One max player per team?

[Archerbro]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=A ... eal_112611


Not sure what this means exactly since teams already have more than 1 max guy.
Just curious if anyone can elaborate (does this nilch the lakers getting dwight scenario)?).

EDIT: here's what it exactly says

• Maximum salary: One player per team is eligible to receive a maximum salary worth 30 percent of the salary cap. Players with less than six years experience can receive maximum salary worth 25 percent of the cap.

[#1 pick]

When does this go into effect is the better question?

[Ticaaal]

Where does it say that

[Sofa King]

(does this nilch the lakers getting dwight scenario)?).

I'm hopeful Hollywood will offer Dwight a reality tv show for him to become a Laker

[BH8]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Am_0uDknDfBYxe1PPdRkpWi8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_deal_112611


Not sure what this means exactly since teams already have more than 1 max guy.
Just curious if anyone can elaborate (does this nilch the lakers getting dwight scenario)?).

Lakers can theoretically get Dwight in a S&T. However, it would put them at a payroll of around $100 and that would mean a tax bill of around $60M. That is simply not going to happen.

[Basileus777]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Am_0uDknDfBYxe1PPdRkpWi8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_deal_112611


Not sure what this means exactly since teams already have more than 1 max guy.
Just curious if anyone can elaborate (does this nilch the lakers getting dwight scenario)?).

Lakers can theoretically get Dwight in a S&T. However, it would put them at a payroll of around $100 and that would mean a tax bill of around $60M. That is simply not going to happen.

The new sign and trade rule prevents a team over 4 mil into the luxury tax from making them. Even if they amnesty Artest, I don't see the Lakers getting their salary low enough to make it possible.

[Myst]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Am_0uDknDfBYxe1PPdRkpWi8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_deal_112611


Not sure what this means exactly since teams already have more than 1 max guy.
Just curious if anyone can elaborate (does this nilch the lakers getting dwight scenario)?).

Lakers can theoretically get Dwight in a S&T. However, it would put them at a payroll of around $100 and that would mean a tax bill of around $60M. That is simply not going to happen.

and there TV contract pays them 150 Mil and yeah those cheaps nose seats for only 300 dollars a ticket yup your right they could not afford paying a total of 160 mil in payroll.... when it could lead to 10k per seat final games seats x4

[BH8]

The new sign and trade rule prevents a team over 4 mil into the luxury tax from making them. Even if they amnesty Artest, I don't see the Lakers getting their salary low enough to make it possible.

Those rules don't apply during the first two years, but it would still be impossible because of the luxury tax. Having Kobe and Gasols Albatross contracts means that there is no way for the Lakers to get Dwight.

[arkknight1988]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Am_0uDknDfBYxe1PPdRkpWi8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_deal_112611


Not sure what this means exactly since teams already have more than 1 max guy.
Just curious if anyone can elaborate (does this nilch the lakers getting dwight scenario)?).

Lakers can theoretically get Dwight in a S&T. However, it would put them at a payroll of around $100 and that would mean a tax bill of around $60M. That is simply not going to happen.

and there TV contract pays them 150 Mil and yeah those cheaps nose seats for only 300 dollars a ticket yup your right they could not afford paying a total of 160 mil in payroll.... when it could lead to 10k per seat final games seats x4

Good story bro

[#1 pick]

The problem is it said you can't have over 30% for one player. What's the cap this year?

[JES12]

The problem is it said you can't have over 30% for one player. What's the cap this year?

You can't sign someone over 30% of the cap for the 1st year of their new contract. Not the same thing.

[BH8]

and there TV contract pays them 150 Mil and yeah those cheaps nose seats for only 300 dollars a ticket yup your right they could not afford paying a total of 160 mil in payroll.... when it could lead to 10k per seat final games seats x4

Lakers made $33M in operating profits in 2010 and that was with $110M in payroll + Tax. $160M means they lose money. No way does Buss agree to that. Only the Knicks can maintain that kind of payroll. People need to start appreciating how prohibitive the new tax actually is.

[#1 pick]

A maximum salary for a "star player" -- if he reaches certain benchmarks -- can rise to 30 percent of the salary cap, rather than 25. However, with the reduction in basketball-related income for players and a 10 percent escrow, it's not clear what kind of a gain, if any, that will prove to be.

[Myst]

and there TV contract pays them 150 Mil and yeah those cheaps nose seats for only 300 dollars a ticket yup your right they could not afford paying a total of 160 mil in payroll.... when it could lead to 10k per seat final games seats x4

Lakers made $33M in operating profits in 2010 and that was with $110M in payroll + Tax. $160M means they lose money. No way does Buss agree to that. Only the Knicks can maintain that kind of payroll. People need to start appreciating how prohibitive the new tax actually is.

lol the Lakers current tv contract pays them 30 mil per year next year its 150 mil per year want to do that math again?

[BH8]

and there TV contract pays them 150 Mil and yeah those cheaps nose seats for only 300 dollars a ticket yup your right they could not afford paying a total of 160 mil in payroll.... when it could lead to 10k per seat final games seats x4

Lakers made $33M in operating profits in 2010 and that was with $110M in payroll + Tax. $160M means they lose money. No way does Buss agree to that. Only the Knicks can maintain that kind of payroll. People need to start appreciating how prohibitive the new tax actually is.

lol the Lakers current tv contract pays them 30 mil per year next year its 150 mil per year want to do that math again?

The $3B number over 20 years was denied by Time-Warner, but even if it is true, you're not looking at $150M per year, but rather a deal starting at around $85M with 5% annual increases. You're still not going to see that Lakers pay a 3/1 luxury tax.

[Archerbro]

The problem is it said you can't have over 30% for one player. What's the cap this year?

well on the yahoo article it says one player per team, Maybe I'm reading too much into it or not getting the whole picture. It's worded a bit weird on the yahoo article.

[dafunky1]

Its now known as the Derrick Rose Rule.

[#1 pick]

The problem is it said you can't have over 30% for one player. What's the cap this year?

well on the yahoo article it says one player per team, Maybe I'm reading too much into it or not getting the whole picture. It's worded a bit weird on the yahoo article.

It's worded wrong, not even Orlando could resign him under this statement.

[Myst]

The $3B number over 20 years was denied by Time-Warner, but even if it is true, you're not looking at $150M per year, but rather a deal starting at around $85M with 5% annual increases. You're still not going to see that Lakers pay a 3/1 luxury tax.

lol ok ill use your numbers then
in 2010 the lakers had 110 in payroll +tax (21.42 million) and still made 33 mil in profit wich means with a total payroll of 131.42 they still made 33 mil in profits meaning that a total payroll 160 million still means they made a over 4 Million in profit thats without the extra 55 million in more revenue from there tv contract...

[BH8]

lol ok ill use your numbers then
in 2010 the lakers had 110 in payroll +tax (21.42 million) and still made 33 mil in profit wich means with a total payroll of 131.42 they still made 33 mil in profits meaning that a total payroll 160 million still means they made a over 4 Million in profit thats without the extra 55 million in more revenue from there tv contract...

The Lakers paid $110M INCLUDING the tax. If they will run a $105M payroll in 2012, it will cost them $190M including tax. The extra $55M would make them just about break-even and that's without any revenue sharing provisions.