Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

  1. #1
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    This thread is to provide CBA/Cap info related specifically this upcoming summer. It’s meant as a resource, and not necessarily as a place to talk about potential FA/trade/moves, etc. It might be useful if stickied, or it just might be useful for people to read/refer to when they are considering potential signings, acquisitions, etc.

    Exhibit A: The Pacers' Payroll



    FAQ's

    What is the Pacers cap situation? - The Pacers have $57.8mm in guaranteed contracts, which is slightly below the projected $58.7mm salary cap. The luxury tax threshold is projected at $69.4mm. The $57.8mm is for 9 players (including Tinsley), leaving the Pacers needing to fill 6 roster spots.

    Can the Pacers go over the cap to sign players? Yes. There are a number of "exceptions" to the cap that will allow the Pacers to exceed it.

    What exceptions are available to the Pacers? For most of their own Free Agents, the Pacers hold the "Bird Rights." This means they can pretty much pay them anything up to the max. For other teams' free agents, or for their own where they do not own the "Bird Rights", they can use one of three exceptions: Mid-Level (MLE), Bi-Annual, and Minimum Level.

    Exhibit B-1: Exception Amounts

    Code:
    Name	Amt
    Mid-Level	 $6,000,000 
    Bi-Annual	 $1,999,000 
    Minimum	See Chart
    Exhibit B-2: Minimum Salaries by Years of Experience

    Code:
    Service	2009-10
    0	457,588
    1	736,420
    2	825,497
    3	855,189
    4	884,881
    5	959,111
    6	1,033,342
    7	1,107,572
    8	1,181,803
    9	1,187,686
    10+	1,306,455
    The MLE and the Bi-Annual exceptions may be split and given to more than one player. The Minimum is for one player only.

    Special note on the Min: If we were to sign a 10-yr vet at $1.3mm, only the amount equal to a 3-yr vet's min would count against our salary/luxury cap figure. This is to prevent older veterans from being forced out of the league by the escalating salary.

    So, how much money do we have to spend on Free Agents? This depends on what we do with our own FA's. It is almost certain that the Pacers will treat the luxury tax threshold as a "hard" cap. If this is the case, then we have about $11.6mm to fill out the final 6 roster spots.

    Hey, what happened to the $22.4mm in "expiring contracts?" Why can't we spend all of that money? Expiring contracts are useful as trade filler, but they are misleading when it comes to free agency. Essentially, it is your total payroll that matters, not how much is coming off of your books. The Knicks, for example, have over $30mm coming off their books, but will still be over the luxury tax threshold.

    What's the difference between the salary cap and the luxury tax threshold? The salary cap is the limit that teams can spend on players' contracts. There are hard caps and soft caps. Hard caps, like the NFL has, cannot be exceeded. The NBA has a soft cap, which allows for exceptions for teams to use to exceed the salary cap. The reason for the soft cap is to make it easier for teams to keep their own players. It is probably impractical to have a hard cap when you have the guaranteed salary structure the NBA has.

    The luxury tax threshold is a number above the salary cap meant to help control teams' spending. If a team exceeds this amount, they have to pay $1 for every $1 over the threshold they are. For example, if the Pacers were to sign a player that puts them $2mm over the threshold, they would have to pay $2mm in taxes. Additionally, teams below the threshold get a 1/30th share of the total tax collected. In 2008, this number was about $3mm, so in the example above, it would have actually cost the Pacers $5mm ($2mm in tax, and $3mm in lost escrow).

    Most teams, including the Pacers, will treat the tax threshold as a quasi-hard cap...going to extremes to avoid or minimize payment of the tax. Examples of this behavior would have been Denver's trade of Camby to the Clippers for a 2nd round pick and the Chandler debacle with New Orleans this year.

    What about options on our own players? Marquis Daniels has a team option for about $7.5mm. There is virtually no chance that the Pacers pick that option up, making Daniels an expiring contract. Travis Diener has a player option for about $1.7mm, and I am assuming that he will exercise that option and stay with the team. The deadline for exercising the option is June 30.

