Salary Cap set to explode in 2016-17 (no smoothing)

[Lucky17]

So sayeth Brian Windhorst.

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

NBA teams using internal data are projecting the salary cap to jump to between $88-92 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.

Windhorst boils it down for the TL;DR set with the following:

Broadly, this development likely means two things for the short term of league business:

• There may be some free agents this summer who only accept one-year contracts so they can retest the market in 2016, when it will be awash with available cash.

• The likelihood of a lockout in 2017 when both sides can opt out of the current CBA just increased significantly if not unexpectedly.

Did the value of 2015 and 2016 draft picks (rookie scale contracts) just go up?

[D.o.s.]

This is fairly common knowledge -- the NBPA rejected smoothing during/right before the All Star Break, and ever since the new TV deal it's been coming down the pipeline.

To your question: the cash value did. The relative value to a team did not, I don't believe.

[Evantime34]

I think that this explosion will lead to some outrageous contracts this offseason, because almost every team will have cap space next offseason.

Everyone complaining about Bradley and Green's previous contracts will lose their mind when they see some of the new contracts this offseason.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

This is fairly common knowledge -- the NBPA rejected smoothing during/right before the All Star Break, and ever since the new TV deal it's been coming down the pipeline.

To your question: the cash value did. The relative value to a team did not, I don't believe.

I thought compensation of 1st round picks is fixed for at least five or so more years. I could be wrong but I swear I read that somewhere. If it's peg I think picks/players on rookie contracts will be much more valuable to teams.

What I think is going to be nuts is the list of "really???" type guys who get maxed out this year with the idea that in a year or two they'll be underpays. There are going to be some great deals on surprising maxes and some hilariously awful max contracts this summer.

[Roy H.]

If you're a decent RFA, does it make sense to sign for less than the max? Or should they just play on the qualifying offer instead?

[obnoxiousmime]

Well this is bad news (not unexpected) for bad teams. The good teams will keep their free agents no sweat and even be able to add another max deal onto the books. The bad teams looking to get better will have cap space but nobody to spend it on besides crappy players. It's going to take awhile for the "new normal" to settle.

As for the draft picks, yes the rookie contracts are set in stone. However, those cheap rookie deals lose some of their value in a league where teams don't have cap pressure. Also, we don't know what will happen to those rules after the likely lockout in 2017.

Dear lord how much is Sully going to demand next year? All the Cheetos in the world will be his.

[Rondo9]

Meh, Sullinger is a restricted free agent right? So I'm not worried about him and I would love to keep him.

[D.o.s.]

This is fairly common knowledge -- the NBPA rejected smoothing during/right before the All Star Break, and ever since the new TV deal it's been coming down the pipeline.

To your question: the cash value did. The relative value to a team did not, I don't believe.

I thought compensation of 1st round picks is fixed for at least five or so more years. I could be wrong but I swear I read that somewhere. If it's peg I think picks/players on rookie contracts will be much more valuable to teams.

What I think is going to be nuts is the list of "really???" type guys who get maxed out this year with the idea that in a year or two they'll be underpays. There are going to be some great deals on surprising maxes and some hilariously awful max contracts this summer.

The rookie salary scale is dependent on the CBA, which is going to change in 2017 (in part because of the impending bump in the salary cap, and general NBA revenue). That was a tense mixup on my part though -- the cash value will change, but the relative value will be the same.

[obnoxiousmime]

Meh, Sullinger is a restricted free agent right? So I'm not worried about him and I would love to keep him.

Right but the odds someone overpays for him greatly increases. The Celts will have a tough decision to make. I would have considered moving him this year - was he injured before the trade deadline?

[Rondo9]

Meh, Sullinger is a restricted free agent right? So I'm not worried about him and I would love to keep him.

Right but the odds someone overpays for him greatly increases. The Celts will have a tough decision to make. I would have considered moving him this year - was he injured before the trade deadline?

After, but again considering his injury history I doubt people interested will go above and beyond to get him.

[saltlover]

This is fairly common knowledge -- the NBPA rejected smoothing during/right before the All Star Break, and ever since the new TV deal it's been coming down the pipeline.

To your question: the cash value did. The relative value to a team did not, I don't believe.

I thought compensation of 1st round picks is fixed for at least five or so more years. I could be wrong but I swear I read that somewhere. If it's peg I think picks/players on rookie contracts will be much more valuable to teams.

What I think is going to be nuts is the list of "really???" type guys who get maxed out this year with the idea that in a year or two they'll be underpays. There are going to be some great deals on surprising maxes and some hilariously awful max contracts this summer.

The rookie salary scale is dependent on the CBA, which is going to change in 2017 (in part because of the impending bump in the salary cap, and general NBA revenue). That was a tense mixup on my part though -- the cash value will change, but the relative value will be the same.

Don't be too sure on that fact.  It is very possible that the rookie scale changes very little, leaving more money for veterans.  Future draftees are not part of the Union, and most unions are very good at benefitting current members in exchange for benefits to future members (which may partly explain the decline of unionization in general in this country, but I digress).  I'd be highly surprised if the rookie scale increased proportionately with everything else.  Not to mention what happens with rookies under contract already -- do their deals get modified, or is the 10th pick in 2016 really going to vote for the 20th pick in 2017 to make more than him?

Not saying you're wrong, but I do think you're assuming way too much about how those dollars get spread around, especially to people who don't get a vote on the matter.

[D.o.s.]

That's true. Particularly with James and Paul occupying positions of authority, but I wouldn't be surprised if what I suggest comes to pass (i.e. I don't think I'm going to be wrong, go figure).

[Celtics4ever]

Sullinger is a restricted free agent right? So I'm not worried about him and I would love to keep him.

You must like good defense or accurate long range shooting.

[saltlover]

That's true. Particularly with James and Paul occupying positions of authority, but I wouldn't be surprised if what I suggest comes to pass (i.e. I don't think I'm going to be wrong, go figure).

Go figure indeed.  But honestly, who's going to stick up for draftees?  Players want to get rid of the age limit, while owners want to make it more tight, but aside from that, how far will players go?  Are owners going to say "Let's pay these young guys, who we complain about not being ready enough, more money"?  Are players going to say "Let's raise the slot value by 30% for all rookies, I don't care if it results in a lower vet minimum salary"?  I don't see it.  As long as draftees don't have the scale lowered, they won't be hurt by the deal, so what's the point of helping?

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

Well this is bad news (not unexpected) for bad teams. The good teams will keep their free agents no sweat and even be able to add another max deal onto the books. The bad teams looking to get better will have cap space but nobody to spend it on besides crappy players. It's going to take awhile for the "new normal" to settle.

As for the draft picks, yes the rookie contracts are set in stone. However, those cheap rookie deals lose some of their value in a league where teams don't have cap pressure. Also, we don't know what will happen to those rules after the likely lockout in 2017.

Dear lord how much is Sully going to demand next year? All the Cheetos in the world will be his.

Not sure I agree, especially long term. Teams are still going to push the max. Dollars will fly in 2016, but afterwards teams will still need to backfill their lineup with cheap talent to surround their stars. Rookie contracts will be more affordable than ever now that they'll take up a smaller percentage of the cap.

Then again, we're going to have a lockout and everything will probably change anyways. So who knows.