Exit Interviews

[Kibner]

Really, I think a lot of it is most people are going to the site to catch up on their favorite team. They just want to be up on the news and have a better big picture view of the team. Most really couldn't give a **** about the salary cap and most certainly don't have the faintest idea of how contracts work in the NBA. Anything that goes into details about that instantly loses a lot of people.

Personally, I like those in-depth articles and read the likes of them all the time. But I am a super-fan and people are always coming to me to find out about the team.

[Kibner]

You mean there's other websites that feature Pelicans stuff? I'm limited to these forums and BSS.

TBW is normally pretty decent, but they have a tendency to be unable to let things go and just come off as super bitter.


e: like, imagine the Fire Monty bandwagon but having it take over every article for the last few months, no matter what it was actually about

[MichaelMcNamara]

The Advocate is solid. Nothing great, but nothing terrible (looking at you T-P)

Really, though, I think it is a shame that Pels fans dont have more avenues to get good info and insight. This is a smart fan base that deserves a good paper, a good post game radio show, etc.

[Kibner]

The Advocate is solid. Nothing great, but nothing terrible (looking at you T-P)

Really, though, I think it is a shame that Pels fans dont have more avenues to get good info and insight. This is a smart fan base that deserves a good paper, a good post game radio show, etc.

Gerry V's show being taken off the air pisses me off so much and I am reminded of it every time I take that 75 minute drive home after every home game.

I mainly participate in the sports sub-forum of SomethingAwful because I get a wide range of opinions and discussion on most of the teams. It is honestly the highest quality forum I have been a part of. I am the only Pelican poster, though.

[Mythrol]

The Advocate is solid. Nothing great, but nothing terrible (looking at you T-P)

Really, though, I think it is a shame that Pels fans dont have more avenues to get good info and insight. This is a smart fan base that deserves a good paper, a good post game radio show, etc.

The post game show is the one I miss. Every local sports team I watch has one except the Pels. I don't get to go to many games a year because I'm 2 1/2 hours away. A post game show would really help on the drive home.

[kclaboy504]

If we owe him guaranteed money (which most NBA contracts are) it does not matter if he signs with another team, we still owe him the money we gave him when we signed his contract. Case in point was Rashad Lewis. We acquired him then cut him, he almost immediately signed with the Heat, making somewhere near a min deal with them, but still received the 17mil from us or whatever it was.

But I agree however it gets done I think it's time for Gordon to go. Hopefully he has played his last game wearing a New Orleans jersey.

Not true with this stretch provision. We get let off the hook for a certain amount based on what he signs for. Look up the stretch provision rule and get back to me on it cause I'm pretty sure this is the case.

[RaisingTheBar]

The Lewis situation might have been different, I dont remember. Under the stretch (and the amnesty), the money you owe gets offset by how much another team signs him.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

I understand the stretch rule, but he was saying if we cut Gordon and he signed somewhere else we wouldn't have to pay him anymore.

[RaisingTheBar]

Not true with this stretch provision. We get let off the hook for a certain amount based on what he signs for. Look up the stretch provision rule and get back to me on it cause I'm pretty sure this is the case.

I did look up the stretch rule and posted something about it just a few posts higher than the one you commented:

In short, the Stretch Provision allows a team to take the money owed to a player and stretch the cap hit out over an alloted number of seasons. Per the new CBA, the team can stretch it out for twice as many years remaining plus an additional year. So, if the Pelicans were to stretch Eric Gordon this summer, they could stretch that $30.4 million over five seasons (2 x 2 +1) or if they stretch him next summer, they could stretch his final year that he is owed $15.5 million over three seasons.

This rule allows you to spread out the remaining money owed to a player, not cut out $$$ that is owed to him.

[djpaul89]

I understand the stretch rule, but he was saying if we cut Gordon and he signed somewhere else we wouldn't have to pay him anymore.

I looked back in the thread...that's not how I read what kclaboy said. He said that we would save more on top of what we already save...not that we'd be off the hook from paying him.

I think his usage of the word 'cut' threw it off, but I'm sure he meant the stretch provision.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

[kth225]

Dell and Monty need to get fire I sorry

[kclaboy504]

I looked back in the thread...that's not how I read what kclaboy said. He said that we would save more on top of what we already save...not that we'd be off the hook from paying him.

I think his usage of the word 'cut' threw it off, but I'm sure he meant the stretch provision.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Exactly. Using the stretch provision is basically cutting him. Then when I spoke about the money I said if someone else signs him we could save even more money on top of what we were already saving. If I was implying that cut him meant we don't owe him nothing. Then my next sentence about saving money would make no sense lol. I think my post was pretty clear and his reply was also very clear. He didn't think we could shave off any savings cause all contracts are guaranteed.

[kclaboy504]

I did look up the stretch rule and posted something about it just a few posts higher than the one you commented:



This rule allows you to spread out the remaining money owed to a player, not cut out $$$ that is owed to him.

Ok not sure how you could take what I said and think it meant we wouldn't have to pay him any more. I was very clear with "saving money on top of what we were already saving" if he signs with another team. So, like I said. If we cut him under the "stretch provision" and he signs with another team. We save even more money. So, yes the rule does allow us to cut out $$ by lowering our cap hit. Which is all that matters cause we were talking about our cap space to begin with.

[IamQuailman]

Finally got around to watching these exit interview clips... Loved all of Monty's interviews.

[RaisingTheBar]

Ok not sure how you could take what I said and think it meant we wouldn't have to pay him any more. I was very clear with "saving money on top of what we were already saving" if he signs with another team. So, like I said. If we cut him under the "stretch provision" and he signs with another team. We save even more money. So, yes the rule does allow us to cut out $$ by lowering our cap hit. Which is all that matters cause we were talking about our cap space to begin with.

I think it's needs to be clear that there will be no money saved. That is where you lost me. The word save shouldn't be used at all in this scenario. Will it free up cap some space space that we wouldn't have if he stayed on the team? Yes, but the stretch provision isn't saving us any money. As long as we both understand that then you and I are in agreement.

Also, to anyone real familiar with the rule, is there a limit to the amount of times a team can use this provision? It seems like this would be used a heck of a lot more often but it clearly isn't.

[Mythrol]

I think it's needs to be clear that there will be no money saved. That is where you lost me. The word save shouldn't be used at all in this scenario. Will it free up cap some space space that we wouldn't have if he stayed on the team? Yes, but the stretch provision isn't saving us any money. As long as we both understand that then you and I are in agreement.

Also, to anyone real familiar with the rule, is there a limit to the amount of times a team can use this provision? It seems like this would be used a heck of a lot more often but it clearly isn't.

Yes. There is a limit. As per the CBA a player is not allowed to be stretched if the combined amount of all stretched contracts would equal 15% or more of the entire teams cap for any of the stretched years.

So if the cap is 60m We'd be allowed to stretch up to 9m per year.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[MichaelMcNamara]

Finally got around to watching these exit interview clips... Loved all of Monty's interviews.

The part where he talked about only having installed 30-40 % of the playbook so far has me the most excited. Looking forward to seeing this team get more and more versatile as skill sets get better and new plays/concepts are introduced

[IamQuailman]

The part where he talked about only having installed 30-40 % of the playbook so far has me the most excited. Looking forward to seeing this team get more and more versatile as skill sets get better and new plays/concepts are introduced

That and the fact that he knows he makes mistakes and is still learning from them. I love people who take accountability and admit their own faults

[kclaboy504]

I think it's needs to be clear that there will be no money saved. That is where you lost me. The word save shouldn't be used at all in this scenario. Will it free up cap some space space that we wouldn't have if he stayed on the team? Yes, but the stretch provision isn't saving us any money. As long as we both understand that then you and I are in agreement.

Also, to anyone real familiar with the rule, is there a limit to the amount of times a team can use this provision? It seems like this would be used a heck of a lot more often but it clearly isn't.

Yes we will save some money if he signs else where. Our cap hit will be lowered even more depending on his contract he signs with another team. Also, when I say "what we are already saving". I'm talking about if he stays he counts 14-15m on our cap. In the stretch provision we are saving money on our cap each year. So, when he signs with another team that cap hit is even lower depending upon his contract= Saving even more money on our cap. The entire subject started when I replied about cap space when I replied to inner gi post about the cap space and not total money owed to him. If Gordon counts 15m against our cap or if he counts 6m against our cap(just a random figure) then are we not in fact saving money on our cap in those years? The discussion was purely based on cap space for those years. Nothing was ever mentioned about paying him less than what was owed. So, that's why I was confused when u said that you thought I said we don't have to pay him any more.

[kclaboy504]

The part where he talked about only having installed 30-40 % of the playbook so far has me the most excited. Looking forward to seeing this team get more and more versatile as skill sets get better and new plays/concepts are introduced

Mm am I correct when I say if we use the stretch provision on Gordon we lower our cap number significantly in those years? Also if in fact we use it and he signs a contract with another team. Then we will lower our cap even more depending on the contract he signs right? So, in fact we can get our cap hit even lower if he signs elsewhere. Right? If true then we are in fact saving money in those years that can be used on other players.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Yep. All that is covered in part 2 of the article


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kclaboy504]

Yep. All that is covered in part 2 of the article


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh I know I read it lol. Just making sure I'm not understanding it wrong. When I say save money. I mean save money on our cap in those years. Cause the whole discussion is predicated on our cap figure using the stretch provision versus our cap figure with him staying on the team.

[RaisingTheBar]

Yes. There is a limit. As per the CBA a player is not allowed to be stretched if the combined amount of all stretched contracts would equal 15% or more of the entire teams cap for any of the stretched years.

So if the cap is 60m We'd be allowed to stretch up to 9m per year.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Thanks for posting this.

Yes we will save some money if he signs else where.

Oh I know I read it lol. Just making sure I'm not understanding it wrong. When I say save money. I mean save money on our cap in those years. Cause the whole discussion is predicated on our cap figure using the stretch provision versus our cap figure with him staying on the team.

I'll say again, we need to use different words besides save. I understand what you are saying now. Our cap hit will be affected (in a good way) if we stretch Gordon by lowering our overall salary, yes. But we are not SAVING money. We still owe him everything that was guaranteed to him when he signed his contract. I think we are in total agreement, I just want us to both agree that no less money will be paid to Gordon no matter if he signs with another team.

[kclaboy504]

Thanks for posting this.





I'll say again, we need to use different words besides save. I understand what you are saying now. Our cap hit will be affected (in a good way) if we stretch Gordon by lowering our overall salary, yes. But we are not SAVING money. We still owe him everything that was guaranteed to him when he signed his contract. I think we are in total agreement, I just want us to both agree that no less money will be paid to Gordon no matter if he signs with another team.

Right. We still pay him everything we owe him. We just get to lower our cap hit in those years but the total amount doesn't change.

[RaisingTheBar]

Right. We still pay him everything we owe him. We just get to lower our cap hit in those years but the total amount doesn't change.

Exactly. As long as it we can do it - see limitations Mythrol mentioned - I think this should be a no brainier for us. Forget about the $$$, when this guy is off the court the team plays better. I think the most I'd like to see Gordon still on this team is in a 6th man role, because he can come off the bench and just score buckets without worrying about anything else. But I don't think he would do that and I'm not one that believes he is going to opt out next year.