so wait, are we wrong on the salary cap? (maz again)

[LarBrd33]

The era of NBA deflation begins in earnest in 2010. The salary cap is determined as a fixed percentage of Basketball Related Income (BRI) - Ticket and luxery suite revenues + merchandising + TV advertisements. With the economy being the way it is, I expect a contraction in the (BRI). Even if there was no contraction in the salary cap, you must pay Rondo, Glen Davis, Perkins with the money saved from Ray Allen's slot. Ray can take the veterans salary decrease. So can Paul. KG extended at 1/3 less than peak already.

A number of teams could fold and that would create fewer openings for NBA players. But the league would be much stronger for it in the long run.

Rondo will command a big contract soon on a par with the top PGs in this league - Nash, Paul, Kidd (well he is at the back end of his max deal), Deron Williams... 6 million seems way to light for a top flight PG at this time.

QuinielaBox: "What happened? I blacked out"
Dean Pritchard: "That was interesting. ha ha. Thank you very much. And, uh, your rebuttal? Mr. Carville."
James Carville: "Oh... It... We... have no response. That was perfect."
QuinielaBox: "That's the way you do it! That's the way you debate!"

Oh I see what you did right thur.

[sully00]

The Boston Celtics have two players under guaranteed contracts for the 2010 season KG and Perk.  In addition Paul Pierce has a 21 mil player option and the team has options on Giddens and Walker.  Obviously the team can get under the cap and be in a situation to offer maximum deals but they won't have Paul, Ray or Rondo.

In reality, to be under the cap in an effort to replace Ray, they need Pierce to replace his option with an extension similar to KG's starting at 16.5 mil and likely rescind Rondo to make it really worth while.  With Rondo at 6 mil and a flat cap you are looking at about 8 mil and 9 roster spots to fill.  They are better off bargain shopping this offseason.

[hwangjini_1]

excuse my ignorance and lack of desire in learning more about the salary cap minutia being posted....

but isnt the underlying assumption of the arguments here that "if the celtics payroll goes over the cap, the management wont pay"? if not, then why this debate as it is being constructed?

so, just for fun....what if one of THE leading stars/players of the nba is willing to sign with the celtics, but it puts them over the cap and into penalty land?

while the owners may not like, might they not also think that signing such a star will greatly increase the likelihood of a championship? and are the owners willing to lose a number of milliions over the next few years if championships are made much more probable?

in brief, will the current owner pay the luxury tax if they believe the spend money will provide them with as close to a "sure thing championship" as can be reasonably hoped for?

if so, then it seems to me that a goodly portion of the thread so far becomes irrelevant.

[Roy Hobbs]

excuse my ignorance and lack of desire in learning more about the salary cap minutia being posted....

but isnt the underlying assumption of the arguments here that "if the celtics payroll goes over the cap, the management wont pay"? if not, then why this debate as it is being constructed?

so, just for fun....what if one of THE leading stars/players of the nba is willing to sign with the celtics, but it puts them over the cap and into penalty land?

while the owners may not like, might they not also think that signing such a star will greatly increase the likelihood of a championship? and are the owners willing to lose a number of milliions over the next few years if championships are made much more probable?

in brief, will the current owner pay the luxury tax if they believe the spend money will provide them with as close to a "sure thing championship" as can be reasonably hoped for?

if so, then it seems to me that a goodly portion of the thread so far becomes irrelevant.

If a team is over the salary cap, they *can't* pay, at least in terms of outside free agents.  It's not a matter of desire, it's a matter of the team being barred by the rules.  If you want to sign an opposing player for more than the MLE, you need enough salary cap room to do so (which is distinct from the luxury tax).

[hwangjini_1]

excuse my ignorance and lack of desire in learning more about the salary cap minutia being posted....

but isnt the underlying assumption of the arguments here that "if the celtics payroll goes over the cap, the management wont pay"? if not, then why this debate as it is being constructed?

so, just for fun....what if one of THE leading stars/players of the nba is willing to sign with the celtics, but it puts them over the cap and into penalty land?

while the owners may not like, might they not also think that signing such a star will greatly increase the likelihood of a championship? and are the owners willing to lose a number of milliions over the next few years if championships are made much more probable?

in brief, will the current owner pay the luxury tax if they believe the spend money will provide them with as close to a "sure thing championship" as can be reasonably hoped for?

if so, then it seems to me that a goodly portion of the thread so far becomes irrelevant.

If a team is over the salary cap, they *can't* pay, at least in terms of outside free agents.  It's not a matter of desire, it's a matter of the team being barred by the rules.  If you want to sign an opposing player for more than the MLE, you need enough salary cap room to do so (which is distinct from the luxury tax).

ah, i see said the blind man. many thanks for clearing up my error.