    Can these players with options be traded? They can only be traded if the option is picked up before the trade. As noted above, there is almost no chance at all of Daniels option being picked, even for trade, as it would almost certainly put us over the tax. Diener is of negligible trade value.

    So, can we spend the $11.6mm on one player? Technically, yes, but it would have to be one of our own, like Jack. This will not happen. For outside FA's, we are limited to the exceptions above, with the MLE being the biggest.

    What about our draft picks? The Pacers have one 1st round next (likely #13) and one second round pick (from Dallas). The #13 pick will command about $1.8mm, while the 2nd rounder, if signed, will get about $0.5mm.

    What happens if we win the lottery? I'll drop dead from shock. However, a top three pick will command somewhere between $3.5mm and $5.0mm for the first year. This will reduce the amount of money we have to re-sign our own players or pick up FA's. It seems a small price to pay.

    What will we do with our Free Agents? Well, the debate of what should happen is for another thread, but I would expect us to let Daniels, Rasho, and Baston walk. We'll tender a qualifying offer to Jack, and plan on matching it (up to a point), and we'll probably try to re-sign McBob for the minimum or slightly above. Graham is up in the air. For the purposes of Exhibit A, I assumed that we would re-sign Jack to a 4/$16 contract, and that McBob and Graham would likely be among the 3 "Players needed" signing on the cheap.

    So, what kind of money do we realistically have to sign a FA? The most we could sign a FA for is about $6mm (or a little less) to start, or the MLE. However, using both the full MLE and re-signing Jack would almost certainly put us over the luxury tax.

    Exhibit A above assumes that if we sign our picks, re-sign Jack to a contract starting at $3.5mm (4/$16mm), and sign two players at the min (3 yr vet level), that would leave us just over $4.1mm to sign someone.

    This figure may be optimistic. It is possible that Jack could command more money, but my assumption is that the Pacers won't match anything over $5mm to start, maybe as little as $4.5. Therefore, an aggressive suitor for Jack could knock our available money down to as little as $2.6mm.

    Is there anything we should worry about longer term? Yes. As we all know, we're in cap hell. Bird did a lot with last summer's moves to alleviate that, but there's still a long way to go. It is not helped by the declining NBA revenues and cap structure...this probably cost the Pacers $5-6mm in space this summer, and another $6mm next.

    It is important to realize one thing. If we re-sign Jack, or pick up a similarly-price (MLE) FA this summer, we will go over the tax threshold, not for this coming year, but the year following. The good news is that our payroll situation clears up considerably in 2011, but if the Simons decided they did not want to pay the tax at any point, then we could be looking at a summer of losing Jack and only signing Min-type players.

    What about Tinsley? Well, what about him? He's owed $7.2mm next year and $7.6mm the year after. We should assume that all of that will remain on our books. His arbitration hearing will come this summer, and that could shed some light. However, it's unlikely to bring significant relief.

    The only way to get all of Jamaal's salary off the books is to find a team far enough under the cap to take on his salary and only send back a draft pick. This is exceedingly unlikely.

    What about a buyout? As discussed ad nauseum, the buyout could save some money if it is for less than the remaining amount. However, it's very unlikely that he'd take much less than $14.0mm on the $14.8 owed. A few hundred k or a mil could give a little breathing room, but only very little.

    What teams are under the cap? There are several teams like the Pacers, sitting a few hundred thousand or a couple million below the cap, but they are effectively over the cap, once you factor cap holds, draft picks, and re-signings.

    There are only seven (7) teams significantly under the cap: Atlanta, Detroit, Memphis, Minnesota, Oklahoma City, Sacramento, and Toronto. Of those teams, strong rumors indicate that only Detroit and Oklahoma City will be willing to take on significant salaries. Everybody else will be re-signing their own players, saving for 2010, or simply cutting costs.

    I'm sure there are more things, and I'll add as it makes sense.

    As I said, this is not a place for discussing what to do (what players to get) with the Pacers' available space/exceptions. However, if you have other questions, you can post them here, and someone will respond.

    or...you can follow the link below


    As always, Larry Coon's FAQ is the best source for detailed CBA questions, and I relied on it heavily for the information included.
    Last edited by count55; 05-16-2009 at 02:57 PM.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to count55 For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Member Trophy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    8,556

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Nice info.

