Shorter playoffs lowering salary cap

[colincb]

This could be bad for the Celtics. Everyone should be rooting for the Cavs to make a historic comeback.

Well if it goes down for everyone how much does it hurt? Obviously could hurt for someone like Hayward, but maybe some other players get squeezed out that the Celtics would have interest in.

It makes it harder for us to clear enough money to sign a max free agent, meaning we lose guys that we like or convince Hayward to take less money.

Yeah, pretty much.  The easiest path to creating cap space was to trade Jackson and Bradley for no salary this year, and have Yab stay overseas another year.  If the cap drops another million because of this, down to $100 million, it means the team is over $1 million shy of max room, meaning Rozier would need to be moved as well.  Furthermore, it means that the other best option for max room, Dumping Jackson, keeping Yab overseas, dumping, Rozier, and letting Olynyk walk, is still $1 million short.

Squeeze the rookie under the scenario below to get down to $100MM:

1 Renounce KO
2 Renounce the UFAs
3 Renounce the non-guaranteed
4 Trade Rozier without taking salary back for a pick
5 Trade Jackson without taking salary back to get rid of his $650K guarantee (may need a 2nd attached)
6 Keep Yabu overseas
7 Bring Zizic over.
8 Fultz gets signed at 116+% vs the customary 120% of rookie scale.

Player   2017-2018
 Max FA     30,000,000 (30% of cap)
 Horford.    27,734,405
 Bradley    8,808,989
 Top Pick    6,812,549  (116% of rookie scale)
 Crowder    6,796,117
 Thomas    6,261,395
 Brown        4,956,480
 Smart       4,538,020
 Zizic       1,645,200
 Nader       815,615
 11        815,615
 12        815,615
       100,000,000

This is all doable without too much difficulty, though you do lose an asset in Rozier (and KO if you think he's worth the money). Assumes we can entice a max UFA, which I consider to be less than 50-50 however.

You've got a mistake.  You can't include the Max FA as one of your 12 rostered players.  You need an extra cap hold for the missing player.

Huh? Roy H. have said that the way it works is that you add up all the salaries, cap holds and cap charges after Hayward signs a max. What's correct between the two?

Other thing is, can we lessen the amount of the cap hold by signing Fultz at 116% of the rookie scale? I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works under the new CBA.

1) See the edit I put on my post explaining the rule.
2) Once Fultz signs, his cap hold equals his salary.  Until he signs, it equals 120%.  So if he agreed to it (which he won't, but that's moot), the cap hit would be reduced.

The bigger deal with the idea is that he's still $800k short.

Where have you read about this? I was under the impression that the new CBA has cut out this loop hole.

You've got the loophole backwards.  It used to be that the cap hold equaled the scale amount, and teams would wait to sign the player for 120%, effectively creating extra cap space.  Now the cap hold equals 120% of the scale amount.  But cap holds are (almost) always replaced by the amount of an actual contract, and this includes 1st round picks.  So if you negotiate an amount less than 120% of the scale, you can sign that player for the lower amount and create extra cap space.  In fact, we might start seeing this occur more often, because now teams have an incentive to negotiate an amount under 120%, due to the need for cap space.  Before, the few hundred thousand dollars (at most) difference between the cap hold slot value and the 120% signing value didn't matter to a team's bottom line, so they caved.  Now that there are cap implications, negotiations could occasionally get more difficult -- although I'd be surprised if the first player to experience this was the #1 overall pick.

Thanks again for the clarification. This is corroborated by hoopsrumors.com FWIW:

Under the previous Collective Bargaining Agreement, cap holds for first-round picks counted for 100% of their rookie scale amount, so teams would often wait a little longer to officially sign their rookies to contracts in order to maximize their available cap room. However, because 120% contracts are the norm, the new CBA increases those cap holds for first-round picks to 120%, slightly reducing teams’ cap flexibility.

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2017/05/rookie-scale-salaries-for-2017-first-round-picks.html

[Jvalin]

This could be bad for the Celtics. Everyone should be rooting for the Cavs to make a historic comeback.

Well if it goes down for everyone how much does it hurt? Obviously could hurt for someone like Hayward, but maybe some other players get squeezed out that the Celtics would have interest in.

