PDA

View Full Version : Jazz: A quick update on Kobe’s extension and the Lakers’ cap space



Buddy Mignon
11-25-2013, 01:11 PM
Today the Lakers announced that they have extended Kobe Bryant for two seasons. Terms were not announced, but Ramona Shelburne reported that he will make $23.5 million and $25 million, respectively.
Two years is the longest extension he could have signed due to the Over-36 rule. This rule takes effect when a contract is for more than three seasons and ends after the player’s 36th birthday, effectively mooting the salary in the later seasons. For extensions they always count the remaining seasons on the current contract — so Kobe now effectively has a three-year contract, which is the maximum allowed per the Over-36 rule. See Question number 56 (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q56)of my FAQ for more information on this rule.
So where does this leave the team with respect to the 2014 free agent market? The players on the team’s books next summer are as follows:


Player
Salary
Note


Kobe Bryant
$23,500,000
Salary is approximate


Elias Harris
$816,482
Non-guaranteed


Steve Nash
$9,701,000



Robert Sacre
$915,243



Nick Young
$1,227,985
Player option


The salary cap next summer is projected to be $62.9 million. The Lakers will also have their own first round draft pick. Based on their current record, this pick would fall around #15, and would therefore count around $1.5 million against their cap.This would give them a total of about $37.66 million for six players. We need to add another six cap holds totaling $3,04 million, which brings the total to about $40,70 million.
With this team salary, the Lakers would have about $22.2 million in cap room next summer. This will be enough for one maximum-salary player — for example, Carmelo Anthony is eligible to receive up to $22,458,401. While this is slightly above the Lakers’ maximum, there are other things the team can do to create more cap room if Anthony doesn’t want to take slightly less than the amount for which he ls eligible.
The team can save a small amount if it waives Elias Harris’ non-guaranteed salary. A larger savings will come if they waive Steve Nash and utilize the Stretch provision on him. If this happens, only $3.23 million of Nash’s full $9.7 million salary will remain on their books.
If they remove both Harris and Nash, their team salary will drop to about $34.44 million, which would give them about $28.46 million in cap room. This would give them the opportunity to sign one maximum-salary player, and a second player at around the mid-level amount.They would also be eligible to utilize the Room Mid-Level exception for around $2.7 million.
However, this assumes they let all of their free agents walk, including Pau Gasol, Steve Blake, Jordan Farmar, Xavier Henry, Jordan Hill, Chris Kaman, and Jodie Meeks. If the wish to retain any of these players, they will remain on the team’s cap — in fact, Gasol’s cap hold alone will eat up most of the team’s cap room. To free up the potential cap room, these players will have to either:
a) Re-sign with the Lakers, in which case their new salary will count against the team’s cap, which will reduce their cap room for signing free agents.
b) Sign elsewhere, in which case they will be lost.
c) Be renounced by the Lakers, in which case the team loses the ability to sign them using Bird rights.
Let’s say the Lakers really wanted to keep Gasol.While he’s an unrenounced free agent he would count about $20.25 million against the team’s cap, reducing their cap room to about $8.75 million. If he re-signs and takes a one-third discount (similar to what Kobe took) he’d receive about $13 million, which would drop the team’s cap room to about $16 million. If they renounce him they can reclaim the entire $28+ million, but then he’d have to be willing to sign for whatever cap space remains after the team signs other free agents.
So if the Lakers are going to follow-through with their 2014 plan, keeping Gasol would likely require him to take a steep discount.

http://cbafaq.com/blog/?p=286

Killakobe81
11-25-2013, 01:29 PM
Yep. This makes little sense. Unless they plan to tank or make a trade.

RsxPiimp
11-25-2013, 01:29 PM
Since Kobe's contract is a done deal, Nash retiring in the off season would make or break the Lakers flexibility. That's an extra $9 million off the books.

spurraider21
11-25-2013, 01:31 PM
they'll just waive him with the stretch provision

Koolaid_Man
11-25-2013, 01:33 PM
Pau and Nash are goners plain and simple..this article is saying nothing I haven't already

Mal
11-25-2013, 01:33 PM
Go Mitch bring Melo in. It would be too much fun watching Lakers then.

Michael Jordan.
11-25-2013, 01:35 PM
And they begged Dwight to stay to capfuck them even more :rollin

irishock
11-25-2013, 01:47 PM
:lol Lakaluva turning on his master

DPG21920
11-25-2013, 01:58 PM
Pau and Nash are goners plain and simple..this article is saying nothing I haven't already

:lmao. You made up some stuff, DPG schooled you on how life really works, then you just shift the goalposts. You are really upset about your boy Mamba aren't you Capri? If it wasn't for your Mamba practice video release none of this would have happened. It's on you Capri.

Captivus
11-25-2013, 02:01 PM
Question:
Where does the number 6 comes from? Im talking about the cap holds?

spurraider21
11-25-2013, 02:05 PM
Question:
Where does the number 6 comes from? Im talking about the cap holds?
they need to fill at least 6 more roster spots, each of which has a minimum salary. you cant spend 100% of your cap while you have empty roster spots, so they put a minimum-salary hold on each unused roster spot

Captivus
11-25-2013, 02:21 PM
they need to fill at least 6 more roster spots, each of which has a minimum salary. you cant spend 100% of your cap while you have empty roster spots, so they put a minimum-salary hold on each unused roster spot

Ok, but how many?
They have 5 + Pick + 6 = 12.
This plus FA equals 13 players. Is that the number? Why not 15? Im clearly missing something CBA related (im not an expert).

spurraider21
11-25-2013, 02:23 PM
Ok, but how many?
They have 5 + Pick + 6 = 12.
This plus FA equals 13 players. Is that the number? Why not 15? Im clearly missing something CBA related (im not an expert).
15 is the roster maximum. you only have cap holds for the roster minimum number

Captivus
11-25-2013, 02:28 PM
15 is the roster maximum. you only have cap holds for the roster minimum number

Thanks, I was looking at the CBA faq and was confused about that number. I found the number 13 but also others.
So assuming 13 is not the probable scenario, right? Its probably 15.

Splits
11-25-2013, 02:48 PM
12 is min players used for calculating cap holds. 5 contracts + 1 draft + 6 cap holds. If you sign a FA, then you only have 5 cap holds etc etc

Arcadian
11-25-2013, 03:24 PM
:lol Jazz 1-14

:lol How the fuck do you lose 14 out of 15 games with professional athletes?

Chinook
11-25-2013, 03:25 PM
Thanks, I was looking at the CBA faq and was confused about that number. I found the number 13 but also others.
So assuming 13 is not the probable scenario, right? Its probably 15.

The min is 13. But the point of the roster charges is to partition the cap. So if a team has six players, then the league adds six roster charges, which essentially adds six other salaries, leaving the rest for the 13th player. Hope that makes sense.

Katherine Robinson
11-25-2013, 03:28 PM
:lol Jazz 1-14

:lol How the fuck do you lose 14 out of 15 games with professional athletes?

A very blatant tank job for Jabari Parker

Koolaid_Man
11-25-2013, 03:50 PM
Amare will make $23.4 million in 2014-15 and Joe Johnson will make $24.9 million in 2015-16. Kobe will top both...

Koolaid_Man
11-25-2013, 04:05 PM
if I've taught you guys nothing else remember one thing:

with the 3 billion dollar Time Warner deal Lakers have all the cash to afford going over the luxury tax–way....way over the tax–if and when they choose to....

Captivus
11-25-2013, 08:40 PM
The min is 13. But the point of the roster charges is to partition the cap. So if a team has six players, then the league adds six roster charges, which essentially adds six other salaries, leaving the rest for the 13th player. Hope that makes sense.

I wanna say "yes"...but...
What do you mean when you say "the league adds six roster charges"?
And why not 7, to reach the minimum o 13?
Is it right to say that the cost of this players is not going to be around 500K like the article assumes?

I really have to start reading that CBA more in detail!

DMC
11-25-2013, 08:42 PM
No it's a great deal. Kobe can win without any teammates. That's been the argument here from Lakerfans since whenever.

Koolaid_Man
11-25-2013, 08:43 PM
No it's a great deal. Kobe can win without any teammates. That's been the argument here from Lakerfans since whenever.

come on now baby...stop exaggerating

DPG21920
11-25-2013, 08:49 PM
I wanna say "yes"...but...
What do you mean when you say "the league adds six roster charges"?
And why not 7, to reach the minimum o 13?
Is it right to say that the cost of this players is not going to be around 500K like the article assumes?

I really have to start reading that CBA more in detail!

Maybe I can help. What he means by "adds 6 roster charges" is only in context of this Laker team and how many people are on their roster as of now in our examples. The roster charge is a way to not circumvent the salary cap by assuming they can't spend that cap space without accounting for at least league minimum roster charges to fill out their roster.

Captivus
11-25-2013, 08:54 PM
Maybe I can help. What he means by "adds 6 roster charges" is only in context of this Laker team and how many people are on their roster as of now in our examples. The roster charge is a way to not circumvent the salary cap by assuming they can't spend that cap space without accounting for at least league minimum roster charges to fill out their roster.

Ok, so the cap space the article uses is wrong, unless 6 players take the minimum, right?

DPG21920
11-25-2013, 08:56 PM
Ok, so the cap space the article uses is wrong, unless 6 players take the minimum, right?

The cap space is correct assuming the cap holds. Basically, what the article is saying is that if they want to have 28M in cap space, they would have to fill out their roster with minimum contracts. For every contract beyond that minimum, it would subtract from the cap space.

DPG21920
11-25-2013, 08:57 PM
If you are being really technical, they could actually fill out one other spot for about 2M instead of the league min the cap hold assumes because they could use the Base Annual Exception contract for one spot, but that is splitting hairs and not central to the point of the article.

Captivus
11-25-2013, 08:58 PM
The cap space is correct assuming the cap holds. Basically, what the article is saying is that if they want to have 28M in cap space, they would have to fill out their roster with minimum contracts. For every contract beyond that minimum, it would subtract from the cap space.

OK, what are the odds of that happening? Not only minimum contracts, but also 13 players and not 15.
Thanks for the help.

DPG21920
11-25-2013, 09:04 PM
OK, what are the odds of that happening? Not only minimum contracts, but also 13 players and not 15.
Thanks for the help.

Well, it's not required to have 15 players (Spurs for example usually carry 13-14 until the end of the year) so it's not uncommon to have 13.

Captivus
11-25-2013, 09:34 PM
Well, it's not required to have 15 players (Spurs for example usually carry 13-14 until the end of the year) so it's not uncommon to have 13.

Point taken.
Thx for the help. Dont go anywhere...I might need you in the future.

Chinook
11-25-2013, 11:30 PM
I wanna say "yes"...but...
What do you mean when you say "the league adds six roster charges"?
And why not 7, to reach the minimum o 13?
Is it right to say that the cost of this players is not going to be around 500K like the article assumes?

I really have to start reading that CBA more in detail!

No. The article is correct. By adding six roster charges, the league divides the cap space into seven parts. Essentially, teams must be able to pay 12 players before they can claim cap space. So the league adds 12 minus the number of players already signed roster charges rather than actually making the team sign those players to deals first.

For example, a person has 12 apples. He has to give then to seven different people, but he can decide who gets how many apples, provided everyone gets at least one. So before he can give out any apples, he has to divide them into seven baskets. By setting aside six apples at the start, he creates one group of six and six groups of one. He can redistribute the apples however he wants to after that, but the most he can give any one person is six.

In the NBA, the roster spots are the baskets, and the cap space is the apples. So long as each of the spots has at least $340k dedicated to it, everything is fine. So the Lakers have to divide their cap into seven slots, six with at least $340k and one with at most $22.2 Million.

tl;dr: You don't need to add a roster charge for the 13th spot, because that spot already has the remaining cap space allocated to it.

Rogue
11-25-2013, 11:32 PM
just like I originally predicted, Kobe wouldn't play for anything less than 20m a year

irishock
11-25-2013, 11:34 PM
It'll be hilarious if he has a Derek Jeter-like season.

Rogue
11-26-2013, 12:10 AM
I think it's kobe's huge ego rather than his greed that drove him to demand that money imho. He wanted the continuity of his pride more than he wanted money (which he already has plenty of). Like, he's Kobe Bryant so he tells himself that he has to be the highest paid player as long as he plays in the game. A player like him with such a huge ego would never settle in a role like the TOSB duncan plays on the spurs, earning 1/2 or even 1/3 what he used to make.

SpursBills
11-26-2013, 12:18 AM
those numbers in kobe's contract aren't arbitrary. 23.5 and 25 million represent the least amount of money kobe could take and still be the highest paid player in the league in 2014 and 2015 respectively. this is still some sad attempt by him to appear alpha as fuck

Michael Jordan.
03-20-2014, 12:49 AM
if I've taught you guys nothing else remember one thing:

with the 3 billion dollar Time Warner deal Lakers have all the cash to afford going over the luxury tax–way....way over the tax–if and when they choose to....
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kUXK6azldF0/UE5YveZFI7I/AAAAAAAACy8/xBXs1gccHFA/s1600/crazy-laughter.jpg