PDA

View Full Version : Money, Free Agency and some very bad teams...



OrderOfCook
02-19-2010, 02:13 PM
Well, this should be fun, put your thinking caps on kiddies...

The reality of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in the NBA

I've posted about the CBA exhaustively in the Raptors forum and I won't go through all the details of the clauses again, but suffice it to say that the NBA's CBA is designed to entice players to stay in the city they already play for. The two major factors are that the current team can pay the player more, including higher raises per year, and secondly that they can pay that same player max money for one more year than any other team can (6) instead of (5). Under the CBA rules, that adds up to about an extra $30 million of guaranteed quanzo for max money players. That's a lot of incentive.

There is a new CBA in 2011

When the new CBA is finally agreed upon--lock-out or not--the bottom line is that the players are going to get less money. This is a major consideration when you take into account that incentive to stay with your own team because they can pay you for (6) years under the current rules, rather than having your contract expire and negotiating a salary under new CBA rules after only five years. It could raise that $30 million difference mentioned above into the $40mil range by virtue of CBA and cap differences between now and 2015.

Players Love Money

Although many players are willing to give up some cash to go play for a contender, when it comes to marquee players like Wade, LeBron etc who can have a team build around them, rather than having to go to a team to help be a piece around someone else, it doesn't make sense for them to "move to a contender" because they themselves are what make contenders. The only other incentive players love besides a championship ring is money, and nobody can give them more money than their own team (see above).

The Exceptional Circumstance

If there is a situation where a top talent player such as Wade, Bosh, LeBron want to move off their own team because they firmly don't believe in management to put the pieces they need around them, they still want their money. This can only be achieved by a sign and trade involving their own team who signs them and then trades them away--ensuring that the player gets the most possible money and the team gets a reasonable return on their asset.

The Elusive Sign and Trade, and what it means for teams like NJ, the Knicks, etc...

I hope you've been following the logical flow of this post so far. If not, let's recap in syllogism form:

Players get the most money staying with their own teams. A huge, gigantic amount more.
Players who want to leave their team still want that money.
In order to get that money the team will sign and trade the player.

So where does that leave us? At the elusive sign and trade, something a lot of Knick, New Jersey, possibly Bulls and other fans seem not to either fully grasp or even contemplate. Let's use a hypothetical example: Bosh leaves the Raptors, but he gets his coin in the sign and trade. Who are the Raptors going to trade him to? The Knicks? No. They have nothing to offer in return. The Nets? No, same scenario. The Bulls? No, not unless they give up every other piece they have.

Here's the thing: Bad teams have nothing to offer the teams involved in a sign and trade. And make no mistake, any max money guy looking to move on wants that max money still, for as long and as much as they can get.

What kind of hope do bad teams have in landing a max money guy?

A multi-team deal: But unlike this season, where everyone is shedding cap space for exactly this scenario, there is little reason to think that there are teams willing to give up talent to save cash next year when there is no pending bonanza of free agents in the 2011 class. Someone has to be the team that gives up something huge for cash reasons (See Wizards, Washington this year) and it is extremely unlikely to happen come summer.

Does this all mean that the Knicks, New Jersey et al won't pick up a max money guy? Of course not. But let's get real with all this craziness, it's far more unlikely than it's being touted to be. No matter how bad *** you think your city is, it's probably not $30mill more bad-*** to a player, and since you have absolutely nothing to give in return, the chances of a sign and trade coming your way is at best an outside chance rather than a likelihood.

[And for everyone who can't put pieces of a puzzle together and want to argue that the max money guy will demand a sign and trade to, let's say, New York because they have all the leveraging power--you've completely missed the point of me saying over and over again that their own team can leverage $30mill in extra money over them in a kind of "You want to go to New York? Fine, but you don't get a sign and trade kind of way. So say goodbye to that sixth year of guaranteed big time cash and your extra raises."]

Keep it real,
- Cook

MaHaRaJaH
02-19-2010, 02:20 PM
That was a good read, I've remembered you posting extensive stuff regarding this in the other forum. Can't say I know as much about Salary Caps as much as you seem to know, but a lot of what your saying makes sense.

GodsSon
02-19-2010, 02:27 PM
good stuff...now with that said, Bosh is leaving...:rolleyes:

CB29
02-19-2010, 02:45 PM
good stuff...now with that said, Bosh is leaving...:rolleyes:

lol i think most people in toronto that follow the raps regularly know that Bosh will most likely stay... He's taken in interest in the team, feels comfortable with the players and wants the city to be recognized in the NBA... The ESPN guys like to say that bosh is leaving but they don't pick on joe johnson that much even though he's made it very clear that he's leaving... They just like to pick on us i guess... Cb4 is staying cause he likes the team, he gets max here, we build around him and he wants to be the 1st player whose jersey we retire... who else can give him all that? NOBODY!

pebloemer
02-19-2010, 02:54 PM
While the information given in the opening post is informative and logical it seems destined to cause a ruckus of arguments. I just hope this doesn't become another Bosh IS or ISN"T leaving thread as the initial responses have indicated.

Master Mind
02-19-2010, 02:56 PM
Good post, very informative. Seems like you have a grasp on this whole fiasco what do you predict is gonna happen?

cheezinmypocket
02-19-2010, 02:58 PM
Well, this should be fun, put your thinking caps on kiddies...

The people that will understand what you just wrote already get it.... the people that don't get it will continue to live in their dream world. :eyebrow:

cheezinmypocket
02-19-2010, 02:59 PM
Good post, very informative. Seems like you have grasp on this whole fiasco what do you predict is gonna happen?

All the guys that are really worth max contracts sign where they are.

Guys that don't deserve max contracts will be the ones that get them from teams like NY, NJ, etc. I'll put Amare and Joe Johnson into that group of players that will get paid max from a new team.

Jetsguy
02-19-2010, 03:01 PM
Well, this should be fun, put your thinking caps on kiddies...

The reality of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in the NBA

I've posted about the CBA exhaustively in the Raptors forum and I won't go through all the details of the clauses again, but suffice it to say that the NBA's CBA is designed to entice players to stay in the city they already play for. The two major factors are that the current team can pay the player more, including higher raises per year, and secondly that they can pay that same player max money for one more year than any other team can (6) instead of (5). Under the CBA rules, that adds up to about an extra $30 million of guaranteed quanzo for max money players. That's a lot of incentive.

There is a new CBA in 2011

When the new CBA is finally agreed upon--lock-out or not--the bottom line is that the players are going to get less money. This is a major consideration when you take into account that incentive to stay with your own team because they can pay you for (6) years under the current rules, rather than having your contract expire and negotiating a salary under new CBA rules after only five years. It could raise that $30 million difference mentioned above into the $40mil range by virtue of CBA and cap differences between now and 2015.

Players Love Money

Although many players are willing to give up some cash to go play for a contender, when it comes to marquee players like Wade, LeBron etc who can have a team build around them, rather than having to go to a team to help be a piece around someone else, it doesn't make sense for them to "move to a contender" because they themselves are what make contenders. The only other incentive players love besides a championship ring is money, and nobody can give them more money than their own team (see above).

The Exceptional Circumstance

If there is a situation where a top talent player such as Wade, Bosh, LeBron want to move off their own team because they firmly don't believe in management to put the pieces they need around them, they still want their money. This can only be achieved by a sign and trade involving their own team who signs them and then trades them away--ensuring that the player gets the most possible money and the team gets a reasonable return on their asset.

The Elusive Sign and Trade, and what it means for teams like NJ, the Knicks, etc...

I hope you've been following the logical flow of this post so far. If not, let's recap in syllogism form:

Players get the most money staying with their own teams. A huge, gigantic amount more.
Players who want to leave their team still want that money.
In order to get that money the team will sign and trade the player.

So where does that leave us? At the elusive sign and trade, something a lot of Knick, New Jersey, possibly Bulls and other fans seem not to either fully grasp or even contemplate. Let's use a hypothetical example: Bosh leaves the Raptors, but he gets his coin in the sign and trade. Who are the Raptors going to trade him to? The Knicks? No. They have nothing to offer in return. The Nets? No, same scenario. The Bulls? No, not unless they give up every other piece they have.

Here's the thing: Bad teams have nothing to offer the teams involved in a sign and trade. And make no mistake, any max money guy looking to move on wants that max money still, for as long and as much as they can get.

What kind of hope do bad teams have in landing a max money guy?

A multi-team deal: But unlike this season, where everyone is shedding cap space for exactly this scenario, there is little reason to think that there are teams willing to give up talent to save cash next year when there is no pending bonanza of free agents in the 2011 class. Someone has to be the team that gives up something huge for cash reasons (See Wizards, Washington this year) and it is extremely unlikely to happen come summer.