It makes it harder for us to clear enough money to sign a max free agent, meaning we lose guys that we like or convince Hayward to take less money.

Yeah, pretty much.  The easiest path to creating cap space was to trade Jackson and Bradley for no salary this year, and have Yab stay overseas another year.  If the cap drops another million because of this, down to $100 million, it means the team is over $1 million shy of max room, meaning Rozier would need to be moved as well.  Furthermore, it means that the other best option for max room, Dumping Jackson, keeping Yab overseas, dumping, Rozier, and letting Olynyk walk, is still $1 million short.

Squeeze the rookie under the scenario below to get down to $100MM:

1 Renounce KO
2 Renounce the UFAs
3 Renounce the non-guaranteed
4 Trade Rozier without taking salary back for a pick
5 Trade Jackson without taking salary back to get rid of his $650K guarantee (may need a 2nd attached)
6 Keep Yabu overseas
7 Bring Zizic over.
8 Fultz gets signed at 116+% vs the customary 120% of rookie scale.

Player   2017-2018
 Max FA     30,000,000 (30% of cap)
 Horford.    27,734,405
 Bradley    8,808,989
 Top Pick    6,812,549  (116% of rookie scale)
 Crowder    6,796,117
 Thomas    6,261,395
 Brown        4,956,480
 Smart       4,538,020
 Zizic       1,645,200
 Nader       815,615
 11        815,615
 12        815,615
       100,000,000

This is all doable without too much difficulty, though you do lose an asset in Rozier (and KO if you think he's worth the money). Assumes we can entice a max UFA, which I consider to be less than 50-50 however.

You've got a mistake.  You can't include the Max FA as one of your 12 rostered players.  You need an extra cap hold for the missing player.

Huh? Roy H. have said that the way it works is that you add up all the salaries, cap holds and cap charges after Hayward signs a max. What's correct between the two?

Other thing is, can we lessen the amount of the cap hold by signing Fultz at 116% of the rookie scale? I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works under the new CBA.

1) See the edit I put on my post explaining the rule.
2) Once Fultz signs, his cap hold equals his salary.  Until he signs, it equals 120%.  So if he agreed to it (which he won't, but that's moot), the cap hit would be reduced.

The bigger deal with the idea is that he's still $800k short.

Where have you read about this? I was under the impression that the new CBA has cut out this loop hole.

You've got the loophole backwards.  It used to be that the cap hold equaled the scale amount, and teams would wait to sign the player for 120%, effectively creating extra cap space.  Now the cap hold equals 120% of the scale amount.  But cap holds are (almost) always replaced by the amount of an actual contract, and this includes 1st round picks.  So if you negotiate an amount less than 120% of the scale, you can sign that player for the lower amount and create extra cap space.  In fact, we might start seeing this occur more often, because now teams have an incentive to negotiate an amount under 120%, due to the need for cap space.  Before, the few hundred thousand dollars (at most) difference between the cap hold slot value and the 120% signing value didn't matter to a team's bottom line, so they caved.  Now that there are cap implications, negotiations could occasionally get more difficult -- although I'd be surprised if the first player to experience this was the #1 overall pick.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit. Fultz is just a rook. If we need some extra cap space, that's a very convenient solution to our problem. I mean, would you rather dump Rozier for future pick(s)/salary relief or offer Fultz let's say 110% of the rookie scale?

Didn't know we could actually use Fultz to create cap room for Hayward's max. Thanks for your detailed explanation mate! It was very helpful! TP!

[tazzmaniac]

This could be bad for the Celtics. Everyone should be rooting for the Cavs to make a historic comeback.

Well if it goes down for everyone how much does it hurt? Obviously could hurt for someone like Hayward, but maybe some other players get squeezed out that the Celtics would have interest in.

It makes it harder for us to clear enough money to sign a max free agent, meaning we lose guys that we like or convince Hayward to take less money.

Yeah, pretty much.  The easiest path to creating cap space was to trade Jackson and Bradley for no salary this year, and have Yab stay overseas another year.  If the cap drops another million because of this, down to $100 million, it means the team is over $1 million shy of max room, meaning Rozier would need to be moved as well.  Furthermore, it means that the other best option for max room, Dumping Jackson, keeping Yab overseas, dumping, Rozier, and letting Olynyk walk, is still $1 million short.

