Printable View
ben wallace is officially a FA, and technically no longer a piston.
this is probably the most important day of the rest of his life. he is the undisputed king of the FA class.
here are the 5 teams under the cap this year:
hawks (18.2 under)
bobcats (24.6)
bulls (17.5)
NO/OK (16.9)
raptors (12.9)
(LAC and jazz have slightly more than the MLE in cap space)
raptors and bobcats will be targeting Peja.
Hawks will be targeting al harrignton.
NO/OK will be targeting no one, their owner is george shinn.
Bulls will likely go after a cheaper and younger joel pryzbilla. They arent dumb enough to pay ben $15-18 million when he wont make them a contender in the years he has left in his prime.
Ben will take Joe's $12,000,001 (highest on the team) offer and either be happy with it or test the waters and realize its the best offer he has.
http://www.mlive.com/pistons/stories...030.xml&coll=1
ben's in chicago today.
Good.
I dont want any complaints from him if chicago offers less than we do.
If they want to offer $15-17 million, god bless ben and I hope he has a great life.
I will say, this definately seems like an arn tellam strategy to try to make joe nervous by visiting a division rival on day 1. I hope Joe doesnt buy it.
My only wish, if we do lose ben to chicago, is that we dont sign and trade for chicken chandler.
letting him walk OK, trading for any other player on chicago's roster OK.
Being stuck with Chandler's contract for the next 6 years would pretty much kill our chances of ever getting another title out of this group.
scary time to be a Piston's fan....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
Not to me. I can see positive possibilities in any scenario not involving tyson chandler.
Letting Ben go outright would sting a little, but it'd also give joe more flexibility to work some magic and get someone else, as well as ensure chauncey will stay a piston.
I'm not saying I want ben to go, but if the reality is he wants $15+ million, it's better than the alternative.
Why would the Bobcats target Peja?
Why would Atlanta try and re-sign Harrington, when they have enough young forwards and have other needs?
And while I agree NO might target no one, I think the ownership situation in Atlanta is worse.
there's reason to be optimistic....but there's equal reason to be worried, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kstat
i think the way things went down at the end of the season (w/ the off-court drama) makes me more scared than i should be. if we had fizzled out of the playoffs and there was no rumors of dissention, i'd be a little more confident.
the uncertainty has me a little worried. slappiness aside, i do trust that Joe D will make the best of whatever happens.
What's there to be worried about? Ben stays or Ben goes. It's simple as that.
As long as we dont get saddled with a huge-ass deal, im ok with the outcome.
Ben's staying/leaving or signing/trading him, could affect the future of the team. that's what's worrisome to me. i'm not overreacting.....just saying it's a more scary time than in recent memory. i think it's sort of like a fork in the road for the team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kstat
Assuming Ben walks:
We're still so far over the cap it's not funny.
Which means we'd now have the MLE and BAE to address our weak C position, grab a slasher and a back-up PG.
Holy Shit! Fuck that!
I'd hate to tell you this, but he'd be UNDER the cap if ben walked for nothing...
$46 million payroll is where we're at right now.
Cap is expected to be around $49 million. Luxury tax at $61 million.
I hate to point this out to you but if our payroll is $46,000,000 and the cap is $49,000,000 we're not under the cap.
Since we're under the cap by less than the MLE we only get the MLE to spend.
We could be stupid and renounce the MLE, which gives us $3,000,000 to spend.
So, um, yeah - we'd have no cap room to sign anyone, just the MLE and BAE.
Best Case Scenario?
The cap goes up to $52,000,000, which gives us $6,000,000 in cap space IF Ben walks.
And in that scenario we'd still only get both exceptions, because combined the MLE and BAE equal more than $6,000,000.
So, um, yeah - we'd have no cap room to sign anyone, just the MLE and BAE
Being under the cap means you're under the cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharaoh
Granted, we still have all the exemptions, but the fact is we're 3 million under the threshhold.
But yes, you';re right. It's possible for us to have essentially TWO MLEs to use over the summer, if Ben walks.
That's why I wouldnt be horrified if Ben walked, and why I also don't want tyson chandler eating up all that space.
I don't get this logic at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kstat
We don't have two MLEs. DO NOT.
Ben walks without a S&T, that's suicide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themicrowave
Um, he just explained it for you.
If ben walked, we'd have a little under the MLE in cap space, plus the actual MLE to use on top of that.
We could offer two different players $5 million+ each.
I'm not going to argue that we're better with ben gone, but we WOULD be better not having ben if ben asks for 15 million, meaning that when he's 36 he'd probably be making $20 million.
If we were a guarenteed lock at another ring, that would be different. But we're not coming off a championship, so the pressure to keep the team intact isn't there.
No. The MLE is granted to teams that are over the cap or under it less than the MLE's value. But you can't use both cap space (3 Mil) and the MLE (roughly 5 Mil). No big spending for us no matter what Ben does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kstat
Ah, yeah, i forgot that part.
Either way, we're still in very good shape as far as trade flexibility goes.
Kstat - re-read my post.
If we are under the CAP by more than the MLE, we get that amount of money to spend.
