There Is Only One NBA Team In Cap Hell. (Darn Amnesty Clause)

[SHAQATTACK]

Lakers are up the creek .  They will pay more luxury probably than the rest of the entire NBA luxury taxes. .  I have understood their luxury tax alone is more then the payroll of three NBA teams.


Laker aren't going to amnesty Kobe,  Nash is costing them a ton for an old cripple dude, they have no draft  picks this year .... and to top it off Howard is likey to draw the max deal , even with Kobe brown nosing  the guy to death.   

Laker are a wreck .    Pau....has to have treatments to regain use of his knees.  They want to dump him for somebody good , but don't know 100% DH is returning. 

Lakers ........hell

[Boris Badenov]

The landscape of the league was supremely alteredd by these things resulting in a negative affect for our Celtics.

The true impact will never be known outside of hypotheticals.

You might want to settle on just one of those statements, since I'm pretty sure both can't simultaneously be true.

I agree with the second one.

[JSD]

The landscape of the league was supremely alteredd by these things resulting in a negative affect for our Celtics.

The true impact will never be known outside of hypotheticals.

You might want to settle on just one of those statements, since I'm pretty sure both can't simultaneously be true.

I agree with the second one.

To me there has been, without question, a significant negative impact. It is the degree of how substantial the negative impact that will never be known.

[JSD]

The Lakers are fine. They have plenty of options if payroll was a concern.

[guava_wrench]

I just don't think of contenders as being in cap hell.  NY and LAC are contenders so I can't say they are in cap hell.  the Lakers might be in cap hell or they might actually play up to their talent level and be contenders.

Yeah. The cap is not an issue if you like your team and can afford to pay it. It is only a problem if you are overpaying for underperformance, like in LA.

[nostar]

The reward in not using your amnesty isn't a competitive reward so much as it is fiscal. Paying Gilbert Arenas $22M (per year!) is punishment enough as far as i'm concerned even if it doesn't count against them.

Additionally Boston isn't a large market so we can't pull a Knicks/Lakers/Nets and just dole out $100M in salary. Most teams can't as those teams seem to be the exceptions.

Anyway I agree amnesty is not exactly fair but I'm not sure that there is a good way to make it fair. It's an executive mulligan and really unless you change (raise) the cap for teams that don't use their amnesty I don't see how you can equalize...oh wait I just pitched a solution I also think their should be less restriction on when it can be used. That would make it more likely to be used by more teams. One week over the summer is too restrictive in my opinion.

Being fiscally responsible is it's own reward, specifically from an owner's standpoint and especially in smaller media markets. Amnesty allows for more parity (making less pitifully bad teams) and if you didn't need to use it you probably weren't pitifully bad, at least at decision making.

[nickagneta]

How are the Lakers, Clippers and Knicks not in luxury tax hell?

The Lakers are not amnestying Kobe. They start next year at $79 million without Howard signed. The Clips start at about $44 million with just 7 players on the payroll and Chris Paul unsigned. New York is at $77 million now with only the option to amnesty Amar'e.

And because all the teams paid massive luxury tax this year they get the small MLE and no signing and trading for a player.

Lakers - Great shape with $70 million exploding off their books after next season. They have all the flexibility in the world right now.

Clippers - After resigning Paul will be right at the cap with and don't have a bad contract on the books.

The Knicks - Are still playing and have the scoring champ. Yes, Amare's contract is bad, but I don't classify them as a cap hell team because if they really wanted too, they have enough to rid themselves of Amare without giving up a pick. It would however cost them their star player. But I'll concede the Knicks, they are #2 in bad cap situation, but they are still competing with a scoring champ so it can't be that bad.

But next year the Lakers ARE in cap hell and after they sign Howard, will have another gigantic luxury tax bill and only Howard signed for 2014-15. Which means they would only have about $30 million in cap space with no ability to sign and trade for a player, no drafts picks, and only the mini-MLE after cap space. And if they resign Kobe at all, that cap space disappears, even if he isn't getting paid $30 million a year. Of course, if they don't renounce Kobe's rights, they don't have any cap space whatsoever because of the cap hold on his $30+ million salary this year.

Your logic for NY and the Clips just makes no sense to me personally. I could care less if Carmelo is a scoring champ. The team is in salary cap hell. And I consider DeAndre Jordan's contract bad. He's no where near an $11 million a year player.

