PDA

View Full Version : Is there a ceiling where any team is prohibited to add any free agents ?



Chrisclover
11-27-2013, 09:08 AM
the new CBA is penalizing the big markets ,but still the Nets boss is willing to sacrifice tons of money to fetch a championship banner .
My question is ,is there a ceiling where any team is prohibited to add any free agents ?If not ,the lakers can still lure a couple of superstars because money is not a problem for them ,for instance , the blockbuster broadcasting contract ,over 2 billion per year .Maybe this can explain why Kobe received a top contract even before his return from a torn achilles ?
The Buss family is already rich enough ,so if they are as championship-thirsty as Mark Cuban ,they can sacrifice or even squander much more money to glorify their area with more championship banners virtually every year .I know it seems exaggerated ,but what if they dare to do that ?Then will NBA veto them again ?

let's go back to my initial question ,is there a ceiling where any team is prohibited to add any free agents ?

Matter.
11-27-2013, 09:16 AM
Kobe didn't tear his ACL

Chrisclover
11-27-2013, 09:34 AM
sorry ,i typed it wrong ,it should be a torn achilles .Now i have reedited it
Kobe didn't tear his ACL

bholly
11-27-2013, 09:39 AM
Um, yeah, the salary cap. Currently $58.697m. The only way to sign people above that is using a salary cap exception. The most common exceptions are for re-signing your own players (with so-called Bird rights), for signing rookies, and the Mid-Level Exception (salary up to $5.150m this year if you aren't $4m or more above the tax line, or $3.183m if you are), although there are a few more minor ones (~$2m) too.

That's the whole reason we talk about salaries being important and some people thought Kobe's contract was a bad idea. It isn't because of the owners' ability/willingness to pay, it's because there are rules that significantly limit how much you can spend on salary.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
11-27-2013, 09:54 AM
no

Chrisclover
11-27-2013, 09:54 AM
then how was the Nets formed ?when you trade ,you need to a balance of contracts and value ,right ?
so is it right that ,the picks Nets gave up was so valuable that when they were added to salary,the salary could go above the salary cap ?

Um, yeah, the salary cap. Currently $58.697m. The only way to sign people above that is using a salary cap exception. The most common exceptions are for re-signing your own players (with so-called Bird rights), for signing rookies, and the Mid-Level Exception (salary up to $5.150m this year if you aren't $4m or more above the tax line, or $3.183m if you are), although there are a few more minor ones (~$2m) too.

That's the whole reason we talk about salaries being important and some people thought Kobe's contract was a bad idea. It isn't because of the owners' ability/willingness to pay, it's because there are rules that significantly limit how much you can spend on salary.

Goose17
11-27-2013, 10:21 AM
then how was the Nets formed ?when you trade ,you need to a balance of contracts and value ,right ?
so is it right that ,the picks Nets gave up was so valuable that when they were added to salary,the salary could go above the salary cap ?

The Nets are going to have a luxury tax of around $82 million.


http://www.ibtimes.com/nba-new-salary-cap-rules-how-they-affect-2013-14-season-trade-market-miami-heat-brooklyn-nets-new

http://jdsportsfan.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/nba-free-agency-the-salary-cap-explained/

JasonJohnHorn
11-27-2013, 10:23 AM
You are allowed to sign up to 15 players. You have to have 12 signed I believe.

If you reach the salary cap with three players (ala Miami), you can use the vet min. to sign the remaining roster.

So... to answer your question, if they can find a vet willing to take the vet min. all they'd have to do to bring him in is waive somebody if they are at their 15 player limit.

Slug3
11-27-2013, 10:35 AM
First off you need to know your numbers. The Laker deal is not 2 Billion a year, it is something like 2 Billion over 15 years. Second, once they get the the salary cap they could still have the mini mid or the mid and thats about it. The rest after that would have to be all minimum deals.