If we are under the cap by less than the MLE, we get the MLE.
There is no way you get 2 MLE.
And like I said above:
Since the exceptions combined are more than $6mil if ben walks we're fucked.
We'd have the MLE and the BAE to replace Ben, grab a slasher and a PG.
No fucking chance that happens.
And we wouldn't be $3,000,000 under the threshold if Ben walked.
We'd be $3,000,000 under the cap.
The threshold that is always spoken about is the luxury tax threshold. It's expected to be around $63,000,000 for the next season.
So, at $46,000,000 right now with the guys under contract we are $17,000,000 under the tax threshold.
If we use the MLE we're down to $12,000,000.
If we use the BAE, we're down to $10,200,000
If we bring back Hunter, Delk or Cato for the veteran minimum we're down to $9,100,000
That would have to be Ben's starting salary, otherwise we hit the tax threshold and pay a dollar for dollar tax.
Oh, and then throw in the salaries for Acker and Blalock if we sign them, too.
Congrats Ben - for your years of service and hard work you're starting salary will be:
$8,000,000!
Thanks for playing. Make sure you don't visit Chicago on your way to the office.
I never said we'd refuse to go over the cap to sign ben. I dont believe that at all.
All reports are saying we're offering $12 million, which is very fucking fair.
If he doesnt like it, yes, he can go to chicago for $70+ million over the next 4 years. Be my guest.
Ok, I need to sleep dude, but we aren't in good shape for trade flexibility.
If we lose Ben, and can't easily trade CB or Dice (kickers), that leaves Sheed, or Rip because Tay is a BYC player. Everyone else on the roster makes peanuts (relatively, the average salary is around $5 million and no one outside the 6 make that).
I'll write it again, so you can stare at it and let it burn onto your retinas.
Ben walks without a S&T, that's suicide.
Trade flexibility? WTF?
Who are you going to trade?
Davis and his massive salary?
LMAO - there is no one to trade outside the Top 6.
If Ben walks we're fucked. End of story.
If ben signs for $15+ million we're fucked anyway. I'd rather have the flexibility, but that's just me.
As for the flexibility, we have cap space.
We have an expiring deal in dale davis we can use, the orlando pick, and the other 5 members of the "starting 6."
Last time I checked, we have pieces left to work with.
For the last fucking time- I DONT WANT BEN TO GO. But at the same time, if he left for anything except chandler, we'd be in ok shape. Not contenders anymore, but not awful either.
But if Ben signs back for too much, we'd be ok next year and totally fucked every year after that. Not a gamble i'd want to take.
I just hope ben takes the $ 12 million and is happy with being the richest no-offense player in history.
Refuse to go over the cap? We're over the cap now.
You mean the luxury tax threshold.
And yeah, we're probably offering him $12,000,000.
If we wanna spend the full MLE though you can also expect to see Davis dumped for a trade exception (hello Charlotte).
Then you might get Acker, Blalock and someone like Ronald Dupree on the team, with Hunter and MAYBE a veteran big man for cheap depth.
Bottom Line:
The Top 6 will be joined by Delfino and a MLE player.
Amir and Maxiell will get a shot at playing time and Hunter will be back for one last season.
Other than those guys it's cheap ass depth all the way.
No, we don't have the other 5. You missed that.
CB and Dice have trade kickers. Tay can only be traded for half of the value of his new deal.
That essentially leaves Sheed and Rip as dollar for dollar trade options.
So if Ben walks, and our starting Center is Dale Davis, how do you propose we shore up the team with a bonafide starting Center by trading away Rip or Sheed who are both relatively cheap considering their stature, skills and position?
Signing Ben to $12 million vs. $15 million means CRAP. Almost every contender is over the cap. Many of them paying tax. $3 or $6 million a year won't make a lick of difference if Joe intends to re-sign Wallace and Billups. We won't be under the cap again (read: flexibility) for years unless this team is completely torn down to brass tacks.
Enough with the vague references. You see better plans, lay them out.
Yeah, tell me that next year when billups is up for re-signing.Quote:
Originally Posted by themicrowave
We'll be contenders for one year, and then we'll be over the hill, capped out, and we'll have no way to get better.
Great plan.
I'm sorry, but you can't give ben a contract like that. You just can't. It's utterly irresponbile, considering his aging status in a league that keep legislating rules AGAINST him.
If we were coming off a title, then yeah you sacrifice the next 5 years to have another shot next season. But there's no sure thing we'll be any better next year than this year with the same starting 5.
Can't give a guy $70 million when he only plays one side of the floor.
And OK, as much as I'd hate to trade rip, joe would still have rip and sheed to work with, which is more than most teams.
The only thing that worries me about giving Ben those few extra million is that cheap ass owner of ours. He's likely to say "give him that, but we're cutting it off in other places, and we aren't adding Free Agents". Otherwise, it wouldn't be a problem. I'd just assume say give him as much as we can over 4 years. But Bill Davidson doesn't work that way. He's going to be cheap with the deal, and cheap with the moves afterwards because of the deal.
