2018-19 Official Season Discussion Thread

[HeHateMe 697]

56 minutes ago, All Eyes On Me said:

Jesus... I just realized how bad John Wall’s contract is. He bumps up to $38 million next year, he’ll make $47.3 million in the last year of his contract in 2022-23. Definitely not good enough to justify that. I’m desperate for a point guard and a change, but not like that.

Yea I didn’t know this. Yikes. I guess I would rather keep Gordon and hope we find someone young at PG that is solid or get a good value somewhere. 

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Just now, HeHateMe said:

Ehhh. Not really a fan of a head coach making excuses like that. You should be what you are and we are 2-5. 

I mean there's something to missing shots they normally make. And a lot of teams made shots they normally miss. And if you replace guys performances with their average performance and project that out over 82 games we're a 44 win team or something.

I think that methodology works with something like Klay Thompson where he's shooting 12% or whatever from three and if you play the first 9 games of their season 100 times maybe 90 of those times they win 9 games but because of Klay they're in the weird situation where they win 8. 

And then again it's kind of the opposite of what happened last year where we were shooting 60% from three or whatever and everyone said we were a 5-8 team that just happened to have an 8-5 record. 

So I'm not entirely against using this philosophy to suggest that our strategy is working and if we keep getting guys to buy in to X, Y, and Z when the offense comes back we'll start to see wins. Focusing on the process over the results and what not. 

But at the same time I'm not sure you can say "actually we're playing great". 

Going back to my original statement. I think there's something here but I just don't know if I buy Clifford's conclusion. 

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

12 minutes ago, HeHateMe said:

Yea I didn’t know this. Yikes. I guess I would rather keep Gordon and hope we find someone young at PG that is solid or get a good value somewhere. 

That's kind of the whole reason I think they might consider the trade. Getting off that money isn't going to be an easy task for them. 

[argentinaworldchampion 32]

Would never trade gordon away

However, would love to bring beal here. beal or rozier should be great additions, one a proven scorer, the other a great guard with upside 

[Magicman28 295]

1 hour ago, alwaystragic said:

Would never trade gordon away

However, would love to bring beal here. beal or rozier should be great additions, one a proven scorer, the other a great guard with upside 

I dunno. For the right player I probably would.

[HeHateMe 697]

1 hour ago, alwaystragic said:

Would never trade gordon away

However, would love to bring beal here. beal or rozier should be great additions, one a proven scorer, the other a great guard with upside 

Are you talking about for Wall? Because saying you would never trade Gordon away doesn’t make on this sense to me. Theres like 6 players in the nba that aren’t tradebale and it’s safe to say Gordon isn’t one of those guys. Anyone is moveable for the right return. 

I would love Beal. 

[HeHateMe 697]

1 hour ago, ?4thewin said:

I mean there's something to missing shots they normally make. And a lot of teams made shots they normally miss. And if you replace guys performances with their average performance and project that out over 82 games we're a 44 win team or something.

I think that methodology works with something like Klay Thompson where he's shooting 12% or whatever from three and if you play the first 9 games of their season 100 times maybe 90 of those times they win 9 games but because of Klay they're in the weird situation where they win 8. 

And then again it's kind of the opposite of what happened last year where we were shooting 60% from three or whatever and everyone said we were a 5-8 team that just happened to have an 8-5 record. 

So I'm not entirely against using this philosophy to suggest that our strategy is working and if we keep getting guys to buy in to X, Y, and Z when the offense comes back we'll start to see wins. Focusing on the process over the results and what not. 

But at the same time I'm not sure you can say "actually we're playing great". 

Going back to my original statement. I think there's something here but I just don't know if I buy Clifford's conclusion. 

My thing is even if there is something here, which there very well might be—I don’t like the head coach saying it. It just comes off as a lame excuse to me. Like can you imagine Pop ever saying something like that? No way. Never. I like Clifford and it’s just 1 comment but I don’t agree with it. 

