ZoomSlowik

QUOTE (Brian @ Sep 10, 2016 -> 05:45 PM) LoL Cats They bad.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 01:55 PM) College coaches with less than 5 years on their contracts recruiting HS kids who more than likely will redshirt and be in a program for 5 years, can definitely be a problem, especially when there has been heat on the coach previously. A good chunk of coaches don't even last 5 years, so I don't buy that. Even if it is true, is that worth the risk of paying someone a fortune to go away after a few 5-7 seasons or a major scandal/violations? Or sticking with a guy too long because of the buyout to the detriment of your program? NU did the same thing with Fitz, and while I think he would have to murder someone for NU to consider moving on, I'm still not sure it's worth it.

I'll never understand extending a coach when they have multiple years left. Even if you don't expect to make a change, it's an unnecessary risk for debateable gain.

Watching the Minnesota game reminded me how much I dislike the targeting rule. It's applied too liberally and inconsistently. The Gophers had 3 players ejected and only one was clear cut IMO. The first one wasn't even a hit above the shoulder, he hit him in the upper chest. The second was helmet to helmet, but the QB was going down for a slide during the tackle. There was a similar play for Oregon State that was not called. I feel like it shouldn't be an automatic ejection, especially the way it is being applied. Even if they don't improve the consistency of what hits are and aren't penalties, at least reserve the ejection for clear dirty hits.

For me it's GoT, though I'm definitely biased after reading the books. Season 5 mostly sucked and a few other things drive me nuts, but most of it is really good. 2 would have to be The Sopranos, though I haven't watched it in a while. I've tried to watch the Wire, but I've started and stopped like 4 times. I think I'm somewhere in season 3.

If there's any PPR, definitely grab Brown. If not, things are slightly more open. I personally don't love my options at the end, but it depends on how much you like guys like Robinson, Nelson, Miller and Freeman.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 03:20 PM) Even though he may base that on college stats I wonder how accurate he has been in the past or if he has even done these ratings before. For all players, they said 80% were within 2 WAR of their projection for the 15/16 season (they just started). They missed by 4-7 WAR on a handful of players. It didn't specify for rookies, but I would assume it's less reliable due to less data, especially when projecting 3 years out. I know Hollinger did something similar in the past, and it had hits (liking Boozer and Millsap more than most) and misses (his numbers LOVED Michael Sweetney and to a lesser extent Sheldon Williams). Basically, it will be more accurate than your typical expert, but still far from reliable. I'm not picking on 538, that's true with most systems because for most guys it will be how and how much they improve from here.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 12:21 PM) Nate Silver did some analysis on the NBA draft picks and somehow projected Valentine as like the 3rd or 4th best player in terms of value over the next 5 years (I think it was 5 years). No idea what basis went into it, but thought I'd point it out. Simmons and Dunn were #1 / #2. I wouldn't put much stock in those, especially beyond year 1. They're based on college stats (which is a ridiculously small sample for most of these guys) and comparable players at the same age. The "range of outcomes" is also massive, they have Simmons worth something between 2 and 12 WARP in 2018. That's a big f***ing difference. Valentine will look decent because he was a great college player and his major flaws (athleticism and injury concerns) won't show up on paper. He'll also drop once more gifted players start showing improvement (something like Paul George, who I don't think most systems liked).

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 05:27 PM) Having Bird rights basically means you have the right to re-sign a free agent EVEN if it means going over the cap. So, because the Golden State Warriors do not have Bird rights for KD, they must clear out $35 million in cap space to re-sign him to a max contract. My understanding is GSW has to clear the space first (Iggy), then sign KD, THEN sign Curry, as the Warriors do have Curry's Bird rights. I know the basic idea of the Bird rule, I'm just not sure how teams get around that so often. Plenty of guys get traded and then signed later. For instance, why isn't Cleveland screwed right now? LeBron has only been there for 2 years and their payroll is at 76.8 without him. Is it different with an opt-out? Am I missing some other technicality? That's what I'm not sure about. Edit- I guess trades don't count, only FA. That's part of it. Lebron qualifies as an "early Bird", meaning he can make up to 175% of his previous salary. However, a "non-Bird FA" also appears to be a thing, and that would imply that Durant can get 120% of his previous salary. So now I'm confused there.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 04:49 PM) But they could sign durant and then re-sign everyone, right? The other guys have cap holds specifically so they can't do that (although Steph's is lower due to his previous contract).

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 04:35 PM) Do they have to give them up? I presumed they would have bird rights, so they could just resign everyone and pay absurd luxury tax. Am I mistaken? (referring to the Warriors). I don't totally know what it means, but they do not have Bird rights on Durant. My understanding is they basically can't keep Iggy if the cap is 102 and they take close to the max.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 04:19 PM) When talking about cap for 2 max players next year, what does trading Lopez do? Isn't his deal perceived as pretty good relative to the contracts thrown around? It's still too tight if we assume Wade is here. Butler+Wade is about 43 mil (haven't seen exact # for next year). Two full-freight maxes already takes you barely over 102. Even if you assume 25 each, you have less than 10 mil for the rest of the roster, which doesn't really work. I'll put it this way: the Warriors have Klay and Draymond at only 34 next year and they will have to give up basically everyone to keep Durant and Steph (though they may take less).

I missed the fact that Wade got a player option. Obviously that changes the math considerably, though he's not going to do much recruiting if he opts out.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 12:30 PM) I think the difference is my definition of "in the neighborhood vs. your definition of in the neighborhood". I posted the math a while ago. It's not remotely "in the neighborhood", it's like 20 million short. The only way you can get close is if you use hoopshype's current numbers that don't include Wade, which is hilariously stupid.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 12:22 PM) Yes - I am referring to Giannis who would get a smaller deal than the 30M you reference (and than you'd have a Paul who would be at that projected 28.8M number). And you can really clear space with all the minimum roster holds, etc. There are some people who have pulled together some pretty detailed charts saying it absolutely is doable (or was at the 107). Doesn't mean you have a deep roster, but you are in the neighborhood. People that are bad at math apparently. Butler, Lopez, Wade and even 50 mil for two FA comes out to like 106, and the other 8 players (I think you need at least 13) won't work for free.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 12:16 PM) Technically, isn't Steph a free agent. If you sign Giannis you would have room for a max to Giannis and a max to someone in the older age max group (given how the max deals range). Plus, Lebron & Durant will presumably opt-out again and be free agents. What? Max deals are higher for older guys. That's why Barnes is like 4-94 and Horford is like 4-113. And once again, they're not close to a second max. They would have like 17 mil for 9 roster spots.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 12:09 PM) Your math on what is on the books is way off. Wade, Butler and Lopez's contracts alone are higher than that. This. Butler/Lopez is 32, plus another 20-something for Wade (probably like 26 to fit him in this year).

Let me do this another way... Butler/Lopez/Wade is in the high-50's depending how Wade's deal breaks down. Call it 55 even though that's probably a few mil low. First year max will probably end up around 30. It 27/28 this year. Someone older like Paul would be higher. So you're at 85 (or more) for 4 players. That's only about 17 for the rest of the roster. It's probably closer to 10 between rookie deal guys and cap holds. So we can add someone like Matthew Dellavedova!

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 11:28 AM) The math absolutely worked prior to the updated projection. The question is what will the projection ultimately be. Rondo will be gone in the two max scenario deal and we'd renounce the right. I do agree the cap reduction leaves us a bit short. I had posted the numbers based upon the old projection yesterday and they absolutely worked. The old projection was only 107, so I don't see how.

By the way: the two max deals dream needs to die. They just updated the projection to $102 mil next year. Butler+Lopez is about 32 and a first year max will be high-20's to 30. That would be 85-90-ish, and then you just gave a geezer 2-48, Rondo needs to be off the books, and there's 9 more roster spots with holds. The math just doesn't work.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 09:40 AM) So who's #2 now behind the Cavs? 1. Cavs 2. Celtics 3. Raptors 4. Knicks 5. Pistons 6. Bulls 7. Pacers 8. Wizards Everyone else? I would say Celtics 2, they were basically 3rd last year and added Horford. Not a great team, but solid and have room to grow with 2 more Nets picks and cap space (haven't seen new #'s, but they basically have Al and Raptors 3 by default. Don't see a big reason they should slide, but they're also too flawed to get better. The rest is a clusterf*** down to the Nets/Sixers tier (and maybe Orlando, not really sure what their plan is).

Oh man, Jas, you are really setting yourself up for a huge disappointment. Much like in 2010, lots of people will have cap space, and we all know what happened that time. Old man Wade and Riley flopping his rings on the table didn't do much this year.

Now all we need to do is trade Butler for Melo and sign Amare Stoudemire and we can win the 2011 championship!

That would be just brilliant. Dump a $20 million injury prone guard that needs the ball just to add an older, more expensive injury prone guard that needs the ball.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Jul 4, 2016 -> 10:47 AM) This is really interesting. Curry is off the books next year too. No way they can max them both out I'm pretty sure. They only have 2 players under contract for 2017/18 so far, and it's Thompson/Green at a combined $34 million. The cap is projected to be $120 mil-ish. They can easily get those 4, though the rest of the roster could be a struggle.