We'll be entering the 2016 summer with over 50 million to spend on free agents. Suddenly, the Lakers' future looks very, very bright!
Get a big name player this summer as a piece for the future and finish the puzzle in 2016. We'll be back on top in no time!
. 88-92 million?
This is great news, especially with Kobe's huge expiring contract. Free agency is not guaranteed, BUT this gives us the opportunity get multiple big time players, to add to our hopeful young core!
So exciting.
Not necessarily, a max player now would earn between 25 and 35% of the cap so this summer if its $66 million cap $16.5 million and $23.1 million if the cap jumps to $88 million then the max jumps to between $22 million and $30.8 million. EVERY team is suddenly going to have at least $22 million available, you think players are not going to be over paid?
This also complicates the free agents this summer, as speculated in the article lots of players will be looking for 1 year deals this summer, and now teams with restricted free agents such as Butler, Leonard and Green have no reason not to match as they now have the cap space to do so.
I am not saying its not good news but it doesn't mean we can suddenly rebuild. If anything, it makes the rebuilding harder. Instead of being one of the few teams with cap space in 2016 (when kobe comes off the books) we are now 1 of 30. Any top player can basically join any team he chooses.
I think this puts more pressure on the Lakers to go out and get a guy this offseason. If we get a special player this offseason, it might persuade an UFA in 2016 to jump ship. My dream scenario would be stealing a RFA, not an UFA since it is very unlikely a star player will jump ship and join this crappy boat as currently constructed. Since Duncan and Ginobili will retire soon, the Spurs will have no choice but to match a max for Leonard. The two choices that are interesting are obviously Green and Butler. Chicago's owner has stated he will match a max but his track record of spending isn't exactly great. Signing Butler would put them in the luxury tax. Golden States owner said he will match offers for Green as well but Morey said the same for Parsons. We will have to test him out and see if he actually does it.
My scenario would be either getting Green or Butler and securing our top pick and drafting Towns. Our building pieces would be Clarkson, Randle, Green/Butler, and Towns. We would get to see how they perform in the 2015-2016 season. If they surprise some people, a 2016 UFA might feel comfortable coming aboard. From my understanding, we might be able to sign 2 of them.
Good news.....
My scenario would be either getting Green or Butler and securing our top pick and
drafting Towns. Our building pieces would be Clarkson, Randle, Green/Butler, and
Towns. We would get to see how they perform in the 2015-2016 season. If they surprise
some people, a 2016 UFA might feel comfortable coming aboard. From my
understanding, we might be able to sign 2 of them. 
Another RFA I would go after is Middleton from bucks.
Depends how much he is worth.
This opens this summer up a lot for us. We can go out and get anyone and not worry about 2016 cap space. Now we all see why Lebron signed for such a short-term deal. I just hope random guys don't get the max contract, like Rondo or Howard or anyone else undeserving.
Very interesting move.
Saw this article earlier today. Looks like we're back in business! lol
Yeah, if FO doesn't do something stupid.
The only thing that has changed is players will get more money. The Lakers imo aren't necessarily back in business because they don't have an advantage over any other team. The interesting dynamic is that players will probably accept one year contracts to get the extra money in 2016. This is probably bad news for the Lakers actually.
If handled carefully.....
More money is more
Money.
If the Lakers will have more cap space than other teams, AND as you guys point out, that player contracts will go up, then this in fact does favor the Lakers.
Money.
If the Lakers will have more cap space than other teams, AND as you guys point out, that
player contracts will go up, then this in fact does favor the Lakers.
How does it help the Lakers? Traditionally at most 5 or 6 teams will have max cap space in 2016 EVERY team will have max cap space. How does that help the lakers? It hinders them significantly.
Money.
If the Lakers will have more cap space than other teams, AND as you guys point out, that
player contracts will go up, then this in fact does favor the Lakers.
Lakers will have more money, but that doesn't mean players will come here automatically. There will be better teams with enough cap space to get top players too.
Because if the cap goes up, but like you said that just means players will get more money, then it puts teams with MORE cap space back at an advantage. By far not all teams will now have max cap space if it goes up to about $85 million. That would help ALL teams, but not give them all max contract space.