Squeeze the rookie under the scenario below to get down to $100MM:

1 Renounce KO
2 Renounce the UFAs
3 Renounce the non-guaranteed
4 Trade Rozier without taking salary back for a pick
5 Trade Jackson without taking salary back to get rid of his $650K guarantee (may need a 2nd attached)
6 Keep Yabu overseas
7 Bring Zizic over.
8 Fultz gets signed at 116+% vs the customary 120% of rookie scale.

Player   2017-2018
 Max FA     30,000,000 (30% of cap)
 Horford.    27,734,405
 Bradley    8,808,989
 Top Pick    6,812,549  (116% of rookie scale)
 Crowder    6,796,117
 Thomas    6,261,395
 Brown        4,956,480
 Smart       4,538,020
 Zizic       1,645,200
 Nader       815,615
 11        815,615
 12        815,615
       100,000,000

This is all doable without too much difficulty, though you do lose an asset in Rozier (and KO if you think he's worth the money). Assumes we can entice a max UFA, which I consider to be less than 50-50 however.

You've got a mistake.  You can't include the Max FA as one of your 12 rostered players.  You need an extra cap hold for the missing player.

Huh? Roy H. have said that the way it works is that you add up all the salaries, cap holds and cap charges after Hayward signs a max. What's correct between the two?

Other thing is, can we lessen the amount of the cap hold by signing Fultz at 116% of the rookie scale? I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works under the new CBA.

1) See the edit I put on my post explaining the rule.
2) Once Fultz signs, his cap hold equals his salary.  Until he signs, it equals 120%.  So if he agreed to it (which he won't, but that's moot), the cap hit would be reduced.

The bigger deal with the idea is that he's still $800k short.

Where have you read about this? I was under the impression that the new CBA has cut out this loop hole.

You've got the loophole backwards.  It used to be that the cap hold equaled the scale amount, and teams would wait to sign the player for 120%, effectively creating extra cap space.  Now the cap hold equals 120% of the scale amount.  But cap holds are (almost) always replaced by the amount of an actual contract, and this includes 1st round picks.  So if you negotiate an amount less than 120% of the scale, you can sign that player for the lower amount and create extra cap space.  In fact, we might start seeing this occur more often, because now teams have an incentive to negotiate an amount under 120%, due to the need for cap space.  Before, the few hundred thousand dollars (at most) difference between the cap hold slot value and the 120% signing value didn't matter to a team's bottom line, so they caved.  Now that there are cap implications, negotiations could occasionally get more difficult -- although I'd be surprised if the first player to experience this was the #1 overall pick.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit. Fultz is just a rook. If we need some extra cap space, that's a very convenient solution to our problem. I mean, would you rather dump Rozier for future pick(s)/salary relief or offer Fultz let's say 110% of the rookie scale?

Didn't know we could actually use Fultz to create cap room for Hayward's max. Thanks for your detailed explanation mate! It was very helpful! TP!

Short changing our #1 pick on his rookie contract is a great way to start the relationship with our hopefully future star.  Players remember slights and so do agents.  We'd end up paying more for doing it than the short term gain.  As for your question, I'd dump Rozier for whatever future pick we could get and gladly pay Fultz 120%.  With IT, Bradley, Smart, Fultz and Brown, there should be no minutes for Rozier except garbage time. 

[saltlover]

This could be bad for the Celtics. Everyone should be rooting for the Cavs to make a historic comeback.

Well if it goes down for everyone how much does it hurt? Obviously could hurt for someone like Hayward, but maybe some other players get squeezed out that the Celtics would have interest in.

It makes it harder for us to clear enough money to sign a max free agent, meaning we lose guys that we like or convince Hayward to take less money.

Yeah, pretty much.  The easiest path to creating cap space was to trade Jackson and Bradley for no salary this year, and have Yab stay overseas another year.  If the cap drops another million because of this, down to $100 million, it means the team is over $1 million shy of max room, meaning Rozier would need to be moved as well.  Furthermore, it means that the other best option for max room, Dumping Jackson, keeping Yab overseas, dumping, Rozier, and letting Olynyk walk, is still $1 million short.

Squeeze the rookie under the scenario below to get down to $100MM:

1 Renounce KO
2 Renounce the UFAs
3 Renounce the non-guaranteed
4 Trade Rozier without taking salary back for a pick
5 Trade Jackson without taking salary back to get rid of his $650K guarantee (may need a 2nd attached)
6 Keep Yabu overseas
7 Bring Zizic over.
8 Fultz gets signed at 116+% vs the customary 120% of rookie scale.

Player   2017-2018
 Max FA     30,000,000 (30% of cap)
 Horford.    27,734,405
 Bradley    8,808,989
 Top Pick    6,812,549  (116% of rookie scale)
 Crowder    6,796,117
 Thomas    6,261,395
 Brown        4,956,480
 Smart       4,538,020
 Zizic       1,645,200
 Nader       815,615
 11        815,615
 12        815,615
       100,000,000

This is all doable without too much difficulty, though you do lose an asset in Rozier (and KO if you think he's worth the money). Assumes we can entice a max UFA, which I consider to be less than 50-50 however.

You've got a mistake.  You can't include the Max FA as one of your 12 rostered players.  You need an extra cap hold for the missing player.

Huh? Roy H. have said that the way it works is that you add up all the salaries, cap holds and cap charges after Hayward signs a max. What's correct between the two?

Other thing is, can we lessen the amount of the cap hold by signing Fultz at 116% of the rookie scale? I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works under the new CBA.

1) See the edit I put on my post explaining the rule.
2) Once Fultz signs, his cap hold equals his salary.  Until he signs, it equals 120%.  So if he agreed to it (which he won't, but that's moot), the cap hit would be reduced.

The bigger deal with the idea is that he's still $800k short.

Where have you read about this? I was under the impression that the new CBA has cut out this loop hole.

You've got the loophole backwards.  It used to be that the cap hold equaled the scale amount, and teams would wait to sign the player for 120%, effectively creating extra cap space.  Now the cap hold equals 120% of the scale amount.  But cap holds are (almost) always replaced by the amount of an actual contract, and this includes 1st round picks.  So if you negotiate an amount less than 120% of the scale, you can sign that player for the lower amount and create extra cap space.  In fact, we might start seeing this occur more often, because now teams have an incentive to negotiate an amount under 120%, due to the need for cap space.  Before, the few hundred thousand dollars (at most) difference between the cap hold slot value and the 120% signing value didn't matter to a team's bottom line, so they caved.  Now that there are cap implications, negotiations could occasionally get more difficult -- although I'd be surprised if the first player to experience this was the #1 overall pick.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit. Fultz is just a rook. If we need some extra cap space, that's a very convenient solution to our problem. I mean, would you rather dump Rozier for future pick(s)/salary relief or offer Fultz let's say 110% of the rookie scale?

Didn't know we could actually use Fultz to create cap room for Hayward's max. Thanks for your detailed explanation mate! It was very helpful! TP!

You're missing a key factor -- Fultz has (or will have) an agent.  And that agent will just tell Fultz not to sign for less than the full 120%.  And while he hasn't signed, his cap hit is the entire 120%.  So if he holds out until August 1st, you won't have the cap room the entire month of July, and that max player will probably go somewhere else.  Really he only has to hold out until the middle of July, and really just has to threaten to hold out, and that's that.  Short of renouncing the rights to their #1 pick, or trading him away, there's no way the Celtics can reduce his cap hit without his consent, and there is no incentive for him to consent.

Fultz has the power.  While he isn't signed, the cap space is taken up, so he can just not sign. 

[tazzmaniac]

The Blazer keep getting more screwed but this will hurt quite a few teams this offseason.  The relatively few teams that will actually have significant cap space are sitting pretty. 

[Jvalin]

This could be bad for the Celtics. Everyone should be rooting for the Cavs to make a historic comeback.

Well if it goes down for everyone how much does it hurt? Obviously could hurt for someone like Hayward, but maybe some other players get squeezed out that the Celtics would have interest in.

It makes it harder for us to clear enough money to sign a max free agent, meaning we lose guys that we like or convince Hayward to take less money.