Not wanting to skyrocket over the luxury tax=cheap
LOL
If it was money well spent that would be one thing, but that would definately not be money well spent.
I'm sure we can go over the luxury tax, we just have to make sure it's money well-spent.
No matter what we're using the MLE this offseason. Joe's already gone on record with that.
Although, I don't see one realistic target that's worth the full MLE.
I agree - we should not pay Ben $15mil.
But $12mil is more than fair.
However, by the numbers we can't pay Ben that money and use the full MLE without going over the tax threshold.
If Davidson is a cheap prick then expect another trade for nothing or expect us not to use the full MLE.
We're at $46mil now, right?
Plus $12mil for Ben and $5mil for the MLE.
That's $63mil and this is our roster:
Ben, Sheed, Prince, Rip, Billups with Davis, Dice, Maxiell, Amir, Delfino on the bench.
If we bring back Acker and then sign Blalock that adds $1mil to the payroll and begins our tax bill.
Bringing back Hunter or Delk or ADDING any other veteran for the minimum adds another $1,100,000 to the payroll, and therefore adds that much to the tax bill.
If we use the BAE (costs $1,800,000) we're now up to $66.9 for our TEAM SALARY!
The tax bill, if that $63mil tax threshold is accurate? $3,900,000.
(by not using the BAE we can slash our tax bill to $2,100,000. Is that low enough for Billy D?)
BTW, that tax figure and the team salary also assumes we renounce ALL our trade exceptions.
How do we reduce our tax payments? Who almost clears our tax bill?
Dale Davis! Trading him to Charlotte for a future second round pick helps them out. They get closer to the minimum salary limit they have to spend, without fucking up their long-term structure.
We then only have a tax bill of $400,000. (IF we used the BAE)
I guess we could not re-sign Acker. That would mean we'd have no tax bill at all.
And if all that happened this is our roster
Ben, Sheed, Prince, Rip, Billups plus Dice, Maxiell, full MLE, Amir, Delfino, BAE, Hunter, Blalock.
Nice!
You must be a lot of fun a parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kstat
The bottom line in this discussion is that you don't see any tangible and realistic better options, and do not appear to have a firm grasp of basic CBA or NBA finance concepts.
$3 million dollars a year means nothing to our cap situation. We're gunna be capped out even if Ben leaves and we don't replace him for 3 years.
Can you name one rule they have legislated against Ben with? As far as I know, Ben doesn't foul out, and is one of the best player's in the league at playing physical without extra contact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kstat
Why not? We gave Darko $20 million when his ass could only shine one side of the bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kstat
That's 100% valid and a legitimate concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by FP22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharaoh
hence the difference between the "measley" 3 million that I wouldnt be willing to pay ben wallace.....
Fucking Hell!
I fucking gave Ben the $12mil you suggested!
WTF? Pay attention.
Um, I just agreed with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharaoh
Yeah, you agree about us only paying Ben $12,000,000
Now read the rest of it.
Did you get to the part about trading Davis for nothing?
Did you read the part about possibly not using the BAE, just to save money?
I don't think you understand what effect this "no tax payments" demand has on this team.
If Davidson continues to keep his wallet closed you can say goodbye to signing impact players with the MLE, UNLESS you plan on using minimum wage earners 11 through 15.
Sure, we'll go 10-deep for a season or 2, until the young guys come up for new contracts and we can't afford to pay them the market value because of the tax.
Find me where it says there IS a "no tax demand" on this team. It;s a fabrication people made up and it snowballed because we havent paid the luxury tax yet.
Nevermind we havent had a REASON to yet....
We havent had the opportunity to go over the tax with a smart decision. THat doesnt say to me that we wont if the opportunity arises.
If we sign ben at $12 million, and joe sees a guy he HAS to have at the MLE, I'm %100 sure davidson will ok going over the tax. I have yet to be given a reason to think otherwise.
THere's a difference between being smart and being cheap.
Let's get one thing clear.
The Pistons have PROFITED from being under the luxury threshold, because any escrow or tax disbursements have rolled into the coffers while they paid nothing out.
By going a few million over the LT, the Pistons are probably looking at breaking even as the disbursement will equal the tax paid. The teams that lose out are the Mavs and Knicks that are paying so much more than the LT.
So after this off-season you'll get the answer to that question:
Is Davidson cheap?
And you'll also know if there is a "no tax demand" on Joe, based on what is done this off-season.
And before I go:
We could always buy out Davis for $2,400,000 (he signs elsewhere for the vet minimum), saving us even more money.
Hey, when that $1,100,000 tunrs into $2,200,000 when you're over the tax it's not a bad move to buy him out.
I know under the previous CBA if we didn't pay ANY tax we got a full share return.Quote:
Originally Posted by themicrowave
If we were slightly over the tax we got a partial share.
I have not checked how the luxury tax shares are distributed under the new CBA.
Has anyone else checked?
Pharaoh True or False
We could trade Ben for a partial TE? For example We traded him for Noiconi and a 6 million dollar TE since they have cap space? Thus we got a bench player and could use the TE to get a veteran replacement for Ben or the SF spot is that possible?