PDA

View Full Version : NBA Salary Cap increase to $27 Million in 2016



Stunner
02-13-2015, 09:42 PM
@BSO: NBA Salary Cap To Increase $27M In 2016 http://t.co/LBIw4DezPx via @thacover2 http://t.co/UUZe80UJqa

jaydubb
02-13-2015, 09:42 PM
Wow that's a big jump

Cracka2HI!
02-13-2015, 09:44 PM
Hmmm, that is very interesting. I hope max salaries don't increase that much as well. DeAndre Jordan will get $140 million. This reminds me of when Jim McIlvaine and Adonyl Foyle signed $50 million contracts probably 10 years ago. There was a lockout like 2 years later.

Tony_Starks
02-13-2015, 09:56 PM
Lakers vs Knicks Finals 2016!

GunFactor187
02-13-2015, 10:02 PM
Also supposedly the NBA signed a TV deal in China that's worth anywhere from $500-700 million dollars per year. I'm on the phone posting this so I can't get the tweet I read on here just yet. But I'd assume that would make the cap boost even higher than anticipated.

Dade County
02-13-2015, 10:06 PM
Lakers vs Knicks Finals 2016!

HEAT vs whoever Final's

Pierzynski4Prez
02-13-2015, 10:07 PM
So essentially all free agents this summer will want to be able to opt out of their deals after 1 year.

IversonIsKrazy
02-13-2015, 10:29 PM
Prlly shouldn't put the "to" before the $27M.... just saying.

Nonetheless, I guess this was kind of expected with that insane TV contract they got, each team has a lot more dough. Hopefully this doesn't lead to huge disparity between large and small market teams though.

jerellh528
02-13-2015, 10:34 PM
Lebron set to sign another 1 year deal this offseason lol

Cal827
02-13-2015, 10:47 PM
:laugh:

Well, I'll say it. Carmelo's contract looks like it might be a bargain now.

GiantsSwaGG
02-13-2015, 10:48 PM
:laugh:

Well, I'll say it. Carmelo's contract looks like it might be a bargain now.

:laugh:

Raps18-19 Champ
02-13-2015, 10:49 PM
It's increasing to $27 mil? A lot of teams gonna be over the cap then.

GiantsSwaGG
02-13-2015, 10:49 PM
Hmmm, that is very interesting. I hope max salaries don't increase that much as well. DeAndre Jordan will get $140 million. This reminds me of when Jim McIlvaine and Adonyl Foyle signed $50 million contracts probably 10 years ago. There was a lockout like 2 years later.

who the **** signed him to a 50 million dollar contract?

Teeboy1487
02-13-2015, 11:02 PM
:)

IKnowHoops
02-13-2015, 11:35 PM
Lakers vs Knicks Finals 2016!

Nice dream

Ty Fast
02-13-2015, 11:48 PM
The max will start at 30 million now

Cal827
02-14-2015, 12:03 AM
who the **** signed him to a 50 million dollar contract?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1834870

:laugh:

Always have to remember: with a teams glory days, was a past that I'm sure they don't want brought up again lol (Sorry Warriors fans)

Signed him to this horrifying extension to replace Dampier.

Well according to a sites 25 worst contracts of all time, the Warriors traded away the 7th worst contract of all time for the 22nd, so I guess that's a win :)

JEDean89
02-14-2015, 12:12 AM
This is ****ed up and will take years to balance the league back out. The fact is that there just isn't an extra 810 million to go around the players right now. Durant will make 30 mil easy, same with LBJ and yeah, anyone who's on contract past 2016 is now looking like the ultimate bargain. I don't think people also get that the league is growing 5+ mil a year without the additional tv revenue. They need to put a system in place today that protects the league from having to deal with this again in the future. This will create massive misbalance, especially in the first 2-3 years after 2016. Teams have to spend X amount of the cap, this will create some of the most ridiculous contracts ever seen in sports. Get ready for the 200 million dollar 5 year NBA contract.

JasonJohnHorn
02-14-2015, 12:55 AM
WOW!!!

It sounds like a lot, but with guys like Melo signing deals where they make 25 milllion per year... you get two guys and that is over half the cap gone.

My hope is the the max deals stay about the same and that the role players make a little more cash, but my expectation is that KD is going to have a deal starting at 30 million or some $#!T like that.


