OK we are creating all this cap space in the future BUT

[wdleehi]

Cap space gives you flexibility.  And options.  So, while signing a superstar may or may not be in the cards, being under the cap can still be a good thing.

It is also a way to build even more assets.  A team needs to get under the luxury tax, help them out for a price.

[mmmmm]

Cap space gives you flexibility.  And options.  So, while signing a superstar may or may not be in the cards, being under the cap can still be a good thing.

It is also a way to build even more assets.  A team needs to get under the luxury tax, help them out for a price.

But you don't actually have to be under the salary cap to do that.

You just have to be under the luxury tax threshold yourself (post transaction) and have something to trade them that will get them under the threshold.

[freshinthehouse]

In my opinion it has to be for a trade or hopefully sign someone we draft that turns out to be a star to a long term contact.  I can't remember a star free agent we have signed in the past. If you can think of one in the past please post. I know once someone gets here like KG we can sign them to an extension but he didnt get to Boston from being a free agent and wanting to sign here.

We did have some cap room a few times in the mid-late 90s.  Thanks to the geniuses in charge, we spent on the likes of Pervis Ellison, Dana Barros, Travis Knight, and an elderly Dominique Wilkins.

[jambr380]

In my opinion it has to be for a trade or hopefully sign someone we draft that turns out to be a star to a long term contact.  I can't remember a star free agent we have signed in the past. If you can think of one in the past please post. I know once someone gets here like KG we can sign them to an extension but he didnt get to Boston from being a free agent and wanting to sign here.

We did have some cap room a few times in the mid-late 90s.  Thanks to the geniuses in charge, we spent on the likes of Pervis Ellison, Dana Barros, Travis Knight, and an elderly Dominique Wilkins.

To be fair, 'Nique played one season with Cs and averaged 18ppg. They made the playoffs in a year they really wanted to (last year at the Garden). Dominique was always my 2nd favorite behind Bird so watching him play for Boston was awesome for me at the time.

Not much to really be said about the others, as well as X-Man (Xavier McDaniel). All teams go through lulls, the mid-late 90s was ours...I personally loved the Walker- Pierce led teams and do not consider that a down time.

[freshinthehouse]

To be fair, 'Nique played one season with Cs and averaged 18ppg. They made the playoffs in a year they really wanted to (last year at the Garden). Dominique was always my 2nd favorite behind Bird so watching him play for Boston was awesome for me at the time.

Not much to really be said about the others, as well as X-Man (Xavier McDaniel). All teams go through lulls, the mid-late 90s was ours...I personally loved the Walker- Pierce led teams and do not consider that a down time.

That first round series vs. Orlando is still one of my favorite C's memories.  We get just hammered in game 1, then come back and shock Orlando with win in game 2.  The next to games were complete riots in Boston, where we lost two very close games.

I forgot that McDaniel was a free agent.  It's to bad he couldn't have played here earlier in his career.  He would have been a nice piece for some of those late 80s teams that were in desparate need for frontcourt depth.

[action781]

Cap space gives you flexibility.  And options.  So, while signing a superstar may or may not be in the cards, being under the cap can still be a good thing.

It is also a way to build even more assets.  A team needs to get under the luxury tax, help them out for a price.

But you don't actually have to be under the salary cap to do that.

You just have to be under the luxury tax threshold yourself (post transaction) and have something to trade them that will get them under the threshold.

Not exactly.  If you are over the cap, but under the luxury tax threshold, you still need to match salaries within 125%.  If you are under the cap, you can take back in salary all the way up to the cap. 

For example:  Suppose the T'Wolves want to trade away Kevin Love next season (and his $15 mil salary).  Minny would likely want to cut salary too since this type of move would clearly indicate they are not competing.  If they deal with a team over the cap, they must receive $12 mil back in salary in the trade.  If the celts salary was only at $48 mil, the celtics would only have to send back $5 mil in salary to minnesota, which might be appealing to them.

[LooseCannon]

A non-taxpaying team can take back more salary than a tax-paying team. 

[tstorey_97]

Perhaps it could be put this way.

Is Cap space an asset to a GM?

Yes, "some" space is needed to allow for deals coming in and going out but, is cap space an asset?


If a GM is under the cap, they can use the space to help with deals, but, is cap space an asset?

No, it really isn't an asset, it is a function of managing other assets within league guidelines.

The current Boston Celtics roster is quite well structured with contracts expiring of varying size and dates.

Contracts are what could be viewed as "assets." They allow for correct "packaging" of deals to acquire players that you want.

If Ainge wants Lebron James he must create the necessary $20M+ space, but, why the he*& would he do it far in advance?

Humphries contract is an asset in a deal, the space it creates when it expires is a "moment in time" before it is filled with other contracts.

This deep semantics stuff is killing me..."a moment in time" a "function of managing assets..." I think I just passed out and woke up at M.I.T...uh oh....security just got here

[action781]

A non-taxpaying team can take back more salary than a tax-paying team.

I was unaware of this.  How much more?

[D.o.s.]

A non-taxpaying team can take back more salary than a tax-paying team.

I was unaware of this.  How much more?

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q83

Scroll down a hair and you'll see some very helpful tables.

[indeedproceed]

A non-taxpaying team can take back more salary than a tax-paying team.

I was unaware of this.  How much more?

I wanna say it's 150% vs 125%. #dontneed2check

[indeedproceed]

Cap space gives you flexibility.  And options.  So, while signing a superstar may or may not be in the cards, being under the cap can still be a good thing.

It is also a way to build even more assets.  A team needs to get under the luxury tax, help them out for a price.

But you don't actually have to be under the salary cap to do that.

You just have to be under the luxury tax threshold yourself (post transaction) and have something to trade them that will get them under the threshold.

Not exactly.  If you are over the cap, but under the luxury tax threshold, you still need to match salaries within 125%.  If you are under the cap, you can take back in salary all the way up to the cap. 

For example:  Suppose the T'Wolves want to trade away Kevin Love next season (and his $15 mil salary).  Minny would likely want to cut salary too since this type of move would clearly indicate they are not competing.  If they deal with a team over the cap, they must receive $12 mil back in salary in the trade.  If the celts salary was only at $48 mil, the celtics would only have to send back $5 mil in salary to minnesota, which might be appealing to them.

Wanna hear something funny? I actually think the Kevin Love example wouldn't work, because it's actually more complicated that that.

If Team A is over the cap, and trading Player X, who has an incoming value of $10 million dollars
And team B is trading player Y, who has an outgoing value of of 4 million, and they're 6 million under the cap, I think the way the CBA works, that trade doesn't work.

Team B actually has to have $10 million under the cap to work, and they'd gain a $4 million trade exception . Team B would gain a $10 million dollar trade exception and use $4 million of it to take back player Y.

[mmmmm]

Cap space gives you flexibility.  And options.  So, while signing a superstar may or may not be in the cards, being under the cap can still be a good thing.

It is also a way to build even more assets.  A team needs to get under the luxury tax, help them out for a price.

But you don't actually have to be under the salary cap to do that.

You just have to be under the luxury tax threshold yourself (post transaction) and have something to trade them that will get them under the threshold.

Not exactly.  If you are over the cap, but under the luxury tax threshold, you still need to match salaries within 125%.  If you are under the cap, you can take back in salary all the way up to the cap. 

For example:  Suppose the T'Wolves want to trade away Kevin Love next season (and his $15 mil salary).  Minny would likely want to cut salary too since this type of move would clearly indicate they are not competing.  If they deal with a team over the cap, they must receive $12 mil back in salary in the trade.  If the celts salary was only at $48 mil, the celtics would only have to send back $5 mil in salary to minnesota, which might be appealing to them.

Wanna hear something funny? I actually think the Kevin Love example wouldn't work, because it's actually more complicated that that.

If Team A is over the cap, and trading Player X, who has an incoming value of $10 million dollars
And team B is trading player Y, who has an outgoing value of of 4 million, and they're 6 million under the cap, I think the way the CBA works, that trade doesn't work.

Team B actually has to have $10 million under the cap to work, and they'd gain a $4 million trade exception . Team B would gain a $10 million dollar trade exception and use $4 million of it to take back player Y.

Assuming you meant "Team A" in that last sentence, then yep.

Folks need to remember that an under-the cap team can only take on non-exception salary (whether via trade or free agency signing) up to the cap (plus some margin over, depending on the nature of the transaction).   The 150% take-in can put them over the cap.  And they can go over via exception signings (such as signing their own Bird-right's FAs).

Teams over the cap can exchange matching salary to stay up over the cap.  There is no rule that forces them to go down in budget.  They can even take back more salary - so long as they don't go over the 'hard cap'.    So, because you have a larger portfolio of contracts to deal outward, you can in theory move a larger gross package of salary.    It can be complicated, and sometimes you need multiple teams to move all the pieces.   But it can be done.   And few people on the planet understand this system better than Danny.

[action781]

Thanks for the info Dos and IP!

But even still...  a tax-paying team acquiring a Kevin Love will still have to send back either $7.5 mil, $10 mil, or $12 mil to Minnesota in the deal.

A team under the cap (let's say $15 mil under the cap if IP's statement is true), can potentially take on Love, send back draft picks/extremely cheap players to Minnesota and NO additional salary filler.  While that would be a pretty rare situation, it likewise applies to a $5 mil player, $8 mil player, whatever but only it the team is that far under the cap.  So there certainly is some value to being under the cap in the case where a team wants to not take back any salary in a trade.

[manl_lui]

Is it possible to use a trade exception (worth 10 mil), + Bass/Hump/Bradley/Green/Wallace (not all the players, the / is used as an or) to trade a superstar back?