RealGM

According to the projections based on revenue, the cap for next season is set to be at $63.2 M and the luxury tax at $77 M. (In my example for arguments sake I'm going to use the figure of $71 M considering exceptions and bird rights.)

I understand there can't be cookie cutter formula for every team but vague parameters. One of the best articles I read regarding salary caps was about the NFL. It showed how teams distributed the cap between each position and there was a section on the pie chart for "Dead salary" meaning cap space used on players that were not playing for the team anymore. "Dead salary" was the most telling factor for teams success and although the NBA is very different with guaranteed contracts and far less players are cut with signing bonus' and salary on the books, efficient use of the cap is critical.

For the NBA it's more about having a roster of players with positive value. Granted every team can't be the Spurs on super cap friendly contracts but its tough to win with high priced guys that barely play (ie CV31). Another key is not having cap space allocated in a redundant way to the same position. I don't really think the big 3 blueprint is sustainable and I'd only advocate giving true game changing superstars Max deals as most of the time giving fringe all-stars max money tends to cripple teams. In my ideal scenario you have two near max guys and round out the roster with solid talent and players on rookie scale deals who's talent is disproportionate to their salary.

My blueprint would be:

Starter 1: Max or Near Max 14-15 M
Starter 2: Near Max 11-12 M
Starter 3: Fringe all-star 10 M
Starter 4: Above average starter 8.5 M
Starter 5: High draft pick on rookie deal 5 M

Bench 1: Solid 6th man 7 M
Bench 2: Solid backup 5 M
Bench 3: 1st round pick on rookie deal 3 M
Bench 4: Specialist 4 M
Bench 5: Veteran character guy 1.5 M
Bench 6: 2nd round pick to develop .5 M
Bench 7: 2nd round pick to develop .5 M

What are your thoughts given the CBA and the style of today's NBA teams?

I agree with your breakdown but when you look at our current roster its easy to see why we're in a very good situation moving forward:

Starter 1: right now is Smith
Starter 2: possibly Monroe
Starter 3: no one on this roster
Starter 4: Jennings at that price point
Starter 5: Drummond

So even with Drummond, Monroe and Smith here we won't have salary issues...and when Drummond gets his big payday we only have all 3 for 1 season (Smith as an expiring)

We can get away with that due to Singler & KCP. If those 2 continue to perform above their pay grade we'll be laughing.

Bench 1: Meeks
Bench 2: Singler is cheaper than that
Bench 3: KCP
Bench 4: Jerebko at that price
Bench 5: Datome
Bench 6: Jorts
Bench 7: Mitchell
Bench 8: Siva
Bench 9: Dinwiddie

Lots of cheap talent, potentially capable in the right system

Our cap sheet is fine. Just need to upgrade certain areas without breaking the bank



Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Pharaoh wrote:I agree with your breakdown but when you look at our current roster its easy to see why we're in a very good situation moving forward:

Starter 1: right now is Smith
Starter 2: possibly Monroe
Starter 3: no one on this roster
Starter 4: Jennings at that price point
Starter 5: Drummond

So even with Drummond, Monroe and Smith here we won't have salary issues...and when Drummond gets his big payday we only have all 3 for 1 season (Smith as an expiring)

We can get away with that due to Singler & KCP. If those 2 continue to perform above their pay grade we'll be laughing.

Bench 1: Meeks
Bench 2: Singler is cheaper than that
Bench 3: KCP
Bench 4: Jerebko at that price
Bench 5: Datome
Bench 6: Jorts
Bench 7: Mitchell
Bench 8: Siva
Bench 9: Dinwiddie

Lots of cheap talent, potentially capable in the right system

Our cap sheet is fine. Just need to upgrade certain areas without breaking the bank



Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Well... the thing is that Smith is definitely not a max player and Jennings is def not an above average pg. So.. I say we only have 2 of the 5 starter spots matched up with their respective salary demands.

I don't think this blueprint can be used on the current Pistons for a few seasons until Andre becomes our Max guy at which point I see:

2016-2017
C- Drummond 15 M
PF- ?
SF- ?
SG- KCP 3.7 M (Rookie Deal)
PG- ?

6th- Meeks 6.3 M
Be1: "Solid Backup" 5 M
Be2: 2016-2017 1st round pick 2 M
Be3: 2015-2016 1st round pick 3 M
Be4: Diwiddie 1 M
Be5: 2nd round pick .5 M
Be6: 2nd round pick .5 M

That would give the Pistons about 34 M to split between the other 3 starters depending on how you slice it up.

