Help: cap room technicality info needed

[DBoys]

I am working through some very specific cap room scenarios and I need some help to make sure my understanding is correct, before I do all the calculations.

Here's the scenario:
1 The cap is exactly $60M.
2 A team has 10 players under contract, and the total of the 10 contracts plus two roster slot holds at $490,180 each is exactly $50M. (All other exceptions and cap holds have been renounced.) One of those players under contract has a contract for $2M.

I have two questions pertaining to that scenario...
a - Is the biggest contract the team can offer a single player one of exactly $10M? Or would they, in the signing process, eliminate one of the cap holds, allowing them to offer $10,490,180?
b - If they instead decide to use their cap room to sign and trade for a player in an under-cap trade, sending away the $2M player in exchange, and in light of the 100,000 cushion in under-cap trades, can the incoming player be acquired with a salary of 12,590,180? Or is the limit 12.1M?

Thanks in advance.

[Three34]

We had a thread on this once before. And I can't find it. Hope this helps!

[DBoys]

LOL I was hoping for some astute wisdom from one of my teachers, and you said "Go read the book." Ack.

(BTW, I actually have two variations of the same question, and got to thinking perhaps the answers are different, so I have edited the original post.)

[Dunkenstein]

a) As it was explained to me, a cap hold is not removed until AFTER a new contract is signed.

b) I may be missing something, but if they are sending away a $2M player in the SNT, aren't you asking whether they can take back a player at $12.1M or $12,590,180? I don't have specific knowledge of this situation, but I think that the loss of the cap hold wouldn't occur until after the signing in this case as well.

[answerthink]

a. Dunkenstein is correct. This concept is right at the heart of the purpose of a roster charge, which is to ensure that a team can fill out the minimum 13 player roster within the confines of the salary cap (though, in practice, this rarely happens).

b. I don’t fully understand your scenario but trades, as they relate to roster charges, work in much the same way as described in a. Bear in mind, however, that under-the-cap teams can potentially exceed the cap + $100K in trade by utilizing the Traded Player Exception. This concept can be found in Art VII, Sec 6(j)(3) of the 2011 CBA.

Hope this helps! I apologize to Dunkenstein for simply confirming a response he has already provided…

[DBoys]

1 Thanks for all the help.
2 Thanks for noticing my math error, Dunk ...I cleaned up the math in the OP so the question (and your answers) are clearer for others who read later.

[Dunkenstein]

I apologize to Dunkenstein for simply confirming a response he has already provided…

No apology necessary. I've always respected your understanding of the CBA, and I'm grateful for your confirmation of what I said.

[Three34]

It's not a competition or anything, guys, but I think my answer was the most helpful.

[HartfordWhalers]

a. Dunkenstein is correct. This concept is right at the heart of the purpose of a roster charge, which is to ensure that a team can fill out the minimum 13 player roster within the confines of the salary cap (though, in practice, this rarely happens).

b. I don’t fully understand your scenario but trades, as they relate to roster charges, work in much the same way as described in a. Bear in mind, however, that under-the-cap teams can potentially exceed the cap + $100K in trade by utilizing the Traded Player Exception. This concept can be found in Art VII, Sec 6(j)(3) of the 2011 CBA.

Hope this helps! I apologize to Dunkenstein for simply confirming a response he has already provided…

Are you sure on a)?

I think commonsense and my reading of the cba faq suggest otherwise.

For instance:

Since teams are required to have at least 13 players on their rosters (see question number 77), the roster charge reserves a minimum amount of cap space to sign 13 players. For example, if a team has 11 players on its roster, the roster charge reserves cap space to sign the team's 13th player, and the remainder can be used to sign the 12th player

I.e. There is no 12th man roster hold at the same time the 12th man is being signed.

Here's the scenario:
1 The cap is exactly $60M.
2 A team has 10 players under contract, and the total of the 10 contracts plus two roster slot holds at $490,180 each is exactly $50M. (All other exceptions and cap holds have been renounced.) One of those players under contract has a contract for $2M.

I have two questions pertaining to that scenario...
a - Is the biggest contract the team can offer a single player one of exactly $10M? Or would they, in the signing process, eliminate one of the cap holds, allowing them to offer $10,490,180?

I'm reading this question as pertaining to the period where there was a minimum 12 roster spots not 13 now. (With 13 roster spots removing a cap to have only 1 left with 11 players doesn't make sense.)

But if the question is:

a team has 11 players under contract, and the total of the 11 contracts plus two roster slot holds at $490,180 each is exactly $50M. (All other exceptions and cap holds have been renounced.) One of those players under contract has a contract for $2M.

a - Is the biggest contract the team can offer a single player one of exactly $10M? Or would they, in the signing process, eliminate one of the cap holds, allowing them to offer $10,490,180?

Then I believe that one of the 490,180 cap holds are released with the offer being made, and a 10,490,180 offer can be made. Removing the 12th (now 13th) cap hold simultaneously with the signing of the 12th (now 13th) man fits with the description from Coon, and makes sense, as well as guaranteeing exactly the minimum needed to fill out the roster and not 1 extra minimum hold.

Someone should be able to look at something like the Heat when they signed the big 3 and confirm if the last ~500k cap hold can be used or if you need to carry a 12th (now 13th) cap hold while also signing

[answerthink]

Yes, I am quite sure.

Let’s roll DBoys’ example forward in order to see why roster charges exist, and how they work.

In his example, his team is starting the 2013-14 offseason with 10 players under contract for $49,019,640, and has 2 roster charges for an additional $980,360 (or $490,180 each). That’s a total team salary of $50 million.

In a, his team signs a player for exactly $10 million, the maximum possible, causing there to be 11 players under contract and a total team salary of $60 million – right at the salary cap. Then, one roster charge would fall away, leaving team salary at $59,509,820.

DBoys’ question stops here. But let’s keep moving forward.

His team can then theoretically sign a second round draft pick to a minimum salary contract of $490,180. Team salary would increase to $60 million, and then again decrease to $59,509,820 as the second roster charge falls away. The team would have 12 players under contract for $59,509,820 and no more roster charges. They can then use the remaining cap space to sign another second round draft pick to a minimum salary contract using up all the remaining cap space. If so, team salary would be exactly $60 million and the team would have the minimum 13 players under contract.

This is why roster charges work as they do. They ensure that under-the-cap teams can theoretically fill out their minimum 13-player rosters within the confines of the cap (even though it rarely happens in practice, as teams often utilize exceptions). The amount of the roster charge that is utilized by the league is no accident. It is equal to the cheapest possible contract a team can sign in the offseason.

I wrote a post on how the Heat signed every player in the summer of 2010 while working within the confines of the cap. As this can be considered shameless self-promotion, I won’t post the link. But I believe Mark wrote a similar post. Naturally, mine was better.

[Three34]

It's not a competition. We've been over this. And even if it was, I won.

[HartfordWhalers]

Corrected, thanks!

[HartfordWhalers]

Edit: yep 12 charges not 13.

[answerthink]

Not wrong. If a team has fewer than 12 players, then subtract from 12 the number of such players to determine the number of roster charges. Art VII, Sec. 4(f)(1) of the 2011 CBA.

Please keep asking away if you have questions. I am more than happy to help.

[HartfordWhalers]

Not wrong. If a team has fewer than 12 players, then subtract from 12 the number of such players to determine the number of roster charges. Art VII, Sec. 4(f)(1) of the 2011 CBA.

Please keep asking away if you have questions. I am more than happy to help.

Yeah, your right.

I recalled 12 cap holds from when the roster size was 12 so 13 when it went to 13 made sense without looking.
If it was 13 it would make sense to remove simultaneously, while 12 you remove after for the same effect.


Looking at the archives, the old CBAfaq stated that the roster holds were for each spot less than 12.

A roster charge if the team has fewer than 12 players (players under contract, free agents included in team salary, players given offer sheets, and first round draft picks). The roster charge is equal to the rookie minimum salary for each player below 12. The roster charge only applies during the offseason

While the new CBAfaq states the same:

This charge is equal to the rookie minimum salary for each player fewer than 12.

So, am I mising something in this explanation or did they change the method of achieving the identical result, going from:
2005CBA: Roster hold = number need to equal min roster; removed simultaneously
2011CBA: Roster hold = number needed to equal min roster - 1; removed after

[answerthink]

No change. Roster charges worked the same in the 2005 CBA.

It is a pain in the ass to spend an entire afternoon waiting on someone who you have no idea when will arrive. I’m hungry.

[HartfordWhalers]

Care to elaborate?

As it reads,
2005 had a maximum of 12 roster holds and a min roster of 12.
2011 has a maximum of 12 roster holds and a min roster of 13.

Certainly seems a change.

[answerthink]

Both CBAs required a minimum roster of 13 (and a maximum of 15). Only the rules regarding the availability of the roster, between active and inactive, has changed.

[HartfordWhalers]

Thanks. I could have sworn one of the things that I remembered being popularly noted about the new CBA was that it increased the roster size and thus meant more players employed (versus just active). Oh well.

[answerthink]

Go Heat.