We wouldn't have had to pay BRK a year later to take him off our hands. Stretching Nicholson resulted in dead cap space of $2.8 million per year for seven years. BNM
He's perfect as a scoring guard off of the bench, who can fill-in when you're team is in a pinch. High level backup, that's it.
Is it actually possible to remove dead cap space somehow? I am not even sure waiving and stretching Nicholson over 7 years was a good decision. We did the same with Varejao which made absolutely zero sense at the time as he was expiring after a year anyway I think. Nicholson would have been $6M a year for 3 more years (who gave him that deal?) but after two we would have probably offloaded him as an expiring.
We have no idea what opportunities it will cost us. 7 years is an eternity in the NBA, but eating up $2.8 million in cap space every year for 7 years for absolutely nothing is not a good use of cap space. We would have been better off to just let Crabbe walk the minute BRK signed him to that ridiculous offer sheet. BNM
No, that's why it's called dead cap space. WAS signed him to his 4 year $26 million contract during, wait for it... the summer of 2016. So many regrettable contracts handed out that summer. BNM
Several things... Varejao was stretched because it gave us an extra roughly $10 million in cap room in the summer of 2016. In hindsight that cap room wasn't used well but it totally makes sense at the time of the trade why Olshey would do that. There is a deadline for players on your roster to be stretched during the summer or they count fully against your cap number the whole season. While stretching Nicholson is a tough pill to swallow for several years, the only way the Blazers could've gotten under the luxury tax line this season without trading a key rotational player was to stretch him. Otherwise they would've had to trade Davis away for nothing instead of Vonleh to get under the tax. We already have plenty of expiring contracts, would adding yet another one really have been that worthwhile? Nicholson would have also taken up a roster spot as well.
It doesn't cost Allen money. Stretched players are paid their money upfront. The stretched amount is simply what it counts towards the cap each year, not what Allen has to pay him. In fact it probably saved Allen money because stretching contracts allowed us to get under the luxury tax the last two seasons otherwise he would have had to pay tax.
I forgot to mention that stretching Varejao gave us the roster spot to accept Brian Roberts as well. The Heat still owe us a 2021 2nd round pick because of this. That might not sound significant but that's still a future asset that hasn't come to fruition yet. It also helped us get closer to the salary cap floor. I'd take an extra 1st round pick for $1.9 million against the cap every year.
Napier has a QO of 3.4 Million. He is projected to go up 46% as a 24th pick. He will be 5+ million a year. Serviceable rotational backup that this team needs. Match all offers and keep him around is my thinking. @hoopsjock ..... Is that what you got also? Can they do it?
The problem is, it will eventually catch up with us. It helped us squeak under the tax line the past two seasons, but after resigning Nurk (and others) this coming summer, we will be way over the tax threshold for several years, incurring repeat offender penalties at a higher tax rate on those $1.9 million and $2.8 million stretched contracts. Still, I agree it was the right thing to do at the time. Of course, in the case of Nicholson, Neil forced his own hand by grotesquely overspending in the summer of 2016. In hindsight, all of Crabbe, Turner, Leonard and Ezili were bad to terrible signings. Dumping Crabbe and stretching Nicholson was Neil's temporary "solution" to postpone paying the piper for one more year. BNM
Shabazz has played well this year. Just wish he used his speed more to start drive and kick sequences and gambled less on defense. 1 v 1 shot creation and pesky on ball defense is where his value lies right now. Too small and not enough playmaking to be a starter though.
Not that it really matters but his cap hold number is $7,084,080. The Blazers could give him a max contract if they wanted to so yes they can match anything. The qualifying offer you mention is important and is an often overlooked factor from the RFA signings of 2016. If you were Napier you wouldn't sign a 3 year, $10 million contract because you could just accept the qualifying offer and make your $3.4 million for a year and hope to improve on those offers next year. This is especially true if the player believes they are better than the offers they are getting. The only type of player that would accept the 3 years, $10 million offer in those situations are ones that aren't sure if they can stay in the league and therefore want 3 years of guaranteed money. I'm guessing the offers would have to be a minimum of $5 million per year to get Napier to be interested. Somewhere between 2 years, $10 million and 3 years, $21 million would be my guess.
It will be interesting to see what kind of offers he gets. There will be teams with cap space (or the full MLE) that need a starting PG. He wouldn't be a starter on a contender, but would be a step up for several lower tier teams, which also happen to be the teams that usually have the most cap space to burn. BNM
But isn't paying the tax pretty much inevitable when you have two guys taking up half of the cap? Each year the cap goes up the dead money only accounts for a small percentage of the cap which isn't preventing us from signing anyone anyway. Sure it could end up costing Allen more money in the end but he's going to get a pretty good tax payment this year from the teams that are over the line. I think as long as this season doesn't end with a thud Allen is planning on going All-In for Dame's supporting cast this summer anyway so he won't mind paying. It sucks that having no cap space in 2016 would've been better than having some. It's also weird that making 4 terrible moves in one off season still has the team in a better position than teams who made big moves in 2017 like OKC who got two All-Star level players along with just about every other team in the West that made big changes. It makes me think that it isn't quite as bad as we think it is.
Yes and no. I don't think he's much worse than Isaiah Thomas (better defense, better teammate). So if Thomas is a starter, then sure - why not? However, I wouldn't want either to be MY starting PG.
