| . |
 |
Originally Posted by itsADstime
It's still money that can be used. If Bensons signs off on spending X amount, then you can spend that amount in different ways. So there's a cost of 15 million associated with Omer Asik. Granted, for the same amount of money we may only have been able to get a player worth 11 million because of the add'l luxury taxes, but it's still a 15 million dollar move.
The defensive metrics should sorar, though, making up for it. And if that deal does go through and you get the 2013-14 version of that player, you lose next to nothing offensively. Man, I hate talking like this. Lets just wait on the next shoe to drop
@mcnamara247
And obviously money that Benson doesn't mind spending.
There is the area I'd rather lose it from and then there's the area I think we actually will lose it from. I don't think those two match up.
Without getting too complicated, the way the cap works, this isn't true. We couldn't have spent that money in any other way. Once you reach the cap, you only have a limited number of exceptions. Nets owner could want to have a $200 million payroll, but he couldn't possibly do it because of the rules.
So who are we giving up for the salaries to match? Houston will want guys they can dump for cap space.
I didn't mean literally any other way, just that you can't say "well, Asik is really only worth 8.3mil". That money still leaves Benson's pockets that could have been used in some other way. Do we have any updates on the pick protection? Are you hearing anything?
But not on players. Maybe on advertising or coaches or hot dogs, but not players.
They could have depending on upcoming trades... or is that not correct?
Ely is the only one I'm certain of off the top of my head.
Babbitt can be disposed of as well. Smith and Aminu come off the books.
Jrue dat
I think we absorb Asik with cap. Meaning we make another move. Meaning, go see the other thread.
That is not correct. It is money that has to be paid but affects no other resource than money out of the owner's pocket.
Not correct. In no way will the added "real salary" effect how much he spends on players. In every scenario, he spends up to cap and uses exceptions. No more, no less. Extra 7 mil for Asik's deal is just coming out of his pocket, not effecting team salary structure in any way. Because of the CBA, it just cant
Maybe y'all are misunderstanding what I'm saying. It's also possible my logic is off.
If Benson is OK with paying X amount, then we have X amount to spend. Regardless of what counts against the cap, you know we can spend X amount. Lets say that amount is 100mil. Asik counts 8.3 and not 15 million against the cap --- even then, the Pelicans can spend only 85 million after Asik. They cannot spend 92.7 million.
I'm cool with spending for Asik, but no matter what, the opportunity cost is 15 million, not 8.3.
See above post
Your dream could come true. Maybe the other move is stretching Gordon!!!
Fingers crossed, right? Would absorb Asik easily, have 8-12 mil for a SF and could sign Morrow with room exception. Ah, we can dream.
Contributor
The thought alone makes me warm and fuzzy.
But in this scenario, nothing is being sacrificed on the personnel side. You have the same exact roster, it just costs Benson more. That is cost, not opportunity cost. No choice has to be made between A and B. Both scenarios has the same product, just one costs more. That is just plain cost, since there is no sacrifice (opportunity cost)
Some of you are like a guy that wins a million dollars from Publisher's Clearing House, then complains about the taxes and whines about not winning the grand prize.
To get a center that really gives AD an opportunity to reach his considerable potential, the Pelicans were going to have to give up assets. Do you believe they could have acquired a center of Asik's quality without giving up anything of value? Plus that player would likely have a huge contract attached to him as well. Certainly I would prefer that Asik were locked into a longer deal, but that's still a possibility and no center with the kind of skills the Pelicans need was going to be a bargain. It's that bargain player that would probably keep the team from achieving its objectives.
Would I rather the pick was better protected (assuming the reports are accurate)? Sure. But while some of you project the most negative scenarios in your game of What If?, isn't it just as likely that this trade and an accompanying move to secure a SF will make the team more competitive? If the Pelicans' goal was to annually put the team in the best position for the draft, then I might agree with you, but the objective is to win games, make the playoffs and, dare I say it, put the team in position to win a championship. Asik may not be the best center in the NBA, but he could very well become a piece in a larger plan to put the Pelicans in the playoff picture with a chance to do some damage once they get there, especially with the right SF.
IMHO, the Pelicans pick is more likely to be in the 20's if they secure the right SF than it is to be in the top 10, so climb off of the ledge and let's see what else Demps is up to.
Honestly, I'd rather do that then the rumored trade. Don't tease me with stretching Gordon. But, it does come off as Benson said, "Go win now." So who knows.
we do get houston's late first dont we???????????
Trading for Asik makes it such that you can't trade for others (that's option B) --- hence, that's the opportunity cost. The cost of the next best option.
So to rewind:
Option A: Trade for Asik
Option B: Make other trades that take the same amount of money from Benson's pockets.
The perceived value difference between option A and option B is opportunity cost (this gets muddier when we consider that because of the Asik trade, we need to make more moves to create cap space).
Last edited by Primetime; 06-26-2014 at 12:42 AM.
If we were to stretch Gordon and he is owed 28 million over the next 2 years we could take a cap hit of approx 6 million per year for 5 years correct? Then say if a team picked up Gordon's waived contract for 10 million would that mean we are only taking a cap hit of 4 million per year for 5 years?
If you will excuse me, I have to go return some video tapes.
MM. I know you have connections. Get in Dells ear about stretching Gordon. The time is now to initiate Plan "Broken Glass".
Could you imagine if we kept our front and back courts and could fill out the depth with 8-12M?
Not quite. You get taken off half the difference between the amount he gets (10 mil) and the league min (1 mil). So in this case, 4.5 mil would be removed from what we owe. And if he gets 10 mil each of the years, we would get 9 mil off. 21 mil stretched over 5 years. Yeah, 4.2 mil per year. But anyway, it is basically a little less than half of what he gets over the next two years off of the total, which is then stretched over 5 years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote