Everything Derozan

[McRealistic]

Hopefully MU will not the mistake that BC made with Chris Bosh.

Star players are hard to come by ...

Danny Green, Dramond Green, K.L ( SA), Middleton, Harris, ...

Teams are keeping their stars and are not trading them.

[DanH]

The salary cap is based on 51% of the BRI, no longer 50%, less attribution for benefits , please confirm that is correct

Well, yes. But it is also dependent on the previous year. If there is over or underpayment there previous season (or if Escrow money is withheld or the NBA has to write a check to the players to balance the BRI percentage).

So in this case, the league is projecting that a lot of teams will spend only to the floor, and very few teams over the cap, let alone the tax, meaning the cap calculation (which assumes teams will spend about 10% above the cap on average for the BRI to end up balanced) will end up causing teams to spend far below the amount needed for the players to get their share of BRI. So at the end of the year, the NBA cuts a check of whatever the shortfall is.

I would expect the shortfall to be about 10-15M per team on average. The NBA appears to have assumed a shortfall of 13M per team. So the following year's cap is adjusted up by that amount. So if the basic projection is 89M, 95M, 100M based on BRI growth, with the shortfall in 2016 the 2017 cap is adjusted up by 13M from 95M to 108M. The following season there will be no shortfall due to the overestimated cap, so the cap will not be adjusted up again and will fall in line with the original BRI growth projections, in this case meaning it will drop a bit in 2018 back to about 100M.

[DanH]

Star players are hard to come by ...

Danny Green, Dramond Green, K.L ( SA), Middleton, Harris, ...

Teams are keeping their stars and are not trading them.

Danny Greeb is not a star.

The rest are RFA's. There is no risk to those teams keeping those players, as they can't walk. Try asking Portland about the risk of keeping UFA's.

[Heatdreamer]

Well, yes. But it is also dependent on the previous year. If there is over or underpayment there previous season (or if Escrow money is withheld or the NBA has to write a check to the players to balance the BRI percentage).

So in this case, the league is projecting that a lot of teams will spend only to the floor, and very few teams over the cap, let alone the tax, meaning the cap calculation (which assumes teams will spend about 10% above the cap on average for the BRI to end up balanced) will end up causing teams to spend far below the amount needed for the players to get their share of BRI. So at the end of the year, the NBA cuts a check of whatever the shortfall is.

I would expect the shortfall to be about 10-15M per team on average. The NBA appears to have assumed a shortfall of 13M per team. So the following year's cap is adjusted up by that amount. So if the basic projection is 89M, 95M, 100M based on BRI growth, with the shortfall in 2016 the 2017 cap is adjusted up by 13M from 95M to 108M. The following season there will be no shortfall due to the overestimated cap, so the cap will not be adjusted up again and will fall in line with the original BRI growth projections, in this case meaning it will drop a bit in 2018 back to about 100M.

My interpretation of what will transpire is that the " ancillary business expansion " philosophy of Adam Silver will close the gap over the next two years. Though , small compared to the monumental TV deal. Pepsi and Nike deals have doubled revenues, other new deals in new classifications though small in total the impact will makeup the shortfall -and I believe that retrenchment that you expect in 2018 may not occur.
Incremental growth thereafter will be as you express. Those fortunate 450 players will be tremendously fortunate in their great new reward for their work. I do believe expansion to occur after the new players contract is agreed and signed.

[DanH]

Sure, possible, but remember it is not me who thinks those are the cap levels. It's the NBA, who know more about their own Pepsi and other sponsorships than you or I would ever know.

[Axel]

Sure, possible, but remember it is not me who thinks those are the cap levels. It's the NBA, who know more about their own Pepsi and other sponsorships than you or I would ever know.

Blasphemy. Internet forums are all knowing!!

[Heatdreamer]

Yes , but specific amounts based on initial projections of the BRI by NBA is adjusted a number of times in the last two years. Nba provides conservative estimates.

[DanH]

Just two seasons ago the cap came in below the projected cap value. Sometimes they are conservative, sometimes not. Foolish to rely on it.

[JawsGT]

This thread is a year too early. He does not need to be traded nor does he need to be resigned.

[JWash]

This thread is a year too early. He does not need to be traded nor does he need to be resigned.

You're right...


WAIVE HIS CHUCKING ASS

[raptors999]

You're right...


WAIVE HIS CHUCKING ASS

can demar be stretched instead of a straight waiving

[JawsGT]

lol, you can let him hit free agency, and if he gets an offer greater than you are willing to pay, you let him walk. Pretty simple, if he sucks as bad as some of you proclaim, his potential return won't be so great as to take the risk to see what he's worth in free agency. You guys are using the dark side of the force improperly, you let the hate consume you, not blind you!

[Apollo]

This thread is a year too early. He does not need to be traded nor does he need to be resigned.

And if he walks leaving the Raptors open handed they'll be a year too late.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[DanH]

lol, you can let him hit free agency, and if he gets an offer greater than you are willing to pay, you let him walk. Pretty simple, if he sucks as bad as some of you proclaim, his potential return won't be so great as to take the risk to see what he's worth in free agency. You guys are using the dark side of the force improperly, you let the hate consume you, not blind you!

The argument of many is that his value as perceived by GM's around the league (or at least some GM's) is far greater than his value to the team on the court, due to his all-star credentials, team USA selection, and high PPG average, and in spite of his less than stellar efficiency and defence. The reason we expect him to get overpaid is the same reason we expect him to have a decent trade return even in his final year.

If I thought he'd have no value in a trade, I wouldn't suggest trading him. He's no poison like Bargnani was, or Gay was (as he was used and as he fit). If his value is low, keep him and take the shot. But I don't believe that would be the case.

[JawsGT]

The argument of many is that his value as perceived by GM's around the league (or at least some GM's) is far greater than his value to the team on the court, due to his all-star credentials, team USA selection, and high PPG average, and in spite of his less than stellar efficiency and defence. The reason we expect him to get overpaid is the same reason we expect him to have a decent trade return even in his final year.

If I thought he'd have no value in a trade, I wouldn't suggest trading him. He's no poison like Bargnani was, or Gay was (as he was used and as he fit). If his value is low, keep him and take the shot. But I don't believe that would be the case.

I'm not against trading him either. If the return is there, pull the trigger. But the very reasons you listed that he may have value, are also reasons dismissed by those that do not like his game. NBA GM's are aware of the pro's and con's as much as you or I, and ultimately I doubt a GM is gonna trade for Demar because he made team USA. They will trade for him if they feel he can bring something to the table, and whatever that thing is, he can bring it here as well as anywhere else. We need a player that can do what Demar does as much as any other team.

Ultimately, I don't see losing Demar the same as losing a Bosh or Aldridge. We aren't talking about an all-NBA player here, or perennial all-star. We are talking about a guy who's faults are exposed by the system we play and the role he has within that system. On a good year, he's all-star caliber in the East, but otherwise, he's borderline all-star at best. If trading him can get us a player that is clearly better, then so be it, but why would another team do that? Pick and prospects ain't gonna cut it, cause clearly MU isn't rebuilding, and we already have a plethora of picks and prospects. The Favors/Demar swap kinda made sense amidst the Millsap rumours, but I can't think of another possibility where moving Demar can net an arguably better or equal player.

Letting him test free agency isn't the end of the world, or the worst case scenario even if he leaves. I don't buy the "we have to trade players with perceived high value because of their soon to be UFA status." Especially given the Raps current situation. If we were capped out and a borderline playoff team, I might be more understanding, but when we are a single good to great PF away from legitimate ECF consideration, I'm not so sure. Moving Demar might just leave us no better than we currently are. If he gets his $25M somewhere else next offseason, then so be it. I am not afraid to let these guys hit free agency, and neither is MU. He let Lowry do it, and almost everyone on these forums consider him a better player, and yet we have him on a value contract. We are going to disagree here, cause I don't buy that argument. For me, it's just ammo for the anti-Demar camp, cause if everyone here was a consensus Demar supporter, we wouldn't be even considering trading him simply cause he's going to be a free agent.