RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Chicago Sky 2021
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rock Hard



Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 3881
Location: Chocolate Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/20 9:55 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
Hayes (or E. Will) for Dolson solve everything. Just ask Rock Hard.

I'm a cheap date. Dolson for Brewer and then we can have some fun.



_________________
I am .... a bucket.
root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 6012
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/20 10:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
I got:

Vandersloot - $200K
Quigley - $194K
Dolson - $175K
Copper - $165K
DeShields- $67K
Williams - $67K
Hebard - $66K
Stevens - $58K
Gillespie - $58K
Mavunga - $53K

Max cap is $1,339,000?

Would that be $230K in space or something like that?

Ah okay. The problem is the section of the newest CBA on p36-37 that says:
Quote:
"d)In the event that the Base Salary in any Player Contract entered into prior to January 17, 2020 and covering the 2020 Season and, if applicable, any Season thereafter (an “Existing Contract”) is below the Minimum Annual Salary, the Base Salary in such Player Contract shall be automatically adjusted so that the Base Salary in 2020 and, if applicable, any Season thereafter shall equal the Minimum Annual Salary. Nothing herein shall in any way prevent a Team from terminating an Existing Contract at any time."

And as DeShields, Williams, Stevens and Mavunga are all 2018 players who have three years of WNBA experience, they all should be adjusted up to next year's 3+ minimum of $70,040.

One of Spotrac's problems for the WNBA is that they took Megdal's numbers and a bunch of them were never fixed.


OK, I think I see what happened. You're saying that the base should have been adjusted according to where the player was drafted, and then their seniority applied on top of that. Megdal/Spotrac adjusted to the literal minimum of $57,000, which is for 3rd Round picks and rookie free agents. However, if the old CBA scale was above that, he continued to use the old rate. Consequently, Kia Nurse who was picked 10th and would have been paid $48,701 under the old contract was moved up to $57,000. Diamond DeShields picked #3 would have been paid $58,978 under the old CBA. That's above $57k, so Spotrac left it unchanged. In reality, this past season Nurse should have been making $70,127 and DeShields $76,297. Therefore, the salary for DeShields in 2021 should be $86,701.

Actually, my numbers are higher than yours. Do we not apply the seniority?



_________________
Aside from separately going on trial for murder and treason, Aaron Burr seemed like a pretty nice guy.
mavcarter
#NATC


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5696
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/20 10:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

root_thing wrote:
Richyyy wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
I got:

Vandersloot - $200K
Quigley - $194K
Dolson - $175K
Copper - $165K
DeShields- $67K
Williams - $67K
Hebard - $66K
Stevens - $58K
Gillespie - $58K
Mavunga - $53K

Max cap is $1,339,000?

Would that be $230K in space or something like that?

Ah okay. The problem is the section of the newest CBA on p36-37 that says:
Quote:
"d)In the event that the Base Salary in any Player Contract entered into prior to January 17, 2020 and covering the 2020 Season and, if applicable, any Season thereafter (an “Existing Contract”) is below the Minimum Annual Salary, the Base Salary in such Player Contract shall be automatically adjusted so that the Base Salary in 2020 and, if applicable, any Season thereafter shall equal the Minimum Annual Salary. Nothing herein shall in any way prevent a Team from terminating an Existing Contract at any time."

And as DeShields, Williams, Stevens and Mavunga are all 2018 players who have three years of WNBA experience, they all should be adjusted up to next year's 3+ minimum of $70,040.

One of Spotrac's problems for the WNBA is that they took Megdal's numbers and a bunch of them were never fixed.


OK, I think I see what happened. You're saying that the base should have been adjusted according to where the player was drafted, and then their seniority applied on top of that. Megdal/Spotrac adjusted to the literal minimum of $57,000, which is for 3rd Round picks and rookie free agents. However, if the old CBA scale was above that, he continued to use the old rate. Consequently, Kia Nurse who was picked 10th and would have been paid $48,701 under the old contract was moved up to $57,000. Diamond DeShields picked #3 would have been paid $58,978 under the old CBA. That's above $57k, so Spotrac left it unchanged. In reality, this past season Nurse should have been making $70,127 and DeShields $76,297. Therefore, the salary for DeShields in 2021 should be $86,701.

Actually, my numbers are higher than yours. Do we not apply the seniority?


Ahhhh okay. Thanks for that clarification, Richyyy and root.



_________________
wrote:
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree?
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 22566
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/20 10:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

root_thing wrote:
OK, I think I see what happened. You're saying that the base should have been adjusted according to where the player was drafted, and then their seniority applied on top of that. Megdal/Spotrac adjusted to the literal minimum of $57,000, which is for 3rd Round picks and rookie free agents. However, if the old CBA scale was above that, he continued to use the old rate. Consequently, Kia Nurse who was picked 10th and would have been paid $48,701 under the old contract was moved up to $57,000. Diamond DeShields picked #3 would have been paid $58,978 under the old CBA. That's above $57k, so Spotrac left it unchanged. In reality, this past season Nurse should have been making $70,127 and DeShields $76,297. Therefore, the salary for DeShields in 2021 should be $86,701.

Actually, my numbers are higher than yours. Do we not apply the seniority?

If you were under the applicable minimum, you got adjusted up. If you weren't, it stayed the same. So DeShields stayed on the 58,978 this season because it was above the applicable minimum of 57,000 for players with 0-2 years of experience. Nurse would've received 48,701 based on the old scale, so was adjusted up to that 57,000. So they were right for this year.

The key difference for next year with this group is that they now have 3 years of service, which moves you to the higher minimum. The 3+ minimum for next year is 70,040, rather than the 0-2 minimum of 58,710, which makes a difference when you've got a bunch of them like Chicago.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 6012
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/20 2:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:

If you were under the applicable minimum, you got adjusted up. If you weren't, it stayed the same. So DeShields stayed on the 58,978 this season because it was above the applicable minimum of 57,000 for players with 0-2 years of experience. Nurse would've received 48,701 based on the old scale, so was adjusted up to that 57,000. So they were right for this year.

The key difference for next year with this group is that they now have 3 years of service, which moves you to the higher minimum. The 3+ minimum for next year is 70,040, rather than the 0-2 minimum of 58,710, which makes a difference when you've got a bunch of them like Chicago.


Interesting. I always thought there was a flat vet minimum that begins after year 4. I never knew there was a scale and that it begins after year 3:



Here's the thing. The wording says it doesn't apply to Rookie Scale Contracts. I guess there is a carve-out for rookie contracts under the old CBA? They've essentially turned 4th year "rookies" into veterans. For a player like Nurse, that's a $13k raise (22.9%).



_________________
Aside from separately going on trial for murder and treason, Aaron Burr seemed like a pretty nice guy.
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 22566
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/20 3:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yeah, it doesn't generally apply to rookie scales. Even entirely under the new CBA, a third-round 2020 rookie would be earning less that the 3+ minimum in their 4th season. But they didn't want players on the old scale to be left too far behind. Even this year I think it was DeShields who tweeted about one of my salary sheet articles and wasn't hugely happy (presumably because she was 9th on Chicago's list, including behind Hebard). So they adjusted everything to whatever minimum they should be on.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 1742
Location: Seattle, WA


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/23/20 12:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Passing this along:

https://twitter.com/madkenney/status/1308553736567095296

Quote:
-Stevens will undergo surgery this week, but the hope is she'll be healthy by the start of next season
-DeShields is back in the gym now and she'll be fine
-Dolson is "going to rest a little bit" before going to Italy


I think we still haven't heard exactly what happened to Stevens' knee/leg?



_________________
Man, f*** all this f***ing horsesh*t (no, yeah, for sure [RIP RBG])
J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 5753



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/07/20 12:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

J-Spoon wrote:
Rock Hard wrote:
Richyyy wrote:
The problem is that I'm not even sure that they can core Parker, having looked at some numbers and thought about it more. In order to give out the core qualifying offer that comes with the designation, you have to have room for it. And even carrying 11 rather than 12, I don't think they do. I think they're probably stuck hoping they can just convince her to stay (barring trades that change their calculations).

The numbers will work when they dump Dolson.


I think Dolson/Stokes is a passable two headed center for NY certainly better than what we have now, but I am not sure we are going for that kind of better in NY in 21, if we are I think NY would be willing to swap one of our many rookie wings )or Shook who comes expendable if we have Dolson and Stokes for the 5 who are borderline for making the team in 21_ which seems fair as Chicago is doing a salary dumps

so
pick 1
Willoughby, Walker or Shook (Shook might make the most sense in terms of position but the other two have higher ceilings) for Dolson (I like Odom and want to keep her the most)
We could probably throw in pick 16 because we have so Manuy players at the moment but don't really want to or maybe just pick 16


I have to rescind this trade offer

Can't help Chicago out by taking Dolson off their hands to free up the cap space to core Ch. Parker, keep hope alive that NY can poach her.

only after Parker signs with Chicago or another team that isn't NY will I return but the offer has dropped to Shook, Walker or the $16 pick not and.

I like Dolson but after reading the breakdown by Rickyyy in the free agent thread Chicago really painted itself into a corner with her contract. Does the new WNBA payment structure make it more like the NBA in the sense that teams might actually have to offer sweeteners (i.e. pay teams off) to take a bad contract? Is Dolson the Kevin Love of the W?


mavcarter
#NATC


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5696
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/20 12:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It’s time for Sky to look in mirror and get defensive

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports-saturday/2020/9/26/21451873/its-time-for-sky-to-look-in-mirror-and-get-defensive

Quote:
Before potentially re-signing free agent Cheyenne Parker, the Sky have around $150,000. If Wade wanted to be aggressive, he would have to get creative to go after a marquee defensive-minded talent, such as Sparks star Candace Parker, who went to Naperville Central.



_________________
wrote:
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree?
Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 1742
Location: Seattle, WA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/20 1:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mavcarter wrote:
It’s time for Sky to look in mirror and get defensive

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports-saturday/2020/9/26/21451873/its-time-for-sky-to-look-in-mirror-and-get-defensive

Quote:
Before potentially re-signing free agent Cheyenne Parker, the Sky have around $150,000. If Wade wanted to be aggressive, he would have to get creative to go after a marquee defensive-minded talent, such as Sparks star Candace Parker, who went to Naperville Central.


Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see Candace Parker in a Sky jersey, and I'd root pretty hard for her to lead the Sky to a title. But why on earth would Parker, after reminding everyone how "loyal" she's been to LA the day the Sparks' season was over (and she has been), switch teams and take a legitimate pay cut in the process? Why did the author bother floating that idea out there in the article if they weren't gonna go further as to addressing the "how"? Rolling Eyes

Fine, fine, I'll address the "how" (yet again Razz Wink ). LA signs Parker to the supermax and then trades her for DeShields and Hebard. Sky get their superstar post player who fits right into their championship window (aka however long Vanderquigs have left), and the Sparks get some salary cap relief by adding a young star in the making (at a position of need, no less) and a promising younger post player to go along with their remaining core group. Idk why but I could honestly see this happening (sorry J-spoon if you've already put this idea out there before lol). I don't see Chicago or LA getting a title anytime soon if they don't spice things up...



_________________
Man, f*** all this f***ing horsesh*t (no, yeah, for sure [RIP RBG])


Last edited by Stormeo on 10/08/20 1:40 am; edited 1 time in total
J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 5753



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/20 1:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I agree that Parker is probably happy in LA has a life there with her daughter etc. Also Parker will get the super max in LA which is 215K so I am starting with that premise

but when they say get creative it means one of two things get lucky by saying trading Dolson 180K for a cheap player or daft pick and then offer Parker the not super max of 185K and hope that is enough, worst comes to worst you have the money to give Ch. Parker if it doesn't work out

Or trade more than 215K in value from Chicago roster to get Parker at 215K in return in the Bonner sign to get the extra 30k move and get your original team something in return

Copper's 165K and Stevens 60K get you there so (I am not sure if Deshilds and Hebard get them to the number for super max and also leaves them the money for the minimum 11 players, could be wrong)

Copper and Stevens for Parker

Chicago goes all in on ship now with Sloot, Quigley and Deshields core
LA get two for the price of one of its super max and probably has the money to resign Gray, Ogwumike Sykes (maybe C. Ogwumike) as well both team probably still have to go with 11

Sloot, Quigley, Deshields, Parker, Dolson
Draft pick (Evan, McDonald, Mangakahia), Williams, A. Prince, Gillespie, Hebard, Mavunga

Gray, Toliver, Copper, Ogwumike, N. Vadeeva
Cooper, Sykes, Weise, Stevens, Anigwe, Gulich or Draft pick or Chiney

interesting for both teams there are pros and cons but
I just don't see Parker leaving LA even for the full super max


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 22566
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/20 3:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's not really 150k anyway, however you do the maths. Cap situation, salaries, roster etc. here: https://herhoopstats.substack.com/p/2020-reflections-and-2021-forecasts



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
ChiSky54



Joined: 19 Jun 2019
Posts: 89
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/20 6:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What's crazy is that this defense issue is old news.