I just don't think of contenders as being in cap hell.  NY and LAC are contenders so I can't say they are in cap hell.  the Lakers might be in cap hell or they might actually play up to their talent level and be contenders.

See, I think you can be in salary cap/luxury tax hell and still be contenders. I don't find that you have to be mutually exclusive to either description.

[LooseCannon]

Three teams have at least $75 million in salary committed (including options and players with ETOs) for 2014-2015: New York, Miami, and Brooklyn.  The Thunder are next at around $65 million. 

[indeedproceed]

Three teams have at least $75 million in salary committed (including options and players with ETOs) for 2014-2015: New York, Miami, and Brooklyn.  The Thunder are next at around $65 million.

Annnnnnnnnnd the Nets still suck!

[European NBA fan]

How are the Lakers, Clippers and Knicks not in luxury tax hell?

The Lakers are not amnestying Kobe. They start next year at $79 million without Howard signed. The Clips start at about $44 million with just 7 players on the payroll and Chris Paul unsigned. New York is at $77 million now with only the option to amnesty Amar'e.

And because all the teams paid massive luxury tax this year they get the small MLE and no signing and trading for a player.

Lakers - Great shape with $70 million exploding off their books after next season. They have all the flexibility in the world right now.

Clippers - After resigning Paul will be right at the cap with and don't have a bad contract on the books.

The Knicks - Are still playing and have the scoring champ. Yes, Amare's contract is bad, but I don't classify them as a cap hell team because if they really wanted too, they have enough to rid themselves of Amare without giving up a pick. It would however cost them their star player. But I'll concede the Knicks, they are #2 in bad cap situation, but they are still competing with a scoring champ so it can't be that bad.

But next year the Lakers ARE in cap hell and after they sign Howard, will have another gigantic luxury tax bill and only Howard signed for 2014-15. Which means they would only have about $30 million in cap space with no ability to sign and trade for a player, no drafts picks, and only the mini-MLE after cap space. And if they resign Kobe at all, that cap space disappears, even if he isn't getting paid $30 million a year. Of course, if they don't renounce Kobe's rights, they don't have any cap space whatsoever because of the cap hold on his $30+ million salary this year.

Your logic for NY and the Clips just makes no sense to me personally. I could care less if Carmelo is a scoring champ. The team is in salary cap hell. And I consider DeAndre Jordan's contract bad. He's no where near an $11 million a year player.

I just don't think of contenders as being in cap hell.  NY and LAC are contenders so I can't say they are in cap hell.  the Lakers might be in cap hell or they might actually play up to their talent level and be contenders.

See, I think you can be in salary cap/luxury tax hell and still be contenders. I don't find that you have to be mutually exclusive to either description.

I agree. Just look at the Knicks, who most likely won't be able to keep J.R. Smith because they are in cap hell. Will they still be contenders without him?

[BASS_THUMPER]

Bird..pass that!!

[TripleOT]

The new CBA hurt the Cs in a few  ways.  They weren't allowed to "catch and  release" Ray Allen his last season here.   That move could have brought back a significant rotation piece, and given RA a month's rest.  The Cs might have won it all last season under the old rules.   Then that summer, they had two big deals coming off the books, and did nothing with them  besides re-up KG.   

Then they had more limited options under the new CBA for Pierce. I don't have a big problem with amnesty when a new CBA is signed, since the contract playing field is being changes. 

[Moranis]

The reward in not using your amnesty isn't a competitive reward so much as it is fiscal. Paying Gilbert Arenas $22M (per year!) is punishment enough as far as i'm concerned even if it doesn't count against them.

Additionally Boston isn't a large market so we can't pull a Knicks/Lakers/Nets and just dole out $100M in salary. Most teams can't as those teams seem to be the exceptions.

Anyway I agree amnesty is not exactly fair but I'm not sure that there is a good way to make it fair. It's an executive mulligan and really unless you change (raise) the cap for teams that don't use their amnesty I don't see how you can equalize...oh wait I just pitched a solution I also think their should be less restriction on when it can be used. That would make it more likely to be used by more teams. One week over the summer is too restrictive in my opinion.

Being fiscally responsible is it's own reward, specifically from an owner's standpoint and especially in smaller media markets. Amnesty allows for more parity (making less pitifully bad teams) and if you didn't need to use it you probably weren't pitifully bad, at least at decision making.

Boston is the 10th largest metropolitan area in the US.  It isn't LA or NY, but Boston is definitely a large market.