PDA

View Full Version : Monroe: 2010 Free-Agent Frenzy Has Fizzled



duncan228
02-22-2009, 12:25 AM
2010 free-agent frenzy has fizzled (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/2010_free-agent_frenzy_has_fizzled.html)
Mike Monroe

Teams that have been stockpiling salary cap space for the summer of 2010 got doused with icy water last week when commissioner David Stern warned teams that today's economic reality is going to do for the cap what the housing slump has done for home values.

Since the cap was instituted in 1984, general managers safely assumed an annual increase. Only once, when the cap dipped by $2.2 million between the 2001-02 and 2002-03 seasons, has it not grown. Then, a new TV contract, negotiated during what now qualifies as a very mild recession, resulted in the cap falling.

Even accounting for that one-year decline, the average annual increase in the decade that began just before the new millennium was nearly $2 million.

Now, one league executive says he and most of his colleagues expect a drop this summer of between $2 million and $3 million, with the luxury tax threshold dipping from $71.15 million to somewhere just south of $70 million.

What this means is that the tectonic NBA power shift some predicted for the summer of 2010 is more apt to fizzle than the feared computer chaos that was supposed to ensue with the arrival of Y2K.

If you think there were a lot of teams more interested in dumping salaries last week than in building championship rosters, just wait until this summer. Just don't expect the sort of freewheeling market for the highest of high-profile free agents we've all been anticipating at 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2010.

For all the major deals that were rumored last week, we were left Thursday afternoon with a competitive balance largely unchanged, especially in the Western Conference.

What the trade deadline could not do, misfortune has. Injuries have altered the power structure in ways no GM could negotiate.

Here's how the West shapes up for the stretch run with rosters now set (unless Joe Smith is cut free by the Thunder and signed by a contender) and injuries taking their toll on every potential playoff team:

Lakers: The other Western contenders believe Andrew Bynum will be back before the regular season ends, which may not be good for Lamar Odom, but ought to bring that Zen smile back to Phil Jackson's visage. With or without Bynum, they're still best in the West.

Nuggets: Relatively healthy — Kenyon Martin's back spasms are a worry — and held together by Chauncey Billups, they're positioned to leapfrog the Spurs if Manu Ginobili really misses three weeks.

Spurs: Unless Ginobili's stress reaction means he misses more than a dozen games, they'll still have a top-four finish. Their goal: being in the opposite bracket from the Lakers.

Hornets: Can't beat Spurs in a playoff series unless Tyson Chandler is 100 percent. At least one doc in Oklahoma believes that's impossible.

Rockets: What does Tracy McGrady's season-ending microfracture surgery mean? Now they might leapfrog Hornets.

Trail Blazers: Greg Oden can't stay healthy, but they're deep enough to prosper without him.

Jazz: Watch out for them. Kirilenko came back Thursday and Boozer is due back soon.

Mavericks: Only player more vital to their playoff positioning than Jason Terry? Dirk Nowitzki.

Suns: Just when they were putting the fun back in the game, Stoudemire is gone for eight weeks.

m33p0
02-22-2009, 12:28 AM
just need to be either #2 or #3 seed with a healthy team.

honestfool84
02-22-2009, 12:29 AM
is 2 or 3 million THAT big of a deal?

lurker23
02-22-2009, 12:38 AM
is 2 or 3 million THAT big of a deal?

If your salaries are set up perfectly for staying under the luxury tax with an expected $2-3 mil increase, and instead there's a $2-3 mil decrease, then that could potentially cost an owner as much as $10 million.

In addition, if you feel you're set up to offer a player a contract starting at $16 million, but the salary cap decreases $3-6 million over two years, suddenly you're not a big player in the top-tier free agent market at all.

honestfool84
02-22-2009, 12:41 AM
If your salaries are set up perfectly for staying under the luxury tax with an expected $2-3 mil increase, and instead there's a $2-3 mil decrease, then that could potentially cost an owner as much as $10 million.

In addition, if you feel you're set up to offer a player a contract starting at $16 million, but the salary cap decreases $3-6 million over two years, suddenly you're not a big player in the top-tier free agent market at all.



ah, ok.

thanks.

dougp
02-22-2009, 12:48 AM
I think they need to redo how the salaries work, and set caps for individual players (not per person, but in general based on how long you've been in the league.)

lurker23
02-22-2009, 12:53 AM
I think they need to redo how the salaries work, and set caps for individual players (not per person, but in general based on how long you've been in the league.)

You mean like this?

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q11

dougp
02-22-2009, 01:03 AM
They have that too. A second contract can not be more than just under 14 million a year with a 10% increase per year.

On their second contract(and beyond) however they can make about 18 or 22 million(depending on years in the NBA)

The max any player can make per year with 10% increase is 35 million. No one can make that.

Still though no one the Spurs go after will want over 20 million.

I still think it should be lower, along with giving teams options and allowing incentives. I just think the whole salary thing needs to be renegotiated and restructured. It's really gone from being about the game to being about the money - and a lot gets lost. People shouldn't go to where the money is, but to where their best chance at getting a title is - I really think that would change how it works. Allow the franchise style tag that they use in the NFL? If they make it tiered and structured properly, and basically everyone gets a true franchise player, it's about the roleplayers who go there, etc. I know, just a pipe dream.

GSH
02-22-2009, 01:28 AM
If your salaries are set up perfectly for staying under the luxury tax with an expected $2-3 mil increase, and instead there's a $2-3 mil decrease, then that could potentially cost an owner as much as $10 million.

In addition, if you feel you're set up to offer a player a contract starting at $16 million, but the salary cap decreases $3-6 million over two years, suddenly you're not a big player in the top-tier free agent market at all.

Is $3 million a big deal?

Duncan's contract was structured so that he took less money, to allow the Spurs to pay for some quality support players. Now $3 million of that money has just evaporated. Do you think it's a big deal to Tim?

Miami wants to sign a couple of top-tier players along with D-Wade, but they still have to fill a roster. They are currently spending about $2.7 million combined for Daequan Cook, Jamario Moon, and Mario Chalmers. You sure as hell aren't going to fill those spots for less money. So you cut $3 million off what you can pay to entice the big names.

The money that gets paid as luxury tax gets split between the teams that don't pay luxury tax. So if you are right at the tax threshold, and sign a $3 million free agent, you have to pay an additional $3 million in lux tax, PLUS you lose out on the money you would have gotten if you had stayed under the tax threshold. So that $3 million player just cost you $9 million, give or take. That $3 million player probably can't live up to a $9 million expectation.

A $3 million decrease for every team would cut $90 million worth of salaries out of the league. That's definitely a big deal to the players.

wildbill2u
02-22-2009, 09:00 AM
The superstars will still get theirs because they are necessary for the financial success of the team due to their drawing power.

But your observation on what happens when the club looks at the player roster below the supperstar level is interesting.

They will have to look at what a good role playing vet at $5,000,000 or young player with a $3,000,000 contract might do to a team, putting them over the cap and making him into a multi-million dollar liability.

The economy plus a lower cap could force salaries down for all but the superstars. The 'invisible hand' of Adam Smith works in the NBA as well.

Rogue
02-22-2009, 10:09 AM
Those superstars won't have even one penny less than they expect to get. lower salary cap will only lower the incomes of role players and middle-class players, and minimum players. those players who have a little fame in NBA are always the targets to those Euro teams who are much richer and don't have to concern the luxury tax. our players will definitely travel to euro if their demand of money can't be fulfilled, they can get more than they expect from europeans. It's business.