Does this all mean that the Knicks, New Jersey et al won't pick up a max money guy? Of course not. But let's get real with all this craziness, it's far more unlikely than it's being touted to be. No matter how bad *** you think your city is, it's probably not $30mill more bad-*** to a player, and since you have absolutely nothing to give in return, the chances of a sign and trade coming your way is at best an outside chance rather than a likelihood.

[And for everyone who can't put pieces of a puzzle together and want to argue that the max money guy will demand a sign and trade to, let's say, New York because they have all the leveraging power--you've completely missed the point of me saying over and over again that their own team can leverage $30mill in extra money over them in a kind of "You want to go to New York? Fine, but you don't get a sign and trade kind of way. So say goodbye to that sixth year of guaranteed big time cash and your extra raises."]

Keep it real,
- Cook

You act like you are smarter than NBA GM's with all of this. Do you really think teams like the Knicks would be doing all this if the only way they could get anyone was via S&T? I think you are hoping hard that Bosh stays and I dont blame you but I would not count on it. The only team that can keep its star and add a top line guy is Miami Cleveland and Toronto dont have the room and the only team right now that can sign 2 max outright is the Knicks.

I dont think that LBJ/Wade/Bosh are going to the Knicks necessarily just that there is a better chance of it happening than you seem to paint in your post

Twistedheat
02-19-2010, 03:04 PM
One thing that people do not seem to realize is that with the New York media market many marquee players would make a lot of money in endorsements alone

IndyRealist
02-19-2010, 03:10 PM
You act like you are smarter than NBA GM's with all of this. Do you really think teams like the Knicks would be doing all this if the only way they could get anyone was via S&T? I think you are hoping hard that Bosh stays and I dont blame you but I would not count on it. The only team that can keep its start and add a top line guy is Miami Cleveland and Toronto dont have the room and the only team right now that can sign 2 max outright is the Knicks.

It's a logical, well thought out post. Rockets fans are saying the exact same thing, that they're in a better position than the Knicks. They have draft picks, young talent, proven role players, and expiring contracts to make it work. Indiana fans might begin to feel that way too, if they're willing to give up Granger and their assuredly top 10 pick.

I don't know that you should place all of your faith in the intelligence of NBA GM's. Most of them aren't terribly successful at their jobs.

pebloemer
02-19-2010, 03:11 PM
All the guys that are really worth max contracts sign where they are.

Guys that don't deserve max contracts will be the ones that get them from teams like NY, NJ, etc. I'll put Amare and Joe Johnson into that group of players that will get paid max from a new team.

I think you are overconfident that this is cut in stone. Possibilities of sign and trade or players signing together somewhere still remain.


The people that will understand what you just wrote already get it.... the people that don't get it will continue to live in their dream world. :eyebrow:

The money issue and the ability to offer more money, especially with the new CBA looming remains relevant moving forward, but it is hardly enough to predict where players will end up. Different players make different decisions for different motives. Money is a factor, yes. So is winning, location, management, teammates, etc. It is not a matter of people "getting" anything. Just a matter of people's hopes and an overall uncertainty with what will happen this off-season. NY, NJ, Miami and Chicago have put themselves in a unique bargaining position based on cap space and they will have their chance to use that asset. There are a lot of free agents varying in ability and cost this off-season that are rarely even discussed that will be relevant too. Also, there may be teams looking to dump contracts in the early off-season or next year and cap space can be relevant there too. So many pages are left unturned.

Ethix11
02-19-2010, 03:11 PM
Marketing Sponserships, if they have a better chance at competing on another team, they they will make more money if they constantly go further into the playoffs everyyear

IndyRealist
02-19-2010, 03:13 PM
One thing that people do not seem to realize is that with the New York media market many marquee players would make a lot of money in endorsements alone

Everyone is aware of it I think. And it's the primary idea behind "Lebron to NYK". But what if Lebron stays in Cleveland, or executes a S&T to another team? Is Amare going to get the same level of endorsements playing for NYK? What if the team doesn't do well, are those endorsements still there? Outside of global marketing icons like Lebron, Wade, and maybe Bosh, which max players are going to benefit from New York's media market if the team is losing?

Jetsguy
02-19-2010, 03:19 PM
It's a logical, well thought out post. Rockets fans are saying the exact same thing, that they're in a better position than the Knicks. They have draft picks, young talent, proven role players, and expiring contracts to make it work. Indiana fans might begin to feel that way too, if they're willing to give up Granger and their assuredly top 10 pick.

