Reply With Quote
One year of graham at 12 mil seems low value
Not how it works. If the spurs have to send 12 million to match theyd first have to guarantee grahams deal (at least up to whatever amount they need to match)
One year of graham at 12 mil seems low value
Salary filler/match. I don’t think anyone wants him at face value.
Ya - using Graham isn’t about the loophole; its about instead of just having 2.5M on the books by waiving him (not a big deal at all) you can actually use him as decent ballast in a deal in various ways to help team (either add a player in trade or get an asset by taking on a worse deal if you have no plans for cap space and that player is useful like THJ to DET etc..)
Yup, some team changed their mind11088532[/URL]]Wasnt expected to return yesterday but picked up his option the next dayguess he found out there's no market for him
I've mentioned this, but basically, if the Spurs plan to dump Graham's guarantee, they would've had a much harder time finding a taker without Devonte agreeing to change his guarantee date. The new floor rules mean teams weren't able to carry significant cap space into the season, so the only teams that could take him now without having to send back salary are those with big TEs like ATL. Come 07/01, teams like Detroit and Utah will have cap space again and can take him. But that's after the previous guarantee date. Graham agreeing to the change is on its face a solid he's doing the Spurs. Usually that "solid" is paid by increasing the guaranteed portion, but I haven't seen anything that says that happened. Assuming it didn't, that suggests either Graham and/or his agent is just a good dude or that they believe Graham's contract might have a legit chance of being guaranteed, whether by the Spurs or another team.
IF the Spurs are serious about adding actual vets to their rotation, Plan A should be to stay over the cap and use trades and the MLE/LLE if possible. Graham alone can be used to bring in a $20-Million player. That's powerful for a guy whom the team might cut anyway. And if you add Bassey or Champangie, you get the salary you need to bring in Hunter, Cam Johnson or another player in that range. I'd say the Spurs currently have two PGs, one SG, one SF, one PF and two centers in their rotation right now. You could, for example, use the trade to grab the SF, the MLE to grab the guard and then re-sign Osman or Mamu to fill the PF spot and restore the rotation. While this route is feasible, I would rate it unlikely considering the (capillaries bursting) trade during the draft. They seem to be aiming for cap space right now.
As far as avoiding having second-round salary on their books, I'm not sure about that. We were told last year that the new second-round exceptions/holds don't kick in at the start of the off-season so that teams could use their cap space first before signing the players. That seems broken, but it would make sense to allow teams the option to use the MLE to sign the players as they would've been able to do previously without jeopardizing their cap space. However, I don't know WHEN the holds kick in. If this is a case where the Spurs could've kept 35 with good timing, them dumping it is still stupid. However, if the holds now go on the books as soon as the summer starts, the Spurs might have needed to be able to quickly dispel the cap hold if they're choosing to go that route. A key indicator could be how quickly Ingram signs a two-way deal -- assuming he doesn't sign a regular deal. If he signs (actually signs, not just "agrees to") one immediately, then that indicates the Spurs are trying to get rid of the hold. If he lingers or signs a real full deal, it suggests the Spurs either didn't really care or that they specifically accounted for one second-round contract but not two, ala last year promsing Cissoko but not taking him with their first second-rounder.
wondering if SA just asks Graham, which do you choose: you could be cut today, or agree to delay the guarantee and have another week or so to potentially still become part of a deal and get fully guaranteed. Graham only risks not being on the market those days right? Which he may have calculated is irrelevant based on his poor demand.
Good post Chinnook; all re: Graham and contract nuances
thanks for the info thoughts and clarifications
^ of on now, Graham is about to be out of the league. Of course he extends the timeline. There is zero other path for him to make that extra 9M in one year anywhere else. He’s rooting for the Spurs to use him in a trade to secure that $$.
The more interesting story is that the Spurs want to keep the optionality. My understanding is that they could do a 1 for 1 trade and take back 125% above his contracts value, so just shy of 16M.
Saddiq Bay, i would like if we sign him to a 3 years deal less than his market value before his injury with team option for year 2 and 3, it's opportunity getting a bargain
He's been inefficient and underwhelming his whole career, had high salary expectations before getting traded from Detroit, and now comes off an ACL injury. He wasn't a bargain even before he got injured, now I wouldn't touch him with a 10 ft pole
The Spurs get to add $7.5 Million to outgoing salary because they're under the tax. They can take back just over $20 Million.
