Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Hornets Acquire Ridnour for Barnes


nctarheel0619

Recommended Posts

I'm so lost on all these transactions. I hope we're not keeping Riddnour, who was just traded to Memphis yesterday for fugs sake.

We made this trade because the Barnes deal is guaranteed, Luke isn't, so he'll be released unless he gets moved to OKC for Lamb and cut there.

Remember the report was that we would acquire Lamb via Barnes but Barnes would not be going to OKC. That could mean OKC is moving Lamb for Ridnour since Lamb is a salary dump and they can cut Luke instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We made this trade because the Barnes deal is guaranteed, Luke isn't, so he'll be released unless he gets moved to OKC for Lamb and cut there.

Remember the report was that we would acquire Lamb via Barnes but Barnes would not be going to OKC. That could mean OKC is moving Lamb for Ridnour since Lamb is a salary dump and they can cut Luke instead.

I think reading that just made my brain hurt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think reading that just made my brain hurt

Not that difficult.

NBA has guaranteed and unguaranteed contracts. Guaranteed means if you cut them it costs you. I believe Barnes hit was about a million dollars. He was guaranteed. Ridnour deal is not so you can cut him for free.

In this scenario, we were never going to keep Barnes but we didn't want to pay to cut him. So we found an unguaranteed contract in Ridnour and swapped with Memphis, who wants to keep Barnes.

Now in OKC the same scenario with Lamb. They need money to pay other guys and don't want to pay to release Lamb. So they will probably get the Ridnour contract and we will swap picks with them because we get the far better player in the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...