    Danny was paid around 3 million this season right?

  4. #3
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TroyMurphy3 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nice info.

    Danny was paid around 3 million this season right?
    $2,329

  5. #4
    Member OakMoses's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Age
    35
    Posts
    3,031

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Count,

    Where'd you get the salary info for Danny? I've never seen it posted anywhere else.

    I hope you're demonstrating some prescience in your estimation of Jack's contract. $3.5 million for Jack would be a great deal.

    Of the under the cap teams, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Sacramento all need PG's pretty badly. I could see Atlanta making a run at Jack, but he doesn't make a ton of sense for Minnesota or Sacramento. I like him, but it's not like either one of those teams becomes even remotely competitive by adding Jack. The thing that worries me the most is somebody getting crazy and offering the full MLE.
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

  6. #5
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by mellifluous View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Count,

    Where'd you get the salary info for Danny? I've never seen it posted anywhere else.
    I hate to admit it, but I used Hoopshype. No one else has it posted, but the numbers they have fit with the reported 5/$60-$64mm. The big question is how the money is spread. This presentation is the most favorable for this summer, since it's the typical back-ended, max annual raise contract.

    If the contract's flat, we'll have less money. I'm hopeful Shamsports gets numbers up soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by mel
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I hope you're demonstrating some prescience in your estimation of Jack's contract. $3.5 million for Jack would be a great deal.

    Of the under the cap teams, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Sacramento all need PG's pretty badly. I could see Atlanta making a run at Jack, but he doesn't make a ton of sense for Minnesota or Sacramento. I like him, but it's not like either one of those teams becomes even remotely competitive by adding Jack. The thing that worries me the most is somebody getting crazy and offering the full MLE.
    I'm sure I'm being optimistic. Honestly, I think 4/$16 may be right, but it will be flat ($4mm per year). I think I mentioned it in my post, but I believe the Pacers will match anything up to $5mm before it gets dicey.

    If Atlanta has a brain in their heads, they'll try to re-sign Bibby for a reasonable amount. If they lose Bibby, I think they'll drop back into the 30's for wins.

  7. #6
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Oh, and thanks for the sticky to whoever did it. I felt a little awkward asking, but this subject comes up a lot, and this might help for a little while.

  8. #7

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Thanks to Count for putting all of this information into one thread. It will be a very handy reference tool.

    Count and I have debated the amount we each think Jack will get in the open market. He is pretty convinced 4 yrs 16 million is correct, while I am of the opinion Jack will get more than that, perhaps nearing 6 million per year. Time will tell on who ends up being right.

    A few things to remember that weren't specifically mentioned in the original post: First, remember that the possibilities for SIGN AND TRADE deals exist with free agents of our own and with other teams. There will be ways to be creative in how we utilize our money this season using this technique, and there are many variables to factor in. This may enable us to sign something other than a bargain basement free agent, if we can work out comepensation with the other team to take salary back from us.

    Secondly, keep in mind the rules of trading salaries to fit them under the CBA: salaries must match within 25% in either direction, plus $100,000. (If I am wrong about that Count can correct me).

    So for example, we in theory could sign free agent X for 8 million per year, if we did it in a sign and trade with his former club, where the other team took back within 25% either way of 8,000,000, plus $100,000.

    Just to clarify using real people, we in theory could sign Trevor Ariza (who I like to mention in every thread possible lol) in a sign and trade deal with the Lakers, in a structure like this:

    A. Lakers sign Trevor Ariza to a 4 year, 24 million dollar contract and trade him to Indiana. Indiana in exchange trades PF Jeff Foster to the Lakers (Foster makes around 6.5 million in 2009/10 I think, so this in theory would work)

    I am not saying this deal is realistic or even wise, it is just an example.


    And also remember that the players FIRST year salary in a multi year deal is very important to us. If a team really wanted to sign Jarrett Jack to a contract they don't want us to be able to match, they can structure the payout in such a way to make that hard on us the first year. For instance, using Count's theoretical 4 year 16 million dollar offer, it could be put together like this:

    Year 1: 5.5 million
    Year 2: 4.5 million
    Year 3: 3.5 million
    Year 4: 2.5 million.

