperating, that would force the renouncing of Manu and CJ?

Short answer: Leonard's hold is $7.235MM. Cory's is $5.058MM. You have minimum roster charges for the vacant roster spots up to the minimum.

[Chinook]

:rollin wasting your time arguing with fuzzy

He and Kool are the only folks I have on my ignore list. But he's behaved himself recently. Or he had. So I gave him a chance. Oh well.

[Chinook]

Why? Min contracts are all counted as the rookie min so vets are not at a market disadvantage. .

Woah. No they aren't. They count as second-year vet salaries if they're only for one year. So that's another $300k to $400k they waste to offer the same contract. That's absurd.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All I do is challenge people intellectually. Support what you claim and don't expect others to just take your flip word for it.

I actually have respect for you Chinook although you likely doubt that. You respond with intellectual bravery or just leave it alone. I respect that quite a bit actually.

The one you are quoting here do that? Not so much.

[Chinook]

Your ability to draw logical conclusions is pretty terrible. In short: no.

I'm not criticizing you for his sake. Look at what you finally did but didn't want to because you are on your phone. Think about it.

I didn't do anything but answer his specific question. But because he's not an asshole, I decided I'd help him if no one else did. Someone else did, so that's moot. More importantly, you haven't been on topic once in this thread.

[Rogbok]

I'm on my phone, which I why I didn't post a longer response. I have absolutely no beef with you. This is just the third thread on this topic that's been on the main page in the past day.

Joseph's hold is 250 percent of his previous salary. The hold you're using is the QO.

Anyway, as I said I have nothing against you. I'll give you longer response when I can if someone else doesn't give one first.

I did not think you had a beef with me. You are just showing your frustration of possibly having to repeat yourself. I took no offense at your response. As I said, the explanations that are out there does not explain it to me is all.


Indeed. Right now, at least one of them has to. But even if Manu plays for the min, he has to be renounced.

So, you are telling me that a team cannot use a vet minimum on their own players? I have not seen that. I have just seen that a player is guaranteed to not be paid less than a certain amount. It does not say a player has to be renounced that I saw yet, unless you are maybe talking about the exception aspect that prevents it from being counted against the cap? I mean could Manu or even Tim agree to a contract that pays them the minimum of $1,499,187 (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16) for players with 10+ years of experience if they so desired? Sure it would still might count against the cap, but it would be less then their cap hold and would be signed before LMA signs and thus preventing him being renounced.


http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q25 - MINIMUM PLAYER SALARY EXCEPTION -- Teams can offer players minimum salary contracts even if they are over the cap. Contracts can be up to two years in length. For two-year contracts, the second season salary is the minimum salary for that season. The contract may not contain a bonus of any kind. This exception can also be used to acquire minimum salary players via trade. There is no limit to the number of players that can be signed or acquired using this exception.

I look forward to your response when you get to a more suitable posting device.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Woah. No they aren't. They count as second-year vet salaries if they're only for one year. So that's another $300k to $400k they waste to offer the same contract. That's absurd.

Waste? The goal here is to sign Aldridge and reduce their cap holds to do it. There are more than one way to skin a cat. By your paradigm they are 'wasting' $5.5m to sign TD at the levels reported.

You have a penchant of projecting your feelings onto reality and assuming that others think as you do. Maybe the Spurs do and maybe they don't but it is what it is.

[Chinook]

I did not think you had a beef with me. You are just showing your frustration of possibly having to repeat yourself. I took no offense at your response. As I said, the explanations that are out there does not explain it to me is all.



So, you are telling me that a team cannot use a vet minimum on their own players? I have not seen that. I have just seen that a player is guaranteed to not be paid less than a certain amount. It does not say a player has to be renounced that I saw yet, unless you are maybe talking about the exception aspect that prevents it from being counted against the cap? I mean could Manu or even Tim agree to a contract that pays them the minimum of $1,499,187 (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16) for players with 10+ years of experience if they so desired? Sure it would still might count against the cap, but it would be less then their cap hold and would be signed before LMA signs and thus preventing him being renounced.



I look forward to your response when you get to a more suitable posting device.

The vet min is a cap exception. So it doesn't use cap space. So yes, the Spurs could use it on Manu, but they would have to renounce him to reap the full benefits of his salary. Renouncement isn't a bad thing. It's almost certainly what's going to happen to him, and it'll save the team at least a million in cap room.

[jhfenton]

I did not think you had a beef with me. You are just showing your frustration of possibly having to repeat yourself. I took no offense at your response. As I said, the explanations that are out there does not explain it to me is all.