I don't know that you should place all of your faith in the intelligence of NBA GM's. Most of them aren't terribly successful at their jobs.

But posters on an internet sports site are:eyebrow:

I think he has a good point and it does make sense but does anyone really think that every FA is staying where they are because they can make more money?

But if you give up Granger in a S&T then there is no reason for a star to really want to be there plus it is Indiana dude:p

BaustinSali08
02-19-2010, 03:31 PM
I am a little confused, so why couldn't New York offer more money than Cleveland over the span of 5 years instead of 6 for LBJ? Is there a max you can offer depending on your salary cap position?

Hellcrooner
02-19-2010, 03:40 PM
Very good post

But let me point at something you didnt include.

As you said MArkee players love money.

Yeah Cavs and Heat can pay more for lebron or wade.

Now tell me.

How much does NIke pay lebron if he is on a cavs shirt and how much if he is on a Knicks or Bulls shirt?

Multiply this by all the sponsors the player has.

The difference for such a player to Play in New York, Chicago or L.A Area ( so bulls, Knicks, Nets, CLipps OR LAKERS IN A SIGN AND TRADE) than to play in Miami, Ohio or even Toronto ( sad but true it shoudl be one of the biggest markets but Americans dont care bout Canada) is about 30 or 40 millions A YEAR.

sintaks12
02-19-2010, 03:57 PM
No one is pointing out the most attractive thing about the Knicks and Heat... the ability to bring in 2 superstars. If you don't think that is going to have an impact on these guys' decisions, you're crazy. If one of those teams pulls it off, they're instant contenders.

OrderOfCook
02-19-2010, 04:01 PM
Hey JetsGuy: I appreciate what you're saying and I didn't mean to come across as condescending towards NBA GM's. What I was trying to do is temper the fan mindset from a variety of teams that "LeBron is definitely going _____" or "Wade is definitely going ________". What I'm trying to point out is that on the balance of probabilities, given the way that contract law in the NBA is designed, the likelihood is to stay where they are more than it is for them to move.


To generally everyone:
As to the point of sponsorship money--you're right and I don't necessarily have a solid, logical argument against it because the numbers are all hypothetical.

But I will say this: I don't think it makes any difference where a player plays anymore when they are a global superstar. The difference in merchandise that Nike will sell on LeBron in New York is tiny compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars they already make off him. The NBA is global and they're selling items across America, Canada, China, Brazil, Argentina, etc (my point is the world over, not individual countries). Ever since Jordan I'm not sure it matters anymore where a player goes for the sponsorship deals, it makes more of a difference for the team they play for via TV money and ticket sales than it would for Nike. A Nike ad with a Cavs jersey on him showing in every country around the world sells as many items as one in a Knicks jersey sold around the world--it just might sell a few more in NY.

cheezinmypocket
02-19-2010, 04:21 PM
Hey JetsGuy: I appreciate what you're saying and I didn't mean to come across as condescending towards NBA GM's. What I was trying to do is temper the fan mindset from a variety of teams that "LeBron is definitely going _____" or "Wade is definitely going ________". What I'm trying to point out is that on the balance of probabilities, given the way that contract law in the NBA is designed, the likelihood is to stay where they are more than it is for them to move.


To generally everyone:
As to the point of sponsorship money--you're right and I don't necessarily have a solid, logical argument against it because the numbers are all hypothetical.

But I will say this: I don't think it makes any difference where a player plays anymore when they are a global superstar. The difference in merchandise that Nike will sell on LeBron in New York is tiny compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars they already make off him. The NBA is global and they're selling items across America, Canada, China, Brazil, Argentina, etc (my point is the world over, not individual countries). Ever since Jordan I'm not sure it matters anymore where a player goes for the sponsorship deals, it makes more of a difference for the team they play for via TV money and ticket sales than it would for Nike. A Nike ad with a Cavs jersey on him showing in every country around the world sells as many items as one in a Knicks jersey sold around the world--it just might sell a few more in NY.



You are wasting your breath trying to explain that to these guys.

pebloemer
02-19-2010, 04:22 PM
Hey JetsGuy: I appreciate what you're saying and I didn't mean to come across as condescending towards NBA GM's. What I was trying to do is temper the fan mindset from a variety of teams that "LeBron is definitely going _____" or "Wade is definitely going ________". What I'm trying to point out is that on the balance of probabilities, given the way that contract law in the NBA is designed, the likelihood is to stay where they are more than it is for them to move.