    Again, I'm using soft numbers without doing the math, but I think that does come close to explaining what I mean at least. A salary can only increase or decrease a certain percentage each year, but there is no reason why a team couldn't front load the deal to make it harder on us. In fact, that is exactly what I believe some team will do.

    Lastly, I believe a team can structure a contract with a different PAYOUT structure. In other words, maybe a team could write it into the contract that Jack will recieve his entire lump sum salary for the year by a date certain, for example let's use August 1, 2009. If a team did something quirky like that, it would not only be the totality of the contract we would have to match, but also the payment schedule. That fact alone may influence a team like us with owners in a cash crunch to make a different financial decision than they ordinarily would.

    If any of what I just said is wrong, hopefully Count will read this and correct or clarify.

  9. #8
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Secondly, keep in mind the rules of trading salaries to fit them under the CBA: salaries must match within 25% in either direction, plus $100,000. (If I am wrong about that Count can correct me).

    So for example, we in theory could sign free agent X for 8 million per year, if we did it in a sign and trade with his former club, where the other team took back within 25% either way of 8,000,000, plus $100,000.
    You're in the ball park, but not exactly right. The rule is that you can take back up to 125% + $100,000 of the salary you're sending out. In the example you gave, the other team could take back as much as $10,100,000. However, we would have to send them a minimum of $6,320,000. So the formula's for the range would be:

    Max = (Salary * 125%) + $100k
    Min = (Salary - $100k) / 125%


    Quote Originally Posted by tbird
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And also remember that the players FIRST year salary in a multi year deal is very important to us. If a team really wanted to sign Jarrett Jack to a contract they don't want us to be able to match, they can structure the payout in such a way to make that hard on us the first year. For instance, using Count's theoretical 4 year 16 million dollar offer, it could be put together like this:

    Year 1: 5.5 million
    Year 2: 4.5 million
    Year 3: 3.5 million
    Year 4: 2.5 million.

    Again, I'm using soft numbers without doing the math, but I think that does come close to explaining what I mean at least. A salary can only increase or decrease a certain percentage each year, but there is no reason why a team couldn't front load the deal to make it harder on us. In fact, that is exactly what I believe some team will do.
    The decrease limits are the same as the raises...10.5% for your own players, 8% for other free agents. It's pretty much impossible to front load the contracts as severely as you describe. Because of this, there is no front loaded 4/$16 contract that we would not match, IMO.

    Lastly, I believe a team can structure a contract with a different PAYOUT structure. In other words, maybe a team could write it into the contract that Jack will recieve his entire lump sum salary for the year by a date certain, for example let's use August 1, 2009. If a team did something quirky like that, it would not only be the totality of the contract we would have to match, but also the payment schedule. That fact alone may influence a team like us with owners in a cash crunch to make a different financial decision than they ordinarily would.
    I can't find the link , but I am almost 100% positive that players get paid by the game, games 1 through 82. I believe this is the case because the player must pay taxes to the state/province where the game was played. So, when the Lakers play here, Kobe has to pay Indiana taxes.

  10. #9
    Cheeseburger in Paradise Los Angeles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    9,690

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by count55 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I can't find the link , but I am almost 100% positive that players get paid by the game, games 1 through 82. I believe this is the case because the player must pay taxes to the state/province where the game was played. So, when the Lakers play here, Kobe has to pay Indiana taxes.
    To the best of my knowledge (again, no link) players have the option to take one-sum annual paychecks or have the paychecks distributed on a weekly basis. I've never heard of a player getting paid on a per-game basis, but then again, I've never heard of The Hills before this week, so I'm a little out of touch.

    BIG EDIT: Here's Paul Stanley discussing this three years ago:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...=1006040100861
    Last edited by Los Angeles; 05-09-2009 at 02:39 PM.
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

  11. #10
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,042

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by count55 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I can't find the link , but I am almost 100% positive that players get paid by the game, games 1 through 82. I believe this is the case because the player must pay taxes to the state/province where the game was played. So, when the Lakers play here, Kobe has to pay Indiana taxes.
    Bi-weekly?
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6175958AAJme4X
    Resolved Question


    When do NBA players get paid?