If they were to plug in IT2 for 8 M & were able to pull off a Miracle and turn J. Smith into C. Parsons via a S&T even at 13.5 M like smith's salary it would leave $12.5 M for a PF to compliment Andre or it could be given to Moose depending on if you believe him and Drummond can succeed together.

Well... the thing is that Smith is definitely not a max player and Jennings is def not an above average pg. So.. I say we only have 2 of the 5 starter spots matched up with their respective salary demands.

I didn't say those 2 were worth their contracts, just put them into the salary slots.

We're in a great place as far as the cap goes. We can afford to over pay a little as long as we have significant contributors getting paid less than they're worth.

Drummond, Singler, KCP, possibly Dinwiddie & Jorts...love to see that 5 v Monroe, Smith, Jerebko, Meeks & Jennings

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

In the perfect world, sure this would look great. But looking at the last 3 championship teams, none of them are really close to this. Spurs top 4 players were Parker at 12.5m, Duncan at 10.3, Splitter at 10m and Ginobili at 7.5m. I wouldn't call Splitter a fringe all-star, and he'd fit into that Starter #3 role based on salary.

The Heat were obviously over the cap, Bosh and Lebron at 19m and Wade at 18.6m but then Haslem is the next at 4.3m.

I don't think there really is a "blue-print" that works in the NBA. Sure that distribution could potentially work, but as we've seen the past several years, there's no golden rule to follow. Miami showed you can be top heavy and win, and the Spurs showed you can spread the cap around still win.

epheisey wrote:In the perfect world, sure this would look great. But looking at the last 3 championship teams, none of them are really close to this. Spurs top 4 players were Parker at 12.5m, Duncan at 10.3, Splitter at 10m and Ginobili at 7.5m. I wouldn't call Splitter a fringe all-star, and he'd fit into that Starter #3 role based on salary.

The Heat were obviously over the cap, Bosh and Lebron at 19m and Wade at 18.6m but then Haslem is the next at 4.3m.

I don't think there really is a "blue-print" that works in the NBA. Sure that distribution could potentially work, but as we've seen the past several years, there's no golden rule to follow. Miami showed you can be top heavy and win, and the Spurs showed you can spread the cap around still win.

I'd argue outside of Splitter the Spurs fit into that blueprint quite well... they just chose to leave money on the table for the benefit of the team. They were able to start B. Diaw because they spent a little more on a stronger bench.

GreekAlex wrote:

epheisey wrote:In the perfect world, sure this would look great. But looking at the last 3 championship teams, none of them are really close to this. Spurs top 4 players were Parker at 12.5m, Duncan at 10.3, Splitter at 10m and Ginobili at 7.5m. I wouldn't call Splitter a fringe all-star, and he'd fit into that Starter #3 role based on salary.

The Heat were obviously over the cap, Bosh and Lebron at 19m and Wade at 18.6m but then Haslem is the next at 4.3m.

I don't think there really is a "blue-print" that works in the NBA. Sure that distribution could potentially work, but as we've seen the past several years, there's no golden rule to follow. Miami showed you can be top heavy and win, and the Spurs showed you can spread the cap around still win.

I'd argue outside of Splitter the Spurs fit into that blueprint quite well... they just chose to leave money on the table for the benefit of the team. They were able to start B. Diaw because they spent a little more on a stronger bench.

But the point is that they don't fit that blue print, because they have splitter. They also don't pay an "above average starter" close to 8.5m.

epheisey wrote:

GreekAlex wrote:

epheisey wrote:In the perfect world, sure this would look great. But looking at the last 3 championship teams, none of them are really close to this. Spurs top 4 players were Parker at 12.5m, Duncan at 10.3, Splitter at 10m and Ginobili at 7.5m. I wouldn't call Splitter a fringe all-star, and he'd fit into that Starter #3 role based on salary.

The Heat were obviously over the cap, Bosh and Lebron at 19m and Wade at 18.6m but then Haslem is the next at 4.3m.

I don't think there really is a "blue-print" that works in the NBA. Sure that distribution could potentially work, but as we've seen the past several years, there's no golden rule to follow. Miami showed you can be top heavy and win, and the Spurs showed you can spread the cap around still win.

