Spurs Salaries, 2010-2011 Edition

[Bruno]

Whenever a team sign a player or do a trade, there aren't only basketball considerations but also financial considerations. Only the basketball side matters for fans but if you want to understand moves made and have an idea about what moves will be done, you had to look at the financial side.
Basketball is the Yang, money is the Yin.


Spurs 10-11 salaries :

Players with a guaranteed salary :
Spurs will have 15 players with a fully guaranteed contract and without team or player options:
Tim Duncan: $18,835,381
Tony Parker: $13,500,000
Manu Ginobili: $11,854,584
Richard Jefferson: $8,400,000
Antonio McDyess: $4,860,000
Tiago Splitter: $3,400,000
Matt Bonner: $3,000,000
James Anderson: $1,361,400
DeJuan Blair: $918,000
George Hill: $854,389
Chris Quinn: $804,130
Gary Neal: $525,000 (count for $854,389 against the tax)
Steve Novak: $206,059
Danny Green: $130,022 (count for $145,749 against the tax)
Da'Sean Butler: $125,000
Ime Udoka*: $226,162
Garrett Temple*: $110,000
Alonzo Gee*: $107,604 (count for $120,620 against the tax)
Steve Novak*: $100,516
Bobby Simmons*: $75,387
Larry Owens*: $55,718 (count for $100,516 against the tax)
Othyus Jeffers*: $44,835 (count for $50,258 against the tax)
Danny Green*: $40,352(count for $45,232 against the tax)
The total salary for these 15 players is $69,534,539 ($69,947,772 against the tax)


The Luxury Tax:

What is the luxury tax?
The luxury tax is a mechanism whose first goal is to reduce the differences between the richest and the poorest franchises.
In Early July, the league calculates a threshold based on an evaluation of its revenue for the next season. At the end of the season, teams whose payroll is higher than the luxury tax threshold pay a dollar for each dollar above the threshold. The money given by all the taxpayers is then divided. Each team bellow the tax gets 1/30th of this money and the rest is either equally divided between all the franchises or used to help franchise(s) with serious financial troubles.

The double penalty system:
A team above the tax is two time penalized. First, they had to pay the $ for $ tax. Second, they don't get 1/30th of the luxury tax money given by NBA teams.
This system has two consequences:
- The $ for $ tax pushes teams with payroll significantly higher than the luxury tax threshold to lower their payroll.
- The redistribution system pushes teams that are just above the tax to go just under. What is problematic for a team $100K above the tax isn't the additional $100K to pay in tax but the $3M you don't get during the redistribution.

Luxury tax threshold in 10-11:
The 2010-2011 luxury tax threshold is $70.307M (http://www.nba.com/2010/news/07/07/salary.cap/index.html)

Total luxury tax paid in 10-11:
This number is really important for a team close to the luxury tax level because it determines how hard they should try to stay/go under the threshold.
About $58M will be paid in luxury tax by NBA teams. It makes a $1.9M gain in redistribution for teams below the tax.

Impact of the luxury tax on Spurs for 10-11:
Spurs are $359K under the tax with 15 players under contract.
Salaries listed in this post aren't the definitive salaries that will count against the tax because of bonuses but Spurs should remain below the tax

After 2010-2011:

Players under contract for 2011-2012:
13 players have contracts for 2011-2012:
- Tim Duncan with an early termination option of $21,164,619.
- Manu Ginobili with a $12,981,038 salary.
- Tony Parker with a $12,500,000 salary.
- Richard Jeffferson with a $9,282,000 salary.
- Antonio McDyess with a $5,220,000 salary. Only $2,640,000 is guaranteed until July 1st 2011. This contract could end up as a nice trade asset in June 2011.
- Tiago Splitter with a $3,672,000 salary.
- Matt Bonner with a $3,315,000 salary.
- George Hill with a $1,540,463 salary.
- James Anderson with a $1,402,000 salary.
- DeJuan Blair with a $986,000 salary. Only $500K are guaranteed.
- Gary Neal with a $788,872 unguaranteed salary.
- Danny Green with a $884,293 unguaranteed salary
- Da'Sean Butler with a $788,872 unguaranteed salary that becomes $276,105 guaranteed on the first day of the regular season.

Players under contract for 2012-2013:
9 players have contracts for 2012-2013:
- Manu Ginobili with a $14,107,492 salary.
- Tony Parker with a $12,500,000 salary.
- Richard Jeffferson with a $10,164,000 salary.
- Tiago Splitter with a $3,944,000 salary.
- Matt Bonner with a $3,63,000 salary.
- James Anderson with a $1,526,499 salary. This year is a team option that must be picked before November 1st 2011.
- DeJuan Blair with a $1,054,00 salary that is fully unguaranteed and become fully guaranteed on November 1st 2012.
- Gary Neal with a minimum unguaranteed salary.
- Da'Sean Butler with a minimum unguaranteed salary that becomes fully guaranteed on July 15th 2012.

Players under contract for 2013-2014:
4 players have contracts for 2013-2014:
- Tony Parker with a $12,500,000 salary.
- Richard Jeffferson with a $11,046,000 player option.
- Matt Bonner with a $3,945,000 salary. $1M is guaranteed and it becomes fully guarantedd on June 29th 2013.
- James Anderson with a $2,353,861 salary. This year is a team option that must be picked before November 1st 2012.

Players under contract for 2014-2015:
1 player is under contract for 2014-2015:
- Tony Parker with a $12,500,000 salary. Only $3.5M is guaranteed.

What can we say about that:
It's nearly impossible to draw accurate conclusions give the CBA will change in 2011.
However, Spurs have a lot of money committed for the 2011-2012 year. It Tim Duncan pick his option, Spurs will have $69.5M of guaranteed salary. It could create some financial problems.

PS: Salaries numbers comes from ShamSports (http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/spurs.jsp). Thanks to Sham for his great work.

[TDMVPDPOY]

spurs might be in rebuilding mode after 10/11, but the talent out there is fkn shit...

would duncan pick up the termination option and look for a longer contract?

tp is either leaving or spurs going to low ball him with the new cba...

[Blackjack]

Thanks to Sham and you as always. I can't tell you how appreciated it is that you to take the time to help people like myself get a better understanding and knowledge of all of this.

Great job. :tu

[tdunk21]

so we have close to 8 mil to spend...and if we are over the cap we use the MLE right.....

[Blackjack]

If you are over the cap or within the amount of the MLE from the cap, you use the exception and not the cap space -- it's one or the other and never both.

The Spurs can only use exceptions and trades to acquire players.

[Mel_13]

so we have close to 8 mil to spend...and if we are over the cap we use the MLE right.....

We have much less than 8M in cap space once cap holds are taken into account. Spurs will be using their exceptions, not that small amount of cap space. For the purpose of considering Spurs spending this summer, it will be as if they're over the cap. By the time it's all said and done they will be well over the cap and could very well approach the luxury tax level.

[tdunk21]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5362260


NBA teams found out Wednesday that the salary cap for next season will be nearly $2 million higher than anticipated, providing additional unforeseen cap space to several teams.

The NBA announced a cap of $58 million for the 2010-11 season, when most teams had budgeted a cap of $56.1 million.

The exact salary cap figure, according to league sources, is $58,044,000, up from $57.7 million in the 2009-10 season.

That means teams such as Miami, New York, New Jersey, Chicago and the Los Angeles Clippers have more spending room than anticipated to accommodate free-agent signings.

The luxury-tax line for the coming season will be $70,307,000, up from $69.9 million.

The midlevel exception for next season is $5.765 million.

The cap went into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, ending the league's moratorium period and allowing free-agent contracts to be signed.

Meanwhile, 11 teams officially were notified of their luxury-tax obligations for the 2009-10 season, with the two-time champion Los Angeles Lakers easily topping the list of taxpayers.

The Lakers are required to cut a tax check of $21.4 million to the league office by July 23, based on figures teams received in conjunction with the NBA's announcement regarding next season's cap.

Teams with a payroll above $69.9 million last season are required to pay one tax dollar for every dollar they are over the tax threshold. The Lakers are the only team over the $20 million barrier -- $21,430,778, to be exact.

The Dallas Mavericks are next in line at $17,582,574, followed by Cleveland ($15,410,550), Boston ($14,928,662), Orlando ($11,046,595), San Antonio ($8,810,302), Denver ($5,562,942), New York ($5,199,024), Phoenix ($4,958,790), Utah ($3,105,372) and Miami ($3,039,769).

The 19 teams that do not owe any tax, in accordance with the league's collective bargaining agreement, will each receive a rebate of $3.7 million. The league also announced Wednesday night that the tax line for the 2010-11 season has risen to $70.3 million.

[Anonymous Cowherd]

one potentially important upshot:

this means we can get Splitter on the MLE, resign RJ on a $7m contract AND get a player in for the LLE, without going into the luxury tax.

(this situation would would put us virtually right at the luxury tax amount)

[DesignatedT]

Thanks. This helps clear a few things up

[tdunk21]

since some teams are trading players for TE, i wish we could do the same IF we have an intention of trading someone

[boo_radley]

Looks like RJ's deal just might end up putting a wrench in the works

[Bruno]

A first estimation on the total luxury tax paid by teams next year:
Boston: $5M
Dallas: $15M
Denver: $13M
Houston: $12M
Lakers: $22M
Orlando: $22M
Portland: $2M
Utah: $7M

Teams will pay $98M in luxury tax.
Teams under the cap will get $3.3M in redistribution.

A $3.3M gain for being just under the cap is a quite significant gain. it should convince Spurs to make the effort of staying below the tax.

[elemento]

How is our situation at the moment ?

[Bruno]

How is our situation at the moment ?

I'm doing the math, hold on.

[Bruno]

Spurs situation regarding the luxury tax:

Players with guaranteed contracts
Duncan + Parker + Ginobili + McDyess + Blair + Hill : $50.82M
Matt Bonner: $3.05M
Tiago Splitter: $3.4M
Richard Jefferson: $8.4M
Gary Neal: $.85M (against the tax)

$66.52M for 10 players

James Anderson will likely be signed. His salary will be between $0.91M and $1.36M.

Spurs payroll will be between $67.43M and $67.88M for 11 players. Spurs are between $2.43M and $2.88M.

If Spurs want to stay below the tax:
- They won't be able to have a 15 players roster.
- They should be able to carry a 14 players roster if they are able to sign Anderson for only 100% of the rookie scale and if the players waived aren't Gee and Temple.
- They will have no problem at staying under the tax with a 13 players roster.

[Anonymous Cowherd]

I make our situation as sneaking under the tax if we cut Jerrels from the roster


Bruno, is George Hill's salary not $1.157m rather than $854k?

[Bruno]

Bruno, is George Hill's salary not $1.157m rather than $854k?

No, it isn't.

For first round picks, teams can give between 80% and 120% of the rookie scale salary each year. Hill got 120% of the scale on his first two years, and 80% on his third and fourth year. The idea behind that move was to create as much cap space as possible for Spurs' 2010 plan.

And 80% of the rookie scale is less than $854K but Hill will be paid $854K because it is the minimum salary for a player with 2 years of service.

[Blackjack]

It should be noted (http://www.nba.com/news/features/aldridge.2010.freeagency/):


Spurs owner Peter Holt has committed to paying luxury tax again next season and in 2011-12, the final two years of star center Tim Duncan's contract. After that, San Antonio is likely to rebuild around Splitter--who will be up for a new deal by then--guards George Hill and Manu Ginobili, whom the team signed to a three-year, $38 million extension last season, and second-year forward DeJuan Blair.

[lurker23]

I assume the delay in Anderson's contract is that they're trying to get him to take 80% scale; pretty typical Spurs move. Will be interesting to see what he finally accepts, but I'm sure they'll convince him to take a first year discount if it's a big deal luxury tax wise.

Bonus question: for the sake of luxury tax calculations, the Spurs could carry 15 most of the year, then dump the least promising prospect in a salary dump trade at the deadline to get under the tax line, correct?

[MannyIsGod]

Um, what is his source about Holt committing to Luxury Tax territory?

[Bruno]

I assume the delay in Anderson's contract is that they're trying to get him to take 80% scale; pretty typical Spurs move. Will be interesting to see what he finally accepts, but I'm sure they'll convince him to take a first year discount if it's a big deal luxury tax wise.

Anderson was a big college player and has a powerful agent (Andy Miller). I don't see Spurs convincing him to only take 80%. It should be 100% or 120%.



Bonus question: for the sake of luxury tax calculations, the Spurs could carry 15 most of the year, then dump the least promising prospect in a salary dump trade at the deadline to get under the tax line, correct?

Yes, correct.

[Blackjack]

Um, what is his source about Holt committing to Luxury Tax territory?

It's what I've thought all along and I respect Aldridge enough to think that he wouldn't suggest something like that if he didn't hear it from the horse's mouth or someone extremely close to the situation and with knowledge of the gameplan.

[Anonymous Cowherd]

given how close we seem to be to the luxury tax boundary it would seem strange if it wasn't the plan to end up under it in the end, though

[Blackjack]

Why is that?

They could very well keep all four of Neal, Hairston, Temple and Gee, possibly three of them and use their LLE or what's left of their MLE on someone else.

I think lurker23 brought up a possibility, one I happen to believe will play out, and that's that the Spurs could find themselves at a number just over the tax to start the season but dump a contract (a la Ratliff last year) to not actually have to pay the tax.

But that's only if the difference in personnel isn't worth paying the tax. If they believe the players they have or can acquire will push them into being a tax payer, I don't believe they'll hesitate to be one; David Aldridge's reporting seems to confirm that belief for the next two years.

[Bruno]

Between the salary, the luxury tax paid on the salary and the redistribution, Spurs could be in a situation where they had to decided between keeping a player like Gee, Jerrels or Hairston and nearly $5M.

Even if Holt is ready to pay some luxury tax, I somewhat doubt he will be fine with keeping a marginal prospect for almost $5M. And he will be right.

[MannyIsGod]

It's what I've thought all along and I respect Aldridge enough to think that he wouldn't suggest something like that if he didn't hear it from the horse's mouth or someone extremely close to the situation and with knowledge of the gameplan.

Maybe next year but at this point I really do not see the Spurs paying the Luxury Tax unless it happens via trades. The RJ deal only makes sense if it was done in order to avoid the luxury tax and going right back into LT territory makes no sense considering how they just gave him a four year deal.

Perhaps Aldridge is indicating they have no qualms with going into tax territory for a Tony Parker extension (that still wouldn't affect this year) because as Bruno pointed out you're effectively paying 5 million or so just to keep a marginal player on the team. That just doesn't add up for me.

[Blackjack]

Between the salary, the luxury tax paid on the salary and the redistribution, Spurs could be in a situation where they had to decided between keeping a player like Gee, Jerrels or Hairston and nearly $5M.

Even if Holt is ready to pay some luxury tax, I somewhat doubt he will be fine with keeping a marginal prospect for almost $5M. And he will be right.

I don't disagree with your rationale at all, but I don't believe the Spurs will allow themselves to get to the point where they think, 'We're not likely a contender so why pay tax?'

I think they'll probably start the year with Hairston, Temple and Gee on the roster and evaluate them until they're forced to make a decision to keep or release any or all of them. But I firmly believe they're exploring the trade market and will continue to do so to find a player or players that they feel can legitimately help to put them over the top -- and they'll have no problem paying for the next two years to acquire the talent to do so.


The RJ deal only makes sense if it was done in order to avoid the luxury tax and going right back into LT territory makes no sense considering how they just gave him a four year deal.

The RJ deal makes sense because it allowed them to get under the tax, yes, but it makes just as much since because the Spurs were able to upgrade their talent by using the same figure RJ would've received and turning it into the salary of 3 players (RJ, Splitter and Bonner). It gave the Spurs more flexibility to make some different kind of moves and massage the roster just so, which is always what an NBA team always strives to attain -- more talent, but same, actually, a little cheaper price. (RJ would've been $15.2M now the three combined cost roughly $14.8M)

Honestly, and this is just me (Aldridge has only confirmed my belief, not given it to me), I'm more prone to believe the Spurs have alloted a certain amount of cash to spend over the next two years and they fully intend to spend it. This is the stash you take to Vegas and fully expect to lose. They have a gameplan and an overall number or percentage they're beholden to, and RJ's $15.2M and whatever the cost that it would've been additionally to that to put together a team with a realistic shot at bringing home another title, that's the number they have in mind, IMO.

I think Bruno is dead-on with his rationale and how he comes about his views to run a fiscally responsible and cost-efficient model. But I personally believe these next two years are about Tim and capitalizing/maximizing on any and every opportunity available to meet their goal: championship.

When the two years are up, they'll have it set up to where they're playing youngsters on cheaper contracts mixed in with Manu and possibly RJ getting paid the big bucks for a year or two; but the team will be under the tax with Tim gone and Tony possibly playing elsewhere (and if he's not they'll have somewhat of a Big 3 in contracts with Tony, Manu and RJ -- their core of young players should all still be playing on cheap or reasonable contracts).

[kobyz]

is Tim Duncan gonna use his early termination option at the end of the season?
he is not gonna to be worth $21,300,000 and he could do Spurs a favor and sign for the minimum so this way Spurs could get better!

[DPG21920]

Where are you getting the numbers for Bonner & Neal?

[CubanMustGo]

Where are you getting the numbers for Bonner & Neal?

Gotta say Bonner @ $3.05 mill makes a lot more sense than that ridiculous number his hometown paper was throwing around.

[Bruno]

Where are you getting the numbers for Bonner & Neal?

I got the Bonner figure from espn and realgm. Most of the time, they are right.

Neal exact salary isn't important for the luxury tax. He will count for $854,389 against the tax as long as his salary is below that level (which is likely the case).

[elemento]

i've seen 2.75/3/3.05

i don't really know the correct number.

But as Bruno said, we're gonna have to waive guys to keep the team below the tax

[MannyIsGod]

Reading into the Aldridge article that was posted today I think him mentioning that Holt is willing to pay the luxury tax for the next couple of years is just rereporting of Holts willingness to do it last year but I don't think he has any new signs that they're still willing to do that.

[elemento]

If we had the money to get a good backup SF, then it would be reasonable to pay the luxury tax.

i don't see any good SF player coming for the money we can offer.

So what's the point to be above the lux tax only to keep guys like Hairston, Gee and Jerrells ?

I mean ..The Spurs would lose the 3/3.5m rebate to keep those guys. I really don't see the point.

[Bruno]

Update of Spurs luxury tax situation:

Tim Duncan: $18,835,381
Tony Parker: $13,500,000
Manu Ginobili: $11,854,584
Richard Jefferson: $8,400,000
Antonio McDyess: $4,860,000
Tiago Splitter: $3,400,000
Matt Bonner: $3,050,000
James Anderson: $1,361,400
DeJuan Blair: $918,000
George Hill: $854,389
Gary Neal: $854,389
The total tax hit for these 11 players with a guaranteed contract is $67,888,143.

With 2 more players with a $854,389 tax hit, Spurs tax payroll is $69,596,921. Spurs will be $710,079 below the tax.


Some thoughts:

- Spurs won't be able to carry 14 of the 15 players they have under contracts. They will have to waive 2 of Gee, Hairston, Temple and Jerrells to stay under the tax.

- I don't think it's really a problem for Spurs to trim their roster to 13 players. Jerrells should be cut. Hairston and Gee will play a similar role for Spurs, keeping the most promising of them makes sense.

- If it isn't obvious who should be cut at the end of the training camp, Spurs could test their players at the start of season. Saying that, a choice should be made before January 10th and the longer you wait the more money it will cost.

- With $710K left below the tax, Spurs have some breathing room to do some moves during the season. They have enough money to try some players with 10 days contract in January and sign the most interesting ones for the rest of season. They could also spend some money for training camp contracts.

- Gist, as a draft pick, will only cost $473,604 against the tax. He has virtually no concurrence for that 14th roster spot since he is the only one who can be signed and keep Spurs below the tax. I don't think Spurs are interested in him but he has a golden opportunity because of Spurs financial situation. Maybe he should force Spurs hand, signs a fully non-guaranteed contract and hopes he will impress Spurs during the training camp. It could be a good gamble for him.

[will_spurs]

- Gist, as a draft pick, will only cost $473,604 against the tax. He has virtually no concurrence for that 14th roster spot since he is the only one who can be signed and keep Spurs below the tax. I don't think Spurs are interested in him but he has a golden opportunity because of Spurs financial situation. Maybe he should force Spurs hand, signs a fully non-guaranteed contract and hopes he will impress Spurs during the training camp. It could be a good gamble for him.

Prereq: an agent who understands these considerations.

Also if I understand your post correctly, signing a 14th player to a contract would have a tax hit of $854,389 (even if they sign for less?), which is only $144,310 above luxury tax.

I expect Jerrells to be cut and Temple to be signed, so the Spurs could still sign both Gee and Hairston and pay only $144,310 in luxury tax, which isn't all that much. Of course they would lose a bit of flexibility for the rest of the season, but gain a bit of flexibility at the problematic SF back-up spot.

If they don't do that and only sign 2 out of these 4 players, my bet is on Temple + Gee.

[kobyz]

that make the signing of Bonner and the money that he got even more bad!

[CubanMustGo]

Also if I understand your post correctly, signing a 14th player to a contract would have a tax hit of $854,389 (even if they sign for less?), which is only $144,310 above luxury tax.

If true that $144K would also cost SA the $3+M they'd get back from the league for being under the cap.

[Bruno]

Yes, the luxury tax system is explained in the first post. Between his salary, the luxury tax paid and the loss of the redistribution share, keeping a 14th player will cost Spurs more than $4M.

The most logical scenario is Spurs carrying 13 players with Temple and one of Hairston and Gee. You can imagine scenarios, where both Gee and Hairston stay, like Temple sucking and being cut after the training camp or Neal sucking and being salary dumped before the trade deadline. Saying that, Pop seems to be really high on Temple and Spurs have spend a lot of money and Neal. Spurs surely don't expect them to fail and these scenarios aren't the most likely ones.

[ElNono]

I have a feeling that Gee needs to impress greatly in camp, or he's going for another stint with the Toros. I think Hairston has preference because he can't be sent to the Toros anymore and because the Spurs didn't think they needed to take another look at Malik in SL, meaning, they already know what he can contribute on the main team.

[lurker23]

Bruno, have you had any confirmation from good sources that Anderson got 120% for his first year? I understand what you said earlier about Anderson being a good player from a big conference, but 100% for the first year and 120% for all subsequent years would be a pretty good deal for him, considering what the Spurs have paid in the past.

[Bruno]

Bruno, have you had any confirmation from good sources that Anderson got 120% for his first year?

Both espn and realgm trade machines have him at 120%. They update their numbers through league sources and I consider them as the most reliable sources after shamsports.

[lurker23]

Both espn and realgm trade machines have him at 120%. They update their numbers through league sources and I consider them as the most reliable sources after shamsports.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Part of me finds it hard to believe that the Spurs would go through all this work to get under the luxury tax, then be limited to 13 roster spots by a mere $0.12 million.

However, if you had asked me 2 months ago how many of the Jerrells/Temple/Gee/Hairston quartet would make the team, I would have said 2. So it shouldn't be all that surprising.

Carrying 13 players into the regular season and having room to add part-year or 10-day contracts is a flexible situation that could benefit the Spurs later in the season, so I think they'd be okay if that's how it has to work out.

[TD 21]

Update of Spurs luxury tax situation:

Tim Duncan: $18,835,381
Tony Parker: $13,500,000
Manu Ginobili: $11,854,584
Richard Jefferson: $8,400,000
Antonio McDyess: $4,860,000
Tiago Splitter: $3,400,000
Matt Bonner: $3,050,000
James Anderson: $1,361,400
DeJuan Blair: $918,000
George Hill: $854,389
Gary Neal: $854,389
The total tax hit for these 11 players with a guaranteed contract is $67,888,143.

With 2 more players with a $854,389 tax hit, Spurs tax payroll is $69,596,921. Spurs will be $710,079 below the tax.


Some thoughts:

- Spurs won't be able to carry 14 of the 15 players they have under contracts. They will have to waive 2 of Gee, Hairston, Temple and Jerrells to stay under the tax.

- I don't think it's really a problem for Spurs to trim their roster to 13 players. Jerrells should be cut. Hairston and Gee will play a similar role for Spurs, keeping the most promising of them makes sense.

- If it isn't obvious who should be cut at the end of the training camp, Spurs could test their players at the start of season. Saying that, a choice should be made before January 10th and the longer you wait the more money it will cost.

- With $710K left below the tax, Spurs have some breathing room to do some moves during the season. They have enough money to try some players with 10 days contract in January and sign the most interesting ones for the rest of season. They could also spend some money for training camp contracts.

- Gist, as a draft pick, will only cost $473,604 against the tax. He has virtually no concurrence for that 14th roster spot since he is the only one who can be signed and keep Spurs below the tax. I don't think Spurs are interested in him but he has a golden opportunity because of Spurs financial situation. Maybe he should force Spurs hand, signs a fully non-guaranteed contract and hopes he will impress Spurs during the training camp. It could be a good gamble for him.

I agree. It sounds great to carry 15 and be (theoretically, at least) at least three deep at every position, but the reality of the situation is, barring this team being decimated by injuries, most likely there isn't going to be a role for Gee or, if he were to get signed, Gist. They'd be Toros fodder and insurance policies.

I think that's exactly what will happen (unless Gee wants to go to a team with lesser wing depth, where he has a better chance at sticking in the NBA...in that case, the Spurs might do him a favor and release him). They'll keep Gee until January 10th, which get's them through a good chunk of the season (in case they are decimated by injuries on the wings), then release him so as to avoid paying the tax.

Sure, Gee's an intriguing prospect, but if at some point there isn't a role to be had (which I think is likely and I'm not just talking about next season), what's the point in retaining him? Even if he becomes a rotation player, it's likely not going to happen with the Spurs, so it makes sense to let him go. It's like the Mahinmi situation.

[mcdunk]

Or pay one more minimum 854,389 contract and a decent veteran $1,564,468 to carry 13 on the roster. Go with a couple 10 day contracts throughout the year. Maybe is the Spurs wait long enough Rasual Butler or Shaq might accept the $1.5 mil.

[Bruno]

Part of me finds it hard to believe that the Spurs would go through all this work to get under the luxury tax, then be limited to 13 roster spots by a mere $0.12 million.


Even if Spurs had the capacity to get 14 player and stay just under the cap, I'm not sure they would have done it. They could be more interested in some flexibility than carrying 14 players. As you said, having some flexibility is great. It can allow to sign players in case of injuries, it can allow to sign some D-League prospects, it can allow to sign some vets waived by lottery teams before March 1st...

Now let just hope for Spurs that they won't have to make a cut at the end of the training camp that will lead them to regret not to have enough space under the tax to carry 14 players.

And while Spurs are currently $145K short of carrying 14 players, they could be short by more than that at the end of the season. Current salaries include the base salary and likely bonuses while at the end of the season, the luxury tax is computed with the base salary and bonuses really paid. If players are doing great, they could received their unlikely bonuses and Spurs team salary against the tax will be higher. For example, Parker with a good season could earn $150K more than his current salary.

[boo_radley]

Counting only currently guaranteed money for Temple and Gee, putting Neal @ $510K, Anderson @ 120%, and Bonner @ $3,422,271 I have the Spurs at $397,197 under the TAX, does that sound about right? Of course I have counted nothing for Hairston or Jerrells in this scenario.

What I am thinking is that there is almost no way that the Spurs avoid the tax this year.

[MannyIsGod]

Counting only currently guaranteed money for Temple and Gee, putting Neal @ $510K, Anderson @ 120%, and Bonner @ $3,422,271 I have the Spurs at $397,197 under the cap, does that sound about right? Of course I have counted nothing for Hairston or Jerrells in this scenario.

What I am thinking is that there is almost no way that the Spurs avoid the tax this year.

I think your Bonner number is way too high and Neal will count for more against the cap.

I trust Bruno's calculations.

[boo_radley]

I think your Bonner number is way too high and Neal will count for more against the cap.

I trust Bruno's calculations.
If Bonner's deal is for 16Mil over 4 years that's the number that works with 10.5% raises, but no one seems to know what the dets are on that deal... good point about Neal, I will have to recheck that

[boo_radley]

Update of Spurs luxury tax situation:
Tim Duncan: $18,835,381
Tony Parker: $13,500,000
Manu Ginobili: $11,854,584
Richard Jefferson: $8,400,000
Antonio McDyess: $4,860,000
Tiago Splitter: $3,400,000
Matt Bonner: $3,050,000
James Anderson: $1,361,400
DeJuan Blair: $918,000
George Hill: $854,389
Gary Neal: $854,389
The total tax hit for these 11 players with a guaranteed contract is $67,888,143.


Bruno, I see that you have Bonner @ $3,050,000, but that puts his contract value @ $14.2+mil not the $16mil originally associated with his new deal. Any idea what the deal is actually for?

Also, what's the deal with Parker's contract? I have him a bit higher than you $150K to be exact...am I counting his bonus and you're not?

[boo_radley]

By the by, I'm not as rosy as others on the tax situation...though who the fuck am I?...I put the Spurs @ $1.5mil over the line with all 15 currently contracted players.

A lot depends on whether Anderson is 120% and if Bonner's deal is for $14 or $16 million.

They can get under the line by a good deal, but that would require ditching Hairston, Gee, Temple, and Jerrells, but that doesn't help because they would be two players short of league min.

[spursncowboys]

Thanks to Sham and you as always. I can't tell you how appreciated it is that you to take the time to help people like myself get a better understanding and knowledge of all of this.

Great job. :tu
dito

[Blackjack]

I think your Bonner number is way too high and Neal will count for more against the cap.

I trust Bruno's calculations.

We're not 100% sure of Bonner's number but $3.05 is probably pretty damn close if it's not it. Neal and all the non-guaranteed players count $854,389 against the tax.

[boo_radley]

This is how I see the tax situation. Anybody out there have comments, questions, or suggestions?

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/1011/sascap1.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

[elemento]

I have the same numbers. They seem correct to me.

[Anonymous Cowherd]

Hairston's gone, assuming we cut Jerrels too we can afford $1.1m for a back-up SF without going into the tax

[mountainballer]

Gee is only one to survive from the 4 non guaranteed contracts. he is currently the only player who makes sense on this roster (the signing of Neal and Anderson make it even more obsolete to carry either Temple and Jerrells). he has the size (not perfect but better than Anderson) and athleticism to play some SF.

[boo_radley]

Hairston's gone, assuming we cut Jerrels too we can afford $1.1m for a back-up SF without going into the tax

That's not quite how I see it. Even after removing Hairston from the mix, the Spurs are still $250K over the tax line. Dropping Jerrells doesn't help add to the team, it only saves the team from paying the tax.

[TD 21]

Gee is only one to survive from the 4 non guaranteed contracts. he is currently the only player who makes sense on this roster (the signing of Neal and Anderson make it even more obsolete to carry either Temple and Jerrells). he has the size (not perfect but better than Anderson) and athleticism to play some SF.

Gee is a wing; Temple is a combo guard (on this team, a PG). The Spurs only have two other PG's, so carrying a third makes sense. Otherwise, if an injury occurs to one of the top two PG's, the other one and Ginobili will have to be run into the ground.

Hairston leaving assured Gee of a roster spot. But I still think he ends up playing primarily with the Toros and the Spurs sign a veteran SF (Hayes) or wing (Bogans) to fill Hairston's spot.

[mountainballer]

Gee is a wing; Temple is a combo guard (on this team, a PG). The Spurs only have two other PG's, so carrying a third makes sense. Otherwise, if an injury occurs to one of the top two PG's, the other one and Ginobili will have to be run into the ground.

Hairston leaving assured Gee of a roster spot. But I still think he ends up playing primarily with the Toros and the Spurs sign a veteran SF (Hayes) or wing (Bogans) to fill Hairston's spot.

Neal played the combo role in Europe a lot and he wasn't bad in doing so. I do think this is also what the Spurs will ask from him. and as we know, Manu can run the show whenever asked for. so I don't see an urgent need to carry a 3rd stringer PG as insurance policy.

[RiverwalkParade]

Neal played the combo role in Europe a lot and he wasn't bad in doing so. I do think this is also what the Spurs will ask from him. and as we know, Manu can run the show whenever asked for. so I don't see an urgent need to carry a 3rd stringer PG as insurance policy.

but, but, but, but Pop said temple was his new favorite player. That has to count for something right?

[Bruno]

Spurs have 11 players under guaranteed contracts. 2 players must be added to reach the minimum roster size. Maybe Spurs will add some vets but they haven't for the moment so 2 among Temple, Gee and Jerrells will be kept.

[Brazil]

Spurs have 11 players under guaranteed contracts. 2 players must be added to reach the minimum roster size. Maybe Spurs will add some vets but they haven't for the moment so 2 among Temple, Gee and Jerrells will be kept.

IMO temple is a lock and I think Gee will take the last spot

[boo_radley]

IMO temple is a lock and I think Gee will take the last spot

I tend to agree with you

[TD 21]

Neal played the combo role in Europe a lot and he wasn't bad in doing so. I do think this is also what the Spurs will ask from him. and as we know, Manu can run the show whenever asked for. so I don't see an urgent need to carry a 3rd stringer PG as insurance policy.

It's possible. If Temple is not regularly active, I could see Neal playing this role by default in blowouts (so as to not unnecessarily wear out Parker, Ginobili and Hill). Maybe there's not an urgent need to carry a third PG, but it's good to have for depth purposes. Size and ball handling are the two areas you least want to get caught short in.

[boo_radley]

If Temple and Gee stick, they will float between the active and inactive lists and between Austin and San Antonio. Can't see Pop using them all that consistently throughout the season.

The Spurs have left themselves too much flexibility for them not to make any additional moves. As much as I think they should avoid the tax, there are still some serviceable players out there that could be of use.

[boo_radley]

Shamsports has Bonner's salary @
$3,000,000
$3,315,000
$3,630,000
$3,945,000

($13.89Mil total)

Last year is $1mil guaranteed, converting to fully guaranteed if not waived before June 29th, 2013. Also, there are performance bonuses listed as unlikely, that don't affect the cap calculation, but could affect the tax if Ginger Beer has a great year and earns some or all of them.

[TimmehC]

Shamsports has Bonner's salary @
$3,000,000
$3,315,000
$3,630,000
$3,945,000

($13.89Mil total)

Last year is $1mil guaranteed, converting to fully guaranteed if not waived before June 29th, 2013. Also, there are performance bonuses listed as unlikely, that don't affect the cap calculation, but could affect the tax if Ginger Beer has a great year and earns some or all of them.

Not as bad as we had heard. Still should have been less, IMO.

[Blackjack]

Actually, that's a pretty fair contract for Bonner. Value-wise, at least (even if you'd rather not have him on the tem).

We got Splitter's numbers as well:

$3,400,000
$3,672,000
$3,944,000
$4,930,000 (4th-year QO)

So the Spurs have at least $50K worth of room from the projections based on Bonner's salary of being $3.05M. I'll be interested in seeing the exact figures for Neal as well, which I believe to be pretty close, as we were with Bonner.

Here's another look at the salaries with Jefferson's opt-out/opt-in weighed:

Reigning Black: 2010-11 San Antonio Spurs Salaries (http://reigningblack.blogspot.com/2010/07/2010-11-san-antonio-spurs-salaries.html)

Just subtract $50K from the final figures now.

[lurker23]

ShamSports now has James Anderson's numbers as well. With incentives, he can earn up to 120% in the first year, 115% in year two, and 117% in year 3. That makes his numbers:

2010-11: $1,361,400
2011-12: $1,402,540
2012-13: $1,526,499 (team option)
2013-14: $2,353,861 (team option)
2014-15: $3,373,083 (qualifying offer)

[lurker23]

Also official numbers now up for Jefferson and Neal. I'll let you go to the link for the gory details and give Sham some hits:

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/spurs.jsp

But basic info: RJ as previously reported, Neal $525k for year 1, years 2 and 3 fully non-guaranteed.

[Blackjack]

Beat me to it. :lol

[lurker23]

Beat me to it. :lol

I'm sneaky fast sometimes.



......But usually I'm as slow as molasses. :lol

[Bruno]

Nice, I've updated the first post with these numbers.

To avoid you re-reading the whole post, the main part I've updated that isn't just numbers:

Impact of the luxury tax on Spurs for 10-11:
Spurs are $2,468,857 under the tax threshold with 11 guaranteed salaries. The luxury tax will be a huge factor for Spurs to fill the end of their roster. It seems rather unlikely that Spurs go over the tax for some marginal players.
Players that aren't draft picks count for at least $854,389 against the tax. Spurs won't be able to carry 14 players the whole year and stay under the tax. The only way they can do it is if one of these 14 players is a 2nd round pick (Gist or Richards).
For the moment, the most likely scenario is Spurs carrying 13 players at the start of the season: the 11 players with a guaranteed contract plus Temple and Gee. They will be $760K below the tax which will allow them to sign some players during the season.
Other scenarios are possible like Spurs carrying 14 players at the start of the season and waiving a player with an non-guaranteed contact before he became guaranteed on January 10th. If Neal is bad, he could also be salary dumped before the trade deadline. His contract is easily tradable.
Salaries listed in this post aren't the definitive salaries that will count against the tax because of bonuses. It's possible that Spurs have even less breathing room than expected.

BTW, it's on purpose that I don't do a sheet with salaries even if it's way clearer than listing salaries year by year. I still steal Sham's salaries' numbers, if you want to have a great salary sheet go on his site (http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/spurs.jsp).

[Bruno]

Regarding Neal and Jefferson contract:
- Jefferson contract is really big. I'm less than thrill with Spurs paying $11M for a 33 years old RJ. Saying that, RJ is a good player who can be significantly better than last year. I hope it will be the case, otherwise Spurs will soon have an awful contract in their hands.
- Neal contract is great. If he is good, he is locked for 3 years at a bargain price. If he sucks, he can be waived next summer for free or he can be easily traded before next trade deadline. Great work by the FO on this one.

Spurs also start to have a lot of money committed for 2011-2012. I hope it won't create some problems for them.

[boo_radley]

Spurs also start to have a lot of money committed for 2011-2012. I hope it won't create some problems for them. But they can drop down pretty significantly if they want.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Duncan does like Robinson and signs for even less money next season.

[lurker23]

Spurs also start to have a lot of money committed for 2011-2012. I hope it won't create some problems for them.

As much as it pains me to say it, if you're going to be over-committed for one year, 2011-12 might be the right one to do so. Based on current CBA talks, it still looks like teams will only have to pay a fraction of that salary due to a lockout, or (worst case for fans) none of the salaries at all.

[will_spurs]

Spurs also start to have a lot of money committed for 2011-2012. I hope it won't create some problems for them.

The main issue with that is Parker's extension... or is there something else the Spurs have to watch out for?

And thanks again for keeping this up to date, this is the most useful thread on the whole site.

[Bruno]

But they can drop down pretty significantly if they want.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Duncan does like Robinson and signs for even less money next season.

No, they can't.
If Duncan pick his option, Spurs 2011-2012 payroll with a re-signed Parker could be around $75M.


As much as it pains me to say it, if you're going to be over-committed for one year, 2011-12 might be the right one to do so. Based on current CBA talks, it still looks like teams will only have to pay a fraction of that salary due to a lockout, or (worst case for fans) none of the salaries at all.

Good remark, we will see how well or bad goes the new CBA negotiations.

[Bruno]

ShamSports now has James Anderson's numbers as well. With incentives, he can earn up to 120% in the first year, 115% in year two, and 117% in year 3. That makes his numbers:

2010-11: $1,361,400
2011-12: $1,402,540
2012-13: $1,526,499 (team option)
2013-14: $2,353,861 (team option)
2014-15: $3,373,083 (qualifying offer)

That's so weird. Compared to the max 120% scale, Spurs save $61K in 2011-2012, $39K in 2012-2013 and $61K in 2013-2014.

I don't get the point of not giving the max to save that few money. Having a part of his salary based on incentive is fine but not giving 120% of the rookie scale when they are reached to save $161K over a 4 years contract sounds lame as hell. It's even lamer when you see contracts signed by Jefferson and Bonner.

[lurker23]

Good remark, we will see how well or bad goes the new CBA negotiations.

For the record, I'd rather the Spurs have to make some tough financial decisions and/or have to pay the luxury tax, than to have no Spurs basketball at all.

I would hope the owners feel the same way, but it's not my money.

[boo_radley]

No, they can't.
If Duncan pick his option, Spurs 2011-2012 payroll with a re-signed Parker could be around $75M.

My bad, I mis-read the color-coding...but I guess Timmy could opt out and sign a new two year deal for $21mil total.:downspin:

[Bruno]

Today is August 6th, Temple's contract is now $110K guaranteed.

[lurker23]

Today is August 6th, Temple's contract is now $110K guaranteed.

:tu I noticed that a few days ago, but completely forgot today. Congrats to Garrett for making some money.

[Bruno]

For people a little interested in the financial side, I highly recommend to read Sham latest blog entry:
http://blog.shamsports.com/2010/08/creative-financing-in-nba-2010_12.html

[DesignatedT]

When do the Spurs have till to make a decision on the options of Gee/Temple/Jerrels?

[DPG21920]

If you go to shamsports.com and go to the spurs salaries you can mouse over a players name and it gives you their contract info. I think they have the deadlines.

[Bruno]

When do the Spurs have till to make a decision on the options of Gee/Temple/Jerrels?

Instead of just giving you some dates, let's try to explain the whole mechanism.

The double "salary" system:
Gee, Temple and Jerrells all have a $762,195 salary. However, they count for $854,389 against the tax. Spurs don't pay them $854,389 but it's the figure that is used when you compute team salaries for the luxury tax.

Prorating minimum salaries:
Each regular season day where the player is under contract cost 1/170th of his salary. It's because the NBA regular season is 170 days long.

Waivers:
When a player is on waivers, he is still paid by his team and also count against the tax. During the regular season, players stay for 48 hours on waivers. Non-working days (Saturday and Sunday) don't count.
For example, if a team waives a player on Thursday, they will have to pay his salary for 4 more days (Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday).

Key dates:
The first key date Tuesday, October 26th, It's the first day of the regular season. If a team doesn't want to give some money to a player with a non-guaranteed contract, he must have cleared waivers at this day. The deadline to waive players without paying them is Thursday, October 21st.
The second key date is January 10th. It's when all the contracts become guaranteed for the rest of the season. January 10th is a Monday this year. The deadline to waive players is Wednesday, January 5th this year.

Jerrells:
Jerrels' contract is fully non guaranteed. He will start to cost some money on October 21st and his contract will be guaranteed on January 5th.

Temple:
Temple's contract is $110K guaranteed. When do you the prorating and include waivers with working days, the deadline, where he will start to hurt Spurs more, is November 11th for the tax and November 16th for his salary.

Gee:
Gee's contract is complicate with multiple dates and multiple guarantee. For the moment, it is $100K guaranteed. The deadline, where he will start to hurt Spurs more, is November 10th for the tax and November 14th for his salary.

Conclusion:
Spurs have enough luxury space tax to have 14 players during a part of the year. However, the faster they do their choices on Jerrels, Temple, Gee, the more money they will have to spend later in the year to try some new players.
And if you are somewhat interested by this boring stuff and want to be sure that you get it, you can re-do the computation with Gee and Temple to see if you end up on the same results as me (I hope my dates are right :) ).

[elemento]

nice job Bruno

ty for the summary

[DesignatedT]

Thanks Bruno. That clears it up pretty good for me.

[kookie]

Sham....thanks for the salary info. Why didn't you include Parker in your information?

[mountainballer]

Sham....thanks for the salary info. Why didn't you include Parker in your information?

:lol
I'm not sure that Sham
a: will hear this
b: will send you a sign
c: will help you find what has always been there for those who believe

[Bruno]

Shame on me, I'm so stupid.

When we talk about Parker's extension, we all talk of a 5 years extension while the max length he can get is 4 years.

So, the max extension Parker can get right now is $68.2M/4 years.

[boo_radley]

Question: Curtis Jerrells was on a fully non-guaranteed contract, so trading him was good for shedding tax dollars, but my question is, did he earn any of the money he was slated to this season? Or, since he was traded before the season does the full $854K come off of the Spurs tax calculations?

[Bruno]

The Jerrells trade wasn't a tax move. It was a nice gesture from Spurs to give Jerrells a chance with another team.

Jerrells costs for $0 for Spurs. Without the trade, Spurs would have waived him and he would have also cost $0.

[boo_radley]

The Jerrells trade wasn't a tax move. It was a nice gesture from Spurs to give Jerrells a chance with another team..Didn't work out so good for him though

[boo_radley]

Now, Bobby Simmons is on a vet min contract, is that fully unguaranteed until 01.10.11?

[Blackjack]

The Spurs are something like $600K under the tax with 13 players (Temple and Simmons being their 12th and 13th players)

Gee counts $100K against the tax even if waived and I can't recall what Jerrells cost them, if anything, this year. So a fourteenth player, from what I gather, would put them in the tax - minimum contracts count $854,389 against the tax. (Neal's $525K, both Temple's and Gee's $762,195 and Bobby Simmons' $854,389 count the same, $854,389 -- Temple's already been guaranteed $110K as well.)

As far as I can recall, Jerrells received something like $35K for being on the roster after July, 1 for this year and had some money due if on the roster by Oct. 21 (which Bruno points out above). It was a fully unguaranteed contract so if you don't meet the milestones you don't receive the monies, and the team's tax is only hit by the monies that were guaranteed.

[ElNono]

Shame on me, I'm so stupid.

Please Bruno, if you're stupid, we're screwed... :lol

[Blackjack]

Please Bruno, if you're stupid, we're screwed... :lol

So true. :lol

[Bruno]

First post updated, let me know if I'm made some mistakes.

Expect Gee to be waived in about a week.

[Shifty]

Great job Bruno. Thanks!


- George Hill with a $1,540,463 salary. This year is a team option that must be picked before November 1st 2010.

Needs updating here. I don't remember hearing about the option being picked up but I sure hope it was. One of our best bargains.

[Bruno]

Fixed, Thanks.

[boo_radley]

Does the Simmons/ Quinn move have any impact on the cap or is it pro-rated vet. min plus pro-rated vet min?

[Bruno]

Does the Simmons/ Quinn move have any impact on the cap or is it pro-rated vet. min plus pro-rated vet min?

It has a minimal impact, they both cost the same money to Spurs. The small impact is that during 5 days (from today to Tuesday), Spurs are paying both Simmons and Quinn. It will cost them $25,129.

[boo_radley]

Alright, who's got a recap of where we are with Temple now gone?

[Bruno]

ShamSports.com (http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/spurs.jsp) has now the details of Green and Butler contracts. I've updated the first post.

Both players contract are great. :tu

Danny Green has accepted a very Spurs' friendly contract. His contract next year is fully unguaranteed.

Spurs have used a part of their remaining MLE to sign Butler. Thanks to that he is under contract for two more years. These years are fully unguaranteed which is great for Spurs. To have Butler signing a contract like that, they have given him more money this year than a minimum contract ($125K instead of $55K). It a small price to pay given that Spurs remain below the tax threshold.

Spurs coaching staff will be able to evaluate both Green and Butler during the summer league (if there is one) and training camp for free. They won't have to rush things to evaluate them which is great for them.

[benefactor]

Nice. Butler could be an awesome steal if he comes back all the way from his injury.

The Spurs FO has been so Jekyll and Hyde lately when it comes to things like this. They either get a great deal or overvalue players and sign them to a bad deal.

[Libri]

Also, it looks like the Spurs are using some good psychology with Butler's contract. The fact that $700K+ for the 2011-12 season is unguaranteed gives Butler some motivation and an incentive. He will have to work hard this summer in order to earn next season's paycheck.

[elemento]

Yeah, that was a nice move. Low-risk, high-reward.

Too bad we're still stuck with Jefferson and Bonner contracts.

[elemento]

ShamSports.com (http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/spurs.jsp) has now the details of Green and Butler contracts. I've updated the first post.

Both players contract are great. :tu

Danny Green has accepted a very Spurs' friendly contract. His contract next year is fully unguaranteed.

Spurs have used a part of their remaining MLE to sign Butler. Thanks to that he is under contract for two more years. These years are fully unguaranteed which is great for Spurs. To have Butler signing a contract like that, they have given him more money this year than a minimum contract ($125K instead of $55K). It a small price to pay given that Spurs remain below the tax threshold.

Spurs coaching staff will be able to evaluate both Green and Butler during the summer league (if there is one) and training camp for free. They won't have to rush things to evaluate them which is great for them.

Bruno

What is the Spurs financial situation for the next season ?

I heard we are going to pay the lux tax unless Timmy restructure his contract. But if Mcdyess retires, wouldnt it let the Spurs below the lux tax ?

[Bruno]

Bruno

What is the Spurs financial situation for the next season ?

I heard we are going to pay the lux tax unless Timmy restructure his contract. But if Mcdyess retires, wouldnt it let the Spurs below the lux tax ?

If Dice retire, Spurs will still pay him the guaranteed part of his contract ($2.64M).

If what is expected happens (Dice retire, Spurs keep Blair and neal), Spurs payroll will be $70.3M for 10 players (Parker, Hill, Ginobili, Neal, Jefferson, Anderson, Blair, Bonner, Duncan and Splitter). Even if Spurs fill their roster in the cheapest way possible, they payroll will be at least $72M.

There will have a new CBA so it's hard to tell about the precise effect of that payroll. However, it's not good. $72M is a ton of money for team like Spurs with a small market and who isn't a true contender anymore. Don't expect Spurs spending a lot this summer. You should be even be ready to see some financial moves like Spurs trading their 29th pick for some cash.

Duncan restructuring his contract could help to give Spurs some flexibility but even with that, Spurs are in a though spot financially wise with a lot of big long term contracts.

[elemento]

Look at this Bruno

http://www.redsarmy.com/home/2010/06/what-rasheeds-retirement-means-to-bostons-salary-cap-figure.html

It basically explains the Rashed Wallace situation last season. (i guess we have the same situation with Dice right?)

They say if the player files retirement paper, he forfeits any remaining salary and the salary come off the team's book.

I mean, its just too weird to still pay a player if he retires.

Of couse u know a lot more than i do about NBA salaries and stuff so i just would like to know how all the Dice situation works

ty in advance

[Bruno]

That's true.
When a player retires without medical reason, he has to forfeit his remaining salaries.

Dice is a special case.
In 2009, when he signed with Spurs, he clearly stated that he wanted to only play 2 more years. He should have signed a 2 years full MLE contract. However, Spurs wanted to keep a part of their MLE to sign DeJuan Blair to a long term contract (4 years while LLE or min contracts are limited to 2 years). Spurs made a gentlemen agreement with Dice: instead of 2 years full MLE, he signed for less than the full MLE but with a third year partially guaranteed to cover the loss in salary of the first two years of his contract.
After 2 years, Dice effectively want to retire. Spurs should and will respect the gentlemen agreement they made with him.

[elemento]

I did not know about this gentleman agreement.

Now i got it !

Man the more i know about it, the more i get upset about Richard Jefferson and Matt Bonner contracts.

Anyway, ty for the explanation !

[objective]

I came across something in Coon's cap faq that makes me wonder about some scenarios I've heard with Duncan in the media and on the board. It might have been addressed and I just missed it.

For instance on the NBA Today podcast they were talking this past week about Duncan doing his ETO and just getting a different deal over more years. Makes sense. Jefferson had a player's option iirc and did something simliar unfortunately.

But I saw this in Coon's faq about the differences between a Player's Option and an ETO:


A contract with a player option can be extended when the option is not exercised. A contract with an ETO may not be extended if the ETO is exercised.

Does that mean that the Spurs wouldn't be able to work a smaller deal with Duncan, like 3/35 or something like that? Being over the cap, would the Spurs not have enough room to give him an extension . . . or would they still have their Bird rights and could give him a "new" deal like people are discussing and the quoted portion doesn't matter?

[Bruno]

Does that mean that the Spurs wouldn't be able to work a smaller deal with Duncan, like 3/35 or something like that? Being over the cap, would the Spurs not have enough room to give him an extension . . . or would they still have their Bird rights and could give him a "new" deal like people are discussing and the quoted portion doesn't matter?

That's something I didn't knew and it's not a good news for Spurs.

It means that Duncan won't be able to opt out and then immediately after it sign a more reasonable contract extension. If Duncan agrees to restructure his contract, he will have to opt out before July 1st and then wait either the end of the July moratorium or the end of the lockout to sign a new deal.

I don't know if Duncan would use his ETO if there isn't a new CBA agreed by the end of June. It will be very risky for him to walk away from $21.2M and wait an undisclosed amount of months before being able to sign a new contract. For example, what would happen if he had a career ending injury in a practice during the lockout? Does Tim trust Spurs enough to think that they will stick to their word and give him something like $30M while he is done?

[dbestpro]

If next year is lost to the lockout would the contracts just move on to the next year? In other words RJ would only have two more years under contract, rather than three?

[MaNu4Tres]

In other words RJ would only have two more years under contract, rather than three?

Correct.

[boo_radley]

After 2 years, Dice effectively want to retire. Spurs should and will respect the gentlemen agreement they made with him.
Might there be a way around this? Say maybe trade him to a team under the cap for a Second Round pick and offer to pay the guaranteed portion, after which Dyess then retires...sort of like Bowen did once traded

[Mel_13]

Might there be a way around this? Say maybe trade him to a team under the cap for a Second Round pick and offer to pay the guaranteed portion, after which Dyess then retires...sort of like Bowen did once traded

Depends on your goal. Are you seeking to decrease tax liability or improve the roster?

[boo_radley]

Depends on your goal. Are you seeking to decrease tax liability or improve the roster?
Improving the roster should be the number one goal, but the way I asked that question made it seem more about the liability issue

[tdunk21]

if timmy opts out and dice retires, should that clear 26 mil on the payroll? coz timmy makes 21mil and dice makes 5 mil....

[ChuckD]

if timmy opts out and dice retires, should that clear 26 mil on the payroll? coz timmy makes 21mil and dice makes 5 mil....

Timmy opting out has no effect, since there would be a "cap hold" placed on the Spurs equal to at least his salary, if not more. Every loophole you think you see, some team has used, and then the NBA closed it. Phoenix once let all of their contracts expire, signed some new players, and then re-signed their own. That was the end of that. Each player now has a cap figure, even when they are a FA, until they are signed, re-signed, or renounced. In addition, each empty slot has a cap hold of a minimum salary figure.

[tdunk21]

Timmy opting out has no effect, since there would be a "cap hold" placed on the Spurs equal to at least his salary, if not more. Every loophole you think you see, some team has used, and then the NBA closed it. Phoenix once let all of their contracts expire, signed some new players, and then re-signed their own. That was the end of that. Each player now has a cap figure, even when they are a FA, until they are signed, re-signed, or renounced. In addition, each empty slot has a cap hold of a minimum salary figure.

asked shamsports the same question and sham says it clears 23 million....

[CGD]

Trying to get a sense of the cap situation for next year. Does anyone know if/when the 2011-2012 figures are/will be available?