The market it going to negate this increase in two year's time. I mean, when you have a guy who's never even won a title or an MVP making between 24-28 million a year (Melo) with THIS cap, imagine a guy like LBJ or KD will be making.


I say look out for the Spurs. They will make a push to sign Gasol, and he is the perfect fit there.

IKnowHoops
02-14-2015, 01:28 AM
This is ****ed up and will take years to balance the league back out. The fact is that there just isn't an extra 810 million to go around the players right now. Durant will make 30 mil easy, same with LBJ and yeah, anyone who's on contract past 2016 is now looking like the ultimate bargain. I don't think people also get that the league is growing 5+ mil a year without the additional tv revenue. They need to put a system in place today that protects the league from having to deal with this again in the future. This will create massive misbalance, especially in the first 2-3 years after 2016. Teams have to spend X amount of the cap, this will create some of the most ridiculous contracts ever seen in sports. Get ready for the 200 million dollar 5 year NBA contract.

I know everyone wants to play the "KD's got a pair" and "KD's not a coward like Bron" cards, but don't be surprised if KD and Bron are on the same team in 2016. They have battled each other for a long time. KD has played with Westbrook and Harden already. He knows you need a super team, and a lot of luck to win a ring. He and Bron are friends and I think the opportunity to play together may be to good to pass up.

IKnowHoops
02-14-2015, 01:31 AM
KD's with Rock nation...Lebron an Jay-Z are boys. I could see them come together to challenge (Shaq/Kobe) and (MJ/Pippen) for the best Duo of all-time for Legacy purposes. By that time they will truly be two 1A's too.

Tony_Starks
02-14-2015, 01:41 AM
KD's with Rock nation...Lebron an Jay-Z are boys. I could see them come together to challenge (Shaq/Kobe) and (MJ/Pippen) for the best Duo of all-time for Legacy purposes. By that time they will truly be two 1A's too.

KD would never in his lifetime team up with that guy for a ring. He's a competitor, he wants to beat the best not join them....

Sactown
02-14-2015, 02:30 AM
KD would never in his lifetime team up with that guy for a ring. He's a competitor, he wants to beat the best not join them....

Wasn't he just on a team with two guys who were top 4 at their position?

GunFactor187
02-14-2015, 02:31 AM
Tweet I mentioned earlier...

560965979724070912

eso
02-14-2015, 02:37 AM
Wasn't he just on a team with two guys who were top 4 at their position?
He didn't join that team, that team was drafted together, big difference.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
02-14-2015, 03:34 AM
Lakers would then have over 80 mil to spend :laugh:

LakersIn5
02-14-2015, 03:36 AM
Yes! This is good news. There shouldnt even be a cap. Let team sign whoever they want as long as they can pay for them. **** the cheap *** owners

IKnowHoops
02-14-2015, 04:00 AM
Yes! This is good news. There shouldnt even be a cap. Let team sign whoever they want as long as they can pay for them. **** the cheap *** owners

If I am a Lakers fan, or a Knick fan, of course I want this because those teams make more money simply being in the market they are in. I think that would throw the balance off way to much and teams like MN, Milwauke, etc would maybe fold simply because they would have no chance to compete at all. They would never ever be able to win anything. No chance ever to win with no salary cap.

GiantsNinersW's
02-14-2015, 04:18 AM
Never underestimate the heart of a Champion!

IKnowHoops
02-14-2015, 06:49 AM
KD would never in his lifetime team up with that guy for a ring. He's a competitor, he wants to beat the best not join them....

Its not just winning a ring...its playing with a player that he respects above all...playing with a once in a lifetime player...playing with someone who plays the game the right way...playing with his friend and enjoying the game. Its not about being a competitor...they will still have to play great basketball to win...he will still be the same competitor with or without Bron...but its about doing what you want, controlling your own destiny, and doing what makes you happy. All this competitor talk is hot air. Its stupid. Winning in the NBA is hard regardless who you have. Shaq and Kobe got bounced out by Detroit, when Shaq was still the most dominant player in the NBA. If those two can be bounced, then anyone can. If those two can play together and still be competitors, then any pair can. This notion that teaming up with other good players means your not competitive holds no weight and is pure crap because whether you team up, or your gifted those players, in order to win, you have to try your butt off.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
02-14-2015, 08:07 AM
Lakers would then have over 80 mil to spend :laugh:

Well Lakers are rumored to be ready to spend ahead of time by offering Dragic $20M per. Good luck with that!

RLundi
02-14-2015, 08:49 AM
If I am a Lakers fan, or a Knick fan, of course I want this because those teams make more money simply being in the market they are in. I think that would throw the balance off way to much and teams like MN, Milwauke, etc would maybe fold simply because they would have no chance to compete at all. They would never ever be able to win anything. No chance ever to win with no salary cap.

That's not entirely true though. Revenue sharing and luxury taxes were created for smaller market teams. It's not a cure-all, and it was never intended to be, but it levels the playing field as much as it can be leveled. But the fact of the matter is, if the Lakers and Bucks are offering the same contract to a player, I'd wager that he'd probably go with the Lakers for a number of different reasons, but not because the Lakers are better able to give him a more competitive contract.

You bring up a good point about owners too. Some owners are very cheap and others don't have the resources to keep up with owners of larger market teams, I understand that. But that's not an excuse to have a terrible product on the court. It starts with management, scouting department and smart people taking control of the franchise and not so much the amount of money your area brings in for your team. Both the New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs for the past decade represent sterling examples of both sides of the spectrum.

It doesn't matter what the salary cap is, or how much revenue sharing exists: owners and GMs are the ones that still exercise the most influence on the on-court product, not how much a franchise and city are in the black.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
02-14-2015, 09:13 AM
That's not entirely true though. Revenue sharing and luxury taxes were created for smaller market teams. It's not a cure-all, and it was never intended to be, but it levels the playing field as much as it can be leveled. But the fact of the matter is, if the Lakers and Bucks are offering the same contract to a player, I'd wager that he'd probably go with the Lakers for a number of different reasons, but not because the Lakers are better able to give him a more competitive contract.

You bring up a good point about owners too. Some owners are very cheap and others don't have the resources to keep up with owners of larger market teams, I understand that. But that's not an excuse to have a terrible product on the court. It starts with management, scouting department and smart people taking control of the franchise and not so much the amount of money your area brings in for your team. Both the New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs for the past decade represent sterling examples of both sides of the spectrum.

It doesn't matter what the salary cap is, or how much revenue sharing exists: owners and GMs are the ones that still exercise the most influence on the on-court product, not how much a franchise and city are in the black.

Seems like a lot of players kinda getting fed up with Kobe though. Howard left. Lin isn't happy. Young showed he could chuck as well when Kobe isn't playing. Also luring top flight free agents isn't what it use to be like Shaq to LA. Times are changing. Teams that have a good winning core will go there. Giannis and Parker and Knight or a old Kobe and Randle? Gee that's a tough one.:)

RLundi
02-14-2015, 09:16 AM
Seems like a lot of players kinda getting fed up with Kobe though. Howard left. Lin isn't happy. Young showed he could chuck as well when Kobe isn't playing. Also luring top flight free agents isn't what it use to be like Shaq to LA. Times are changing. Teams that have a good winning core will go there. Giannis and Parker and Knight or a old Kobe and Randle? Gee that's a tough one.:)

Sorry, I was talking generally and not specifically. I meant the city of Los Angeles versus Milwaukee or Minneapolis or Oklahoma City or Orlando etc, not each respective current situation.

IndyRealist
02-14-2015, 09:50 AM
Sorry, but the cap (and max deals and MLE) is/are tied to revenue. So if every team has more cap space, then every team has more money to spend.

Barring a new CBA, max deals will remain 30%ish of the cap, meaning unless you have max guys already under contract, then it's not going to help you much. All that will happen is that you're going to pay more for the same players.

For a couple of years a handful of teams might be able to squeeze in an extra substantial contract, but that will all sort itself out within 3 years. I doubt anyone signs a max deal this summer, except maybe Love.

Any agent who is not inflating his asking prices in 2016 should be fired.

BoSox47
02-14-2015, 10:32 AM
Celtics are gonna have a boatload of money to spend in 2016.

GeronimoSon
02-14-2015, 10:52 AM
Celtics are gonna have a boatload of money to spend in 2016.