ManRam
11-27-2013, 10:42 AM
The Nets have flown way above the salary cap because most of their guys came in via trades. Many then re-signed after landing in Brooklyn. You can't go over the cap to sign players (sans the exceptions and minimum signings) but you can go over it via trades and re-signing your own guys. It takes some time too...the Lakers aren't going to fill out a roster like the Nets did (or we thought they did) in one off-season. They're basically going to be starting from scratch with Kobe and Nash and nothing else. If they wanted to sign a max player they'd probably have to renounce their rights to guys like Pau, Hill and Blake and thus making it much harder, or impossible (probably in Pau's case) to bring them back too.

IndyRealist
11-27-2013, 10:59 AM
To summarize:
1) If a player has Bird rights, you may resign him and exceed the cap.
2) If you are over the cap, you may sign other free agents using the mid-level exception, bi-annual exception, or to a veteran minimum contract.
3) In a trade you can absorb up to 125% of the outgoing salary + $100K.
4) If a player suffers a season ending injury, you can apply for an injured player exception, which is half the value of the injured player's contract. You may add free agents with that exception.

Chrisclover
11-27-2013, 11:18 AM
what if young superstars are willing to sign mini contracts ,like 1m for a year,to team up ?
i know some fans disdain this practice ,but is it legal ?

The Nets have flown way above the salary cap because most of their guys came in via trades. Many then re-signed after landing in Brooklyn. You can't go over the cap to sign players (sans the exceptions and minimum signings) but you can go over it via trades and re-signing your own guys. It takes some time too...the Lakers aren't going to fill out a roster like the Nets did (or we thought they did) in one off-season. They're basically going to be starting from scratch with Kobe and Nash and nothing else. If they wanted to sign a max player they'd probably have to renounce their rights to guys like Pau, Hill and Blake and thus making it much harder, or impossible (probably in Pau's case) to bring them back too.

Chrisclover
11-27-2013, 11:19 AM
what if young superstars are willing to sign mini contracts ,like 1m for a year,to team up ?
i know some fans disdain this practice ,but is it legal ?

To summarize:
1) If a player has Bird rights, you may resign him and exceed the cap.
2) If you are over the cap, you may sign other free agents using the mid-level exception, bi-annual exception, or to a veteran minimum contract.
3) In a trade you can absorb up to 125% of the outgoing salary + $100K.
4) If a player suffers a season ending injury, you can apply for an injured player exception, which is half the value of the injured player's contract. You may add free agents with that exception.

Chrisclover
11-27-2013, 11:23 AM
what is the definition of a vet ?can a young all star accept a vet min ?

You are allowed to sign up to 15 players. You have to have 12 signed I believe.

If you reach the salary cap with three players (ala Miami), you can use the vet min. to sign the remaining roster.

So... to answer your question, if they can find a vet willing to take the vet min. all they'd have to do to bring him in is waive somebody if they are at their 15 player limit.

Chrisclover
11-27-2013, 11:25 AM
can that injured player exception be split to sign multiple players ?

To summarize:
1) If a player has Bird rights, you may resign him and exceed the cap.
2) If you are over the cap, you may sign other free agents using the mid-level exception, bi-annual exception, or to a veteran minimum contract.
3) In a trade you can absorb up to 125% of the outgoing salary + $100K.
4) If a player suffers a season ending injury, you can apply for an injured player exception, which is half the value of the injured player's contract. You may add free agents with that exception.

tredigs
11-27-2013, 11:28 AM
what if young superstars are willing to sign mini contracts ,like 1m for a year,to team up ?
i know some fans disdain this practice ,but is it legal ?

What if the moon was made of cheese? What are these fantasy questions with made up #s all about? Separate Magic the Gathering from reality my friend.

ManRam
11-27-2013, 11:33 AM
Zach Lowe talked a while back on Grantland about cap holds. I don't feel like looking for the article but I can paraphrase the points.

$23,500,000 - Kobe
$9,701,000 - Nash
$915,243 - Sacre

That's 34 million in committed salary. $62M is the early 2014-15 cap projection. So the Lakers have 28 million or so to play with. So yeah, based on that they could sign a max player, have some money left over for someone else decent and then fill the rest out with exceptions/minimum players.

But it's not that simple. Why? Cap holds. Free agents have these tricky little things called cap holds. They're basically placeholders that show how much a free agent would count against the cap. They prevent teams from being able to sign free agents using cap space including their own free agents, and then re-sign their guys to get around the salary cap (since you can re-sign your own guys via the Bird exception even if you're over the cap).

The Lakers have a ton of them, obviously, because they have a ton of free agents. In fact, they have $45 million dollars in cap holds, and thus enter the off-season "over the cap" for all intents and purposes. To sign a player they'll have to renounce those rights, thus losing bird rights on some of those guys making it nearly impossible to re-sign them. Pau has a $20M cap hold. For the Lakers to sign anyone they basically have to just let him go (which is why I think they need to trade him...but if the Lakers think they can contend this year they probably won't). Hill, Blake and Kaman all have sizable cap holds too.

For the Lakers to make a splash in FA it means most likely losing most of the soon-to-be FAs on the roster now. Which means: a very thin team.

IndyRealist
11-27-2013, 11:36 AM
Any player off their rookie contract is a "vet" and can sign anything they want to. 99.99% of players will look for their own financial security first before they give up tens of millions of dollars to get a $1000 ring. NBA players have a shelf life that averages 6 years, with a small few who can push it to 19-20 without suffering a career ending injury and still being able to contribute.

Also remember players have agents who draw up their contracts for them, and agents make a percentage of the player's deal. So every agent has it in his best interest to maximize the player's contract before he blows out a knee. With very few exceptions (Darren Collison, for one) young players do not accept anything less than the market will pay them.

For everything else: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

tredigs
11-27-2013, 11:58 AM
^You two clearly aren't taking into consideration the two thousand billion a year they have in TV $$$

bholly
11-27-2013, 12:16 PM
then how was the Nets formed ?when you trade ,you need to a balance of contracts and value ,right ?
so is it right that ,the picks Nets gave up was so valuable that when they were added to salary,the salary could go above the salary cap ?

Picks have no value in trades. The reason you can get your team salary so high despite the cap is a combination of things, but the biggest are:
1. The salary restriction on trades is that you can only take back 125% of the salary you send out + $100k so you can increase your salary in trades even if you're above the cap - so, for example, even though they were already way over the cap, they could still add salary in the Celtics trade.
2. You can go over the cap to re-sign your own guys (the Bird rights exception I mentioned earlier), so when Brook Lopez signed a new contract and his salary goes from like $3m to $14m then that takes you $11m further over the cap.
3. You can sign guys using exceptions - so when they use the MLE to sign Kirilenko it takes them another few million over, even though they were already over.
4. Guys get raises. You only have to be within the cap rules at the time of the signing/transaction - after that their annual raises can take you over no problem, so for the Nets that's like $5m extra per year just for DWill, Lopez, Johnson. (But note that there are restrictions to how big a player's annual raises can be, so you can't just sign a guy for $1m and then give him $20m in the second year or anything).

There are other ways, but those are the major ones. Do those each a bunch of times and you can get your salary pretty high. They can't just go out and sign a guy above the cap, but you can trade for people or re-sign your own guys or whatever.


what if young superstars are willing to sign mini contracts ,like 1m for a year,to team up ?
i know some fans disdain this practice ,but is it legal ?

Sure, if a guy wants to sign for very little then that's legal. But it doesn't happen because no young superstar is going to give up tens of millions of dollars, so it just isn't relevant.
It is illegal to sign them to a small contract with the promise of a bigger one later, though.

ManRam
11-27-2013, 12:58 PM
^You two clearly aren't taking into consideration the two thousand billion a year they have in TV $$$

;)


OP: the answer to your question is that it doesn't matter how rich the owners are for the most part. That's kind of a major reason why you have a salary cap. It takes time, and usually stupidity, to soar over the cap. You can't just do it all at once. The Lakers, regardless of how much money they're sitting on, play by the same rules as everyone else.

TheMightyHumph
11-27-2013, 01:01 PM
can that injured player exception be split to sign multiple players ?

You can look to Larry Coon for that one

scissors
11-27-2013, 01:06 PM
I think what the OP was trying to ask is "Is there a hard cap that is higher than the soft cap" ie: soft cap of 58mil and hard cap of 90mil.