    Do they get a check at the end of every game, week, month, or season?

    • 3 days ago





    by Nickster


    Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

    What up Myth Buster,

    As far as i know NBA players get paid bi-weekly like the rest of us. There was an article in ESPN several years back and it was about why the Clippers were a poorly ran organization.

    Ken Norman (Former Clipper) in this article said that there were several times when he came by the office to pick up his paycheck and the check was not ready-- his point being that this is supposed to be a professionally ran organization. Based on that article i'm gathering that NBA players are paid bi-weekly it's just that their paycheck has a lot more zeroes behind it.

    Nickster

    • 3 days ago

  12. #11
    Yeah, I'm a Pacers fan. MyFavMartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    In the Washington DC area
    Posts
    4,302
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Anybody think that Morway backloaded Danny's contract to free up money for this and next off-season for FA signings?

  13. #12
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by iPACER View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Anybody think that Morway backloaded Danny's contract to free up money for this and next off-season for FA signings?
    No

  14. #13
    Yeah, I'm a Pacers fan. MyFavMartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    In the Washington DC area
    Posts
    4,302
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by count55 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No
    Why not?

  15. #14
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by iPACER View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why not?
    Because, it appears that Danny got the standard max raise contract. It makes the most sense from a cash perspective for the Pacers, and it's the type of contract that the vast majority of players in Danny's position sign.

    If there was any consideration, it was probably centered around avoiding the luxury tax and having Danny get more expensive as the bad contracts of Murphy, Dunleavy, Tinsley, and Ford slide off the books.

    It may have worked out that it created more room for Free Agents, but it's not like this is some creatively crafted contract that magically allows us to do special things this year. It is what it is.

  16. #15
    How u imawhat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    B-town
    Posts
    5,198

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Great stuff. This makes it very easy to read and understand.

    What are you basing the '10 draft pick salaries on?

  17. #16
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by imawhat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Great stuff. This makes it very easy to read and understand.

    What are you basing the '10 draft pick salaries on?
    NBA Player's association projected salary scale, mid-teens (actually 120%-ish of #15, which would be the max pay for that pick.)

  18. #17
    How u imawhat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    B-town
    Posts
    5,198

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Barring other moves, it looks like the Pacers might be in a position of trading next year's draft pick (or taking a luxury tax hit) if we finish in a worse position than we did this year.

    For this reason, have you done any research on teams likely to trade their '09 first round picks? Just curious about the possibilities (including the possibility of the Pacers trading down or out to help our financial position).
    Last edited by imawhat; 05-16-2009 at 02:54 PM.

  19. #18
    Yeah, I'm a Pacers fan. MyFavMartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    In the Washington DC area
    Posts
    4,302
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by imawhat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Barring other moves, it looks like the Pacers might be in a position of trading next year's draft pick (or taking a luxury tax hit) if we finish in a worse position than we did this year.

    For this reason, have you done any research on teams likely to trade their '09 first round picks? Just curious about the possibilities (including the possibility of the Pacers trading down or out to help our financial position).
    http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...ad.php?t=46661

    Lux threshold is 69.4.

    For guaranteed money for next season, the teams near are:

    1. Boston is at 70.3 with 11 players and a 12th w/ a PO (Eddie House @ $3.5)

    2. Dallas is at 69.7 with 8 players and a 9th w/ a PO (Devean George @ $1.6) and one unguaranteed (Stackhouse @ $7.25
    )
    3. San Antonio is at 67.8 with 8 players (2 more but ungauranteed - Bowen @ $4.0 and Oberto @ $3.8)

    Only Dallas has a first rounder and Cuban has deep pockets, so none of these come into play in regards to moving the pick to stay under the lux tx.


    The following teams are over by quite a bit and may be moving salary along with draft picks (can be 2nd rounders) to get under:

    1. New Orleans: 75.9 minimally guaranteed - 10 players guaranteed and 1 with a PO (Devin Brown @ $1.1). Only has a 1st rounder so far.

