Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Raptors Salary Cap Situation (and planning for the future)

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    how does the new deal and the players thinking about doing away with max deals work? i read one quote that made whoever said it sound ignorant. they were talking about the new tv money and how now the players can get a deal that is better for themselves. isn't 51% better than 49% already?

    how does the extra money not spent on players get distributed? do all players get an equal share of the remaining % to make it an even 51%?

    wouldn't keeping how it's going and then dividing the difference between salaries and 51% among the players be the easiest and most logical?

    for example salary caps keep as they are, which of course will be well below 51% of revenues when the tv deal takes effect. then at the end of the season the money is divided up to the players based on the amount of percentages each player already earns.

    to break it down simply

    lebron gets 25% of teams salary cap. players that also get that much money would be entitled to 25% of the remaining billions split up between them. then you break it off and do the math for the rest.

    Comment


    • #92
      Miekenstien wrote: View Post
      how does the new deal and the players thinking about doing away with max deals work? i read one quote that made whoever said it sound ignorant. they were talking about the new tv money and how now the players can get a deal that is better for themselves. isn't 51% better than 49% already?

      how does the extra money not spent on players get distributed? do all players get an equal share of the remaining % to make it an even 51%?

      wouldn't keeping how it's going and then dividing the difference between salaries and 51% among the players be the easiest and most logical?

      for example salary caps keep as they are, which of course will be well below 51% of revenues when the tv deal takes effect. then at the end of the season the money is divided up to the players based on the amount of percentages each player already earns.

      to break it down simply

      lebron gets 25% of teams salary cap. players that also get that much money would be entitled to 25% of the remaining billions split up between them. then you break it off and do the math for the rest.
      Basically what you are suggesting is to do away with a real salary cap, and put in place a cap on fictional dollars - then have loads of revenue sitting in escrow until the end of the season. Neither side wants this, as neither side can use that money if it is sitting in escrow. This may be the solution for one year (not an unchanged cap but a suppressed one) but that will be a negotiation with the PA.

      People talking about the players getting a new deal that is better are referring to the logic used in the last CBA negotiations - where the owners pulled the guaranteed percentage for the players back from 57% (where it had ballooned to from 50% over a decade or two) to 50-51%, depending on the revenue generated, based on the owners losing money under a system where they only kept 43% of revenue. This new TV deal does not represent an increased cost to the owners, just revenue, so in theory the owners can make money even if they give a larger share to the players.

      The max salary debate is a different one, separate from the TV deal, that has been simmering for some time. I honestly thought they would take a shot at it in the last negotiations. The reality in the NBA is that max level players are dramatically underpaid compared to the value they bring to a team because of the max salaries. And role players are overpaid because of that. The new TV deal has just presented a huge pie to take a piece of, bringing up the old question of why LBJ gets so small a slice when he drives so much of the league's revenue.
      twitter.com/dhackett1565

      Comment


      • #93
        thank you

        Comment


        • #94
          DanH wrote: View Post
          Basically what you are suggesting is to do away with a real salary cap, and put in place a cap on fictional dollars - then have loads of revenue sitting in escrow until the end of the season. Neither side wants this, as neither side can use that money if it is sitting in escrow. This may be the solution for one year (not an unchanged cap but a suppressed one) but that will be a negotiation with the PA.

          People talking about the players getting a new deal that is better are referring to the logic used in the last CBA negotiations - where the owners pulled the guaranteed percentage for the players back from 57% (where it had ballooned to from 50% over a decade or two) to 50-51%, depending on the revenue generated, based on the owners losing money under a system where they only kept 43% of revenue. This new TV deal does not represent an increased cost to the owners, just revenue, so in theory the owners can make money even if they give a larger share to the players.

          The max salary debate is a different one, separate from the TV deal, that has been simmering for some time. I honestly thought they would take a shot at it in the last negotiations. The reality in the NBA is that max level players are dramatically underpaid compared to the value they bring to a team because of the max salaries. And role players are overpaid because of that. The new TV deal has just presented a huge pie to take a piece of, bringing up the old question of why LBJ gets so small a slice when he drives so much of the league's revenue.
          First of all Lebron after 10 years + is entitled to 35% of the salary cap, which in two years could be 95 million - which Lebron is entitled to $33.25 plus increases for 5 years.

          Let's say that the Nba allows for the 10+ years in the new CBA to receive 38.5% of the salary cap without changing the other % of the max contracts. Than the established superstar could be extraordinarily rewarded without adversely affecting the rest of the Team financial composition allowing for two superstars on the team and bring to the end Miami Heat and the Merry Men. Though Cavs will be grandfathered for four years , this is due to Cleveland stinking the joint out for the previous 4 years.

          My question that has not been answered , the 2011 CBA indicates if the the NBA becomes financially sound the players will receive 51% of the salary cap instead of 49/50% . Does this mean for 2015/16 the salary cap for this season will rise instead to the projected $66.5 million dollars to close to $70 million for next year. Nobody can contest that the financial Stabilty of the Nba.

          Comment


          • #95
            I answered that before. The 51% is only the guarantee - it has no effect on the cap. The cap calculation is based on 50%, not the 49-51% possible range.
            twitter.com/dhackett1565

            Comment


            • #96
              Oh, and again, max salaries are NOT direct percentages of the cap. If the cap is 95M, the max 10 year salary is NOT 33.25M. It is closer to 31M.
              twitter.com/dhackett1565

              Comment


              • #97
                I imagine if they choose to change the percentages given to max players, a) they will change all the max salaries, not just the 10 year vet ones, and b) they will go up way more than 3.5%. Not worth the uproar if tiny changes are made. If changes are made, I'd expect it to be closer to 50% of the cap or no limit at all.
                twitter.com/dhackett1565

                Comment


                • #98
                  DanH wrote: View Post
                  I imagine if they choose to change the percentages given to max players, a) they will change all the max salaries, not just the 10 year vet ones, and b) they will go up way more than 3.5%. Not worth the uproar if tiny changes are made. If changes are made, I'd expect it to be closer to 50% of the cap or no limit at all.

                  I disagree there will not be a 50% or no limit at all, MY personal belief is that your thought here is aspirational no different than Mark Cuban's statement of No guarantee Contract. Small steps are won, not giant leaps IMHO

                  Additionally if the rate was changed to 38.5% of 95 million why do you believe it would be 31 million instead of my figure or is that because the figure is net of benefits

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Heatdreamer wrote: View Post
                    I disagree there will not be a 50% or no limit at all, MY personal belief is that your thought here is aspirational no different than Mark Cuban's statement of No guarantee Contract. Small steps are won, not giant leaps IMHO

                    Additionally if the rate was changed to 38.5% of 95 million why do you believe it would be 31 million instead of my figure or is that because the figure is net of benefits
                    First, if they are going to breach the max contracts at all, they aren't going to to do so lightly. Changes typically are NOT incremental in these negotiations, except occasionally for a delayed impact. If there isn't a big change, there probably won't be a change at all, and that is actually the most likely outcome - the owners will want something in return for removing or increasing max salaries, and the players may not be willing to pay that price (which may start as unguaranteed salaries, and end at maintaining the current revenue split), especially since keeping the max limits in place actually benefits the majority of the union.

                    Second, you didn't say 38.5% in that part of your post. You indicated 35%, the current max, at 95M would indicate 33M. It would not - the 35% is NOT 35% of the cap - it is 35% of a number calculated differently than the cap, a number that comes in about 6% lower. Hence my use of 31M instead. Has nothing to do with my beliefs - has everything to do with the fundamental way in which max salaries are calculated.
                    twitter.com/dhackett1565

                    Comment


                    • DanH wrote: View Post
                      First, if they are going to breach the max contracts at all, they aren't going to to do so lightly. Changes typically are NOT incremental in these negotiations, except occasionally for a delayed impact. If there isn't a big change, there probably won't be a change at all, and that is actually the most likely outcome - the owners will want something in return for removing or increasing max salaries, and the players may not be willing to pay that price (which may start as unguaranteed salaries, and end at maintaining the current revenue split), especially since keeping the max limits in place actually benefits the majority of the union.

                      Second, you didn't say 38.5% in that part of your post. You indicated 35%, the current max, at 95M would indicate 33M. It would not - the 35% is NOT 35% of the cap - it is 35% of a number calculated differently than the cap, a number that comes in about 6% lower. Hence my use of 31M instead. Has nothing to do with my beliefs - has everything to do with the fundamental way in which max salaries are calculated.
                      Interesting report out of hoopshype, what some teams think the salary cap will be for 2016.
                      http://www.nba.com/2014/news/feature...ndy/index.html

                      Comment


                      • There would be no negotiation of max contract removal with the union.

                        The reasons is simple: numbers.

                        The union is not there to protect the max guys, it is there to protect the average which is overwhelming majority of NBA. No way does the union go along with removing guaranteed money so the top 15-30 players in the league can get unlimited dollars.




                        I think it would be interesting to see a scenario play out like this - a sort of franchise tag.

                        Teams can negotiate an unlimited contract with 1 player that does not count against the cap or counts as a minimum contract/roster spot BUT BUT BUT they must have Bird Rights to do so (i.e. 3 years service - can also be obtained via trade).

                        Why?

                        Guys like Kobe/LeBron/etc. get paid what they are truly worth - which seems fair - while teams like OKC who built a tremendous core don't have to make non-basketball decisions (luxury tax, revenue sharing) in building their team.


                        Not sure how the BRI would factor in to this or anything else. Haven't really given it much more thought than you are seeing right here. I'm sure there are flaws that I'm not seeing. Anyways....

                        Comment


                        • I agree that the union SHOULD not push for removal of maximum salaries. But the union often enough is not driven entirely the way it should be. The star players have a lot of say there - not least because the union, just as the league, understands who butters their bread.
                          twitter.com/dhackett1565

                          Comment


                          • DanH wrote: View Post
                            I agree that the union SHOULD not push for removal of maximum salaries. But the union often enough is not driven entirely the way it should be. The star players have a lot of say there - not least because the union, just as the league, understands who butters their bread.
                            Dan and McHappy, not sure it is only the players, I think it is the players agents who are pushing for changes, we know Lebron and a healthy Durant are worth more money to the league, but how many other players are league stars, not franchise stars. Wade is no longer a league star, neither is Kobe at 36 years old.

                            So lets be quite honest there maybe 5 players who can be considered in a higher tier, if there is that many?

                            Maybe the players can squeeze another point out of the BRI for players salaries, but don't think there will be much more available than that. 1% more BRI is 67 million more dollars in the new TV deal approx. $150,000 extra salary a player annually less 10.5% for benefits.

                            Players last 4-5 years in the league, and the bottom 200, want to make enough to retire. Believe now there is that amount of monies available.

                            Comment


                            • You make a good point about the agents. They are an X factor in any of these negotiations, as they can influence the players and are not always going to advise in the best interests of the players.
                              twitter.com/dhackett1565

                              Comment


                              • As a note, B ball insiders has changed their report so that all three 15th man candidates are 25k guaranteed. So those who were skeptical were correct to be so.

                                Competition is wide open financially, at least.
                                twitter.com/dhackett1565

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X