The Sky has always been horrible defensively. Too passive, not crashing the boards, standing around watching and assuming baskets would be made when I from the stands or on TV could see they weren't going in! Awvee Storey got swept out of here with Stocks when it was his job to improve that situation.

Dolson is a step (or more) slow, never understood the hype around her. Sure, she has value on the floor but it ain't on defense.

It almost seems that folks don't want to get in the mix and bang bodies. but they still get hurt.

Size has often been an issue - we end up with a lot of shorties! One of my favorite players was Clarissa do Santos, who I told at an STH event that she was like a dog with a bone under the basket working to get the ball! But she was only 6'1", which worked to her disadvantage.

If we can manage to get that defensive thing going, we'd be fire! I don't want to blow up this team, but the current core isn't getting it done and no matter what they say, they aren't going to get it done unless they put that talk into actions. I love reading all the speculations and projections and have nothing to add because that's not my thing.

Bottom line...without fixing the defense, the Sky will perennially, biennially and annually be #NAPT. Crying or Very sad



_________________
There is nothing new under the sun.
mavcarter
#NATC


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5696
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/20 9:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

J-Spoon wrote:
Copper and Stevens for Parker


Stormeo wrote:
LA signs Parker to the supermax and then trades her for DeShields and Hebard.


Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad



_________________
wrote:
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree?
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10567



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/20 10:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As long as Quigley and CVS are the starting backcourt, the Sky will not be an above-average defensive team.

Diamond DeShields was an awful defensive player her first year, insofar as defensive win shares can be trusted, and has never been above average by that metric. So OK, let's say three years of data is skewed, and she's actually slightly above-average defensively -- with Quigley and CVS, that's not a good perimeter trio.

Dolson is average and Parker is very good, again by the metrics, but as is almost always the case, success isn't about coaching, but about talent. And the Sky do not have much defensive talent to call on.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
mavcarter
#NATC


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5696
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/20 10:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
As long as Quigley and CVS are the starting backcourt, the Sky will not be an above-average defensive team.


Agree 100%, which is why I want DeShields to replace Quigley.

ClayK wrote:
Diamond DeShields was an awful defensive player her first year, insofar as defensive win shares can be trusted, and has never been above average by that metric. So OK, let's say three years of data is skewed, and she's actually slightly above-average defensively.


On court, Sky had a 95.4 defensive rating when she was on the court, off the court was 104.2. Sample size is relatively small, but she’s still the best perimeter defender on the team. No question.

ClayK wrote:
Dolson is average.


Dolson isn’t necessarily terrible in terms of man to man post defense. The problem comes from being slow footed, she can’t keep up in the pick and roll and because she’s a below the rim player, she can’t protect the paint when the perimeter gets beat.

Copper, Quigley, and Sloot were the worst defenders on the team from the metrics and the EYE TEST, constantly giving up shots in the paint and on the perimeter to defenders.



_________________
wrote:
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree?
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 10002
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/20 1:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
As long as Quigley and CVS are the starting backcourt, the Sky will not be an above-average defensive team.

Diamond DeShields was an awful defensive player her first year, insofar as defensive win shares can be trusted, and has never been above average by that metric. So OK, let's say three years of data is skewed, and she's actually slightly above-average defensively -- with Quigley and CVS, that's not a good perimeter trio.

Dolson is average and Parker is very good, again by the metrics, but as is almost always the case, success isn't about coaching, but about talent. And the Sky do not have much defensive talent to call on.


Diamond Deshields has always been an elite defender to me personally . Ask #MM23



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
Rock Hard



Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 3881
Location: Chocolate Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/09/20 7:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Trading away multiple young players for an old fart is not the best way to improve the team. As Mavcarter stated earlier the coaching staff needs to tweak the roster in order to make the necessary defensive improvements. I don't want the Sky to throw the babies out with the old bath water just to make a change.
Mavcarter idea of removing Dolson and Quigley from the starting lineup is good. Another good idea is for the Sky to find a player be it rookie or free agent veteran that is good at playing defense. I don't want to blow up the team to try to improve the defense but some changes do need to be made.



_________________
I am .... a bucket.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin