RealGM

bwgood77 wrote:I've seen #s tossed around but anyone know what it is for sure?

bwgood77 wrote:I've seen #s tossed around but anyone know what it is for sure?

DBoys wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:I've seen #s tossed around but anyone know what it is for sure?

If you don't know, for practical purposes, it's an incredibly meaningless number, no matter if it is big or small.

Smitty731 wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:I've seen #s tossed around but anyone know what it is for sure?

The floor is 90% of the cap. So, if the cap is at $94 million (latest official estimate), it would be $84.6 million for this year.

bwgood77 wrote:

Smitty731 wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:I've seen #s tossed around but anyone know what it is for sure?

The floor is 90% of the cap. So, if the cap is at $94 million (latest official estimate), it would be $84.6 million for this year.

So if you are under the salary floor and the money gets divided between players on the the team, I figured it would be allocated pro-rata based on their contract #s, but another poster said he thought it was divided equally.

I couldn't find this information in Larry Coons FAQ page. Do you know the answer to this?

Smitty731 wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:

Smitty731 wrote:
The floor is 90% of the cap. So, if the cap is at $94 million (latest official estimate), it would be $84.6 million for this year.

So if you are under the salary floor and the money gets divided between players on the the team, I figured it would be allocated pro-rata based on their contract #s, but another poster said he thought it was divided equally.

I couldn't find this information in Larry Coons FAQ page. Do you know the answer to this?

This question comes up a lot. All that is really known is that the NBA, NBPA, and the Team come to an agreement with how the money should be divided up among the players. Both Denver and Orlando fell short of the floor last year and no details were ever released as to how the money was split.

If, as some are suggesting, multiple teams fall short this year, I would expect to see more made of it and more push for details to be made public.

Personal opinion here, I don't think teams are going to fall short. In general teams can't help themselves and they tend to spend most, if not all, of their cap room every year. I don't think it will be the issue that it is being made out to be. But that is just my personal opinion.

I.What is the Minimum Salary Floor & Creating Value in a Loophole of the CBA

Outlined in Article VII Section 2 b (1) of the CBA, the minimum salary floor in the 2015/16 and 2016/17 seasons is set at 90% of the salary cap, up from 85% in 2012/13 under the current CBA. This season, the salary cap is $70,000,000, and correspondingly the salary floor is $63,000,000.

B(2) of the same section controls the most common misconception of the salary floor: the necessity to actually reach the floor. To be clear, the salary floor is not an absolute requirement. Instead, if a team falls short of the salary floor, the shortfall is distributed by the team pro rata (proportionally based on contract amount) to each player on the roster OR as Union sees fit. The policy here is obviously to require owners to meet a certain threshold on player salaries and eliminate what could potentially be “extreme money ball” but there is no real penalty.

bwgood77 wrote:

Smitty731 wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:
So if you are under the salary floor and the money gets divided between players on the the team, I figured it would be allocated pro-rata based on their contract #s, but another poster said he thought it was divided equally.

I couldn't find this information in Larry Coons FAQ page. Do you know the answer to this?

This question comes up a lot. All that is really known is that the NBA, NBPA, and the Team come to an agreement with how the money should be divided up among the players. Both Denver and Orlando fell short of the floor last year and no details were ever released as to how the money was split.

If, as some are suggesting, multiple teams fall short this year, I would expect to see more made of it and more push for details to be made public.

Personal opinion here, I don't think teams are going to fall short. In general teams can't help themselves and they tend to spend most, if not all, of their cap room every year. I don't think it will be the issue that it is being made out to be. But that is just my personal opinion.

I did find this, and I assume that the players association would be for the pro rata split considering guys on rookie contracts probably are the small minority in that group.

I.What is the Minimum Salary Floor & Creating Value in a Loophole of the CBA

Outlined in Article VII Section 2 b (1) of the CBA, the minimum salary floor in the 2015/16 and 2016/17 seasons is set at 90% of the salary cap, up from 85% in 2012/13 under the current CBA. This season, the salary cap is $70,000,000, and correspondingly the salary floor is $63,000,000.

B(2) of the same section controls the most common misconception of the salary floor: the necessity to actually reach the floor. To be clear, the salary floor is not an absolute requirement. Instead, if a team falls short of the salary floor, the shortfall is distributed by the team pro rata (proportionally based on contract amount) to each player on the roster OR as Union sees fit. The policy here is obviously to require owners to meet a certain threshold on player salaries and eliminate what could potentially be “extreme money ball” but there is no real penalty.

https://capstrategist.com/2016/02/02/trade-deadline-primer-part-1-the-minimum-salary-floor-cap-space-teams/

Smitty731 wrote:The part you can bet will be cleaned up come the next CBA is how money is counted towards the floor. Because teams taking on a contracts just to make the floor and thus avoid the penalty, while not actually paying those players (because their former team already paid a portion) is happening. That is sure to be addressed.

bwgood77 wrote:

DBoys wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:I've seen #s tossed around but anyone know what it is for sure?

If you don't know, for practical purposes, it's an incredibly meaningless number, no matter if it is big or small.

I know, but as some mentioned, rather than the money you are beneath it getting distributed to your current players, someone pointed out today that they imagined most GM's would probably rather get something for that money, rather than get nothing. Personally I'd be fine with the Suns being well under the floor, otherwise maybe signing some guys to large one year deals if they don't want to try and get some bang for that buck one way or another.

Tfence92 wrote:Why would a team ever want to pay a random scrub millions to not play for them just to reach the floor?

Isn't that a slap in the face to the current players?

"Hey guys, we're like 15 million under the floor right now. We could give each of you 1 million dollars, or we could claim Joe schmo and pay him 15 million while you get nothing. Thoughts?"