I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

ManRam
11-27-2013, 01:13 PM
I think what the OP was trying to ask is "Is there a hard cap that is higher than the soft cap" ie: soft cap of 58mil and hard cap of 90mil.

I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

No. The soft cap is all that matters when it comes to transactions (trading and signing players). The luxury tax doesn't impact anyone but the owner and his money. It isn't at all a hard cap. It isn't even a soft cap. It's just a tax threshold to further decrease the incentive to spend more, but it doesn't tangibly prevent it.

The salary cap number which is $58.679 million and the luxury tax threshold is $71.748 million.

You can soar right on over both of them if you so please, via the methods that people have outlined in this thread already.

bholly
11-27-2013, 01:34 PM
Unless you make use of one of the privileges afforded to teams below the tax apron (non-taxpayer MLE, BAE, receiving a player in S+T), then you're hardcapped at the apron for the rest of the year. But that's probably beside the point for this thread.

JasonJohnHorn
11-27-2013, 02:06 PM
what is the definition of a vet ?can a young all star accept a vet min ?

The rookie guys get a little less than the vet min (I think the players in their first 3-4 years have a min. of around 900 000 per year, though it might be a little higher.

Guys who are passed their rookie deal have a min. or a little over a million (I think 1.2 or something) and then guys who have been playing longer get 1.5 min.

TheMightyHumph
11-27-2013, 02:23 PM
The rookie guys get a little less than the vet min (I think the players in their first 3-4 years have a min. of around 900 000 per year, though it might be a little higher.

Guys who are passed their rookie deal have a min. or a little over a million (I think 1.2 or something) and then guys who have been playing longer get 1.5 min.

NBA pays part of the Vets' Min salary for the more experienced players

ManRam
11-27-2013, 02:35 PM
what is the definition of a vet ?can a young all star accept a vet min ?

There's no real reason to separate "veteran's minimum" from "minimum". No minimum contract, be it to a rookie FA or a 20 year vet, is restricted by cap situation. The veteran's minimum is higher than non-vets, but that's the only difference that matter, I think.

If you're over the cap you can sign any player to a minimum contract, and there's a scale for that, regardless of cap situation.

bholly
11-27-2013, 02:39 PM
Also the min depends on the exact number of years played - it isn't just a rookie level and a vet level.
Numbers are here:
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16

dhopisthename
11-27-2013, 02:52 PM
from zach lowe


The deal also kills the Lakers' dreamy goals of bringing two max-level stars to team with Bryant this summer. The Lakers could have, at most, about $21.5 million in cap space this summer if they retain Steve Nash's full salary. And even that figure assumes the following:

• L.A. renounces its rights to Pau Gasol, and does not re-sign him;

• The Lakers pick around no. 14 or no. 15 in the draft;

• The Lakers sign zero other players before luring Star Player X in free agency, so that the empty remaining roster spots carry minimum charges of only about $500,000 each.

And even in this scenario, the Lakers could not fit the maximum salary of, say, Carmelo Anthony. Using the stretch provision on Nash could open up about $6 million of cap space, allowing the Lakers to sign that max-level player — and little else. Los Angeles floundered in 2012-13 with Bryant, Gasol, Nash, Dwight Howard, and a bench of minimum-salaried retreads. How do you think they would fare in the ultra-competitive Western Conference in 2014-15 with Bryant, Anthony, Nash (or not), and a bench of minimal-level retreads? They may be better off bringing back Gasol at $10 million or so over two seasons (if he'd take such a deal), finding a couple of other solid mid-priced guys on short-term deals, and seeing how things go from there.

Goose17
11-27-2013, 03:00 PM
Ideal situation for them would be to sign one of these guys;


- Eric Bledsoe (restricted I think?)
- Kyle Lowry
- ?????????



Seriously, that's it. What other free agents can they afford? Melo and Kobe would be disastrous. Dirk would never sign in LA. Then again, I would have said the same about Nash.

Nash - Kobe - Dirk.

Can you imagine that with everyone in their prime? LOL.