Essentially, all teams are going to have a boatload of cash to spend.. they just have to resist spending it on Jared Sullinger or Marco Rubio.. These are good, not great.. and certainly not elite players who will just disappoint versus their salary.. The idea behind a "max contract" had a couple of characteristics both the players and the owners wanted:

1. Maximum Contract means the player is receiving more money for a longer period of time than he would if here were to look elsewhere to play. It de-motivates him to move (but doesn't eliminate movement).. This player is truly a superb player, makes everyone around him better and leads his team on and OFF the court...

2. Maximum Contract means a club knows they have a point man/figure that they can hang their marketing efforts on. That player will "Show Up" and be the face of the franchise.. will create a reason for every fan to purchase a jersey, a pair of shoes, watch the games, & buy what the advertisers for their broadcasts, magazines, twitter accounts, blogs etc etc are selling..

The NBA is a star focused marketing mega-monster. Without the stars. .without the stability of these stars, the association would digress into a group of separate and floundering businesses that are influenced by the weather. As a group, they're a juggernaut.. David Stern knew this..and knew it well.. Adam Silver.. knows it just as well..

Thoughts?..

MILLERHIGHLIFE
02-14-2015, 11:55 AM
There's still gonna be them bad contracts floating around holding teams hostage for years. Either superstar player gets a career ending injury and hold the team hostage for $25M to $30M per like Michael Redd did. Or Agent zero or Lewis getting swapped in trades cause they both had the worst contracts at the time. Now we have our Joe Johnson's and Kobe, AMARE, Boozer amnestied.

There will always be bad GM's throwing money around then their stuck later. I can imagine there will be ton of baby max's of $15M tossed around as well as average bench pieces getting $7M or $8M or more easily now with new TV deal. Besides the bigger superstar max like $25M or $30M per.

Goose17
02-14-2015, 03:55 PM
He didn't join that team, that team was drafted together, big difference.

Yeah. The difference that they had a GM capable of building a good team. Lebron didn't.

Sly Guy
02-14-2015, 06:34 PM
*by $27mil..... not to......

IKnowHoops
02-15-2015, 04:33 AM
That's not entirely true though. Revenue sharing and luxury taxes were created for smaller market teams. It's not a cure-all, and it was never intended to be, but it levels the playing field as much as it can be leveled. But the fact of the matter is, if the Lakers and Bucks are offering the same contract to a player, I'd wager that he'd probably go with the Lakers for a number of different reasons, but not because the Lakers are better able to give him a more competitive contract.

You bring up a good point about owners too. Some owners are very cheap and others don't have the resources to keep up with owners of larger market teams, I understand that. But that's not an excuse to have a terrible product on the court. It starts with management, scouting department and smart people taking control of the franchise and not so much the amount of money your area brings in for your team. Both the New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs for the past decade represent sterling examples of both sides of the spectrum.

It doesn't matter what the salary cap is, or how much revenue sharing exists: owners and GMs are the ones that still exercise the most influence on the on-court product, not how much a franchise and city are in the black.

People got mad at the big 3. If there was no salary cap, what would stop the Lakers from rolling out a lineup consisting of.

PG Lebron/Curry
SG Harden/Westbrook
SF Durant/Melo
PF Blake/LaMarcus
C AD/Cousins

North Yorker
02-15-2015, 11:44 AM
Will this lead to RFAs like Butler, Kawhi, etc. to accept their one year QO, so they can sign a new long-term, more lucrative extension in the summer of 2016 as UFAs?

FOXHOUND
02-15-2015, 12:16 PM
Will this lead to RFAs like Butler, Kawhi, etc. to accept their one year QO, so they can sign a new long-term, more lucrative extension in the summer of 2016 as UFAs?

For younger players like that with less security, I can see them going the Parsons route of taking a 2+1 deal, or maybe even the LeBron of 1+1. Parsons can opt out for 2016, and I'm pretty sure he's going to. For older players on the other side, LeBron and Love with lucrative opt in options for example, I can't imagine why they wouldn't opt in, make themselves another $21M and $16M, respectively, and then hit the new much larger market.

Even older players like JR Smith, I can't see why he doesn't opt in for his $6.4M next year and then hit the market in 2016. In a cap at $90M+, $6.4M will be chump change so at worst he should be able to secure the same type of money on a new deal.