    2. Phoenix: $76.4 min - 9 players including a TO on Admundson and 1 unguaranteed (Steve Nash @ $13.25) - Has 1 first rounder and 2 seconds.



    Teams with multiple 1st rounders:

    Sacramento: 2 - Lottery #1 and #23..... has only 8 roster spots filled next year +2 RFAs
    Oklahoma City: 2 - Lottery #4 and #25 ... 10 roster spots filled
    Minnesota: 3 - Lottery #5, #18, and #28...11 spots filled
    Memphis: 2 - Lottery #6 and #27...8 + 1 nonguaranteed + 1 RFA
    Chicago: 2 - #16 and #26... 9 spots filled + 1 nonguaranteed

    Teams with more than 2 picks:
    Sacramento: #1, #23, and #31
    Minn: #5, #18, #28, #45 and #47....11 roster spots filled (includes 1 PO)
    Charlotte: #12, #40, and #54.... 9 filled + 2 RFAs + 1 nonguaranteed
    Phoenix: #14, #48, and #57... 8 + 1 nonguaranteed + 1 TO
    Det: #15, #36 and #39... 7 + 1 TO + 1 PO
    Portland: #24, #32, #38, #55, and #56

    Teams w/ multiple 2nd rounders:
    San Antonio: #37 and #51 (no 1st rounders)... 8 + 2 nonguaranteed + 1 PO


    Looks like there's a drop off in talent after #9 and #21 so moving up above these picks might cost a bit.
    Last edited by MyFavMartin; 05-16-2009 at 08:29 PM.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to MyFavMartin For This Useful Post:


  21. #19
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Galen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Thanks iPacer, that's good information!
    Why not click the Thanks button?

  22. #20
    FREE LANCE MillerTime's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,801

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    what a great post, awesome work Count
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.



  23. #21
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    I posted this answer in another thread, and I thought it might be useful here, as well:

    Quote Originally Posted by count55 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Next year's salary cap is projected at $57.3mm. Here are the teams that are projected under the cap (with notes):

    Atlanta - Payroll is at $40.9mm, but (as this rumor shows) they are going to have to chew that up re-signing their own guys. In addition to big names Mike Bibby and Marvin Williams, Zaza Pachulia and Flip Murray are also free agents.

    They have no real usable space to sign free agents because of the cap holds on Bibby and Williams. Bibby is at about 150% of his last year's salary ($22mm), while Williams is 300% (coming out of his rookie contract), or about $17mm.

    Cap holds don't count against luxury tax considerations, but they do impact the money available to sign free agents. It is to prevent a team from letting their contracts expire, signing up big $ free agents, then re-signing their own guys, thus circumventing the cap.

    Cap holds can be released by renouncing the rights to your own FA's. If you renounce the rights to a FA, you can still re-sign them, but you no longer have any cap exceptions, other than the Minimum Player exception. You must have free cap space (and I don't think that they are even available under the MLE, but I'll have to research that.)

    Detroit - Payroll is $39.1mm. They have two FA's in Iverson and Sheed, but their cap holds are prohibitive. Detroit is almost certain to renounce those two players. Detroit is expected to be one of, if no the most aggressive in using their cap space this summer.

    (Recent rumors suggest that Detroit is not likely to help Atlanta here. Detroit was supposedly trying to deal the #15 and Amir Johnson to OKC (see below) in order to create a even more cap space.)

    Detroit probably can take on about $15-18mm worth of salaries, either through FA or unbalanced trades.

    Memphis - Payroll is $36.0mm, and Hakim Warrick is the only significant cap hold that they might retain (hold of $6.4mm). They could afford to take about $20mm in salaries, either through FA or inbalanced trade.

    However, IMO, they will not make any significant efforts to make a big splash here. They are for sale, and in cost containment mode.

    On the other hand, they might be willing to make a deal like this Atlanta deal...it is not a long-term commitment, and some of the expense may be defrayed by insurance.

