Expiring Contracts

If you are over the cap and have an expiring contract, say $10M, can you carry that over to the next year or do you only get to use that space for that year? Could not find answer. Thanks.

 

after trade deadline, you cant trade them, and after july 1st, they go bye bye.

 

Then why do teams want a contract expiring in '09 and think with contracts expiring in '10 that gets them cap space? Don't they have to sign someone (Rasheed's contract is $17M) for that figure for one year, 2009 and then have that for 2010?

 

If a team over the salary cap has an expiring contract, then they get the cap space it provides the year after the contract expires. For example, Al Harrington's contract expires in 2009 and the NYK acquired it in trade. They will have his salary slot to use for a player such as LeBron in 2010. That salary slot has no expiration date and is one of the ways teams over the cap can acquire players via trade or free agency without paying the luxury tax.

The other way teams over the cap can acquire players is the traded player exception which occurs when one team trades a larger salary to another team for a smaller one. If Team A trades a $5 M player to Team B for a $4 M one, then they also acquire a $1 M + $100,000 TPE which lasts for one year from the date the trade was made. The TPE can be used by a team over the salary cap to make deals, but they have to do it within a year's time or the TPE expires.

 

There is a minimum amount of salary that the team has to maintain. However, it's quite a low amount. In one year, Bobcat had to meet the minimum amount (They probably had under $30 mils payroll, and caproom threshold was probably bit over $50 or so), so that they actually took some salary to meet the deadline. It was an exception, because Bobcat was made just couple (?) years ago at that time, and they didn't have enough big contract to meet the minimum. Almost all teams will not face that problem. If teams have a caproom in 09 and does not spend it (providing that they meet minimum payroll), they can use that caproom in 2010. Caproom is not a trading exception, which has one year lifespan. It's availability is a simply math of deducting the team's salary from caproom threshold ($58.68 mils in 2009)...

 

I understand when you are below the cap, I am talking Bout where you are over but have an huge expiring contract is it only good for a sign and trade then? What if the warriors watched baron go but did not sign Maggette would they have lost that space after the summer? Or could it be use this summer?

 

Yeah. When the team is over the cap, the expiring contract is only good for sign-and-trade during the offseason. For example, Knicks has like 30 mils caproom this offseason. But, since they have around $100 mils payroll, they don't get a single penny for capspace. For our case, because Davis opted out (We were around cap threshold before Davis opting out), we suddenly ended up with 10 mils caproom, and that's why we were able to sign Maggette. If we did not sign Maggette and everything stays the same (ignore all salary increases, resigns, and cap increases), we will have the same amount of caproom to be used in 09 offseason.

Realistically, if we didn't sign Maggette, we will probably end up with around 7 mils caproom in 09 season. But, we could have around 30 mils caproom in 2010 (probably the biggest FA market in NBA history) if we didn't sign Maggette, resign Jackson and didn't trade for Crawford. But, Rowell being Rowell, we ended up with nothing in 2010...

 

Cap space is only part of the equation. The other part is having management and a team in place for the best free agents to want to come here, and even then one ends up over paying. The Warriors don't have the other parts in place, so they just get used as leverage. Rowell should have just signed Baron to the *reasonable* K that Baron was willing to take even if he did not like him. Under those terms, then he could have been traded if he did not work out with the Warriors after this season.

 

I think the reason we can't attract good FA's is because nobody likes our owner or Rowell. I bet agents are telling their clients to stay away from Golden State.

I swear at some point, we have to get a new franchise in the bay area so that the Warriors can be the clippers compared to the new bay area franchise "Lakers". If they open up a basketball franchise in San Jose or Santa Clara, maybe it'd have a better chance than the north bay franchises. Sharks, Earthquakes, Sabrecats seem like the only sports franchises that have done anything in recent time due to superior ownership than those of the Giants, A's, Warriors, and 49ers.

 

I wouldn't include the Giants, As, or the 49ers in with the Warriors now. All of those teams have shook up ownership, changed management structure, and embraced new philosophies. They have some of the pieces in place now so they can turn it around in a short period of time. The Warriors are on par with Al Davis' Raiders maybe? The whole organization is going the wrong way. The only way the Warriors will ever be contenders again is to get rid of Cohan, which is the hardest thing to do because he has majority ownership. The guy makes the worst decisions ever.