[Ibn Battuta 127]

2 hours ago, jjgator said:

It's crazy how much salaries have gone up in the last few years.

Wall was extended with the DPVE, the so called super max which allows teams to go 35% of the cap. Those amounts may not stick if the actual cap amount doesn't reach the projected numbers. From what I understand he can only make 35% of the cap; the salary amount is adjusted to reflect that. So the raises are hypothetical projections and not actual amounts. 

As for coach Cliff's comments, yea, he's just massaging us so we can keep our expectations in line. Nobody will be surprised if we continue this way. 

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

9 minutes ago, Ibn Battuta said:

Wall was extended with the DPVE, the so called super max which allows teams to go 35% of the cap. Those amounts may not stick if the actual cap amount doesn't reach the projected numbers. From what I understand he can only make 35% of the cap; the salary amount is adjusted to reflect that. 

As for coach Cliff's comments, yea, he's just massaging us so we can keep our expectations in line. Nobody will be surprised if we continue this way. 

The cap amount doesn't really mean that much each million only changes his salary by $350k 

What does the most damage is the 8% raises over 6 years

[Ibn Battuta 127]

2 minutes ago, ?4thewin said:

The cap amount doesn't really mean that much each million only changes his salary by $350k 

What does the most damage is the 8% raises over 6 years

He is not signed for another 6 years, they only extended for three years after this season.

The raises are a part of the cap figure; it was based on projections at that time (last season) of future salary cap. This season it was lower than anticipated, so those projections may not hit. The point is, he will take up 35% of the cap regardless of the cap amount or his raises. The raises were made to ensure he gets that 35% amount. I don't think he can take up more than 35% of the cap available. 

Quote

The Designated Veteran rule allows teams to sign or extend players with eight or nine years of service to a higher salary (up to 35% of the cap).

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q24

More to the point, do we really want a guy who has questionable attitude, and already started sniping at his teammates? If you're paying that much for a guy you should expect more than that. 

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

4 minutes ago, Ibn Battuta said:

He is not signed for another 6 years, they only extended for three years after this season.

The raises are a part of the cap figure; it was based on projections at that time (last season) of future salary cap. This season it was lower than anticipated, so those projections may not hit. The point is, he will take up 35% of the cap regardless of the cap amount or his raises. The raises were made to ensure he gets that 35% amount. I don't think he can take up more than 35% of the cap available. 

More to the point, do we really want a guy who has questionable attitude, and already started sniping at his teammates? If you're paying that much for a guy you should expect more than that. 

4 years after this season. 

The 35% is only for the first year. You can exceed that figure 

The above maximum salaries are for the general case, but there are exceptions. The first exception is that in a multi-year contract only the first season's salary is subject to the maximum. The latter seasons of a contract can have salaries above the maximum, although there are restrictions about how big raises can be from year to year (see question number 53).

[Odin 137]

3 hours ago, ?4thewin said:

I mean there's something to missing shots they normally make. And a lot of teams made shots they normally miss. And if you replace guys performances with their average performance and project that out over 82 games we're a 44 win team or something.

I think that methodology works with something like Klay Thompson where he's shooting 12% or whatever from three and if you play the first 9 games of their season 100 times maybe 90 of those times they win 9 games but because of Klay they're in the weird situation where they win 8. 

And then again it's kind of the opposite of what happened last year where we were shooting 60% from three or whatever and everyone said we were a 5-8 team that just happened to have an 8-5 record. 

So I'm not entirely against using this philosophy to suggest that our strategy is working and if we keep getting guys to buy in to X, Y, and Z when the offense comes back we'll start to see wins. Focusing on the process over the results and what not. 

But at the same time I'm not sure you can say "actually we're playing great". 

Going back to my original statement. I think there's something here but I just don't know if I buy Clifford's conclusion. 

The issue is that you can't regain the lost games. Say everything "normalizes" for the rest of the season- we are still probably down at least one game that we shouldn't have lost for whatever reason.