    Broad picture, I think Memphis probably will act a lot like a farm team until new ownership is found. I could be wrong, but I expect this team to be under the cap for years to come with attractive young talent that is unlikely to stay there long term.

    Oklahoma City - Payroll is $42.5mm, but that includes $4.4mm of unguaranteed/partially unguaranteed contracts. Chucky Atkins is on their books for about $3.5mm, but only about $1.0mm is guaranteed. They have no significant players for cap holds.

    They could probably take on $12-15mm in salaries, and could be a trade partner for Atlanta here.

    However, rumors are that they are willing to spend, and they may be almost as active as Detroit this summer.

    Portland - Payroll is at $48.9mm. There are $7.6mm in partially unguaranteed contracts, but they are for Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw. I find it highly likely that they will retain those two. Channing Frye would be the only significant cap hold, but I think it's likely that they would renounce his rights if the right opportunity came along.

    They could probably take $7-8mm in payroll, and they could be a trade partner for Atlanta, but I'm not sure they would think that a wise use of that cap space.

    Sacramento - Payroll at $45.0mm, with the only reasonably possible cap hold being for Rashad McCants. They could take on about $10-12mm, and it might make some sense for them to do this trade with Atlanta.

    They are not expected to be big players this summer.

    Toronto - Payroll is at $46.7mm, but they will have to make a decision on Shawn Marion and his $26.7mm cap hold, before they can take on any salary. This makes them a bad match for the Atlanta trade, because I'm sure they will want to keep their options open on Marion. (This trade would require them to let him go before the FA period starts.)

    Minnesota - Payroll at $51.0mm, but this is close enough that the cap holds for the rookies and exceptions (MLE, LLE) kick in, putting them over the cap. They really won't be able to do a trade like the Atlanta deal.

    So, it looks like Detroit and Portland could, but probably won't. Toronto and Minny are probably out because of cap holds. That leaves Memphis, OKC, and Sacramento as possible takers for the deal as structured.
    If I get a chance, I'll pull together a list of all of the teams' salary positions.

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to count55 For This Useful Post:


  25. #22
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,042

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    This isn't a biggie, but apparently McRoberts is a restricted free agent just like Jack. It was thought McRoberts was unrestricted. This means we can keep him by matching any offers he gets.

    http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5700038760

    In the wide-ranging interview, Morway also discussed the team's draft position, the interest in re-signing restricted free agents Jarrett Jack and Josh McRoberts and the franchise's three-year plan for revitalization.
    --------------

    I've read the same in the Star.
    Last edited by Will Galen; 06-17-2009 at 12:38 PM.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Will Galen For This Useful Post:


  27. #23
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Updated 7/11 with latest signings and cap info:



    Special thanks to Will Galen for projections on Hansbrough.

    I assumed the more optimistic $65mm threshold. In any case, you can basically see that we're already at the threshold for next year.

  28. #24
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    I don't suppose we could convince Tinsley to agree to a buyout that would cause him to lose the last year of his deal, but in exchange, at the end of his current contrat, we sign him to a new, 6 year, $7,650,000 contract, and then waive/cut/release him for another team to pick up. I've never heard of it happening, but it technically could, I think, be possible.

  29. #25
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: The (Un)Official Summer 2009 Cap Resource and FAQ Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't suppose we could convince Tinsley to agree to a buyout that would cause him to lose the last year of his deal, but in exchange, at the end of his current contrat, we sign him to a new, 6 year, $7,650,000 contract, and then waive/cut/release him for another team to pick up. I've never heard of it happening, but it technically could, I think, be possible.
    This is probably not specifically prohibited, but..


    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Coon
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    88. Can teams find loopholes in the CBA and make trades that were never intended to be allowed?

    The CBA has a general prohibition on circumvention which states that the rules exist to preserve the benefit derived by the teams and players, and that nobody shall do anything to defeat or circumvent the intent of the agreement. The league can use this prohibition to disallow a trade that they feel circumvents the CBA, even though that trade is not specifically prohibited by the agreement.
    This would seem a circumvention of the CBA, to me.

    And, Tinsley will do absolutely nothing that would possibly help us out.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •