No "cap Smoothing" will be implemented, 2016 cap projected $90 million

[DanTown8587]

NBA teams using internal data are projecting the salary cap to jump to between $88 million and $92 million per team, sources told ESPN. To compare, this season the cap is set at $63 million and next season it is projected to land at about $66 million. To put it into perspective, the largest salary-cap jump in history is $7 million in one season. What happens in 2016 could triple that leap.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12461874/players-union-rejects-salary-cap-smoothing-historic-cap-increase-nba-set

This is going to massively change the league. The current system is not designed for this much money to be available to sign players to extensions.

First off, I highly doubt any player signs a contract this summer even at their max (like a guy like Jimmy Butler).

I think in 2017 (assuming there is a "lockout" while they negotiate) we could see maximum salaries eliminated and the teams will switch to a NFL style cap (hard team cap, no max for player salaries, most teams pay roughly the same amount) but owners will get non-guaranteed contracts for this massive change and the fact player salaries might uptick to say 54%.

The Bulls decision to not give Jimmy Butler 4/54 (or whatever it was close to that) is going to look like one of the dumbest decisions of all time considering they had to know this could be the salary outcome.

[NecessaryEvil]

Gonna be plenty of big three's and 'super teams' in a few years.

[red222]

repeat

[Peelboy]

This is great news for the Bulls.
1) Jimmy gets a max deal. Bulls can offer one easily, he can reject for a 1-year, but seems unlikely that he would do that given his character, etc.
2) Bulls can trade a guy like Taj without his new team worrying overmuch about salary. Taj's deal is going to be pretty cheap in his last year given the new cap.

If Bulls can play cars right, they'd have the ability to offer a substantial FA deal to someone to join a team with Rose, Butler, Mirotic, an aging Noah, (hopefully) McDermott, Snell. That's a nice core to put around a guy like Durant or even to say take on a salary of an older guy like Melo to be a scorer. (NOTE: I said guy like Melo. That could mean the actual Melo or another aging guy who can still score. Not suggesting that cancerous Melo is the guy we want to acquire - if he's willing to play a role to win, fine otherwise move to the next option.)

[DanTown8587]

If Jimmy is offered a max deal this year then his four year deal starts at about 16.3 million and then goes up by 7.5% of 16.3 million ( per year (so 1.23) million each year roughly. Jimmy's four year max is roughly 73 million or so.

If Jimmy waits a year and takes a max deal starting in 2016, his four year max jumps up to about 4/100.

[mademan]

I think in 2017 (assuming there is a "lockout" while they negotiate) we could see maximum salaries eliminated and the teams will switch to a NFL style cap (hard team cap, no max for player salaries, most teams pay roughly the same amount) but owners will get non-guaranteed contracts for this massive change and the fact player salaries might uptick to say 54%.

No way players union agrees to this. Only a few players would benefit from having no max contracts, but every player benefits from guaranteed contracts. Non-guaranteed contracts is a non-starter for them; the next lockout will be primarily based around BRI. Im pretty sure the players union feels like they got shafted in the last go around

[DanTown8587]

I think in 2017 (assuming there is a "lockout" while they negotiate) we could see maximum salaries eliminated and the teams will switch to a NFL style cap (hard team cap, no max for player salaries, most teams pay roughly the same amount) but owners will get non-guaranteed contracts for this massive change and the fact player salaries might uptick to say 54%.

No way players union agrees to this. Only a few players would benefit from having no max contracts, but every player benefits from guaranteed contracts. Non-guaranteed contracts is a non-starter for them; the next lockout will be primarily based around BRI. Im pretty sure the players union feels like they got shafted in the last go around

You go to the union and say no max salaries and that they get an extra 3% of BRI when BRI is going to be like 8 billion (so that 3% is actually 240 million in year) and you're going to have a hard time getting the union to say no. If you make the cap similar to the NFL, that means each team is spending an extra eight million a year on player salaries right there.

The smoothing would have helped the majority of the league but it hurts the top end of the league (which seems to have a lot of power right now with CP3 being the president of the players association) because they don't get that full max. Give these guys the ability to negotiate 30-45 million dollar/year deals and all of the sudden they won't care if they're guaranteed. Or make them guaranteed for dollars but they can be cut for cap space (i.e they're 50% guaranteed).

[coldfish]

Good thread.

One thing to keep in mind is that the BRI is 50%. If the salary cap is jumping that much, so is the owner side of the revenue. Teams are going to be making a fortune, which is why they are selling for billions right now.

There is going to be less owner support for a lockout and both sides will have significant incentive to keep the status quo because everyone will be making so much money.

As another note, this is another reason why the Bulls shouldn't worry about lux tax next year. There is NO chance of repeater tax. I know that they will cut players due to salary but its really unnecessary.

Last comment: Bulls will be approaching $100M per year in operating income within the next few years. Teams like the Lakers will be even more. NBA franchises are going to be among the most valuable in sports.

[musiqsoulchild]

Two things:

1) Teams that already have established superstars can now build super-teams.
2) We can keep Taj Gibson.

I still find it HIGHLY unlikely that the player unions will accede to this. The league will become a massive morass of overpaid contracts once again.

[Stratmaster]

If Jimmy is offered a max deal this year then his four year deal starts at about 16.3 million and then goes up by 7.5% of 16.3 million ( per year (so 1.23) million each year roughly. Jimmy's four year max is roughly 73 million or so.

If Jimmy waits a year and takes a max deal starting in 2016, his four year max jumps up to about 4/100.

Meh..what's another 27 million at that point?

[DuckIII]

Nikola Mirotic's agent:

[DanTown8587]

Two things:

1) Teams that already have established superstars can now build super-teams.
2) We can keep Taj Gibson.

I still find it HIGHLY unlikely that the player unions will accede to this. The league will become a massive morass of overpaid contracts once again.

The Union is the reason that this happening as the owners wanted a smoothing and the NBAPA said nope.

[kodo]

Players will still sign contracts because having a max contract in the bank now is still better than tearing your ACL or meniscus (which is happening to a large # of high level young players) and settling for much lower due to injury fears.

Steph Curry should be making far more money than $11M, he's one of the lowest paid starters on the team. But he signed an extremely lowball contract because there were fears from his camp he may not be able to play due to his injuries.

The cap spike is in 16/17, not 15/16. So I believe Jimmy will sign a max contract for 3 years with a player option on the 3rd year. This still locks in 3 years of max if he continues to regress or suffers an all too common knee injury, and gives him the flexibility to take advantage of the cap spike if he's still worth that much by then.

Or he could sign a 4 year contract anyway...it's not like the cap will go down after the spike. It will always be there for him to take advantage of.

[nrockwaychicago]

Color me VERY surprised. I didn't think there was any way the cap would rise so dramatically.

[musiqsoulchild]

Two things:

1) Teams that already have established superstars can now build super-teams.
2) We can keep Taj Gibson.

I still find it HIGHLY unlikely that the player unions will accede to this. The league will become a massive morass of overpaid contracts once again.

The Union is the reason that this happening as the owners wanted a smoothing and the NBAPA said nope.

I should have been clearer.

The percentage of players in the NBAPA who will be impacted by the small percentage of max-ish players is vast. They will vote it down in my opinion. I could be wrong and maybe there's a factor I am ovverlooking...but anytime the max increases, its the mid tier players who end up having to take value contracts.

Now, if the cap increased with better regulation around how max contracts can be structured, then I can see players being fully on board.

[RedBulls23]

Bulls will have a crap load of cap space in 2017 right?

It will be interesting to see how many player's choose to have an opt out clause for that summer.

[coldfish]

Bulls will have a crap load of cap space in 2017 right?

It will be interesting to see how many player's choose to have an opt out clause for that summer.

Right now, the Bulls have no contracts for after 2017. If they give Jimmy the max and have a few other middling deals, they still would have something close to $70M. Of course, they won't buy you what it used to.

I don't think this is a coincidence. Gasol, Gibson, Mirotic and Rose all expire then. The only people who are off are Noah and Butler.

[mademan]

You go to the union and say no max salaries and that they get an extra 3% of BRI when BRI is going to be like 8 billion (so that 3% is actually 240 million in year) and you're going to have a hard time getting the union to say no. If you make the cap similar to the NFL, that means each team is spending an extra eight million a year on player salaries right there.

240 million over 250 players, a little less than 1 mill per player per year (on average). The average salary is going to be 8ish mill a year...you ask the players if they want 1 mill unguaranteed more per year or a guaranteed 8 mill per year, i cant think of 1 agent who would advise his players to go for the first option. Id have to crunch the numbers, but the amount of the BRI they would need to make it worth it (if, for example, a player has a 10% chance of getting cut) would be cutting into a point that would make the owners lose money.

Give these guys the ability to negotiate 30-45 million dollar/year deals and all of the sudden they won't care if they're guaranteed. Or make them guaranteed for dollars but they can be cut for cap space (i.e they're 50% guaranteed).

Again, theres maybe 5 players in the league negotiating for that amount of money. The union is made up of a lot more of Mike Dunleavy's than Lebron James'. I am sure that non-guaranteed contracts is a non-starter for them.

[Mbrahv0528]

NBA teams using internal data are projecting the salary cap to jump to between $88 million and $92 million per team, sources told ESPN. To compare, this season the cap is set at $63 million and next season it is projected to land at about $66 million. To put it into perspective, the largest salary-cap jump in history is $7 million in one season. What happens in 2016 could triple that leap.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12461874/players-union-rejects-salary-cap-smoothing-historic-cap-increase-nba-set

This is going to massively change the league. The current system is not designed for this much money to be available to sign players to extensions.

First off, I highly doubt any player signs a contract this summer even at their max (like a guy like Jimmy Butler).

I think in 2017 (assuming there is a "lockout" while they negotiate) we could see maximum salaries eliminated and the teams will switch to a NFL style cap (hard team cap, no max for player salaries, most teams pay roughly the same amount) but owners will get non-guaranteed contracts for this massive change and the fact player salaries might uptick to say 54%.

The Bulls decision to not give Jimmy Butler 4/54 (or whatever it was close to that) is going to look like one of the dumbest decisions of all time considering they had to know this could be the salary outcome.

No it won't because that would be revisionist history. Jimmy bet on himself and he won, that's it. He was offered a more than fair contract by the Bulls, but Jimmy believed he could play himself into a max..and he did. That's it..it wasn't a dumb decision in the least, sorry.

[kristov]

Doesn't make much sense for Jimmy to play next season for the qualifying offer which is 3 million instead of signing a deal for the max starting at 15.5 million. It would take almost 3 years of his max deal signed in summer of '16 to make up for the 12.5 million deficit for next season. I'd guess he signs a 5 year max deal with an ETO for the final season.