Larry Coon the noted author of the CBAFAQ, will answer your Salary Cap and Collective Bargaining Agreement questions. Larry will answers your questions about the Salary Cap, NBA trades and the new CBA at 3:00pm
Hey Larry. Any idea on what the respective salaries looked like when Barkley was traded for Perry, Lang and Hornacek? Just interested in how strict the rules were back in the day, ie have to get back certain % of going out.
Let’s see if I can do some quick research on the fly.
The trade to which you referred took place on 6-17-1992, which sent Barkley from Philly to Phoenix in exchange for Jeff Hornacek, Andrew Lang and Tim Perry.
I only have CBAs dating back to 1995, so I can’t look the rule up directly.
Looking at 1991-92 salaries for the three players from Patricia Benders’ site: http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/ I see:
The Suns took back just 14.2 percent more salary than they sent out.
Is there anything in the CBA that u think is truly goofy ? OR How do u see the Warriors in terms of ability to get what is needed to win it all in the next 3 years?
Nothing that’s truly goofy, although my favorite clause is, “‘Reasonable’ moving expenses shall include the cost of moving not more than one (1) automobile for the player (and not more than two (2) automobiles if the player is married).
I don’t think the Warriors are that far away, if everyone continues to develop. But neither do I see them getting past OKC in the near future. Their bench was their biggest concern, and while their recent trade helped, we still can’t call it stellar.
Which RFA this summer most likely to get scooped up by another team: Hayward or Stevenson?
What sort of offers would it take for current clubs not to match?
I’m wiggling out of this one on a technicality — Stephenson won’t be a restricted free agent. He was a second round pick and will be coming off his fourth season in the league — that makes him unrestricted, not restricted.
The fact that he’s unrestricted and Indy has potential budget issues means he’s the more likely guy to switch teams. Any offer that puts Indy into the tax may be enough to snare him.
If Mavs offered Stevenson $@0mil/ur, would Indy be inclined to S/T him taking back Monta?
I’d like to see Mavs overhaul w/ Lance, Deng, & Hawes this summer. If Dirk takes $12mil, and Indy will take Monta’s $8mil, I think it can happen.
I assume you meant $20 million/year?
First off, Dallas can’t go that high. Stephenson will be a four-year player, so he’ll be subject to the 0-6 year maximum. This year that’s $13.7 million, and even with a sizable jump in the cap next season, I don’t think it’ll rise above $15 million.
That said, Indy’s in an interesting situation. They are adamant about not being taxpayers, and as things sit right now, with George’s extension kicking-in and with Copeland, Hibbert, Hill (both of them), Johnson, Mahinmi, Scola, Sloan, Watson and West on the books, they look to be only about $10 million under the cap (but they do have some flexibility with non-guaranteed salary for Johnson, Scola and Sloan).
It’ll be interesting to see what they do with Stephenson, who will surely command a hefty raise. I think they can squeeze him in, but there won’t be much wiggle room. The biggest impact will be that Granger will be gone in order to make room for his salary.
As for a sign-and-trade, there’s no longer a contractual reason to go that route — a player can’t make any more via sign-and-trade than he can make by signing directly. So unless the team has cap issues — and Dallas won’t — there really has to be an incentive. Maybe Indy views Ellis as a viable replacement and Dallas wants to move him to make room, in which case maybe it works out.
can you talk about the changes to the rules governing contract extensions in the latest cba please? Who pushed for these changes and has it had the desired effects, or also unforeseen ones? No max level player, or anyone who fancies himself such, will sign an extension anymore. Good or bad, and was this part of intentions?
Extensions are now shorter, but that reflects an overall shortening of contracts rather than something that’s specific to extensions. A veteran extension can now total four seasons (rather than five), and five-year rookie extensions can only be given to one designated player. And with extensions they include the remaining season(s) of the current contract, so the length is effectively one year shorter. This is what I see as the problem with extensions — the player can get a longer deal by waiting to become a free agent. I think the team & player should have the opportunity to lock-in the same deal with an extension that they could sign via free agency.
The only other big change with extensions is reining-in the extend-and-trade rule. These deals are now limited to three years and 4.5% raises (down from six years and 10.5% raises). We can view this as a reaction to the Carmelo Anthony deal, where he essentially used extend-and-trade as the mechanism to force his way to New York. The rule change effectively takes power & leverage away from players such as Melo and gives it to the owners — so you know which side pushed for this change. 🙂
the recent Forbes franchise valuation numbers is but the latest evidence the owners totally owned the players in the latest cba negotiations. Do you think this shift in balance of power is healthy for the league long term? Will owners still press for further big concessions next time as speculated? What can the players do to get their act together and organize their case and their association better? Are they forever screwed because of the discrepancy in power and wealth between the two parties, as well as the internal conflicts between stars and non stars?
Yea, we predicted that with the tighter salary controls under the new CBA franchise values would skyrocket, and they did. But that’s not the only reason — it’s also in anticipation of new TV deals, future growth, new revenue streams, and long-term health & viability.
The players benefit from all these things, so you can’t really say the owners owned the players. The latest agreement got the owners out of a system where many teams weren’t thriving — which, indirectly, was bad for the players as well. And when the new TV deal is struck, the players will have the opportunity to opt-out of the CBA if they think it’s disfavorable to them.
So I think it worked out fine for the players — they’re getting a smaller share of a bigger pot, and the pot is the result of a healthier system.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens in 2017. Will the owners try to plead poverty again? Will the players try to get a bigger share once the league is flush with cash under the new TV deal? If anything, a work stoppage favors the owners, so they’d be more likely to try to get more out of the players — but a work stoppage hurts them as well. We’ll see what happens.
What is the max contract Lebron could get this summer?
It would start at $20,020,875, and last five years with $1,501,566 raises each year.
There’s a possibility the 2014-15 cap will be high enough that the league-wide maximum salary for a 10+ year veteran will be higher than his personal maximum, so he could get a little more.
Do you believe Pau Gasol gets traded or did the Lakers miss their shot? If he does get traded where does he land and for whom? Thanks for taking my question
I think they had a great shot with the Bynum trade, but it didn’t work out.
The Lakers have two motivations for trading Gasol: 1) Salary savings this year (if they’re out of the tax this year, then they have immediate tax savings, and they delay any potential future repeater tax another year); and acquiring assets for their upcoming rebuild. The Bynum deal would have accomplished the first goal, but Mitch Kupchak couldn’t negotiate enough assets out of Chris Grant to accomplish the second.
But there are no more Bynum-like deals to be had before the February trade deadline, so at best, Kupchak is looking at accomplishing the second goal but not the first. That may not be enough to get him to pull the trigger on a deal. I think it’s now fairly likely that Gasol remains a Laker for the remainder of the season.
Question about the Lakers / cap space – Lakers due to come into a lot of cap space. If they was able to trade for K Love now how would that affect cap space next yr vs waiting until all the money comes off the books?
The Lakers are currently on track to have about $26 million in cap room, minus their draft pick, cap holds, and whatever free agent Bird rights they retain.
If they were to acquire Kevin Love via trade, the obvious question is for whom? I really don’t see a potential deal that entices the T-Wolves, and especially not in comparison to what they could get from other teams.
But let’s say that they do agree to a trade, and that they do it for some of the Lakers’ ending salary (because Minny isn’t interested in trading Love for Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant or Robert Sacre). Love’s $15.7 million would then be on the Lakers’ books, so their cap room would be that much smaller (but you can add about $500K to it, because one cap hold would be removed).
If the Lakers don’t make the playoffs, and somehow get the #1 pick in the draft, how many cries of the draft being rigged do you think will happen?
Oh, lots of course. Facts never get in the way of motivated reasoning, or a good conspiracy theory.
Keep in mind — when the lottery draw is done, there are representatives from all 14 lottery teams, the media, and an independent auditing firm there. The combinations assigned to each team are known in advance to all who are there, and the machine is checked & calibrated independently.
If the system was rigged, it’d be pretty tough to do so, and if anything fishy was going on, you’d have to wonder why reps from the other 13 teams don’t scream about it.
Select a Team
Golden State Warriors
Los Angeles Clippers
Los Angeles Lakers
New Orleans Pelicans
New York Knicks
Portland Trail Blazers
San Antonio Spurs
Select a Writer
Post-Lottery Players Proving Their Worth This Postseason
2017 NBA Draft Early Entry List
NBA PM: Isaiah Canaan, Changing of the Guard
Game 6 Preview: Toronto Raptors vs Milwaukee Bucks
NBA AM: Pacers Have Some Big Questions
Game 5 Preview: Los Angeles Clippers vs. Utah Jazz