View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24355 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 01/03/21 12:02 am ::: |
Reply |
|
As illustrated here - https://herhoopstats.com/salary-cap-sheet/wnba/team/chicago-sky-11eaecc7-355f-1c4a-b611-2362f5011b0b/ - Chicago kinda have 11 players under contract (only 'kinda' because that includes Gillespie, a cuttable 3rd-rounder, and Conde, who's never shown up) and 141k of cap room. So cut Conde, add her 58k to the space, and you have 200k of room, essentially. That's more than the max they can pay Candace Parker (barring a sign-and-trade) anyway. So there's no actual need to clear anyone, if they were willing to let one C.Parker walk in order to sign another. |
|
Rock Hard
Joined: 02 Aug 2010 Posts: 5377 Location: Chocolate Paradise
Back to top |
Posted: 01/03/21 8:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
This free agency period will be very interesting. We will find out which General Managers are great Poker players and which ones struggle to play Checkers.
_________________ You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18030 Location: Queens
Back to top |
Posted: 01/03/21 10:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Rock Hard wrote: |
This free agency period will be very interesting. We will find out which General Managers are great Poker players and which ones struggle to play Checkers. |
I'm pretty sure most of them are playing darts. Blindfolded.
_________________ Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
Rock Hard
Joined: 02 Aug 2010 Posts: 5377 Location: Chocolate Paradise
Back to top |
|
Sparksfan
Joined: 18 Aug 2015 Posts: 81
Back to top |
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 7365 Location: Underground
Back to top |
Posted: 01/03/21 12:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Rock Hard wrote: |
This free agency period will be very interesting. We will find out which General Managers are great Poker players and which ones struggle to play Checkers. |
I think some of them struggle with Tic-Tac-Toe.
Rock Hard wrote: |
It would be great if Chicago can get a post player that can rebound and protect the rim without having to give away all of the King's treasure to get her. |
I believe your girl Natasha Mack can help in that regard. I have my doubts about her ability to score at the next level, but I think she can be a Brianna Turner type shotblocking/rebounding skinny post. That assumes she makes it through to pick #8. Also, Richyyy's current scenarios don't include cap space for the draft pick. Even if you cut Gillespie and Conde, that leaves Chicago with $258k to play with. If you give $195 to one Parker or the other, that still leaves you $4k short of affording your 1st Rounder. Wade will have to do some more maneuvering. The easy move without making trades would be to replace his precious Stephanie Mavunga with someone cheaper.
_________________ You can always do something else.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11149
Back to top |
Posted: 01/03/21 12:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Ah, the wisdom of the Internet ...
If we all spent 40 or more hours a week as general manager of a WNBA franchise, our knowledge of our limitations and possibilities would be infinitely greater. And just as outsiders are convinced they could do your job better than you -- and are often free with advice -- they really don't understand the situation the way you do from the inside.
WNBA GMs are intelligent people who've spent many years in the business of basketball, and though obviously some are better than others, and some are not good at their jobs, for us to assume we're so much smarter with so much less information and experience is, well, pretty much the Internet in action.
It is fun to call them stupid, I admit, having done so myself many a time, but whether that accusation has any relation to reality is difficult to know from the outside.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Sparksfan
Joined: 18 Aug 2015 Posts: 81
Back to top |
Posted: 01/03/21 12:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
root_thing wrote: |
Rock Hard wrote: |
This free agency period will be very interesting. We will find out which General Managers are great Poker players and which ones struggle to play Checkers. |
I think some of them struggle with Tic-Tac-Toe.
Rock Hard wrote: |
It would be great if Chicago can get a post player that can rebound and protect the rim without having to give away all of the King's treasure to get her. |
I believe your girl Natasha Mack can help in that regard. I have my doubts about her ability to score at the next level, but I think she can be a Brianna Turner type shotblocking/rebounding skinny post. That assumes she makes it through to pick #8. Also, Richyyy's current scenarios don't include cap space for the draft pick. Even if you cut Gillespie and Conde, that leaves Chicago with $258k to play with. If you give $195 to one Parker or the other, that still leaves you $4k short of affording your 1st Rounder. Wade will have to do some more maneuvering. The easy move without making trades would be to replace his precious Stephanie Mavunga with someone cheaper. |
How much playing time will a first Rounder get in Chicago especially if they add Parker. I would trade my first Rounder of this year draft for a first round pick for next year and a collateral player who will be cut anyway to make that space
|
|
johnjohnW
Joined: 11 Aug 2020 Posts: 1846
Back to top |
Posted: 01/03/21 1:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Quote: |
It is fun to call them stupid, I admit, having done so myself many a time, but whether that accusation has any relation to reality is difficult to know from the outside. |
I don't think it's that they're stupid or don't know their jobs, just that they are severely limited in what they can achieve in a league with such a strict salary cap. The new salary cap will make things a little more interesting but there's only so much a GM in the W can achieve through free agency since the salaries, at the end of the day, are comparable no matter where you play. It's usually more about a player's preference more than anything.
That being said. I'm very intrigued by the prospect of Griner to Chicago. I love BG and love her in Phoenix but BG on the Sky could be championship caliber.
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019 Posts: 4701
Back to top |
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 7365 Location: Underground
Back to top |
Posted: 01/03/21 2:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
Ah, the wisdom of the Internet ...
If we all spent 40 or more hours a week as general manager of a WNBA franchise, our knowledge of our limitations and possibilities would be infinitely greater. And just as outsiders are convinced they could do your job better than you -- and are often free with advice -- they really don't understand the situation the way you do from the inside.
WNBA GMs are intelligent people who've spent many years in the business of basketball, and though obviously some are better than others, and some are not good at their jobs, for us to assume we're so much smarter with so much less information and experience is, well, pretty much the Internet in action.
It is fun to call them stupid, I admit, having done so myself many a time, but whether that accusation has any relation to reality is difficult to know from the outside. |
A lot of it is simply a joke building on what the previous poster said. We're just goofing around. No need to get sanctimonious.
Sparksfan wrote: |
root_thing wrote: |
Rock Hard wrote: |
It would be great if Chicago can get a post player that can rebound and protect the rim without having to give away all of the King's treasure to get her. |
I believe your girl Natasha Mack can help in that regard. I have my doubts about her ability to score at the next level, but I think she can be a Brianna Turner type shotblocking/rebounding skinny post. That assumes she makes it through to pick #8. Also, Richyyy's current scenarios don't include cap space for the draft pick. Even if you cut Gillespie and Conde, that leaves Chicago with $258k to play with. If you give $195 to one Parker or the other, that still leaves you $4k short of affording your 1st Rounder. Wade will have to do some more maneuvering. The easy move without making trades would be to replace his precious Stephanie Mavunga with someone cheaper. |
How much playing time will a first Rounder get in Chicago especially if they add Parker. I would trade my first Rounder of this year draft for a first round pick for next year and a collateral player who will be cut anyway to make that space |
The more realistic scenario is that Chicago brings back Cheyenne Parker. Even with her on the team last season, Rock Hard has been saying that the Sky need defensive help. Also, there are off-season rumblings that Stevens won't be ready at the start of the year.
_________________ You can always do something else.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24355 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 01/03/21 4:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
root_thing wrote: |
Also, Richyyy's current scenarios don't include cap space for the draft pick. Even if you cut Gillespie and Conde, that leaves Chicago with $258k to play with. If you give $195 to one Parker or the other, that still leaves you $4k short of affording your 1st Rounder. Wade will have to do some more maneuvering. The easy move without making trades would be to replace his precious Stephanie Mavunga with someone cheaper. |
Yeah, fair point. If they dumped Conde and Gillespie (or Conde just agreed not to show up yet again), they'd have 258,285 for 2 or 3 spots. If they drafted someone they actually want on the roster in 2021 with the #8 then that would be 67,208, leaving 191,077 for 1 or 2 spots. Which is still more than the standard max.
And yes, the 0-2 years of service minimum is 11,330 less than the 3+ minimum that all their 4th-year players are on (including Mavunga), if they needed just a little more. |
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009 Posts: 6800
Back to top |
Posted: 01/03/21 4:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
so this is financially possible if they cut Gillespie and Conde doesn't come over and Ch. Parker gets a standard max deal?
Sloot/#8 Evans or Westbrook
Quigley/Copper
Deshields/Williams
Stevens/Hebard/Mavunga
Ch. Parker/Dolson
I know it isn't very exciting but I still like this Chicago team, there is still a lot of room for internal growth from Deshields, Williams, Copper, Ch. Parker, Stevens and Hebard to think even if it is technically running it back they could still be much better than 2020 version. IMO they are borderline contenders and who know what will happen to LA, LV, Seattle and Washington with cap issues and question marks of their own.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24355 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 01/03/21 6:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
J-Spoon wrote: |
so this is financially possible if they cut Gillespie and Conde doesn't come over and Ch. Parker gets a standard max deal?
Sloot/#8 Evans or Westbrook
Quigley/Copper
Deshields/Williams
Stevens/Hebard/Mavunga
Ch. Parker/Dolson |
Yes, if Cheyenne Parker (or someone else) signed for the standard max, that squad would be all of $527 under the cap .
By my maths, anyway. It's all there for anyone else to check, if you so desire . |
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 7365 Location: Underground
Back to top |
Posted: 01/03/21 11:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The difference between standard max and supermax is $30,900. That’s a lot of money – you’re leaving 14% on the table. The current team’s advantage is that only they can pay more than standard max. Leverage for the player is that her old team receives no compensation if she simply walks. She can also threaten to sit out the season. For the team, there are also intangible costs in terms of negative reactions from fans and other players. On the positive side, by unloading an expensive player, they’ll have more financial freedom to re-sign their own players or pursue free agents.
Ultimately, the battle is how close can the player get to supermax versus how much of a hometown discount the team can squeeze out of her? It’s actually easier if the player makes it clear she is determined to leave no matter what – provided it's credible. If you’re like Cheyenne Parker and you’ve already declared publically that you don’t want to leave, then the team is in a better position to lowball you. But if they do, will the player get insulted and suddenly change her mind? Furthermore, how do market conditions affect the decision? Are there cheaper options out there who can substantially fill the shoes of the departing player? And what kind of assets can you get back in a sign-and-trade?
_________________ You can always do something else.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24355 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 01/04/21 12:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Also, especially for the aging players - as we saw with Kristi Toliver last year - sometimes years are more important than (or at least as important as) price point. Would someone give soon-to-be 35-year old Candace Parker a four-year deal (again, that would have to be sign-and-trade)? |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11149
Back to top |
Posted: 01/04/21 10:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I had this team in the HerHoopStats mock offseason, and my number one goal was to re-sign Cheyenne Parker, but to do so, players had to be cut and an 11-woman roster was required.
As I recall, the "agent" for Parker agreed to a three-year, max deal (not supermax). Parker might have gotten the same somewhere else, but she blossomed in Chicago and for me at least, is a fit at power forward next to Dolson.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
DFWub2018
Joined: 24 Aug 2018 Posts: 1047 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth
Back to top |
Posted: 01/04/21 1:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Rock Hard wrote: |
This free agency period will be very interesting. We will find out which General Managers are great Poker players and which ones struggle to play Checkers. |
Go ahead and put Greb Bibb on the Checkers list.... uuuuggghhh!!!
|
|
DFWub2018
Joined: 24 Aug 2018 Posts: 1047 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth
Back to top |
|
mavcarter #NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010 Posts: 5935 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 01/16/21 5:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Jantel Lavender remains baffled by trade from Sky but optimistic about possible future with Fever
Quote: |
”I could not believe when they traded me.’’ |
Quote: |
The trade still doesn’t quite make sense to Lavender.
‘‘You think of longevity. Can you really see yourself winning a championship this year?’’ she said. ‘‘It was promising early on, but . . . you’re trading in desperation [not] to build for the future. I just think it was kind of an impulsive decision.’’ |
https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-sky-and-wnba/2021/1/16/22227465/jantel-lavender-remains-baffled-by-trade-from-sky-fever-mavunga-wnba_________________
wrote: |
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree? |
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019 Posts: 4701
Back to top |
|
mavcarter #NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010 Posts: 5935 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24355 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 01/16/21 7:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Wade had also obviously done the maths already and knew he'd likely only be able to keep one (at most) of Cheyenne Parker or Lavender, so trading Lavender away made no difference if Parker was going to be the preference anyway. It doesn't really make any difference regardless, considering they could reunite immediately if both sides wanted to.
A 32-year old center coming off multiple surgeries on her feet probably isn't going to be at the top of anyone's list anyway, to be honest. |
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019 Posts: 4701
Back to top |
|
mavcarter #NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010 Posts: 5935 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
|
|