That’s pretty damn good. For example, that’s right around the Brook Lopez and Deandre Hunter figures, which Milwaukee and Atlanta are trying to shed respectively.
Can Grahams salary be aggregated?
Yes, but the $7.5 Million is on top of the aggregated salaries rather than increasing like it would if it were a percentage.
He’s restricted, but with Holland, Ausar and maybe Tobias Harris I would like to see SA offer Simone Fontecchio a deal
I din’t disagree. Basically a bigger Devin Vassell who can D up.
Not a bad idea at all...
I don’t know anything about Bey, but a post that received a lot of likes / laughs on a Hawk forum said that ‘Bey couldn’t defend a cheeseburger from a vegetarian.’
Fresh 2030’s draft picks on the plate.
basically find a team that needs a trade exception and that's who we are trying to make a deal with. Bucks and Heat come to my mind and probably a couple of other contenders.
'
So back to second-round picks. I was able to find this: https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2023/07/...exception.html
From what I am seeing, the Spurs had no cap-related reason to not use their second-round picks on players who will be on the regular roster UNLESS a player is unwilling to take a "second-round exception" contract, which looks like this:Players who are signed using the second-round pick exception won’t count against a team’s cap between July 1 and July 30 of their first season. That will allow teams to preserve all the cap room they need until July 31 without having to worry about their second-rounders cutting into it. And it will position those players to sign their first NBA contracts before taking part in Summer League games.
The introduction of the second-round exception doesn’t mean that teams must use it to sign their second-round picks. They’re still permitted to use cap room or another exception to negotiate deals with those players. That would be necessary in situations where the player has the leverage to command a salary greater than the two-year veteran’s minimum.
So either the Furphy and anyone the Spurs liked more than Nunez (if any) was unwilling to commit to a one of those contracts, or the Spurs legit wanted to avoid making the pick for roster-spot reasons rather than financial. That would be pretty concerning for me, because enough those the Spurs may have cap space to bring in vets, the space shouldn't be enough to bring in more than one or two guys, and the Spurs should have more holes than that on the roster.Three-year deal
- The first year can be worth up to the minimum salary for a player with one year of NBA experience.
- The second and third years are worth the second- and third-year minimum salaries for a rookie.
- The third year is a team option.
As our chart of minimum salaries shows, in 2023/24, the maximum three-year salary for a contract with this structure would be about $5.9MM. Here’s the year-by-year breakdown (option year in italics):
Four-year deal
Year Salary 2023/24 $1,801,769 2024/25 $1,891,857 2025/26 $2,221,677 Total $5,915,303
- The first year can be worth up to the minimum salary for a player with two years of NBA experience.
- The second year can be worth up to the second-year minimum salary for a player with one year of experience.
- The third and fourth years are worth the third- and fourth-year minimum salaries for a rookie.
- The fourth year is a team option.
In 2023/24, the maximum four-year salary for a contract with this structure would be nearly $8.8MM. Here’s what it looks like from year to year (option year in italics):
In any deal that uses this four-year contract structure, the salary increase or decrease between the first and second season can’t exceed 5%. For instance, a team wouldn’t be permitted to negotiate a contract that starts at the rookie minimum ($1,119,563) and jumps to $2,120,693 in year two.
Year Salary 2023/24 $2,019,706 2024/25 $2,120,693 2025/26 $2,221,677 2026/27 $2,406,205 Total $8,768,281
Jones, Castle, Wesley
Vassell, Branham, Champangie
Johnson, Cissoko
Sochan, Ingram
Wembanyama, Collins, Bassey
That 13 guys IF Ingram gets a regular roster spot. There is still room to bring in a starting SF and rotational PF and potentially one more guy if Ingram moves to a two-way. To me, though, given that the Spurs have to bring in 21 guys for camp anyway, the lack of anyone who can threaten Wesley, Branham, Champangie, Cissoko, Ingram or Bassey would be frustrating. What's the point in being a bad team if you're going to gatekeep potential gems-in-the-rough from revealing themselves?
Suns advancing towards the third apron.
At least they're advancing to the third of something.
how much is coming out of YOUR pocket?
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions