Bobcats Sitting on $24 Million in Cap Space, Gunning for Miami

Nah, what you wrote is exactly what I mean. The cap space is really a second seat and you just explained that via an example. I mean, you need to have the space obviously but team talent, direction, management is more important to actually landing talent.

Gotcha.

Wasn't Kaman offered like a $9mil deal? Lol.

orangeparka (MIA) wrote:Wasn't Kaman offered like a $9mil deal? Lol.

I offered Kaman a 3 year/19.5M deal to start in Minnesota which he passed on.

I've never been in a league with PAs so it will definitely be interesting to work with them and see how free agency plays out. We definitely won't have a situation like what happened with Chris Kaman, that's for sure.

Rizzo (NO) wrote:I've never been in a league with PAs so it will definitely be interesting to work with them and see how free agency plays out. We definitely won't have a situation like what happened with Chris Kaman, that's for sure.

You may actually see more it though. If a player is low greed and high play for winner, they will pass on the money thrown at them by a losing organization to be part of a team that has been winning.

Let's say Miami and us (11 wins) are after the same player. If they are low greed/high play for winner, they could easily pass on my contract offer to join the Heat. That is what I like about the PA. There are players who are greedy and want the money, there are players that want to win, players that value loyalty above all. Will make it VERY interesting.

I don't think it can bridge the difference between a two-year minimum and three-year 19.5m deal though haha.

orangeparka (MIA) wrote:I don't think it can bridge the difference between a two-year minimum and three-year 19.5m deal though haha.

This. I was speaking in more extreme cases like this.

WillyJakkz (HOU) wrote:

bt (TOR) wrote:I kind of think this was a bad time to bring in PA's ha with all this cap space floating around. I can just see some people getting peeved at some decisions made.

Teams need to realise that cap space doesn't mean you have a chance at talent. If PA's act like they are meant to, it's more about franchise plan, direction and winning that will sway them unless you stupidly want to overpay and give 12 mil to a guy worth 6. Losing and poor franchises should be rebuffed all the time when bidding for talent. The player actually has to want to play there.

The Suns might have the most cap space available but I don't see them able to entice any top talent because of what stage they are in as a franchise. Will the Wolves only winning 30 games last year be able to attract anyone? They do have KLove, Lin and Chandler and young talent. The Bobcats really only have MKG and Tyreke too. Wolves look the best of all those for mine without taking into account player characteristics.

I assume PA's will look at all these things so just because cap is available doesn't mean squat. If a key Miami guy isn't overly greedy and loves winning, wouldn't be surprised one bit to see someone take a small pay cut to play with them.

I hear you but at the same time using your Minny quote as an example, Lin McLemore Parsons Love looks very good and better on paper than the 30 win team you mention vs the Heat with Durant ZBo Shumpert Ellis and coming off a championship vs the Lakers with Westbrook Beal Butler Horford who didn't make the Playoffs and affected by injuries all season but look like a very capable team competitively.

Which team looks the best for a FA C to join?

Miami still has uncertainty on their roster (PG spot) while the Wolves are set except at the C spot as are the Lakers.

Not causing controversy or stirring the pot but

Have to chime in on this one.

I agree PAs will go a long way towards creating parity in the free agent process.

HOWEVER, they should not be subjectively ranking pre-season rosters in an attempt to determine where a player lands. At all. Other than to determine if there is enough PT for that player, assuming they have high PT requirements.

Why? Too much variability. Last year, I think we could all agree that ATL was at the top of our eastern conference power rankings, but it didn't work out. Roster didn't gel, back to the drawing board for BI. But nothing historically had proven that ATL were "winners" in the sense that a FA is looking for. Last years regular season record and playoff resume should be the only thing taken into account for the "Play for Winners" aspect of free agency, otherwise it becomes too subjective.

Money, playing time, loyalty - those are all very objective quantities.

To my mind, the real reason PAs exist is to keeps teams from hoarding players in an attempt to retain trade assets - doesn't work that way in real life. A veteran free agent looking for $8m per year won't agree to stay with a team to become the 3rd string player behind two rookies - I don't care how high his loyalty is.

^ I don't agree with this one bit.  How often is it that a free agent joins a team with a good foundation, but yet hasn't made it over the hump?  All the time.  

More importantly, how often is it that teams repeat as champions? Not  very often.

I will use this as an example:

Say LeBron is a free agent and his only two options right now are the Lakers and Bobcats as constructed.

Would you want to play with Westbrook, Beal, and Horford...

Or.. MKG and Evans?

Obviously if you go off only the last season's success LeBron would have to join the Bobcats, but anyone without bias knows a core of LeBron/MKG/Evans isn't going further than a core of Westbrook, Beal, Bron, and Horford - even though the Lakers only won 22 games last season.  Why should LeBron lose that opportunity based off some silly rule that's implemented because some people don't fully trust the PA process yet?  I'm not attacking you personally at all, just playing devil's advocate here.

The whole idea of PA's is for there to be a great deal of subjectivity based off of rational decisions by people whom the commish's handpicked.

We've talked about good FA targets but more then that your commitment to MKG is going to pay off this season I bet. I might bring Reke off the bench backing up the PG/SG/SF spots allowing you to add shooters at the guard spots and run the team through MKG/Marshall. Eric Gordon had a big season once he moved to the bench, might work with Reke.

With the core you've built all you need is shooting/scoring and this FA class is good for that.

All fair questions, here is how I see it.  And I fully trust and will respect the decisions of the PAs, no question.

The Bobcats:  A team that went through the #2 and #3 seeds before losing to the #1 seed and eventual CSL Champions.  A then starting lineup of Marshall/Bryant/MKG/Scola/Haywood.  The lineup currently, before free agency, is Marshall/Evans/MKG/Sullinger/Asik.

The Lakers:  A team that purposefully tanked last season, and missed the playoffs with a starting lineup of Westbrook/Beal/Butler/Morris/Stoudemire.  The lineup currently, before free agency, is Westbrook/Beal/Butler/???/Horford.

So really, all our two teams have accomplished is the reshuffling of players, prior to free agency.  You lost Stoudemire, gained Horford.  I improved Haywood to Asik and replaced Bryant with Evans.

Since LAL doesn't have the implications in the CSL that the real life LAL does, nor does Charlotte have the hilarious stigma in the CSL that it does in real life, those are all moot points.  

So what's left to consider, then, is what the players on each team have accomplished.  Currently, Westbrook, Beal and Horford have accomplished nothing in the CSL.  Not even independently of one another, much less on the same team.  There's no denying you have put together a fantastic core.  Absolutely fantastic.  But they have to accomplish something before we begin crowning them the next CSL championship squad.  The Bobcats, as much as you might laugh, just came off a great postseason run and have the opportunity to field an even better team this year through the use of cap management.  MKG, Marshall and Sullinger, though young, all just became instant vets and I'm sure their TCs will prove that up.

So two final examples.  I feel that, by your same logic, HOU would also fail in the LeBron sweepstakes.  This is, after all, a team that fielded Ginobili/Harden/Igoudala/Thompson/Bargnani.... right?  Why would LeBron pick them over LAL?  Because they were just in the finals and, objectively as opposed to subjectively, they are the "Winners" LeBron would rather play for.

Also, to again reference what I thought was a strong squad at the beginning of last season, ATL was starting Conley/Williams/Batum/Anthony/Sanders.  A team that hadn't really performed together but one that, at the time, seemed to be the only real threat to MIA out east.  Well, they missed the playoffs, and they weren't tanking.  

So there are just a few examples of why I feel it's dangerous to reward teams subjectively.  Subjectively, CHA and HOU have weird rosters and ATL had one that looked like an ECF lock.  Objectively, CHA made the ECF, HOU the Finals and ATL missed the playoffs entirely.

So again, while acknowledging your core is FANTASTIC, I have to admit I would be disappointed if PAs were used to circumvent teams that specifically tanked, just seems cheap to me.  Any team can tank and trade their pick for established talent - can you imagine what ORL could have gotten for Wiggins?  Doesn't change the fact that ORL was a disaster the year prior and that needs to be taken into consideration, in my opinion.

Specifically tanked? Westbrook was healthy for roughly 15 games if that. Amare missed 20+ as well.

If by tank you mean lose a shit ton of games because your two best players missed a combined 80+ games, than sure we tanked, and tanked very, very hard.

At one point my healthy starting lineup was Wroten/Beal/Butler/Morris/Collison.

That team took the brunt of my losses and rightfully so.

The Lakers of last year aren't your typical 22 win team.

C'mon man - it worked for you. I'm not calling you out on tanking. It's a definite strategy and you pulled it off better than anyone else in the CSL so far. But yes, tanking.

You played Amare 28 games but only started him 11 and he averaged 23 minutes a game for you.

You played Westbrook 47 games and started him 31 of those. He averaged 28 minutes per game.

I know that you had injuries - not holding that against you, but why in the world would your two best players not start when healthy?

LakeshowAK7 (LAL) wrote:The Lakers of last year aren't your typical 22 win team.

And I completely agree, but how do we take that into account accurately and fairly, do you suppose? Perhaps that's the issue here. And for the record, the issue we are debating really only pertains to players with high PFW ratings, and there really aren't a ton of those - at least none that I'm pursuing.

Westbrook played probably 90% of those games with a broken wrist. Whoever the old GM was attempted to play him through that injury (he was playing 30 minutes a game) and putting up 0's across the board. When I took the team over he had roughly 60 days left of that injury and he was in the starting lineup.


It's not hard to account for anything, you just take every situation for what it is.  There shouldn't be a definitive "okay you sucked last year so no good FA's for you" line.  The situation should dictate the outcome.

And if that's not going to be the case, why even have Player Agents? Just let the game do the extra work and save yourselves and the PA's the hectic.

LakeshowAK7 (LAL) wrote:Westbrook played probably 90% of those games with a broken wrist. Whoever the old GM was attempted to play him through that injury (he was playing 30 minutes a game) and putting up 0's across the board. When I took the team over he had roughly 60 days left of that injury and he was in the starting lineup.


It's not hard to account for anything, you just take every situation for what it is.  There shouldn't be a definitive "okay you sucked last year so no good FA's for you" line.  The situation should dictate the outcome.

And if that's not going to be the case, why even have Player Agents? Just let the game do the extra work and save yourselves and the PA's the hectic.

Right, but in fairness, I don't think you're acknowledging the obvious. You cannot simply discount teams like MIA, HOU, CHA, etc. and explain that everything needs to be subjective because it benefits your team exclusively.

If there is no subjectivity, the agents do nothing. That is the element that agents can bring but the engine just can't. Clearly, its their job to subjectively view and analyze the prospective teams and decide which provides the best chance to succeed, in all aspects: money, playing time, playing for a championship, etc.

I guess I might be coming off like I'm trying to lobby for my team, but I'm not.  

You could use Minnesota as the example paired against Charlotte as well.  

Love is a top 10 player in this game and he has players around him that can space the floor and shoot.  Why would LeBron pick Charlotte over Minnesota just because Charlotte had an improbable run to the ECF, despite it being quite clear Minnesota would be the better option for him going forward.

Jake0890 (MIN) wrote:If there is no subjectivity, the agents do nothing. That is the element that agents can bring but the engine just can't. Clearly, its their job to subjectively view and analyze the prospective teams and decide which provides the best chance to succeed, in all aspects: money, playing time, playing for a championship, etc.

Everyone seems to be missing my point completely and, again, we have simply had back and forth re: the "PFW" component of free agency. Please understand also that I'm not going after players with high PFW this or next offseason, so I'm not worried about my own team, necessarily.

It is, however, disturbing to see some of the general feelings towards CHA, HOU and even MIA. I get that LAL and MIN are awesome looking cores and, frankly, teams that should have already been in the playoffs, but they haven't.

How do we give credit to those GMs that make the most out of difficult rosters/rotations/matchups? It sounds like we're saying, "Congrats for accomplishing stuff with that shit squad, but that team over there, you know, the one with players who haven't accomplished anything, that's the better team." That's what I'm having a problem with.

It personally sounds to me like a lot of people are continuing with real world bias. We've had two seasons of history now in the CSL, it's okay if it begins to diverge from real life.

I understand your point SS and to an extent it is valid, but not even in the CSL world is a situation with MKG/Evans better than Love/Parsons/McLemore/Lin - in any way you look at it.

Sun Scorched (CHA) wrote:

LakeshowAK7 (LAL) wrote:Westbrook played probably 90% of those games with a broken wrist. Whoever the old GM was attempted to play him through that injury (he was playing 30 minutes a game) and putting up 0's across the board. When I took the team over he had roughly 60 days left of that injury and he was in the starting lineup.


It's not hard to account for anything, you just take every situation for what it is.  There shouldn't be a definitive "okay you sucked last year so no good FA's for you" line.  The situation should dictate the outcome.

And if that's not going to be the case, why even have Player Agents? Just let the game do the extra work and save yourselves and the PA's the hectic.

Right, but in fairness, I don't think you're acknowledging the obvious.  You cannot simply discount teams like MIA, HOU, CHA, etc. and explain that everything needs to be subjective because it benefits your team exclusively.

The key you keep overlooking though is talent in your example.

The Heat are the champs and have Durant BUT the rest of the roster is influx due to FA.
The Rockets went to the Finals and have Harden etc with Iggy as a FA.
The Lakers were a lotto team and have Westbrook Beal and now Horford.
The Wolves were a lotto team and have Love Lin etc.
The Hornets/ Cats have MKG with Kobe as a FA.

The 1st 4 teams (Heat, Rox, Lakers, Wolves) have young Superstar or top tier players while the Cats have MKG who is considered an up and coming player in my book while Kobe being the Superstar is the FA so looking at the landscape of those teams it would appear said FA would choose superior talent and money vs money talent UNLESS said team (in this case Charlotte) overpays someone OR Kobe returns to Charlotte leveling the playing field to a minor degree due to his age.

That would be my opinion.

LakeshowAK7 (LAL) wrote:I understand your point SS and to an extent it is valid, but not even in the CSL world is a situation with MKG/Evans better than Love/Parsons/McLemore/Lin - in any way you look at it.

I've noticed and understand why Evans/MKG are fun to beat up on.  So let's just say at this point, we'll leave that for the regular season to sort out.  I'm not worried about it.  

Like I've said before, I know that the commishes will develop a firm logic that will be exercised as conformly as possible. I have no doubt the solution is somewhere in between what we're discussing.

I'm perhaps more feisty than most given the roster I started with (a challenge I sought out), but there is no question in my mind that the Lakers are lucky to have AK on board. That team needed a good GM after having been left out to pasture and the acquisition of Horford is exactly what that franchise needed, clearly more than it needed a #7 pick. Excited to see what you grab in FA AK!