To generally everyone:
As to the point of sponsorship money--you're right and I don't necessarily have a solid, logical argument against it because the numbers are all hypothetical.

But I will say this: I don't think it makes any difference where a player plays anymore when they are a global superstar. The difference in merchandise that Nike will sell on LeBron in New York is tiny compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars they already make off him. The NBA is global and they're selling items across America, Canada, China, Brazil, Argentina, etc (my point is the world over, not individual countries). Ever since Jordan I'm not sure it matters anymore where a player goes for the sponsorship deals, it makes more of a difference for the team they play for via TV money and ticket sales than it would for Nike. A Nike ad with a Cavs jersey on him showing in every country around the world sells as many items as one in a Knicks jersey sold around the world--it just might sell a few more in NY.

If anyone knows more about quantity and quality of endorsements and can link actual figures for the differences playing in a city like New York can make in a players yearly paycheque I'd love to read more about it.

OrderOfCook
02-19-2010, 04:23 PM
Edit: This was to Cheese:

Oh I don't know about that--the conversation here has been pretty good so far, people making good points about sponsorship deals and the possibility of two max players. That's all reasonable stuff that lies outside the scope of my initial post. Not sure why you're being so harsh?

TopsyTurvy
02-19-2010, 06:26 PM
If it were all about $$$ the decision will be easy for every free agent on this list - the problem is that money isn't the only motivation for superstar caliber players. The endorsements for a Lebron James transcend the market he plays in. He could go anywhere in the league (or d-league for that matter) and still get the endorsement options and draw a crowd.

Mark Cuban made a pretty savvy comment about Lebron James earlier:


"It doesn't matter," Cuban said. "With any top-tier player, when they have multiple choices for [maximum] money, it really comes down to where he thinks he has the best chance to win. That's up to each individual organization to convince him of that. New York is a great selling point, Miami is a great selling point, Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, Memphis. Maybe he's a huge Elvis [Presley] fan."

This summer's free agency period is going to have everything and nothing to do with money. I can see the second-tier players (David Lee, Rudy Gay, etc.) commanding top dollar (as much as the first-tier superstars) which is precisely the problem ownership has with the current CBA. Yet you will still have teams lobbying hard to discover and and use the motivations of the top tier talent to pry them away.

This upcoming free agency period is both the first and last of its kind...

Draco
02-19-2010, 06:48 PM
This is a major consideration when you take into account that incentive to stay with your own team because they can pay you for (6) years under the current rules, rather than having your contract expire and negotiating a salary under new CBA rules after only five years.

Most posters already know teams can offer an extra year amounting to around $30 mil. However I don't think it's should be assumed that the new CBA would favor players re-signing with their teams for their last big pay day. IIRC, Stern wants to have contracts under the old CBA modified to conform with the rules under any new CBA. This isn't guaranteed to be in the new CBA but it's a possibility.


Here's the thing: Bad teams have nothing to offer the teams involved in a sign and trade. And make no mistake, any max money guy looking to move on wants that max money still, for as long and as much as they can get.

S&Ts aside, if I'm Walsh prior to the trade deadline, I wouldn't have assumed being able to sign two top tier FAs. If I'm Paxson I'd think moving Salmons doesn't hurt the teams present and can only help the team's future. I'd hope to sign that one FA who cares more about winning than an extra guaranteed year. Re-emphasizing the point.. I'd have the luxury to make that assumption because freeing up cap space is always a good thing if you're not hurting your team to accomplish that. If I miss out on Bosh, I try for another FA who's still an upgrade from Salmons, or BG, or whoever else was let go or traded for cap space.

I have to laugh at "Bad teams have nothing to offer the teams involved in a sign and trade." if you consider the Bull's such a team. If the Bulls are only two games behind the Raptor's without Bosh then perhaps signing with the Bull's is a better way for Bosh to win then if he were to re-sign with the Raptor's..

CQSox305
02-19-2010, 07:31 PM
Whats going to happen in my humble opinion is NY, NJ, and LAC are going to be left holding their cocks come July 15th. The Bulls will land a top FA, and the heat will keep DWade and sign Amare, if anyone believes LBJ is leaving they are strongly mistaken.

blastmasta26
02-19-2010, 07:42 PM
Knicks can S&T Lee.

BaustinSali08
02-19-2010, 08:11 PM
I will re-ask my question because I am still confused. Why couldn't New York offer more money than Cleveland over the span of 5 years instead of 6 for LBJ? Is there a max you can offer depending on your salary cap position?

