NBA Salary Cap FAQ
July 1, 2010 1:17 PM Subscribe
Have you ever been intrigued by the arcane rules of NBA finance? Then you need Larry Coon's amazingly comprehensive NBA Salary Cap FAQ.
Via basketball-reference.com, which also links to Coon's breakdown for ESPN.com of this summer's sweepstakes.
Via basketball-reference.com, which also links to Coon's breakdown for ESPN.com of this summer's sweepstakes.
Thanks for this. With all the (admittedly annoying though yet I keep hanging on every word) King James (gag) fever that's sweeping Chicago's local media, I've had to answer a lot of my boyfriend's questions when we watch the news.
I've come to realize that most of my knowledge of salary caps is what I've learned earlier in the day or comes from playing Madden on my XBox 6 years ago which means I'm telling him stuff that is true -- but for a simplified football simulator.
It's not that he'll probably ever know that I was making it up (not because I suffer from Male Answer Syndrome but in order to fulfill my role as "the sporty one" in our couple), but it's good to have something to read so I might be closer to correct.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:30 PM on July 1, 2010
I've come to realize that most of my knowledge of salary caps is what I've learned earlier in the day or comes from playing Madden on my XBox 6 years ago which means I'm telling him stuff that is true -- but for a simplified football simulator.
It's not that he'll probably ever know that I was making it up (not because I suffer from Male Answer Syndrome but in order to fulfill my role as "the sporty one" in our couple), but it's good to have something to read so I might be closer to correct.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:30 PM on July 1, 2010
Never mind... after scrolling down a bit, I think I'm just going to keep making things up. But seriously though, it's interesting...in the same way statistics and Doctor Who commentaries are interesting
(usually only to me)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:43 PM on July 1, 2010
(usually only to me)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:43 PM on July 1, 2010
Holy shit, something interesting on espn.com that isn't behind the paywall! Woo!
I hope the James signs somewhere soon. I can't handle the anticipation.
posted by mullacc at 1:54 PM on July 1, 2010
I hope the James signs somewhere soon. I can't handle the anticipation.
posted by mullacc at 1:54 PM on July 1, 2010
I like the fact that the NBA has a salary cap. It forces teams to be creative. Teams with good GM's such as OKC and until recently, Portland, have worked the system to built great young teams while stockpiling assets so they can keep reloading with young talent.
MLB needs to get a cap and soon. It's tough, as a Royals fan, to know that there is no way my team can compete with the Yankees and Red Sox.
posted by reenum at 2:53 PM on July 1, 2010
MLB needs to get a cap and soon. It's tough, as a Royals fan, to know that there is no way my team can compete with the Yankees and Red Sox.
posted by reenum at 2:53 PM on July 1, 2010
As someone pointed out (might have been Bethlahem Shoals on Fanhouse), the fact that James will command the highest possible salary whereever he goes has, in some way, broken the 'parity' supposedly brought about by the soft cap. If the decision was all about money, maybe he might stay with Cleveland, but if he's willing to go with the shorter deal signing elsewhere, and the money is all the same, why in god's name would a young athlete choose to live and work in, say, Indianapolis, Salt Lake City, Memphis, Oklahoma City, or any of the other small markets? In that sense, the cap financially keeps things even, but small markets, since they can't outbid for the FA, lose out based on basically who they are based on location. As the writer of the article I mentioned said, Detroit won't be beating Miami in any FA sweepstakes, and in a way, it's why they shouldn't be condemned for spending their money last year instead of waiting. Wade, Bosh, they wouldn't willingly choose to live there, so find some other, lesser players who will, and sign them.
Of course, with the potential lockout coming up, all of this capology could be obsolete. I'm under the impression the owners want a hard salary cap, and shorter max contracts.
posted by Ghidorah at 5:44 PM on July 1, 2010
Of course, with the potential lockout coming up, all of this capology could be obsolete. I'm under the impression the owners want a hard salary cap, and shorter max contracts.
posted by Ghidorah at 5:44 PM on July 1, 2010
It's tough, as a Royals fan, to know that there is no way my team can compete with the Yankees and Red Sox.
Blame your team's cheap ass owner, not MLB.
"While the Royals have lost 100 games in four of the past five seasons, Glass himself has been winning big. His team, which he bought for $96 million in 2000, now is worth $282 million, based on FORBES' annual ranking of MLB team valuations. This rise, an average of 17% a year, came despite an 18% decline in Royals ticket sales since Glass arrived, to 1.4 million last year (even as sales leaguewide are up 4.5% to 76 million in the same period).
Glass has profited from rich handouts under the league's revenue-sharing program, imposed in 1997. Each year teams contributed 34% of their revenue from ticket sales, parking, concessions and local broadcast rights (minus stadium expenses) to a pot that then got redistributed to the weakest teams. In 2006, $326 million was paid out to the losers.
Thus the Royals' annual collections from this socialistic setup have doubled since 2002, to $32 million last season (of a total $123 million in team revenue that year). But the team's player costs inched up only 6% to an estimated $65 million in that same period. Thus the losing Royals have turned an annual profit of close to $10 million a year (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization)."
posted by The Hamms Bear at 7:21 PM on July 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Blame your team's cheap ass owner, not MLB.
"While the Royals have lost 100 games in four of the past five seasons, Glass himself has been winning big. His team, which he bought for $96 million in 2000, now is worth $282 million, based on FORBES' annual ranking of MLB team valuations. This rise, an average of 17% a year, came despite an 18% decline in Royals ticket sales since Glass arrived, to 1.4 million last year (even as sales leaguewide are up 4.5% to 76 million in the same period).
Glass has profited from rich handouts under the league's revenue-sharing program, imposed in 1997. Each year teams contributed 34% of their revenue from ticket sales, parking, concessions and local broadcast rights (minus stadium expenses) to a pot that then got redistributed to the weakest teams. In 2006, $326 million was paid out to the losers.
Thus the Royals' annual collections from this socialistic setup have doubled since 2002, to $32 million last season (of a total $123 million in team revenue that year). But the team's player costs inched up only 6% to an estimated $65 million in that same period. Thus the losing Royals have turned an annual profit of close to $10 million a year (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization)."
posted by The Hamms Bear at 7:21 PM on July 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
I really like the fact that I understand this and makes me feel semi-proud and hopeful for the day I enlist my kids to some salary cap agreement in returns for doing chores...
posted by The1andonly at 6:35 AM on July 2, 2010
posted by The1andonly at 6:35 AM on July 2, 2010
« Older Two views of the Song-and-Dance man, Andy Kaufman | Maybe next time you shouldn't rationalize your... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by oddman at 1:29 PM on July 1, 2010