So, you are telling me that a team cannot use a vet minimum on their own players? I have not seen that. I have just seen that a player is guaranteed to not be paid less than a certain amount. It does not say a player has to be renounced that I saw yet, unless you are maybe talking about the exception aspect that prevents it from being counted against the cap? I mean could Manu or even Tim agree to a contract that pays them the minimum of $1,499,187 (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16) for players with 10+ years of experience if they so desired? Sure it would still might count against the cap, but it would be less then their cap hold and would be signed before LMA signs and thus preventing him being renounced.


Manu has to be renounced, because until he's renounced or signed, his cap hold based on last year's salary will apply. Once he's renounced, his cap hold is $0 (although there may be a minimum roster charge kick in). If he's signed to a $2.8 MM deal under the cap or with Bird rights, then obviously $2.8MM applies. Obviously $0 is less than $2.8 MM or his current (large) hold.

[Nathan89]

This isn't a classroom. You can link as well as I can. Or explain it. Instead you fancy it helpful to comment on my comment.

I wasn't trying to be helpful to OP. I was pointing out that your comment was bullshit response that should be reserved for Ops with one line questions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't do anything but answer his specific question. But because he's not an asshole, I decided I'd help him if no one else did. Someone else did, so that's moot. More importantly, you haven't been on topic once in this thread.

Of course you did. This response here has nothing to do with it. I especially like the part where you front I haven't been talking about the Spurs cap situation in this thread.

We know that the Spurs don't need to do what you claim. Your complaint was lack of efficiency which doesn't mitigate my point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Manu has to be renounced, because until he's renounced or signed, his cap hold based on last year's salary will apply. Once he's renounced, his cap hold is $0 (although there may be a minimum roster charge kick in). If he's signed to a $2.8 MM deal under the cap or with Bird rights, then obviously $2.8MM applies. Obviously $0 is less than $2.8 MM or his current (large) hold.

I think his point is that while that certainly is one option to make the accounting work there are other ways that do not require that it be done that way. The cap holds need to come down certainly but either way is possible.

[jhfenton]

I think his point is that while that certainly is one option to make the accounting work there are other ways that do not require that it be done that way. The cap holds need to come down certainly but either way is possible.

But there's no other way to get Manu to $0 (or $525K). And they're going to be tight under the cap as it is, squeezing 8 guys plus minimum/rookie cap holds under $67-69MM.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But there's no other way to get Manu to $0 (or $525K). And they're going to be tight under the cap as it is, squeezing 8 guys plus minimum/rookie cap holds under $67-69MM.

I think the OP is trying to figure out how to keep Cojo. Can the Spurs can indeed sign Cojo to a lesser amount and make the accounting work? I think they can. Whether or not that happens is suspect though.

[jhfenton]

I think the OP is trying to figure out how to keep Cojo. Can the Spurs can indeed sign Cojo to a lesser amount and make the accounting work? I think they can. Whether or not that happens is suspect though.

We're all trying to figure out a way to keep CoJo. I don't see it, without a sign-and-trade somewhere in the mix or Duncan and CoJo splitting $6MM or CoJo taking the Room MLE or minimum. Duncan at $6MM, TP, Patty, Boris, Kyle, LMA, plus DG and KL's cap holds, plus roster charges is pretty much equal to the cap, give or take a million or two.

[Chinook]

I think the OP is trying to figure out how to keep Cojo. Can the Spurs can indeed sign Cojo to a lesser amount and make the accounting work? I think they can. Whether or not that happens is suspect though.

Yes. Duncan takes the min or the room exception with Manu getting the min, and Joseph can stay. Or Cory can agree to the room exception. Or sign his QO (which drops his hold by a couple million). Or the Spurs can do a sign-and-trade.

There are plenty of ways if guys are willing to take less, but almost all involve renouncing someone.

[Spur|n|Austin]

Yes. There are explanations in plenty of other threads.

The thread with hundreds of pages - yeah just have OP search through that instead of giving a quick response.

[Chinook]

The thread with hundreds of pages - yeah just have OP search through that instead of giving a quick response.

Nah, the threads that list all the info in the OPs. Or the threads where such a post would have been made without making a new thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We're all trying to figure out a way to keep CoJo. I don't see it, without a sign-and-trade somewhere in the mix or Duncan and CoJo splitting $6MM or CoJo taking the Room MLE or minimum. Duncan at $6MM, TP, Patty, Boris, Kyle, LMA, plus DG and KL's cap holds, plus roster charges is pretty much equal to the cap, give or take a million or two.

