Reply With Quote
Now you fools can give them your money.
They ain't mutually exclusive, daddy-O.
Now you fools can give them your money.
The players had that 2,000 milllion dollars and managed to somehow piss it away. Let the owners hold it for 10 years. See what happens.
Official NBA agreement do ent:
http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports...-do ent.html
There are now clearly 2 sets of rules fro teams depending on whether they are or not over the tax (or $4M over the tax for certain rules).
Non tax paying teams:
- true MLE: $5M/4years
- LLE: $1.9M/2 years, can't be used in consecutive years
- can get players through a S&T
- can't take more than 150%+$100k in a trade
Tax paying teams:
- mini MLE: $3M/3years
- no LLE
- can't get players through a S&T
- can't take more than 125%+$100k in a trade
Add to that:
- incremental luxury tax that is very stiff
- repeater tax
- teams can't give more than $3M in cash per year
Big market teams are screwed by this agreement. They can go over the tax but it will cost them tons of money and they will be trapped in a situation where they can't improve their team by any means. It isn't a true hard cap but it will be almost as effective as it.
At what grocery store ?
Probably donate it all to Rick Perry, like Peter Holt does.
It'd be money down a rat hole. Perry stepped out the door when he sided illegals. That was his ELE.Probably donate it all to Rick Perry, like Peter Holt does.
No big changes to exceptions for these teams, but that trade percentage went up from 125%+100K, to 150%+100K which is significant as far as %'s go.
Huge difference in exceptions for tax teams. That mini MLE will really hurt tax teams looking to add FA's. With no increase in trade % like non-tax teams, the difference in money could make a very big difference. We will see how much big markets truly effect decisions over money. When it was all else being equal it was easy. When you are deciding on a lot of money, it's not.Tax paying teams:
- mini MLE: $3M/3years
- no LLE
- can't get players through a S&T
- can't take more than 125%+$100k in a trade
Add to that:
- incremental luxury tax that is very stiff
- repeater tax
- teams can't give more than $3M in cash per year
Somewhat agree. It's still a small % of teams that are taxpayers. I actually think that some teams (LA...) who will make money no matter what will end up with a really stacked team and it will be an ultra elite class (2-3 teams), then a bunch of parity compared to there being about 6-8 big spenders and then a group of 5-8 teams that are compe ive with lower payrolls, then the bottom dwellers like it has been.Big market teams are screwed by this agreement. They can go over the tax but it will cost them tons of money and they will be trapped in a situation where they can't improve their team by any means. It isn't a true hard cap but it will be almost as effective as it.
The taxpayers can improve, but it will have to come through trade. The% didn't go down for anyone, so they can trade as they have before.
I also like they got rid of BYC in trades. What is crazy is the if a team is a taxpayer 4 out of any 5 years:
"Tax rates for teams that are taxpayers in at least 4 out of any 5 seasons (starting in 2011-12) increase by $1 at each increment (e.g., for team salary $5M-$10M above the Tax level, the Tax rate for a repeat taxpayer is $2.75-for-$1 instead of $1.75-for-$1)."
This is the tax from now on:
In years 1 and 2, Tax rate for teams with team salary above Tax level is $1-for-$1 (same as 2005 CBA).
Beginning in year 3, Tax rates for teams with team salary above Tax level are as follows:
Incremental Team Salary Above Tax Level Tax Rate
$0M 5M $1.50-for-$1
$5M 10M $1.75-for-$1
$10M 15M $2.50-for-$1
$15M 20M $3.25-for-$1
If you a large tax payer ($4M or more over LT), you can't do Sign and Trades. So if you are a tax payer and you want to get a FA via sign and trade from another team, if you are already over 4M over the LT or the trade would put you there, you can't do it.
No Dwight to LA.
Edit: I'm a dummy. Extend and trades are still valid and that is the situation with Dwight, not a sign and trade. LA could still get him.
Last edited by DPG21920; 11-27-2011 at 01:00 PM.
The emotion & spirit of this CBA is just as important as the "numbers." 2 year grace period to get your straight. Stern held our hand for 30 years. Now he's holding "their" hand.
In the blink of a Saturday morning, everything that came 25 years before it was wiped out.
There is still nuclear winter, it's just on the player's side exclusively now.
Some important things: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/sp...ml?_r=1&src=tp
Ά Flexibility for high-payroll teams: The league agreed to create a $4 million cushion, or apron, that will allow teams near the luxury-tax threshold to use the full midlevel exception and to acquire players in sign-and-trade deals.
The league had sought to ban teams from using those measures if doing so pushed them even one dollar over the tax line. Now, a team with a $69 million payroll ($1 million below the tax threshold) will be permitted to use the full, $5 million exception, pushing its payroll to $74 million, or $4 million over the line. A team at $69.5 million would be limited to just $4.5 million of the exception.
The same framework will apply for teams acquiring a player in a sign-and-trade deal.
Options and trades: The league dropped its ban on player options and extend-and-trade deals. But a player who wants an extension as part of a trade will be limited to three years, instead of four, with raises of 4.5 percent, instead of 7.5 percent.
Bruno, with the Extend and Trade vs Sign & Trade, are there no restrictions on the E&T like the S&T with what has been reported?
Meaning that in a Dwight to LA scenario, it could be done with no real problems (from a CBA perspective) with LA being so far over the cap?
Also, another question Bruno:
If a team amnesties a player and he clears waivers, that player can go to any team, correct? At that point, the team can pay whatever they want to the player. What do they have to pay a player if they claim him?
Orlando is much more in control, though. All they have to do is keep their offer on the table until his contract expires. Once that happens, LA cannot get him. His choices will be to go somewhere else, probably a bad team, for less, or stay in ORL.
There is the restriction that the extension can only add an additional 2 years.
The most realistic Howard to LA scenario is a simple trade. In 2013, Howard would be a FA and Lakers could re-sign him to about a $120M/5years contract using their bird rights on him. In a extend and trade deal, Howard would only receive about $40M over 2 years.
An amnestied player won't be able to re-sign with his former team. He can sign with the other 29 teams for whatever contract he can get.
I guess the special waiving procedure for amnestied players will use a silent auction system. Teams with cap space will say what percentage of his previous contract they are ready to pay. The team ready to pay the highest percentage will get the player.
For example, RJ's contract is:
11-12: $7.5M (with the pro-ration)
12-13: $10.2M
13-14: $11M (player option)
If the wining team of the silent auction got him at 40%, his contract wiht his new team will be:
11-12: $3M
12-13: $4.1M
13-14: $4.4M (player option)
the remaining 60% of his contract will be paid by Spurs.
It will be interesting to get more details because right now it doesn't seem clear to me. There is a lot riding on how the waiver system will work.
Am I missing something? Then why would the Extend and Trades be such a big deal if players can just do this?
It's less easy to do for a player because he will play months without an extension and risks an injury that will cost him his new big contract. It's also less comfortable for the franchise because the player will hit FA and can be stolen by a third team.
Saying that, the new extend and trade rule won't really change the NBA landscape. It's a little item of the new CBA. Even under the previous CBA, these extend and trade deal were very rare with only, I think, 2 made during the whole former CBA (Garnett to Boston and Melo to NY).
I agree, but that is what was confusing. Teams, if they are afraid of losing a guy for nothing could just do a normal trade and get something in return vs doing an extend and trade.
I know that the player can say "If you trade me, I won't sign an extension with x team...", but when you are dealing with an LA or such, I can't see that coming into play.
Will the Spurs get the full MLE?
Yeah, this limitation of extend and trade is more of a symbolic rule in response to what Melo did with Denver.
The main change that will truly impact the league is the new luxury tax. That's the key of whole new CBA to have a more balanced league. The mini MLE and the no S&T rule will also have an impact but it will be a more limited one.
If they don't use the amnesty rule, they won't have the full MLE.
If Dice retires and that contract comes off the books, will they then be under the cap?
Also, will Leonard contract cost more than what was due to Hill, being he's a first rounder?
Spurs are at $74,426,140 with Dice, If he retires, they will still be over the cap, but under the LT line with $69,206,140 (assuming it's the same as last season). If that is the case, teams can use the MLE up to the point where it would take you 4M over the LT line. So for a team to have the full MLE, you would have to have starting cap number of $69,000,000 or less. A team like the Spurs at $69,206,140 would only have ~$4.7M of the MLE to use.
With regards to Leonard/Hill: In 2010, Larry Sanders was drafted 15th and given 120% of the rookie scale which equates to $1.7M. Hill is owed $1.4M.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions