What's new
By:

Salary Floor (Kind of a big deal)

margodydek

margodydek

Well-Known Member
Most of the media/fans' discussion when it comes to the CBA centers around the salary cap/luxury tax, but I think we're going to need to start reading up on what the salary floor is. I honestly don't know what it is, and I was hoping someone around here could enlighten me. After next season, KOC has us poised to have a whopping (sarcasm) $16MM on our books, with just the 4 young guys on the roster. I'm assuming that the salary floor is going to be somewhere around $50MM - this is a total guess so if I'm way off I'm sorry, so that means we're going to have to take on a minimum of $34MM next offseason.

This is why I threw out the idea of players like Gasol, Nash, and Ray Allen a few weeks ago. I think KOC would much rather get good solid veterans with that cap space, instead of gambling and hoping that we strike it big in free agency during the next offseason. The thing is, if we miss out on big name players, we'd be stuck signing guys like Travis Outlaw to $35MM deals like NJ did when they cleared a ton of cap space in the hopes of Lebron.

A ton of cap space is great when you have free agents who want to come play for you, but when players don't want to come (sound familiar?) it can actually force your hand to make bad moves.
 
If Utah is under the cap and below the minimum, they can always trade with teams that are above the cap and looking to shed salary. The Clippers had a couple beneficial trades a couple years back taking on the salary of good but expendable players. OKC did that with the Jazz and Maynor/Harpring as well. I prefer that method than signing Outlaw to overrated deals or over-the-hill guys to big money or longterm deals (e.g., Bell).
 
Don't overthink it Margo. Hitting the minimum each year is as easy as re-signing CJ to a max, one year deal or asking Matt Harpring to come out of retirement--Preferably both at the same time just to piss off this board.
 
Cap space isn't just for free agents. It's also for taking teams to the cleaners when they need to clear salary.

Sure, we'll take bad contract x, but we won't unless you give us player y, too, or your lottery pick, or...
 
Found this: The salary floor, previously 75% of the cap, will increase to 85% in 2011–12 and 2012–13, and 90% in future years.

So with the cap at right around $58MM, we'd have to have around $52MM in salary on the books. I agree with you guys that we'd have options a plenty, but I'd much rather be proactive now, than wait and see what happens.
 
margodydek said:
Found this: The salary floor, previously 75% of the cap, will increase to 85% in 2011–12 and 2012–13, and 90% in future years.

So with the cap at right around $58MM, we'd have to have around $52MM in salary on the books. I agree with you guys that we'd have options a plenty, but I'd much rather be proactive now, than wait and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Teams aren't in dire straits yet with the luxury tax penalty not kicking in. Next off season, the threat will be much more real to them, making it more likely they'll take a worse deal.
 
Why is this a big deal?

If no moves are made this summer to add players, then I can almost guarantee we will make some big FA signing in 2013.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
Why is this a big deal?

If no moves are made this summer to add players, then I can almost guarantee we will make some big FA signing in 2013.
Click to expand...

Because that's the same mindset that NJ had two years ago. Really panned out well for them. If we were an attractive destination, then I think it would be great, but we're not.
 
The salary floor is not an issue. If you don't hit the minimum, the penalty is paying up to the minimum (which is then dispersed, at least in part, to the players on the roster). Nothing to see here.
 
GVC said:
The salary floor is not an issue. If you don't hit the minimum, the penalty is paying up to the minimum (which is then dispersed, at least in part, to the players on the roster). Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

This is all I was looking for. Thank you. Everyone can move along.
 
margodydek said:
Because that's the same mindset that NJ had two years ago. Really panned out well for them. If we were an attractive destination, then I think it would be great, but we're not.
Click to expand...

Well that off-season was full of places like Miami, Chicago, New York, and the up and coming (lol) Brooklyn nets (I guess if they get Dwight it will have all worked out).

We won't be competing against destinations like those and we sure as hell wont be trying to get Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Amare Staudamire, or Chris Bosh.

We have more money so we can over pay a little on some really good players. Utah is not attractive but, it's not super unattractive like say Toronto. We are always a competitive team. Oklahoma City is only attractive because of the team they have. We just have to be competitive. I really wouldn't mind overpaying on someone that will fit our team perfectly and help us win games. We would only be overpaying them based on a consensus of what everyone around the league thinks. What really matters is will that player help us win games?
 
Dwill4mvp said:
Well that off-season was full of places like Miami, Chicago, New York, and the up and coming (lol) Brooklyn nets (I guess if they get Dwight it will have all worked out).

We won't be competing against destinations like those and we sure as hell wont be trying to get Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Amare Staudamire, or Chris Bosh.

We have more money so we can over pay a little on some really good players. Utah is not attractive but, it's not super unattractive like say Toronto. We are always a competitive team. Oklahoma City is only attractive because of the team they have. We just have to be competitive. I really wouldn't mind overpaying on someone that will fit our team perfectly and help us win games. We would only be overpaying them based on a consensus of what everyone around the league thinks. What really matters is will that player help us win games?
Click to expand...

Is Toronto really considered unattractive? Isn't huge and located pretty close to NYC?
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
Is Toronto really considered unattractive? Isn't huge and located pretty close to NYC?
Click to expand...

Ya it's huge and way close to New York. But, I don't think anyone really wants to play there. Maybe it has something to do with Canada. I don't think being a large city is the only thing a player would consider when deciding if they want to play there or not or what would make it attractive to them.
 
NBA players love Toronto's nightlife (there are always sightings in the offseason), but the Canada thing (foreign, cold, high taxes) seems to be problematic. I think given equally successful teams, Toronto would be a more attractive free agent destination than Utah.
 
If anyone thinks that the Jazz are going to send a $30 million check to the player's union, then you're out of your mind.

OP brings up a legit point. I personally think the Jazz should try to make the salary picture so that the Jazz can have a max slot in 2013, but not two. Again, I'll be amazed if the same organization that refuses to buyout ****head Bell on financial principle is just going to - effectively - throw multiple times ****head's salary away.
 
GVC said:
The salary floor is not an issue. If you don't hit the minimum, the penalty is paying up to the minimum (which is then dispersed, at least in part, to the players on the roster). Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

Well aren't you so ****ing smart and stuff.



*edit to add* FWIW, I meant to add a rep to put it in perspective, but, alas, Colton broke the damn thing and I must wait. In short, TY for the rule clarification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top