Draco
02-19-2010, 08:24 PM
I will re-ask my question because I am still confused. Why couldn't New York offer more money than Cleveland over the span of 5 years instead of 6 for LBJ? Is there a max you can offer depending on your salary cap position?

10.5% annual raise over 6 years under the Larry Bird Exception compared with an 8% annual raise over 5 years that can be given by other teams.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

ChiSox219
02-19-2010, 09:12 PM
People act like a S&T has to bring back equal value and that's just not the case. I believe the last Max S&T was Rashard Lewis for a conditional 2nd round pick and a trade exception.

Once a player decides he's moving on to a new team, he will not want the new team to trade their assets. His original team doesn't have that much leverage, yes it's $30 million but that is ~$7 million over the 5 year deal, and Lebron and Bosh will get extended/new contracts and that 6th year will be a wash. Now, an older guy like Wade won't get a new deal or extension at max $$$ amount, so signing that 6 year max is really important for guys that are already in their late 20s.

Jetsguy
02-19-2010, 09:33 PM
Hey JetsGuy: I appreciate what you're saying and I didn't mean to come across as condescending towards NBA GM's. What I was trying to do is temper the fan mindset from a variety of teams that "LeBron is definitely going _____" or "Wade is definitely going ________". What I'm trying to point out is that on the balance of probabilities, given the way that contract law in the NBA is designed, the likelihood is to stay where they are more than it is for them to move.

To generally everyone:
As to the point of sponsorship money--you're right and I don't necessarily have a solid, logical argument against it because the numbers are all hypothetical.

But I will say this: I don't think it makes any difference where a player plays anymore when they are a global superstar. The difference in merchandise that Nike will sell on LeBron in New York is tiny compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars they already make off him. The NBA is global and they're selling items across America, Canada, China, Brazil, Argentina, etc (my point is the world over, not individual countries). Ever since Jordan I'm not sure it matters anymore where a player goes for the sponsorship deals, it makes more of a difference for the team they play for via TV money and ticket sales than it would for Nike. A Nike ad with a Cavs jersey on him showing in every country around the world sells as many items as one in a Knicks jersey sold around the world--it just might sell a few more in NY.

I totally see what you are saying, and I agree that on the face of it staying with your current team does make sense (to us) because as you stated they have the chance to sign for longer and for more. To me that can also be a negative. IF LBJ signs for 5 he will be 30 when he is up for a new contract and can again get max money and chase a ring if he doesnt have one yet, 1 more year may not mean much but you never know, say he goes down his 6th year with an ACL and doesnt come back. Who knows just another thing to consider.

As for the advertising I have no clue, I hear people say top players would make more but I dont see any real life info or numbers to support that but it makes sense I guess.

Overall, to me the most power any team has is the ability to sign 2 max. These are basically kids we are talking about 24, 25, 26. They really value the chance to play with a close friend, I mean who wouldnt? I would love the chance to play on a team with one of my best friends and I think they think about that a lot. For New York they have to argue that hey he will sign you and anyone else you want us to and you can come here and play on the biggest stage in the sport, in the biggest city with the most exposure in the worl. Does it work? I have my doubts but it is an argument only 2 teams can make right now.

BaustinSali08
02-19-2010, 10:53 PM
10.5% annual raise over 6 years under the Larry Bird Exception compared with an 8% annual raise over 5 years that can be given by other teams.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

Thanks, that cleared everything up.

heathonater
02-19-2010, 11:18 PM
with the little knowledge i have about the nba salary structure, players will always get more money from their own teams as their own team can go over the hard cap to retain their own players. with that said, a team like the knicks with tons of cap space can afford two max deals this summer. very informative post, and i wonder how this summer's free agency will go.

elizur
02-19-2010, 11:30 PM
Everyone is aware of it I think. And it's the primary idea behind "Lebron to NYK". But what if Lebron stays in Cleveland, or executes a S&T to another team? Is Amare going to get the same level of endorsements playing for NYK? What if the team doesn't do well, are those endorsements still there? Outside of global marketing icons like Lebron, Wade, and maybe Bosh, which max players are going to benefit from New York's media market if the team is losing?

Um, Do you see the recogniction nate,david lee, and Danilo just got in the al star festivities. That is 3 players from one of the worst teams. You are seriously underestimating the power of New York and the endorsements than can come from here.