Salary Cap Management

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

We don't pay luxury tax for players signed with Bird rights. We can still sign a max player without luxury tax being the issue for us resigning Towns and WIggins. It is the other potential players we might sign. Basically we would have to be super confident about our core right now if we sign a max player. But the cap is going up and we'll be losing some dead weight. I'd rather us go for the best talent we can now. I'm still on the Horford train if we have a legitimate shot.

Doper -- Unfortunately, Bird rights don't exempt you from the luxury tax. In fact it is Bird rights that make it possible to hit and exceed the luxury tax threshold.

Yep. You can go over the cap to re-sign your own players with no penalty unless you go over the luxury tax in which you pay a hefty sum.

[BizarroJerry [enjin:6592520]]

Yep, don't trade down here, this is our last year in the lottery for a long time, take best guard available

[TeamRicky [enjin:6648771]]

Definitely agree that we need to work the salary cap smartly. Unless we get a real difference maker like Horford or Batum, its silly to pay anyone more than 15 Mill past the next two years. I like Deng, but I don't want to pay a lot for him. A frontloaded three year contract averaging 13 million is about as much as I want to pay and I'd prefer we get some Thibs discount for an even cheaper deal. I like Marvin Williams as much as Deng and he's younger so I'd make a similar offer for him. There should be plenty of bargain free agents to choose from. My favorites potentially cheap options would incude guys like Cole Aldrich, Pachulia, Jared Dudley, Courtney Lee, Mario Chalmers, Evan Turner, OJ Mayo, Jon Leuer, Afflalo, Alan Anderson, Jordan Hill, Jeremy Lin, DJ Augustin, Felton, Temple, Nene and Hibbert

[Shumway]

Broadly, I'm in the 'keep number 5 and draft BPA' camp. I think that we keep accumulating talent as far as we can - because we never know what may go wrong. If we need to deal with having too much talent... then that's something I think we can handle having to deal with.

But I do see two potential scenarios where maybe we trade down to accumulate more assets.

1. We are exceptionally confident in the talent we have and make a judgement that we need 'glue guys' to balance the roster. We appear to have great scoring potential between Wiggins, Lavine, KAT and Bazz. We appear to need rebounding, defence and 3pt shooting most. Perhaps we make the judgement that adding another premium prospect at 5 only stifles the development of our existing assets and that adding multiple complimentary pieces provides more value to us.

2. If we consider we can take a higher risk swing for the fences and also add a complimentary piece as well. Perhaps we feel that Maker or Luwawu or someone else is a potential superstar (albeit much higher risk) and we can add a moderate piece and a speculative piece with star potential.

[Lipoli390]

Long --

You and I are on the same page regarding the importance of long-range cap management. You are absolutely right that the Wolves ownership will not go over the luxury tax threshold. So I agree the Wolves can't seriously contemplate signing a max contract FA this summer. And then Wolves generally need to be cognizant of mid to long-term salary cap implications of every personnel decision they make this summer.

Deng on a 3-year deal might make sense, assuming he'd want to re-sign at a considerable discount after that and also assuming he'd have enough left in his tank at age 34 for us to want to re-sign him. But I'm not keen on spending the minimum $15 million per year for 3 years it would take to sign someone like Deng for a number of reasons I've discussed in other threads -- including his age, the fact that he would displace one of our core young three from the starting line up and his lack of 3-point shooting acumen. Then again, I could get comfortable with signing him to a 3-year deal.

Where I part company with you completely is on the notion of trading down as part of our salary cap planning. The rookie salary scale, even for a high lottery pick, is a great bargain in today's NBA and it will become an even better incredible bargain under the new salary cap. So the only cap reason for trading down is concern that a #5 pick is more likely than a lower pick to become an elite player who commands a max or near-max deal when his rookie deal is over. But think about it. Does it really make sense to trade down in the hope that the lower pick will turn out to be worse than pick you traded? I don't see the sense in it. I think you use the draft to get the best player you can and hope he becomes a star. There's nothing wrong with having too many great young players. If re-signing a young player after his rookie deal would push the Wolves over the luxury tax threshold, then the Wolves can simply decide which young stars to keep and trade the other.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

SP and Lip- I agree with you guys that cap management can never be the primary reason to trade down in a draft. To me, it's only a side benefit to a strategy that I sense the Wolves are pursuing with this unusual draft board. By all means the Wolves should take a player at #5 if they have someone they are drooling over...I just don't get the feeling that guy is there, and that they see #5 as a means to adding multiple pieces. We'll have to see what happens...much can change in the next couple weeks.

By the way, I think the luxury tax was a terrific idea by the NBA, and leads to final fours like this year without any NY's, LA's, Chicago's, etc. Billionaire owners like Taylor can easily afford to play the lux tax, but it is so extreme a typical prudent billionaire won't see it as a smart business move. Of course there are always crazy examples like the Russian Nets owner who will ignore the implications (the Nets paid a ridiculous $90 million in tax in 2013-4!), but the ineptness of that franchise will make other franchises reluctant to go down that path.

[Monster]

SP and Lip- I agree with you guys that cap management can never be the primary reason to trade down in a draft. To me, it's only a side benefit to a strategy that I sense the Wolves are pursuing with this unusual draft board. By all means the Wolves should take a player at #5 if they have someone they are drooling over...I just don't get the feeling that guy is there, and that they see #5 as a means to adding multiple pieces. We'll have to see what happens...much can change in the next couple weeks.

By the way, I think the luxury tax was a terrific idea by the NBA, and leads to final fours like this year without any NY's, LA's, Chicago's, etc. Billionaire owners like Taylor can easily afford to play the lux tax, but it is so extreme a typical prudent billionaire won't see it as a smart business move. Of course there are always crazy examples like the Russian Nets owner who will ignore the implications (the Nets paid a ridiculous $90 million in tax in 2013-4!), but the ineptness of that franchise will make other franchises reluctant to go down that path.

I also think the Lux tax is a pretty good thing. I like that it's more punitive now in consecutive years. I do think it's possible the Wolves would be willing to go over the Lux tax for just one year if it really meant getting or keeping a really good player while a contract/player's time expires. Teams have gotten pretty creative in finding ways to offload salary though so that may not be a need. It also nice to stay under that lux spot so you do get payments from the teams that go over. There is certainly incentive not to spend crazy money like the Cavs are poised to do for at least another year.

Really what has been put forth in this thread is being prudent with the salary cap and look at every option and scenario.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

When talking about luxury tax bozos, we can't forget about Crazy Dan Gilbert in Cleveland. We found out how impulsive he is with his weird open letter when LeBron left for Miami. Now his impulsiveness is costing him about $70 million in luxury tax this year alone...and likely even more in future years as a repeat offender. I get that he did it because he thought he was buying a championship, but it must be painful to see how far behind the Warriors they are. You know the more sane owners have to be looking at that situation and just shaking their heads.

[thedoper]

We don't pay luxury tax for players signed with Bird rights. We can still sign a max player without luxury tax being the issue for us resigning Towns and WIggins. It is the other potential players we might sign. Basically we would have to be super confident about our core right now if we sign a max player. But the cap is going up and we'll be losing some dead weight. I'd rather us go for the best talent we can now. I'm still on the Horford train if we have a legitimate shot.

Doper -- Unfortunately, Bird rights don't exempt you from the luxury tax. In fact it is Bird rights that make it possible to hit and exceed the luxury tax threshold.

Thanks for the clarity Lip.

[The Rage Monster [enjin:8010341]]

I hope we have some type of financial guru/forecast type to try and project the cap beyond the next 2 years. If we think the cap will continue to increase this would be a good year to be aggressive signing someone to near a max. A current max player would make 23-32 million but if the cap could increase to 115 million (jersey ads might help) a max player would make 29-40 million making someone signed this offseason look like a bargain.