Nice column by Coon about not overpaying role players

[BrianFromWA]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8154239/nba-how-new-cba-affects-big-3-star-system

Insider, so I have to keep the snips short.

Though the NBA announced late Tuesday night that the salary cap will remain the same as it was in 2011-12, the luxury tax will become much more punitive beginning in 2012-13. Under previous collective bargaining agreements, teams paid $1 for each dollar they went over the tax line.

Those salad days are just about over. Starting next season, the rate goes up to $1.50 for each dollar, and that's just for the first $5 million. The rate goes up to $1.75 per dollar for the $5 million after that, and increases again with each $5 million -- to $2.50, $3.25, and beyond. For repeat taxpayers -- teams paying the tax in at least three of the four previous seasons -- the tax rate will double beginning in 2015.

The potential effects are staggering. For example, the Orlando Magic were $20.1 million over the tax line in 2010-11, consequently paying $20.1 million in tax. But in 2013-14, being $20.1 million over the tax line will lead to a tax bill of more than $65 million, on top of a potential revenue-sharing payment if the team is in a big market. If such a team is a repeat taxpayer, then the tax bill doubles to $130 million. That's enough to give even the richest teams pause.
...
In 2011-12, the seven teams with three players making $12 million or more spent an average of 80.4 percent of the salary cap on their three stars, an average of 66.4 percent of their room under the luxury-tax threshold. When the new rules take full effect in two years, the likely result will be a re-pricing of complementary players.

"A player who might have been a $12 million or $14 million player this year or [the year] before, might be a $6 million or $7 million player," Cuban said. "So you can have one star, and three really good players, and you can package all those guys together to build a winning team. You still maybe leave yourself some flexibility knowing that if someone gets hurt, you still have your full mid-level [with which] to add."

This says better than I've been why I don't think Nic at 4/45 is a good idea, but Nic at 5/35 or so is a great one. He's definitely a "complimentary" player, and the way that this CBA is structured severely penalizes teams who overpay for role players. Having cap space also allows us to be in a position to "help" teams trying to get unstuck, if they give us enough in return.

 

[Nikolokolus]

It's a legit concern, but given the current state of the roster, they have to also think about the salary floor. Is 11 million too much? Yeah probably, but it's not so far above his market rate that he can't be moved later if it's absolutely necessary.

Personally I would have preferred a Sign and Trade if the right deal could have been struck (two later firsts and Kyle Korver aint that), but barring that he's probably worth more as a member of the team than just the capspace he represents.

I guess we'll see what happens.

 

[BrianFromWA]

we don't have to worry about the salary floor with Brandon's 16+M filling a chunk of that for the next few years. The floor is based on actual payroll spent.

 

[RR7]

Nic was 8th in PER for SFs last season, and every player ahead of him had arguably a bigger role, and, not arguably, a bigger salary than he had. It's easy to say oh, I think at 7 million a year, he'd be great. But you don't get players like him for 7 a year, you get ones with more flaws. And then, why pay 7 for THAt guy, when you can pay 3-4 for someone comparable. And then, your roster slowly dwindles. Is it always wise to pay on potential? No, certainly not. It can blow up on you. I think Nic with a bigger role can be worth close to his offer. In the sense that everyone is overpaid a little, I think he can come close to justifying 4/45 with us, and am ok matching. If we got a great offer, I'd be ok trading him as well, but 4 years isn't going to kill us with his salary. We hope Freeland and Claver can become contributors, and they are both signed cheap. Lillard and Leonard as well, and both are cheap. If we can get Lillard and one other to be solid starters for us, we will not be hamstrung by 45 million to nic.

 

[Rhal]

Were not paying Batum 4/45 for a Role player. Were paying him that in hopes he becomes something else with a new coach. If he was looked at by management as a role player he would already be out of here and on Minn roster for there two picks.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think we offered him 4/26 or so in his extension last year "in the hopes he became something else" later. No one's saying that Nic's peaked. But no one is calling him a star in the league.

 

[RR7]

I think we offered him 4/26 or so in his extension last year "in the hopes he became something else" later. No one's saying that Nic's peaked. But no one is calling him a star in the league.

We offered him 4/26 to say hey, we aren't going to sign you to a big deal and kill our cap space 4/26 would have started him off about the same as his cap hold currently is. Was clearly a we'll go bigger later, but if you REALLY want long term security, this is what we can do now. His agent took it likely as a serious offer and got upset, so be it. But I don't believe wehad hopes of him signing it, or at all thinking that was what he was worth.

 

[Blaze01]

Which POR is going to massively do today with Batum.....ugh...

With the new salary cap teams just cannot afford to pay rotation players but not stars that much money anymore....