I'd argue outside of Splitter the Spurs fit into that blueprint quite well... they just chose to leave money on the table for the benefit of the team. They were able to start B. Diaw because they spent a little more on a stronger bench.

But the point is that they don't fit that blue print, because they have splitter. They also don't pay an "above average starter" close to 8.5m.

True... I think of it more as broad guidelines than an exact puzzle.

The heat clearly defy this logic. You need great players to win in this league.

Entourage27 wrote:The heat clearly defy this logic. You need great players to win in this league.

If you read the post I said the "Big 3" blueprint can't be sustained... I'd bet a roster constructed this way could beat the Heat in any of their championship seasons.

Plus how many cities are big market or destination cities? I can't see a big 3 via free agency in any cities outside of NYC, LA, CHI, MIA or BOS.

GreekAlex wrote:

Entourage27 wrote:The heat clearly defy this logic. You need great players to win in this league.

If you read the post I said the "Big 3" blueprint can't be sustained... I'd bet a roster constructed this way could beat the Heat in any of their championship seasons.

Plus how many cities are big market or destination cities? I can't see a big 3 via free agency in any cities outside of NYC, LA, CHI, MIA or BOS.

No need to defend your Original post dude - I see the point you were making & agree 100%.

And don't they say if you only reach one person that's all that matters?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

GreekAlex wrote:

Entourage27 wrote:The heat clearly defy this logic. You need great players to win in this league.

If you read the post I said the "Big 3" blueprint can't be sustained... I'd bet a roster constructed this way could beat the Heat in any of their championship seasons.

Plus how many cities are big market or destination cities? I can't see a big 3 via free agency in any cities outside of NYC, LA, CHI, MIA or BOS.

How about kobe and pau getting paid 20 mill a piece and winning back to back? At the end of the day salary doesn't determine whether or not you'll win a championship as a poster nailed it right on the money on how us the Pistons cap spread is eerily similar to your proposed method.

Also comparing nba cba to the nfl is like comparing apples and oranges. Both are totally different especially on where the money is spread out into. Russel wilson and the secondary were amongst the lowest in team salary and they were the reasons why they got to the super bowl and won.

Entourage27 wrote:

GreekAlex wrote:

Entourage27 wrote:The heat clearly defy this logic. You need great players to win in this league.

If you read the post I said the "Big 3" blueprint can't be sustained... I'd bet a roster constructed this way could beat the Heat in any of their championship seasons.

Plus how many cities are big market or destination cities? I can't see a big 3 via free agency in any cities outside of NYC, LA, CHI, MIA or BOS.

How about kobe and pau getting paid 20 mill a piece and winning back to back? At the end of the day salary doesn't determine whether or not you'll win a championship as a poster nailed it right on the money on how us the Pistons cap spread is eerily similar to your proposed method.

Also comparing nba cba to the nfl is like comparing apples and oranges. Both are totally different especially on where the money is spread out into. Russel wilson and the secondary were amongst the lowest in team salary and they were the reasons why they got to the super bowl and won.

I didn't say it WAS the blueprint for every last championship... I just think it's a good guideline moving forward.

Keep in mind that those Laker teams had an element of what I discussed earlier. Both had Bynum on a good rookie deal and had expensive complimentary pieces like Ron Artest & Lamar Odem.

I just think the Lakers current idea of having Kobe at 23.5 M this season and 25 M next season and trying to add Melo at $24 M/per is flawed because there is not enough resources left to round out a winning roster.

GreekAlex wrote:

Entourage27 wrote:

GreekAlex wrote:

If you read the post I said the "Big 3" blueprint can't be sustained... I'd bet a roster constructed this way could beat the Heat in any of their championship seasons.

Plus how many cities are big market or destination cities? I can't see a big 3 via free agency in any cities outside of NYC, LA, CHI, MIA or BOS.

How about kobe and pau getting paid 20 mill a piece and winning back to back? At the end of the day salary doesn't determine whether or not you'll win a championship as a poster nailed it right on the money on how us the Pistons cap spread is eerily similar to your proposed method.

Also comparing nba cba to the nfl is like comparing apples and oranges. Both are totally different especially on where the money is spread out into. Russel wilson and the secondary were amongst the lowest in team salary and they were the reasons why they got to the super bowl and won.

I didn't say it WAS the blueprint for every last championship... I just think it's a good guideline moving forward.

Keep in mind that those Laker teams had an element of what I discussed earlier. Both had Bynum on a good rookie deal and had expensive complimentary pieces like Ron Artest & Lamar Odem.

I just think the Lakers current idea of having Kobe at 23.5 M this season and 25 M next season and trying to add Melo at $24 M/per is flawed because there is not enough resources left to round out a winning roster.

How can melo joining the lakers cant work out but the celtics made it happen when the big 3 formed. They had key guys like posey and pj brown on vet mins leon powe and big baby on second round rookie deals. There whole bench was a combined 8 mill prolly less then that def no more. I can see your logic with the.cap distribution but at the end of the day pay doesn't matter. Talent and hard work does as evidenced by every team to win a ship of all time

I think people are missing the point of the blueprint.

It's not about winning the title, but about spreading "enough" cash around to "enough" players that you're not top heavy.



Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Pharaoh wrote:I think people are missing the point of the blueprint.

It's not about winning the title, but about spreading "enough" cash around to "enough" players that you're not top heavy.



Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Maybe I'm missing what you're trying to say...but spreading cash around to "enough" players is great, but means nothing if you can't win a title. I think the point everyone is making, is that you can win a title any way shape or form, there isn't a surefire way to build a roster that will automatically lead to a team contending.

Entourage27 wrote:

GreekAlex wrote:

Entourage27 wrote:
How about kobe and pau getting paid 20 mill a piece and winning back to back? At the end of the day salary doesn't determine whether or not you'll win a championship as a poster nailed it right on the money on how us the Pistons cap spread is eerily similar to your proposed method.

Also comparing nba cba to the nfl is like comparing apples and oranges. Both are totally different especially on where the money is spread out into. Russel wilson and the secondary were amongst the lowest in team salary and they were the reasons why they got to the super bowl and won.

I didn't say it WAS the blueprint for every last championship... I just think it's a good guideline moving forward.

Keep in mind that those Laker teams had an element of what I discussed earlier. Both had Bynum on a good rookie deal and had expensive complimentary pieces like Ron Artest & Lamar Odem.

I just think the Lakers current idea of having Kobe at 23.5 M this season and 25 M next season and trying to add Melo at $24 M/per is flawed because there is not enough resources left to round out a winning roster.

How can melo joining the lakers cant work out but the celtics made it happen when the big 3 formed. They had key guys like posey and pj brown on vet mins leon powe and big baby on second round rookie deals. There whole bench was a combined 8 mill prolly less then that def no more. I can see your logic with the.cap distribution but at the end of the day pay doesn't matter. Talent and hard work does as evidenced by every team to win a ship of all time

Don't forget Rondo was also on a rookie deal... it wasn't exactly like the Miami big 3 with Mario Chalmers.

Like I said... my theory isn't the only way to do it but I believe it gives you the strongest chance to contend year in and year out and also makes it easier to replace pieces rather than rebuild or even tanking.

Considering the CBA, please tell me how you'd round out a "contending" team with:
(You have 4 M in Cap space left and then you can use the MLE and possibly the biannual exception and you need 6 players (2 starters and 4 bench players))

PG:
SG: Kobe 23.5 M
SF: Melo 24 M
PF: Randle 3 M
C:

B1: Steve Nash 10 M
B2: Kendell Marshall 1 M
B3:
B4:
B5:
B6:
B7: Robert Sacre 1M

Please share with me a realistic way to create a contender before the 2015-2016 season because Kobe expects to contend before his next contract. The only option I see is to trade Nash and Randle for a solid proven starter but I feel if they got an offer worth considering, it would have happened on draft night. I can't remember a high lottery pick being traded after the draft or during his first season outside of Thomas Robinson.

GreekAlex wrote:Don't forget Rondo was also on a rookie deal... it wasn't exactly like the Miami big 3 with Mario Chalmers.

Like I said... my theory isn't the only way to do it but I believe it gives you the strongest chance to contend year in and year out and also makes it easier to replace pieces rather than rebuild or even tanking.

Considering the CBA, please tell me how you'd round out a "contending" team with:
(You have 4 M in Cap space left and then you can use the MLE and possibly the biannual exception and you need 6 players (2 starters and 4 bench players))

PG:
SG: Kobe 23.5 M
SF: Melo 24 M
PF: Randle 3 M
C:

B1: Steve Nash 10 M
B2: Kendell Marshall 1 M
B3:
B4:
B5:
B6:
B7: Robert Sacre 1M

Please share with me a realistic way to create a contender before the 2015-2016 season because Kobe expects to contend before his next contract. The only option I see is to trade Nash and Randle for a solid proven starter but I feel if they got an offer worth considering, it would have happened on draft night. I can't remember a high lottery pick being traded after the draft or during his first season outside of Thomas Robinson.

ESPN showed how it "could" work for LA to bring in Melo AND bring back Gasol, by getting rid of Nash. Not likely by any means, but it was more for the sake of it being possible.

A line up of Marshall/Kobe/Melo/Randle/Gasol could potentially contend. And with a starting lineup like that, they could have the star power to pull in some veterans on minimum deals.


I get what you're saying in creating a team that can contend over a period of years. I'd be interested in looking at the Piston's cap from their run in the 2000's. The problem I would foresee is, a team is unlikely to continually turn draft picks into prime time starters, especially if they're selecting in the bottom third of the first round year after year. Eventually, a contending team relies on FA or their players taking pay cuts to remain competitive. The dream scenario would see the draft pick, turn into a max player, the max player turn into a veteran on the bench, and a new draft pick taking that vet's spot in the lineup, and repeat. But every team is going to fall on hard times. The Lakers and Celtics are proving that. And trying to rebuild that salary distribution while rebuilding a roster would be incredibly difficult.

epheisey wrote:

GreekAlex wrote:Don't forget Rondo was also on a rookie deal... it wasn't exactly like the Miami big 3 with Mario Chalmers.

Like I said... my theory isn't the only way to do it but I believe it gives you the strongest chance to contend year in and year out and also makes it easier to replace pieces rather than rebuild or even tanking.

Considering the CBA, please tell me how you'd round out a "contending" team with:
(You have 4 M in Cap space left and then you can use the MLE and possibly the biannual exception and you need 6 players (2 starters and 4 bench players))

PG:
SG: Kobe 23.5 M
SF: Melo 24 M
PF: Randle 3 M
C:

B1: Steve Nash 10 M
B2: Kendell Marshall 1 M
B3:
B4:
B5:
B6:
B7: Robert Sacre 1M

Please share with me a realistic way to create a contender before the 2015-2016 season because Kobe expects to contend before his next contract. The only option I see is to trade Nash and Randle for a solid proven starter but I feel if they got an offer worth considering, it would have happened on draft night. I can't remember a high lottery pick being traded after the draft or during his first season outside of Thomas Robinson.

ESPN showed how it "could" work for LA to bring in Melo AND bring back Gasol, by getting rid of Nash. Not likely by any means, but it was more for the sake of it being possible.

A line up of Marshall/Kobe/Melo/Randle/Gasol could potentially contend. And with a starting lineup like that, they could have the star power to pull in some veterans on minimum deals.


I get what you're saying in creating a team that can contend over a period of years. I'd be interested in looking at the Piston's cap from their run in the 2000's. The problem I would foresee is, a team is unlikely to continually turn draft picks into prime time starters, especially if they're selecting in the bottom third of the first round year after year. Eventually, a contending team relies on FA or their players taking pay cuts to remain competitive. The dream scenario would see the draft pick, turn into a max player, the max player turn into a veteran on the bench, and a new draft pick taking that vet's spot in the lineup, and repeat. But every team is going to fall on hard times. The Lakers and Celtics are proving that. And trying to rebuild that salary distribution while rebuilding a roster would be incredibly difficult.

I feel you... it definitely can't be done overnight but I think once you have a cornerstone like Andre Drummond is expected to be, it's good to be conscious of getting the complementary pieces in place so when his rookie deal is up you go over the cap to extend him.

When Joe D. was at his best he was collecting assets with positive value. Even when calculated gambles didn't work out, he was able to improve the team by trading players because other teams could see they were positive assets and he kept tinkering the roster till he got it right.

As far as a line up of Marshall/Kobe/Melo/Randle/Gasol, I just don't see that as a contender. Just my opinion but my first take on that squad would be to remember how valuable Derek Fisher was to LA's championships and see an inexperienced PG like Marshall as a big weakness. Also I see a weak bench as a big flaw for a team with 2 older stars like Kobe and Pau. I don't see that team getting out of the first round, much less contending.