So if team A. now has $22 million in cap space and the Lakers now have $50 million in cap space, how are they not at an advantage. Especially if the max contracts will take up more of the salary cap? Even if it didn't, if one team could sign MORE good players than another, how would that not put them at an advantage?
I said more money is money because that is by far the simplest way to explain it.
If I have $100 and you have $50, we both get a $30 raise, who has more money to buy nice things?? Now add in the fact that because we got a raise there is inflation (player contracts). So now your $80 isn't even as much as you thought it would be. That gives me the advantage with my $130.
Ok so teams like Golden State or OKC for example already have a fantastic core and are already contending, suddenly they have cap space and can sign a max FA. Where is that FA inclined to look, at those teams or the Lakers because we have $50 million available. They have something to offer FA's what do the Lakers have? Hence we are at a disadvantage
Yes, Oklahoma might have enough cap to sign another max FA but will they offer one a contract? Remember why they traded away Harden? Just because teams are given more cap space doesn't mean that they are going to spend that much. Not every teams management is like the Lakers where they will spend as much money as it takes to put together a contender. Id say that is where the advantage is for the Lakers.
You're absolutely correct. I didn't say this guarantees us anything, or that we are back in business or anything.
Just pointing out that if you still have more money than other teams then you're still at an advantage. Financially. I'm not even saying that means we will get a single great player.
Just pointing out that if you still have more money than other teams then you're still at
an advantage. Financially. I'm not even saying that means we will get a single great
player.
Your are at an advantage if you have a superstar or at least an all star already, I would take that over cap space every single time. A bird in the hand and all that.
Dude, I absolutely don't know GS or OKCs future salary cap right now. And I'm not saying we will get a single free agent. We'd still have to convince them to come to our team. But if a team like OKC is over the cap then they won't have max room. Or if Golden State gets enough space to sign 1 max player but the Lakers could sign 2 and another FA, then they still have more money. That is an ADVANTAGE. I'm not saying we will capatalize on it or predicting anything.
And I completely understood your point and wasn't necessarily saying you were wrong. Just saying that having more money is still having more money. So to me, it doesn't change as much as you think it does.
Or the advantage could be, hey we can sign 3 max players. They can only add one. Or they can only add 1 high level player.
And I completely understood your point and wasn't necessarily saying you were wrong.
Just saying that having more money is still having more money. So to me, it doesn't
change as much as you think it does.
Dallas had virtually max cap room every summer trying to sign FA's. They ended up with Parsons (overpaid btw) and whiffed summer after summer with FA's even Deron Williams turned them down. You can have as much money in the world but if you can't provide a winning platform your not going to sign the best players.
We had more money than any other team last summer and look where that got us, having an extra $25 million is going to be an advantage when the roster is low on talent?
I think were getting "advantage of signing a player" confused with "an oppurtunity to sign a player"
yes but:
1) isn't it constantly argued that the Lakers used to have an advantage because it was feasible for them to overpay players while other teams wouldn't?
2) isn't it better that most players will be FA in 2016 if they sign a 1-year contract only, which is the period that Kobe's contract is off the books?
1) isn't it constantly argued that the Lakers used to have an advantage because it was feasible for them to overpay players while other teams wouldn't?
2) isn't it better that most players will be FA in 2016 if they sign a 1-year contract
only, which is the period that Kobe's contract is off the books?
I don't get your first point, so I won't comment on it but for #2, why would it be better for more FA's to be available when more teams (in all likelihood all 30) have max space available. Instead of fighting with 5 or less other teams for the best FA's you going to be fighting with all 30. Those small market teams that can't get the "A" tier free agents are going to throw stupid money at "B" tier players, over paying to do so, creating a frenzy. I don't see how any of that helps the lakers.
1) isn't it constantly argued that the Lakers used to have an advantage because it was feasible for them to overpay players while other teams wouldn't?
2) isn't it better that most players will be FA in 2016 if they sign a 1-year contract
only, which is the period that Kobe's contract is off the books?
1) It was feasible that the Lakers could overpay back in the day but it really came down to the Lakers still being able to recover from bad contracts offered and compete, something small market teams couldn't do. The Lakers are at a disadvantage now because the Lakers' cap space didn't necessarily raise independently, everyone's cap space did. It just comes down to ever team spending more money on players. It means that owners will end up getting upset and there will be another lockout when the next cba is up.