Yeah, pretty much.  The easiest path to creating cap space was to trade Jackson and Bradley for no salary this year, and have Yab stay overseas another year.  If the cap drops another million because of this, down to $100 million, it means the team is over $1 million shy of max room, meaning Rozier would need to be moved as well.  Furthermore, it means that the other best option for max room, Dumping Jackson, keeping Yab overseas, dumping, Rozier, and letting Olynyk walk, is still $1 million short.

Squeeze the rookie under the scenario below to get down to $100MM:

1 Renounce KO
2 Renounce the UFAs
3 Renounce the non-guaranteed
4 Trade Rozier without taking salary back for a pick
5 Trade Jackson without taking salary back to get rid of his $650K guarantee (may need a 2nd attached)
6 Keep Yabu overseas
7 Bring Zizic over.
8 Fultz gets signed at 116+% vs the customary 120% of rookie scale.

Player   2017-2018
 Max FA     30,000,000 (30% of cap)
 Horford.    27,734,405
 Bradley    8,808,989
 Top Pick    6,812,549  (116% of rookie scale)
 Crowder    6,796,117
 Thomas    6,261,395
 Brown        4,956,480
 Smart       4,538,020
 Zizic       1,645,200
 Nader       815,615
 11        815,615
 12        815,615
       100,000,000

This is all doable without too much difficulty, though you do lose an asset in Rozier (and KO if you think he's worth the money). Assumes we can entice a max UFA, which I consider to be less than 50-50 however.

You've got a mistake.  You can't include the Max FA as one of your 12 rostered players.  You need an extra cap hold for the missing player.

Huh? Roy H. have said that the way it works is that you add up all the salaries, cap holds and cap charges after Hayward signs a max. What's correct between the two?

Other thing is, can we lessen the amount of the cap hold by signing Fultz at 116% of the rookie scale? I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works under the new CBA.

1) See the edit I put on my post explaining the rule.
2) Once Fultz signs, his cap hold equals his salary.  Until he signs, it equals 120%.  So if he agreed to it (which he won't, but that's moot), the cap hit would be reduced.

The bigger deal with the idea is that he's still $800k short.

Where have you read about this? I was under the impression that the new CBA has cut out this loop hole.

You've got the loophole backwards.  It used to be that the cap hold equaled the scale amount, and teams would wait to sign the player for 120%, effectively creating extra cap space.  Now the cap hold equals 120% of the scale amount.  But cap holds are (almost) always replaced by the amount of an actual contract, and this includes 1st round picks.  So if you negotiate an amount less than 120% of the scale, you can sign that player for the lower amount and create extra cap space.  In fact, we might start seeing this occur more often, because now teams have an incentive to negotiate an amount under 120%, due to the need for cap space.  Before, the few hundred thousand dollars (at most) difference between the cap hold slot value and the 120% signing value didn't matter to a team's bottom line, so they caved.  Now that there are cap implications, negotiations could occasionally get more difficult -- although I'd be surprised if the first player to experience this was the #1 overall pick.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit. Fultz is just a rook. If we need some extra cap space, that's a very convenient solution to our problem. I mean, would you rather dump Rozier for future pick(s)/salary relief or offer Fultz let's say 110% of the rookie scale?

Didn't know we could actually use Fultz to create cap room for Hayward's max. Thanks for your detailed explanation mate! It was very helpful! TP!

You're missing a key factor -- Fultz has (or will have) an agent.  And that agent will just tell Fultz not to sign for less than the full 120%.  And while he hasn't signed, his cap hit is the entire 120%.  So if he holds out until August 1st, you won't have the cap room the entire month of July, and that max player will probably go somewhere else.  Really he only has to hold out until the middle of July, and really just has to threaten to hold out, and that's that.  Short of renouncing the rights to their #1 pick, or trading him away, there's no way the Celtics can reduce his cap hit without his consent, and there is no incentive for him to consent.

Fultz has the power.  While he isn't signed, the cap space is taken up, so he can just not sign.

I guess it's likely that the max free agent will have no alternative options by that time cause every other team will have already used their cap space. I mean, if the Jazz find out that Hayward has verbally committed to the C's, they 'll pursue alternative options in free agency. Same thing goes for every team with max cap space. Having said all that, I have to admit that the whole thing is way more complicated than I first thought. You certainly have a point there about rookies and their agents having something to leverage in salary negotiations.