That Duncan figure is 1000 lbs gorilla. Renounce Manu sign Cojo to the RLE. Cojo could reduce his hold by signing for less than $5m. There is enough wiggle if all parties are willing. We are operating under a very large amount of ignorance here.

[kaji157]

Duncan is not going to sign for the Vet Min, please stop saying that.
Combined, Duncan and Ginobili have played for below market value for all but 3 seasons in Ginobili´s case and all but 5 in Duncan´s. There is no fucking way both of them are going to sign for the minium when Parker is making twice his market value for a few seasons now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes. Duncan takes the min or the room exception with Manu getting the min, and Joseph can stay. Or Cory can agree to the room exception. Or sign his QO (which drops his hold by a couple million). Or the Spurs can do a sign-and-trade.

There are plenty of ways if guys are willing to take less, but almost all involve renouncing someone.

Corey signs the RLE. Manu and Tim sign for $3m a piece. I can think of tons of permutations of those scenarios. Almost all my ass.

[Chinook]

Corey signs the RLE. Manu and Tim sign for $3m a piece. I can think of tons of permutations of those scenarios. Almost all my ass.

Cory gets renounced in that scenario.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Cory gets renounced in that scenario.

Manu doesn't.

[Chinook]

Manu doesn't.

Pretty sure I said that someone had to be in almost all scenarios.

[jhfenton]

We are operating under a very large amount of ignorance here.

We agree on that. (And I don't mean that sarcastically.) The numbers are all very tight, and the margin of ignorance is several million dollars. We don't even know the cap more accurately than +/- $2MM.

But, yes. Unless Manu, Duncan, and Corey divide up a comparatively tiny sum, one or more of them are getting renounced.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pretty sure I said that someone had to be in almost all scenarios.

Weren't you the one complaining about not addressing the OP? What is the title of the thread?

[jhfenton]

And I'm pretty sure the Spurs have a dozen or so former players that they will finally have to formally renounce, in addition to Ayres, Bonner, and Williams.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We agree on that. (And I don't mean that sarcastically.) The numbers are all very tight, and the margin of ignorance is several million dollars. We don't even know the cap more accurately than +/- $2MM.

But, yes. Unless Manu, Duncan, and Corey divide up a comparatively tiny sum, one or more of them are getting renounced.

That is fair. I just think it important to point out that the widely reported Duncan to ~$6m and renounce everyone not named Danny or Kawhi solution is not the only way to get there.

[Chinook]

Weren't you the one complaining about not addressing the OP? What is the title of the thread?

Pretty sure you're responding to my post saying someone has to be renounced and thought that you had found a hole in that statement. Now you're trying to change the rules. Moreover, I never told the OP that both have to be renounced. My terse initial reply was affirming that he had indeed missed things in this theory of the cap.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pretty sure you're responding to my post saying someone has to be renounced and thought that you had found a hole in that statement. Now you're trying to change the rules. Moreover, I never told the OP that both have to be renounced. My terse initial reply was affirming that he had indeed missed things in this theory of the cap.

Pretty sure you're wrong. I'm interested in keeping our players. My needling you is to get you to stop being intellectually lazy like your 'terse initial reply' which you keep trying to redefine. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Chinook]

Pretty sure you're wrong. I'm interested in keeping our players. My needling you is to get you to stop being intellectually lazy like your 'terse initial reply' which you keep trying to redefine. Nothing more and nothing less.

Lol no. The OP ended with the question, 'Am I missing something here?' I said, 'Yes'. That's not a redefinition. Since we don't know what Duncan intends to sign for, we don't know that both Cory and Manu have to be renounced. But one of them almost certainly has to, because their holds are just too big, and one is gonna get offered the room exception.

[Rogbok]

So basically in the end, I am right in it does all come down to timing and order of actions. IE, we could sign Manu to the Vet minimum, but it would not qualify as the exception unless we were already at/over the cap? Thus if the plan is to sign him to the vet minimum, then we would need to renounce him, then sign him last with the exception itself.

I still do not understand why 024 and Chinook arbitrarily use the Minimum hold when we have free agents that their cap holds should count unless they have been renounced. Unless I missed some news, I do not remember seeing anyone being renounced as of yet. Sure, I do not think some were given the qualifying offers that were allowed to be, Baynes I believe falls in this category and that may be the equivalent of renouncing him.

Part of my misunderstanding was in the cap holds for both Kawhi and Cory were wrong that I pulled, which with the new Kawhi cap hold, it does mean at least one of CJ or Manu would have to be renounced and the other would have to take significantly lower salary.

Thanks to all that helped me understand more and specifically Chinook, 024, and jhfenton as they helped me the most.