Spurs Salaries, 2011-2012 Edition

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

There's no way the Spurs dump Manu's contract or amnesty him, they're not that dumb.

[Bruno]

A couple of things about the new CBA after a quick read of Larry Coon's FAQ.

* First, the biggest change for Spurs this summer is regarding Danny Green Qualifying Offer.

https://webfiles.uci.edu/lcoon/cbafaq/salarycap.htm#Q46

the player may qualify for a higher or lower qualifying offer based on whether or not he met the "starter criteria" in the previous season, or in the average of the previous two seasons. The starter criteria are based on starting 41 games or playing at least 2,000 minutes in the regular season.

Danny Green has started 38 games of a 66 games season. He met the "starter criteria".

If a second round pick or undrafted player met the starter criteria following his second or third season in the league, his qualifying offer equals the amount of the qualifying offer applicable to the 21st pick in the first round of the same draft class, if this amount is higher than the qualifying offer he otherwise would have received.

Green was a second round pick of the 2009 draft. His qualifying offer is $3,342,175. It's fully guaranteed like all the QO in the new CBA.

This biggest QO has two consequences. It's less obvious for Spurs to tender the QO but given how well Green has played, they will likely offer it. If Green doesn't get a contract offer he likes this summer, it will be easier for him to accept the QO and try again to get a big contract next summer when he will be an UFA.


* Second, there are a rule change regarding international first round picks:
https://webfiles.uci.edu/lcoon/cbafaq/salarycap.htm#Q50

An unsigned first round pick is removed from team salary if the team and player both agree in writing not to sign any contract through the following June 30. The scale amount is returned to the team salary the following July 1.

In the previous CBA, an unsigned first round pick eat cap space during the summer even if he was under contract with another team overseas. It has changed now and it would push to more draft and stash with first round picks.

If Spurs are below the cap in 2013 and 2014, they might be reluctant to reduce their cap space with a first round draft pick. In the past their only choice was to trade the pick like they did in 2003 with Josh Howard. They might now draft an international player who doesn't intend to join the NBA the next year (like Mahinmi or Splitter) and keep their whole cap space.

[elemento]

Nice Bruno

I've read it a bit and it looks like we won't be able to use both MLE and new level (the one that starts in 2.5m). I know some guys wanted to bring Diaw back with the MLE and then try to bring Lorbek with this new midlevel, but that won't be possible. Bottom line, we're gonna have to choose between Diaw or Lorbek

[Bruno]

I've read it a bit and it looks like we won't be able to use both MLE and new level (the one that starts in 2.5m). I know some guys wanted to bring Diaw back with the MLE and then try to bring Lorbek with this new midlevel, but that won't be possible. Bottom line, we're gonna have to choose between Diaw or Lorbek

Well, there is still the LLE at around $2M per year for Lorbek if Spurs spend their MLE on someone else. It might not be enough money but it isn't a ridiculous offer too.

Even if Spurs still have their MLE available, I'm not sure they would be ready to offer Lorbek a Splitter-like contract. Lorbek could very well end up as a bust in the NBA because he is a bad athlete. Spurs are too the best offensive team in the league, they might be not that interested in bringing an offensive minded player like Lorbek.

[yavozerb]

Nice Bruno

I've read it a bit and it looks like we won't be able to use both MLE and new level (the one that starts in 2.5m). I know some guys wanted to bring Diaw back with the MLE and then try to bring Lorbek with this new midlevel, but that won't be possible. Bottom line, we're gonna have to choose between Diaw or Lorbek

If it does indeed come down to these 2 players I believe it is no brainer to sign Diaw as long as his salary is acceptable to the spurs offseason plan. I am holding out hope that the spurs FO knows something you guys do not and it is indeed possible. Is it still possible to sign Green if Diaw gets paid the mle?

[elemento]

Yes it's possible to bring back Green back because we have his early bird rights.

The only concern i have right now about Green is his bigger QO as Bruno explained before. We will be really close to the tax limit if we bring back Diaw with the full MLE and Duncan signs a 10-12m contract/year.

[yavozerb]

I never heard or saw anything pertaining to Blairs team option for next season being picked up. I also noticed hoopshype still has next season as an option as well and JA confirmed as FA. Just wondering..

[tesseractive]

Danny Green has started 38 games of a 66 games season. He met the "starter criteria".

Do we know that the 41-game requirement is prorated in this way? Or is it possible that he doesn't meet it simply because he didn't start 41 actual games, regardless of the length of the season?

[Bruno]

Do we know that the 41-game requirement is prorated in this way? Or is it possible that he doesn't meet it simply because he didn't start 41 actual games, regardless of the length of the season?

No, Yes.

Larry coon has an item about the pro-ration in his FAQ https://webfiles.uci.edu/lcoon/cbafaq/salarycap.htm#Q11 but he doesn't talk about the starter criteria.

To me, it seems more logical that the 41 games are pro-rated to 33 games but I'm far from being 100% sure of that.

[tesseractive]

No, Yes.

Larry coon has an item about the pro-ration in his FAQ https://webfiles.uci.edu/lcoon/cbafaq/salarycap.htm#Q11 but he doesn't talk about the starter criteria.

To me, it seems more logical that the 41 games are pro-rated to 33 games but I'm far from being 100% sure of that.

Thanks, Bruno. I agree that common sense would dictate that it should be pro-rated, but contract law frequently has nothing to do with common sense.

[TDMVPDPOY]

the league rules are fkn when teams dont get compensated for losing players cause they cant fit them into their cap...

[elemento]

I never heard or saw anything pertaining to Blairs team option for next season being picked up. I also noticed hoopshype still has next season as an option as well and JA confirmed as FA. Just wondering..

Blair's contract is simply fully non-guaranteed. If The Spurs don't want him for the next season they'll just waive him before November 1st. Considering his low salary (1m), I don't see the Spurs doing it at all. Trading him is a possibility though.

Anderson is gone.

[yavozerb]

Blair's contract is simply fully non-guaranteed. If The Spurs don't want him for the next season they'll just waive him before November 1st. Considering his low salary (1m), I don't see the Spurs doing it at all. Trading him is a possibility though.

Anderson is gone.

Thanks.. Not sure if that 1m would make a difference or not on any FA signings. Hard to say if I prefer Lorbek/Diaw over Blair/Bonner to tell you the truth. Just have to wait and see I guess....

[CGD]

Just catching up with the recent posts; thanks for the analysis Bruno. I dont view Lorbek starting at 2M as unreasonable, though, I recognize it is on the lower end. Certainly Diaw's emergence complicates his leverage.

Could someone please clarify how the LLE/mini-MLE (whatever the new name) can be used as the basis for a multiyear deal? Suppose Lorbek signs to a multiyear deal starting at 2M, does the LLE condition what the Spurs can offer him in the subsequent years of the deal?

Put differently what is preventing the Spurs from offering Lorbek a guaranteed 3 year deal valued at 10M (like Splitter), where in year 2 and 3 he earns a total of 8M? Or , a team option in year two for 3M, and a player option for year 3 for 5M. [I'm assuming for this hypothetical that the Spurs have the requisite cap space in 2013 and beyond]

[Mel_13]

Just catching up with the recent posts; thanks for the analysis Bruno. I dont view Lorbek starting at 2M as unreasonable, though, I recognize it is on the lower end. Certainly Diaw's emergence complicates his leverage.

Could someone please clarify how the LLE/mini-MLE (whatever the new name) can be used as the basis for a multiyear deal? Suppose Lorbek signs to a multiyear deal starting at 2M, does the LLE condition what the Spurs can offer him in the subsequent years of the deal?

Put differently what is preventing the Spurs from offering Lorbek a guaranteed 3 year deal valued at 10M (like Splitter), where in year 2 and 3 he earns a total of 8M? Or , a team option in year two for 3M, and a player option for year 3 for 5M. [I'm assuming for this hypothetical that the Spurs have the requisite cap space in 2013 and beyond]

The BAE(LLE) is an exception that has a maximum length of two years and and maximum total value of 4M.

The large increases you suggest are not possible as annual increases are capped at 4.5% in almost all free agent deals.

Everything you could ever need to know about salary cap exceptions:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q25

[CGD]

The BAE(LLE) is an exception that has a maximum length of two years and and maximum total value of 4M.

The large increases you suggest are not possible as annual increases are capped at 4.5% in almost all free agent deals.

Everything you could ever need to know about salary cap exceptions:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q25

Sweet thanks! So for Lorbek it's really about earning potential 2 years from now, versus what he can get if he plays his prime out in Europe. Bigs have been translating well in the nba, so it maybe worth it to him to be an ufa After two years in order to earn more. To compare, What would a top player in Europe fetch these days and for how many years?

[Mel_13]

Sham has updated his salary pages. Reflects the change to Green's QO discussed above:

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pa...ries/index.jsp

[pad300]

As I understand the trade/salary cap rules:

1) It is not legal to trade establishing a future position such that a team will not draft in the 1st round 2 years in a row. (this is the essence of the Ted Stepien rule)

2) You can't trade back a player you just traded: eg. Team A can't trade player X (salarly $2 M) to team B for a TE, and then have Team B trade back player X and player y (salary $3 M) for player Z (Salary $6.3 M < 1.25*(2+3 M) + $0.1M)
(in other words, this is not allowed as it is effectively trading Player Y (salary $3M) for Player Z (salary $6.3 M), in violation of the 125% salary cap rule on trading.)

Ok, now to play games. Can you get away with a scenario like the following?

SAS trades to team CLE, a 2013 1st for team CLE's 2012 1st, #4 (This is legal, as SAS will not be in a position not to pick in both 2012 and 2013. Just trading SAS's 1st would be illegal, as it would break 1 above, having already traded the 2012 pick to GSW).

SAS drafts player X at #4 in 2012, and signs them.

SAS trades Player X ($3,105,500 #4 rookie scale) + Bonner ($3,630,000) + Neal ($854,389) to CLE, for Anderson Varejao ($8,368,182) (this is within the 125% rule for trading)

Note that SAS would draft player X at CLE's direction.

Net this is SAS 2013 1st, Bonner and Neal for Varejao.

By trading before and after the draft, SAS has effect a) violated the Stepien rule by trading out the 1st round in consecutive years, and b) traded Bonner + Neal + 2013 1st for Varejao, which would be a violation of the 125% rule.

Bruno, as the local Salary Cap guru, is this a legal stunt you can pull to get around the CBA?

[Bruno]

Thanks, Bruno. I agree that common sense would dictate that it should be pro-rated, but contract law frequently has nothing to do with common sense.

It's confirmed that they have followed the common sense.
https://twitter.com/SeanDeveney/stat...88389187207168

NBA confirms that ‪#Spurs‬ G D Green, a RFA this summer, DID meet ‘starter criteria’ by starting 38 gms. CBA says 41, but will be prorated.

[Bruno]

As I understand the trade/salary cap rules:

1) It is not legal to trade establishing a future position such that a team will not draft in the 1st round 2 years in a row. (this is the essence of the Ted Stepien rule)

2) You can't trade back a player you just traded: eg. Team A can't trade player X (salarly $2 M) to team B for a TE, and then have Team B trade back player X and player y (salary $3 M) for player Z (Salary $6.3 M < 1.25*(2+3 M) + $0.1M)
(in other words, this is not allowed as it is effectively trading Player Y (salary $3M) for Player Z (salary $6.3 M), in violation of the 125% salary cap rule on trading.)

Ok, now to play games. Can you get away with a scenario like the following?

SAS trades to team CLE, a 2013 1st for team CLE's 2012 1st, #4 (This is legal, as SAS will not be in a position not to pick in both 2012 and 2013. Just trading SAS's 1st would be illegal, as it would break 1 above, having already traded the 2012 pick to GSW).

SAS drafts player X at #4 in 2012, and signs them.

SAS trades Player X ($3,105,500 #4 rookie scale) + Bonner ($3,630,000) + Neal ($854,389) to CLE, for Anderson Varejao ($8,368,182) (this is within the 125% rule for trading)

Note that SAS would draft player X at CLE's direction.

Net this is SAS 2013 1st, Bonner and Neal for Varejao.

By trading before and after the draft, SAS has effect a) violated the Stepien rule by trading out the 1st round in consecutive years, and b) traded Bonner + Neal + 2013 1st for Varejao, which would be a violation of the 125% rule.

Bruno, as the local Salary Cap guru, is this a legal stunt you can pull to get around the CBA?

Wow, that's awfully complicated.

Even if your scenario respected every CBA rules, it still wouldn't work. There is a rule in the CBA saying that trades should respect the spirit of the CBA and your trade didn't. If your remember well, the league nixed a first Kidd to Mavs trade because it included Stackhouse who said that he would be back to Mavs after 30 days. Your scenario is against the spirit of the CBA in many ways.

Some other details:
- The Ted Stepien rule says team can't trade future consecutive first round picks. Spurs can very well trade their 2013 first round pick on draft day or in July because the 2012 pick will then be a past pick.
- If you sign a rookie, you had to wait 30 days before trading him. You cna't do some sort of S&T with a rookie.

Saying that, if you want to do your trade, it's relatively easy to do.
Trade rules have changed and have given more flexibility for teams below the tax: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q81
These trades would work under the CBA in July:
- Bonner + Joseph + Neal + 2013 first for Varejao.
- Bonner + Joseph + Byars + 2013 first for Varejao.

[tesseractive]

Saying that, if you want to do your trade, it's relatively easy to do.
Trade rules have changed and have given more flexibility for teams below the tax: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q81
These trades would work under the CBA in July:
- Bonner + Joseph + Neal + 2013 first for Varejao.
- Bonner + Joseph + Byars + 2013 first for Varejao.

Would Cleveland really have any interest in trading Varejao for a low 2013 pick and a bunch of crap?

[Bruno]

Would Cleveland really have any interest in trading Varejao for a low 2013 pick and a bunch of crap?

Yeah, I doubt Cleveland would do that kind of trades.

[Bruno]

Green was a second round pick of the 2009 draft. His qualifying offer is $3,342,175. It's fully guaranteed like all the QO in the new CBA.

Correction: Green QO will be $2,695,391.
http://www.hoopsrumors.com/2012/05/q...-criteria.html

[CGD]

So James Anderson's contract...

I know the guy will become a UFA on July 1st. Is it possible however, for the Spurs to use him in a draft day trade 3 days earlier on June 28th, with a team looking to save a little bit of cap space in subsequent years? Or did the ability to do that expire when the team failed to pick up his option?

[lurker23]

So James Anderson's contract...

I know the guy will become a UFA on July 1st. Is it possible however, for the Spurs to use him in a draft day trade 3 days earlier on June 28th, with a team looking to save a little bit of cap space in subsequent years? Or did the ability to do that expire when the team failed to pick up his option?

The last chance the Spurs had to trade James Anderson was the trade deadline during the season. Beyond that, teams can't trade players who aren't under contract for next year, even if their season is over.