I think he's saying don't freak out about the fact there's nobody available this summer since next summer is the time to sign people anyway. We're not positioned horribly to make a move on draft day or through trade next season either. I guess we just have to keep being patient to get the 'right deal' [[and hope Stern doesn't kill it again]] You'll find teams like Boston blowing it up on draft day. Chance to give them a mediocre pick to take on salary (ie, get Pierce cheap)
According to reports the Lakers already turned down a deal for Beasley because they didn't want to pay luxury tax. So, if they don't want to pay the current $1 for $1 tax then why would they be willing to pay triple that amount in 2013? The other problem is even if they are willing to pay luxury tax the new rules restrict what contracts they can offer and would also prevent them from participating in sign and trade deals. You can be willing to spend crazy money but if the most you can offer is $2.5M you are going to have a tough time getting players. Twolves offered Beasley to Lakers for LA's best 1st round pick 2012. LA said No b/c it doesn't want to pay the added luxury tax, source says https://twitter.com/#!/Chris_Broussard While Beasley, a talented and athletic small forward, would fill one of the Lakers' greatest needs, the Lakers rejected the offer because they do not want to add to their luxury tax bill, according to the source. http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/...sota-timberwolves-trade-offer-michael-beasley
The rules for redistribution of luxury tax funds did change in the new CBA. Here's Larry Coon's explanation: Distribution of luxury-tax funds • 2005 CBA: Teams that did not pay tax each received 1/30th of the total tax fund. Taxpaying teams forfeited their tax distribution -- their money was used for "league purposes" such as the revenue-sharing program. • 2011 CBA: No more than 50 percent of the tax funds can go exclusively to teams that did not pay tax. • Who benefits? The previous tax system created a "cliff" at the tax threshold -- a team that was $1 under the tax line received a full tax distribution (about $2.4 million in 2011), but a team that was $1 over the tax line didn't receive anything. Because of this cliff, teams needed to be very careful with their spending when they were near the tax threshold -- in fact, it looks like Houston was burned in 2011 by straying just $800,000 above the limit. The new system softens the blow for teams that exceed the tax line by just a little. For example, under the new system, Houston would have had to pay $800,000 in tax, but may have been eligible for a payout to offset their tax bill. However, while the new agreement stipulates that no more than 50 percent of the tax funds can go exclusively to teams that did not pay tax, it doesn't specify what happens to the other 50 percent. It is possible the remaining tax money will be distributed to all teams in equal shares, but it's also possible the NBA will reserve this money for "league purposes." http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one
don't misunderstand what I'm saying. They're not going to go out of their way to deliberately be in non compliance with the rules. Under normal circumstances they'll play along with everyone else. They can dispose of their expensive aging assets over the next two to three years. They can amnesty Kobe if he refuses to restructure his deal in two years. Nobody knows for sure how any of this will play out in the short run. Cuban is right when he says the first thing to figure out is what's the best way to assemble a squad in the future. These lessons will have to learned. What I'm saying is big market teams / big spenders like the Lakers will have the decided advantage once new patterns for success unfold to go over the top whenever they see a rare opportunity to take advantage of something requiring the flexibility to overspend and live with the consequences. Those restrictions apply to teams once they become luxury tax inhabitants, but a franchise can elect to make a grand move prior to becoming a luxury tax inhabitant acknowledging that they will have to live with those consequences for a period of time but no full well they can afford to do it. Why would I care if I was limited in terms of what offers I could make once I had deliberately re-structured my team with 3 young superstars and a reasonable supporting cast to make me the best team for the foreseeable future. And why would I care if I had to spend $100M in luxury tax fines every year for the foreseeable future if I was already making $400M a year off my cable television deal. Wouldn't you spend a $100M if you thought you had to in order to protect your cable deal that pocketed you $400M a year? Of course you would if you had to. The difference is that teams like the Lakers will have the choice to make from time to time. Most other teams won't.
Again just to reiterate... The new CBA doesn't say that teams CANNOT OPERATE as luxury tax violators. It says it will be financially painful for them to do so for extended periods of time. Okay so maybe only a few teams can live with the pain and then only for a limited period of time. But that stops well short of a hard upper limit salary cap that would strictly prohibit teams from overspending. They couldn't get that far with the new CBA although god knows they tried. So they had to settle for this. But don't be fooled. Despite Cuban's enthusiasm (and remember he's likley just a wolf in sheep's clothing here), there is a big, big difference between the two.
If Morey would of gotten a fair deal for him then he would of been traded, but with him being a unrestricted free agent, Morey didn't have any leverage in trade talks and instead of taking a crappy offer he kept him for the playoff run.
I don't get the cba. It was billed as owners vs. the players but looking at the new cba it looks like the owners are punishing themselves and the players were just saving the owners from themselves. Who in there right mind would make a rule puinshing and finding themselves for breaking it. It doesn't make sense to me.
Believe me, you're in good hands with aelliott. He was dropping salary cap knowledge long before I started doing so. He's easily one of the most knowledgeable posters on this BBS. I wish he'd post more often. As for a cap update, I'd like to wait and see the details of any Derek Fisher buyout before writing anything. Also, since the overall cap impact will be so small, it probably won't merit a whole new Salary Cap Update. Maybe I'll just bump the thread for my last update. Thanks, aelliott, for once again raising the IQ of this BBS.
Basically, the same math, just reduce each of the estimated "cap room" numbers by the amount of Fisher's buyout and the cap hold for the DAL pick (if we get it), in each instance minus the "roster charge" for an empty roster spot that each of these replaces? So, I am thinking the difference is no more than around $2.9 mil for Fisher ($3.4 mil - a little less than $500K roster charge) and up to $600K or so for the DAL pick.
I like it, it will cut down teams overpaying players and prevent super teams from being created in the future. Since player will be a lot cheaper in 3 years i think nows the perfect time to keep long term contracts off the team and to stack up on young players and picks. Use these 3 years to rebuild and keep working to get us as much cap space as possible and in 3 years in free agency we sign major pieces to make us a contender.
We still have Motie and Llull tucked away overseas for us. They will be part of our youth movement. Just be patient, guys. Rome wasn't built in a day. While Morey is making all these short-term moves, he's not hurting us long-term. If we don't land anyone big, we are flexible enough to go on our youth movement that we are already giving a lot of PT to (well except for MM). We already have a direction--youth--and if the superstar comes along, we can blend the two together. If not, we are already in the process of rebuilding.
