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

[tazzmaniac]

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?

There are also a bunch of players with player options that will have an interesting choice to make.   You could end up seeing a bunch of one year contracts. 

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

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?

There are also a bunch of players with player options that will have an interesting choice to make.   You could end up seeing a bunch of one year contracts.

That's gotta be so scary after Wesley Matthews though.

It's definitely leverage for the players though.

[255 Rings]

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.

TP for you because you just reminded me how hopeless both the Knicks and Lakers are gonna be for years despite their lottery selections. That makes me happy because we don't solely need to suck to succeed like they do since we've been playing amazing basketball while they're stinking up the joint. Here's to hoping LA goes through an even longer title drought than they did before moving to Cali (1954-1972, 17 year title drought).

[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.

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.

Maybe. I tend to think that teams that are "going for it" don't really need guys on rookie deals who aren't ready to contribute meaningfully to a contending team anyway. They can fill those bench roles with cheap veterans who would be just as good if not better than a young player.

The competitive teams in 2016-2017 will load up and become "superteams" for the first few years until the crappier teams can catch up. These bad teams will have cap space but nobody to spend it on besides whoever's leftover. It will be a more extreme version of what's already happening today.

Of course, you can only give so many players on a team significant minutes so it's possible some younger players will still opt to go somewhere where they can start as opposed to be a sixth man or a fourth option. This might provide some balance.

A lot depends on how the rules change in the next CBA. The NBA wanted shorter contracts in the last one and they got their wish. However, they didn't expect that it would create a situation where stars are choosing flexibility and short-term deals over long-term security. Turnover might make for exciting offseasons and trade deadlines but too much discontinuity can be bad too.

[GetLucky]

Any indication of what the soft cap will be? That's more important in regards to player aquisition, especially free agency.

[CFAN38]

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?

Im not sure how much the value of draft picks is effected by the jump in cap but current long term deal are a clear winner for teams. IT4 and AB are quickly becoming real bargin deals.

[saltlover]

Any indication of what the soft cap will be? That's more important in regards to player aquisition, especially free agency.

Somewhere between $66-$68 million next year, and $88-92 million the following year.  For more on the Celtics cap picture, this was posted a couple of weeks ago: http://www.celticsblog.com/2015/2/21/8084067/salary-cap-update-post-trade-deadline

[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).

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?

On the face of it, I see the agents who represent the ~10 year Vet min guys (who I think are really going to be hurt by this) as well as the ownership being for higher rookie scale deals, particularly if they can attach it to another yearly bump in age limit.

[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?

On the face of it, I see the agents who represent the ~10 year Vet min guys (who I think are really going to be hurt by this) as well as the ownership being for higher rookie scale deals, particularly if they can attach it to another yearly bump in age limit.

Agents don't get that much from rookie deals.  They only get to charge a 4% fee on what rookie deals make in excess of 80% of their slot.  So if a players's slot is $1 million, and he gets the max of $1.2 million, the agents only gets to collect his fee based on the difference between $1.2 million and $800k  (80% of the slot value).  Whereas if the player is a veteran making more than the minimum, the agent gets 4% on everything.  Agents also want to keep that money with the vets.

I've already argued that I don't think owners, who complain about draft picks not being NBA ready, won't rush to raise the rookie scale.  They typically try to lower it.

I could see players getting rookies an extra guaranteed year, and if the scale takes up a smaller percentage, owners being okay with it, but that makes more sense to me than a spike in the scale proportionate to the cap increase.

EDIT: Also, I think vet min players will be just fine as long as the NBA still subsidizes teams for min salaries paid in excess of the 2-year minimum as they currently do.

[D.o.s.]

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying (entirely possible, my coffee supply is empty and am suffering accordingly) I don't see much difference between the two scenarios listed in your last paragraph.

Agents will earn more on their rookie clients than their veteran clients over the course of their careers as soon as the salary cap jumps up, though. The Delonte West-style players are going to be the guys that get bounced in favor of their rookies -- this has already happened, to a degree -- no one is going to pay Ricky Davis the vet min when they can pay Shabazz Muhammed 2.0 the rookie scale, and my suspicion is that a commensurate bump in salary will be put in place for everyone to make up the difference: although you're right, the NBPA doesn't really care about their prospective membership.

Either way, we'll see. I need to find a new tin of coffee grounds between now and then, though.

[saltlover]

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying (entirely possible, my coffee maker is broken and am suffering accordingly) I don't see much difference between the two scenarios listed in your last paragraph.

Agents will earn more on their rookie clients than their veteran clients over the course of their careers as soon as the salary cap jumps up, though. The Delonte West-style players are going to be the guys that get bounced in favor of their rookies -- this has already happened, to a degree -- no one is going to pay Ricky Davis the vet min when they can pay Shabazz Muhammed 2.0 the rookie scale, and my suspicion is that a commensurate bump in salary will be put in place for everyone to make up the difference: although you're right, the NBPA doesn't really care about their prospective membership.

Either way, we'll see. I need to find a new carafe between now and then, though.

Here's what I think you're missing.  Firstly, the fewer dollars that are committed to rookies means the more dollars can be committed elsewhere.  This means it will be easier for teams to stay under the cap to compete for free agents without using exceptions like the MLE, meaning players will have more potential suitors.  As demand increases, price increases, and so veteran free agents as a group (and their agents) will earn more than they otherwise would have.

Secondly, first round picks are a limited commodity.  You get one per year -- otherwise you have to trade to get extra.  While teams may prefer paying Shabazz Muhummad relative to Ricky Davis, they are limited in their opportunities to do so, and gaining and extra opportunity is already costly, and could become even moreso in the future.

[D.o.s.]

Ah. Ok. Yeah. That makes sense.

[Donoghus]

I think we're facing the real possibility of a severe lockout in 2017.  Stage is being set.  Michele Roberts is coming to play.

[D.o.s.]

I think we're facing the real possibility of a severe lockout in 2017.  Stage is being set.  Michele Roberts is coming to play.

I'd say it's closer to 'near certainty' than 'real possibility'.

[saltlover]

I think we're facing the real possibility of a severe lockout in 2017.  Stage is being set.  Michele Roberts is coming to play.

I'd say it's closer to 'near certainty' than 'real possibility'.

I don't expect the players to blink this time.