RealGM

Let us begin with a question about the Stretch provision of the CBA as it pertains to Mirza Teletovic. I appears all but certain that the Bucks will have Mirza's salary removed from their cap after he was forced to retire due to a medical condition. Last season, the Bucks waived and stretched the final year of Mirza's contract, resulting in Cap hits of $3.5 Million this year and the next two seasons. My question comes in when Mirza is found to be medically unfit after not playing for a year. The year was up in November, so for the sake of argument, lets say that was 10% of the season.

When the doctors submit their report, obviously the $3.5 Million cap hits for the next two seasons of Mirza's stretched contract will be removed from the Buck's cap sheet. My question is, will the full $3.5 Million also be removed from this year's cap sheet as will, or will the amount removed be pro-rated to reflect the 10% of the season that took place prior to the one year aniversary of Mirza's last game, and the resulting cap relief only be say $3.15 Million?

For the purpose of my proposal, let us assume that the full $3.5 Million comes off this year's Buck's Cap sheet. During this discussion, I will reference the Buck's salary cap situation using the following web link:

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/milwaukee-bucks-team-salary/

Be these numbers right or wrong, it does not matter, we are only using them for the sake of discussion.

So presently the Bucks are roughly $1.417 Million below the Tax line. Lets assume the League grants the Buck's the full$3.5 Million in Cap relief this year, which would leave the Buck's about $4.917 under the tax line.

Spencer Hawes was stretched and will hit the Buck's cap sheet for $2.007 Million next year, while the Larry Sanders stretch is on the books for three more years after this season at about $1.866 per season.

I would like the board's feedback on the following proposal:

Teams under the Tax Line (like the Bucks in this scenario) would be able to pay forward on their stretched contracts using this year's space under the tax line. So the Bucks could eliminate Hawe's cap hit next year and remove one Year off the Sander's stretch and still be under the tax line. These "pay forward" moves would amount to $3.873 Million this year. My proposal would only allow the Buck's to pay down the final year of the Sanders stretch, so his cap hit would still exist for the next two seasons.

I can't think of any reason this would be seen as a bad thing by either the League or the Players' association.

Perhaps there should be some restrictions on this, such as:

A. Only one year of one Stretched contract may be eliminated each year for teams over the cap but under the tax.
B. Teams under the cap can eliminate multiple stretched contract years up to the cap line, and then are restricted by item A.
C. Only players who have been waived and stretched the previous season may be "uncapped" by this provision.
D. The exception to item C would be if a team under the cap waives and stretches a player who was on their roster last year.
E. Teams over the tax line may not use this provision.

I am sure that there are other restrictions that should apply. I am looking for input from the board here.

What I am trying to avoid with these restrictions is having a tanking team becoming a dumping ground for bad contracts which might be able to immediately mitigate their effect using these provisions. If you are going to eat salary for assets, you should not be able to just digest these contracts and have a clean cap sheet the following year by abusing this provision.

I am looking for thoughts and feedback on this. Thanks.

There is no "should" as if there's a right and wrong. It's all accounting tricks, because the cap itself is just an accounting game. And it comes down to how they want to set it up to account for the numbers, to get to the desired end result of teams spending the designated amount.

So in some future CBA could they decide to let a team use this year's unused cap room to pay for tomorrow's cap costs? Sure, perhaps. They do allow it in one circumstance already, where it is used to motivate added spending. So who knows.

Thanks for your input DBoys. My reasoning for thinking this would be attractive for both the NBA and the players association is:

Teams are always trying to improve their cap sheet.
By moving dead salary forward, this allows more cap to be offered to players in subsequent years.

Looks like a win-win to me.

One thing I did not mention is that teams would not be required to use this provision, it would be an option available to them.

There are always two issues at play, behind the cap rules. One is to motivate spending on player payroll at the desired total amount, and by all teams in more-or-less equal amounts. The second is to keep from offering an unfair advantage to this team or that, by use of the cap rules.

To the extent that they perceive such a rule would enhance those aims, then it might be added.

However ....

When you are given the latitude to pre-pay future cap hits for a stretch waive, you are messing with the rule in which you have to irrevocably determine right up front how you want the cap hit to be accounted for in your waiver. With the proposed rule, you are now giving a way to undo what was already decided (while a different team might not be given that do-over). That gives one more potential plus for waiving players and tossing salary in the trash, so to speak. While the players like that (even though it actually is to their detriment), the owners might not want to enhance that approach.