What's new
By:

Next Year's Cap Projected Downward

framer said:
Sacramento is absolutely going to suck, especially after losing Rondo and probably Gay at some point. The Nets are still going to blow, And Philly isn't climbing out of that basement on the back of their rookie. I'm not sure the Heat are going to be worth a plug nickel either. Also the Hornets look to suck hard. There's five teams that could easily have worse records than the Lakers. Additionally, even if they get the 3 pick, they could get aced out in the lottery as well.
Click to expand...

all possibilities. for sure. Lakers are right there. On paper, I like all the teams you mentioned better than Lakers (besides maybe SAC).
 
The cap for the 2017 offseason was expected by some to reach up to $110 million with teams highly anticipating the second substantial increase. The reason for the drop in cap is due to the unexpected rise in salaries.
Click to expand...

I can't believe no one has pointed out how stupid this is. The amount of salary being paid out has zero effect on the salary cap. The cap comes from BRI (basketball-related income), which includes tickets, TV, merchandise, etc. Expenses (like salaries) are *not* a factor in BRI.
 
One Brow said:
I can't believe no one has pointed out how stupid this is. The amount of salary being paid out has zero effect on the salary cap. The cap comes from BRI (basketball-related income), which includes tickets, TV, merchandise, etc. Expenses (like salaries) are *not* a factor in BRI.
Click to expand...
Hey you!
 
NAOS said:
FTR, I think the jazz have nailed this offseason. I was responding to empty-fanboy-level responses. That's it. I'm very optimistic. I'm just not polishing knobs.
Click to expand...

The worst thing about polishing knobs is that right after you get one nice and polished someone grabs it with their sticky fingers.


Every time
 
One Brow said:
I can't believe no one has pointed out how stupid this is. The amount of salary being paid out has zero effect on the salary cap. The cap comes from BRI (basketball-related income), which includes tickets, TV, merchandise, etc. Expenses (like salaries) are *not* a factor in BRI.
Click to expand...

Sigh, a certain percentage of BRI has to be paid to the players. Not equally by player or team of course, but the percentage is regulated by the salary cap. Once players' salary hits the targeted percentage of salary cap, the salary cap freezes (assuming no new BRI). Apparently, the salary cap is actually a higher number than the average of all teams because many teams have been far under the cap. Now that many of those teams have loaded up on high price free agents, the variance in team payrolls has decreased quite a bit, increasing the percentage of BRI being paid to the players. As this number increases, the salary cap will decrease (again assuming no great leap in overall BRI, which is mostly locked in by the television contracts.)

tl/dr- The more the players get paid by individual teams, the more the projected salary cap will decrease because their percentage of BRI will be met sooner.
 
There are four sections of Larry Coon's Salary Cap FAQ that cover how the salary cap is set and how the escrow system works: #13, #18, #19 and #20 (click on numbers for direct links).
 
NAOS said:
Hayward on a 5-year.... another blemish.

bUT wAiTT!1!1!! FANBOI!!!
Click to expand...
But remember the discussion that year by many on this board about believing his value was in the $8-$10m range? Tops was what Favors got.

Imagine the outrage had Utah stepped up with a 5/$75M contract. The cries would have been that Utah should have let the market determine his value, that they only outbid themselves because there was no way someone would have offered Gordon the max after the underwhelming season he had.
 
GVC said:
There are four sections of Larry Coon's Salary Cap FAQ that cover how the salary cap is set and how the escrow system works: #13, #18, #19 and #20 (click on numbers for direct links).
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

Here is the quote:

"The salary cap calculation beginning in 2012-13 takes 44.74% of projected BRI, subtracts projected benefits, and divides by the number of teams in the league."

In 2017 that percentage is 50% plus or minus any overages or shortfalls from the previous year. However, all teams do not spend equally so the excesses have been piling up. From a $15 million shortfall in 2012 to a $41 million excess in 2013 to a $180 million excess in 2014 to a $419 million excess in 2015. As long as teams were underspending, those excess totals were added into the cap. Now that fewer teams are underspending, those excess totals are going to plateau or come down.
 
If the jazz would have signed dudley last year then the jazz would be killing this rebuild and being a fanboy would be ok I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top