Official NBA Cap Numbers:Bucks Luxury Tax implications

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #1 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Wed Jul 9, 2008 4:19 am

to GAD and the rest of us nerdy bucks fans,
just released cap numbers for 2008-2009 season:
Salary Cap: $58,680,000
Team Tax Level: $71,150,000
Mid-level Exception: $5,585,000
(also Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent Exception (“Early Bird”) amount)
Bi-Annual Exception: $1,910,000
Maximum Player Salary: $13,758,000 – 0-6 Years of Service
$16,509,600 – 7-9 Years of Service
$19,261,200 – 10+ Years of Service
-- or 105% of prior Salary, whichever is greater
2007-08 Escrow: 1.05% of Salary to be returned to all players
Minimum Team Salary: $44,010,000

I am pretty confident Bogut will get his 5 year extension today

GrandAdmiralDan · Post #2 » by **GrandAdmiralDan** » Wed Jul 9, 2008 5:08 am

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:to GAD and the rest of us nerdy bucks fans,
just released cap numbers for 2008-2009 season:
Salary Cap: $58,680,000
Team Tax Level: $71,150,000
Mid-level Exception: $5,585,000
(also Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent Exception (“Early Bird”) amount)
Bi-Annual Exception: $1,910,000
Maximum Player Salary: $13,758,000 – 0-6 Years of Service
$16,509,600 – 7-9 Years of Service
$19,261,200 – 10+ Years of Service
-- or 105% of prior Salary, whichever is greater
2007-08 Escrow: 1.05% of Salary to be returned to all players
Minimum Team Salary: $44,010,000

I am pretty confident Bogut will get his 5 year extension today

Looks like all the Lakers-Celtics drama was more of a financial windfall than expected.

This represents the best year the NBA has had (by adjusted comparison) since the 1999 CBA ended the lockout (perhaps better than years prior to that too, I just personally cannot attest to that)

My projection had been ~$58 mil for a while, and I adjusted that UP after mid season when the Celtics and Lakers (with Gasol added), among other things, looked to be boosting BRI.

The NBPA's projections have always been a bit too optimistic in past years, so when they leaked their $58.5 mil projection, I thought I had a good shot to hit within $300k in either direction yet again. This has to be the first time since 1999 that the NBPA's projection was LOWER than the actual salary cap. Impressive.

I can't believe my own projection was more than $500k off this time. I must be slipping.

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #3 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Wed Jul 9, 2008 5:17 am

Any projection on what the cap figure will be in 2011 after a Bucks-Trailblazers series?

Also, we had a lot of game sevens and the series overall were pretty good this year

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #4 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Wed Jul 9, 2008 12:20 pm

If BRI dropped through the floor some year, could they lower the tax threshold below where lots of teams already have their payroll?

bucks59 · Post #5 » by **bucks59** » Wed Jul 9, 2008 12:46 pm

So signing Alexander and Luc would put the Bucks around $68-$69 million, I am assuming that Kohl doesnt want to pay the luxury tax. So no big MLE signings it looks like. There has to be another trade it seems, this roster is too thin upfront.

GrandAdmiralDan · Post #6 » by **GrandAdmiralDan** » Wed Jul 9, 2008 3:19 pm

adamcz wrote:If BRI dropped through the floor some year, could they lower the tax threshold below where lots of teams already have their payroll?

Yes, but that wouldn't occur right away.
Theoretically it could if the drop was catastrophic enough, but even a huge drop that is at all reasonably realistic would be buffered to the point that teams would have at least one season of warning to attempt to address their payroll situation.

One difference in the formulas and mechanisms used in the 2005 CBA as compared to the 1999 CBA is that they specifically set it up to avoid large spikes in either direction from year to year. That results in a "softening the blow" effect.
Overages and underages are now spread out.

There was actually such a spike upwards in BRI this season that the salary cap would have been seen a more drastic increase than we ended up getting if such a BRI spike had occurred under the 1999 CBA.

I have some more I could say on this, specifically regarding the 1999 CBA system's flaws and the 2002-2003 season, but I'll have to return to that at a later time if you are still interested. If you're not, that would save me from some minutiae that is boring and headache-inducing even for someone like me who generally enjoys the topic

I will happily oblige, I just have to be in the right frame of mind to delve deeper into that one...

GHOSTofSIKMA · Post #7 » by **GHOSTofSIKMA** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:21 pm

hey quick question....

what exactly is the difference between a player or team option.... and an early termination option(eto). espn has an article that lists them seperately and states that the summer of 2010, that Redd and Jefferson could both become fa's if they exercise their eto.

what gives?

GrandAdmiralDan · Post #8 » by **GrandAdmiralDan** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:51 pm

GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:hey quick question....

what exactly is the difference between a player or team option.... and an early termination option(eto). espn has an article that lists them seperately and states that the summer of 2010, that Redd and Jefferson could both become fa's if they exercise their eto.

what gives?

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#50

If you need anything there explained differently, just let me know.

GHOSTofSIKMA · Post #9 » by **GHOSTofSIKMA** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:09 am

geez.... thanks for that.

with all the cap space out there for 2010 offseason..its very possible we could get both of these guys invoking the eto.

they also make a sheiteton of money so I could see them passing...but wow. we could find our team a very different enterprise after that season. i like us going best player available in the draft this year even more, finding this out.

Chapter29 · Post #10 » by **Chapter29** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:15 am

I cannot see Redd opting out of 18M. He wont even come close to that #, heck likely not even half. RJ I suppose could opt out of his 15M, but I also doubt it.

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #11 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:19 am

GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:geez.... thanks for that.

with all the cap space out there for 2010 offseason..its very possible we could get both of these guys invoking the eto.

they also make a sheiteton of money so I could see them passing...but wow. we could find our team a very different enterprise after that season. i like us going best player available in the draft this year even more, finding this out.

I never really thought of that. I dont see it happening but maybe Redd would be willing to take a 6/60 deal over that one year at 18 or w/e it is.

Chapter29 · Post #12 » by **Chapter29** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:31 am

A 6 year deal at what 31? Holy cow. Yes, he would take that deal and I would shoot myself in the face.

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #13 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:30 pm

Yea, that what makes it realistic. Hopefully, that 6 years isnt from us. If he thinks he can get a long term contract in a year where everyone is saving their money, then he might opt out.

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #14 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:43 pm

Never expect NBA teams to be conservative and sensible with their money. Especially not regarding high ppg players.

tedbrogen · Post #15 » by **tedbrogen** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:52 am

Just so I have this straight. Using these figures and the Bucks salary figures at hoopshype, it seems the Bucks are a little more than $6M under the luxury tax threshold. (Hoopshype has them at $65.08M in team salary). That figure would include 10 players being under contract (Redd, Mo, RJ, CV, Bogut, Gadz, Bell, Alexander, Mason, and Sessions).
Prince Luc was just signed but I couldn't find the figure. Sessions got ~$700,000 last season, so I assume it would be a similar amount.
Storey is on their summer league team and could be retained for below $1M.
That would put them at 12 players, and you only need to carry 13.

So, they essentially have about $4.3M to spend on the last roster spot and can use it in the form of the MLE, or split it up amongst a couple of players since they can actually go upto 15 players.

Is all of this correct?

old skool · Post #16 » by **old skool** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:24 pm

The latest salary numbers on hoopshype.com would leave the Bucks about $6.1-million for their last five roster spots. Even if they only start the season with a 13-man roster, they need to leave some salary money for injury replacements.

They don't have much more to offer people other than the veteran minimum. I don't see anyway they sign someone for the MLE. Even a one year MLE deal will put them into Luxury Tax land. A multi-year deal will insure problems in the future - and few MLE signings are ever for a single year.

One savings grace is that teams do not have to pay 100% of contracts to veterans signing for the minimum. The league office picks up a chunk of that salary. The league share does not count against the cap or for luxury tax calculations.

It will take some real magic on Hammond's part to make a significant roster addition between now and November 1. Free agent signings look bleak. Trades don't look much better, especially when the biggest trading chip seems to be Villanueva, and he is relatively inexpensive, still being on his rookie deal.

What can a team get for $3-million? Last summer it was Jake Voskuhl.

oLd sKool