2) Kobe's contract will be off the books and LA will have plenty of cap space, however they had plenty of cap space this past off season, it doesn't mean much to players if you have a lousy roster. All the big names in 2016 will be looking to capitlalize on big paydays and hopping on teams that can contend with a decent roster. For example, Durant will get a max contract but what would entice him to come to LA? Is it because LA can pay more than the next team? No. Durant will still have to leave an extra year on OKC's table to go elsewhere, advantage OKC. Durant would have to leave Westbrook and crew for LA's roster which would be led by Clarkson and Randle and maybe a top five pick. That's still an advantage to OKC imo. LA is still at a disadvantage to teams with robust rosters. The Lakers may be able to acquire some guys, I'm not doubting that but if LA is trying to go after big names again then they'll end up in the same position as this past offseason, whiffing air.
We had more money than any other team last summer and look where that got us, having an
extra $25 million is going to be an advantage when the roster is low on talent?
Ok. Now you're stating what I said. I'll still take being the team with more money than less money. I think you're just taking what I said and turning it into some sort of argument against your point. I didn't say anything about "Now we'll get all the free agents!"
How are all teams going to have Max cap space? The cap is only going up to like $85 million. The year before is projected to be at $66.5 million. You think every single team was going to be under the cap to begin with? You do realize not every team was going to have cap space in 2016 right? If you add $18.5 million to what every team was going to be at, they won't all have max cap space. Especially if the max contracts go up! That would just get some teams out of the tax, get some teams cap space, and get a few teams max room, and a few teams like the Lakers a ridiculous amount of cap space.
JJ Cali: Not everyone is going to have max space. The cap is being raised so it only means that these players will get more money which is why I'm sure most of them will only want one year contracts this coming offseason. This new cap will undoubtedly cause a big rift during the new CBA. I think some people on here feel we will be big players because the cap went up but it went for everyone so some of these players will be getting overpaid. It will be a domino effect because in order to get certain guys, teams will have to outbid one another.
BTW, thanks for the rep on that other thread. My apologies on my lack of manners.
The expectation that the cap would rise significantly for 2016 is the reason you heard rumors of the Lakers willing to wait for this summer to sign Dragic or Rondo to a current max deal at $20M per year. That means we could only sign one max free agent this year.
Also, it's possible current RFA's like Butler, Leonard, and Green just sign the qualifying offer with their current teams and become UFA's in the summer of 2016.
The teams that have players locked in on multi-year deals are the real beneficiaries of this.
All newly signed players simply have higher salaries by percentage than they used to... although the first couple of years of this sudden raise should allow for role-players to be gained at a lower percentage of the cap than they have been... at least until they adjust, and you know the agents have already adjusted to this higher rate, so no difference there.
If an agent was going to demand 5m for a player he will now demand like 8m or 9m.
I only see the benefit for team building in the first couple years of adjustment, after that its just higher pay for players. Which is fine, it's a players league.
I do think many players will do those 1yr deals, but some may not want to risk injury, and may accept a bit of over-pay currently on a 3-4yr deal. I think maybe the Lakers should over pay a couple players and go into the luxury tax this year. Lock up a couple guys at a slightly lower rate than they will get in the following year. Use the cap rise to get another FA that year.
BTW, thanks for the rep on that other thread. My apologies on my lack of manners.
That's what I'm saying, Gem. Not every team will have maximum cap space. You're welcome.
Tempy, I probably should have worded my original post differently. I think you make a good point. I wasn't trying to argue with you. I just think that if the team still has more cap space they still have that advantage. But I wasn't trying to discredit your point.
Tempy, I probably should have worded my original post differently. I think you make a good
point. I wasn't trying to argue with you. I just think that if the team still has more
cap space they still have that advantage. But I wasn't trying to discredit your
point.
I think people are under the impression that teams can get more max players but in reality they can't. Max players, depending on their years in the league can get a percentage of what the cap is. That doesn't put LA in any better position at all to sign guys if it's a bidding war.
Jim and Jeannie saw this about cap space and probably negotiating a 3 year / $100 million extension for Kobe.
BTW, I have to rep you. We may not always fully agree but you put out some very well-thought
out posts and that's what this site needs. Keep up the work Tempy because I'm sure
it's not always easy.
Thanks for the rep, and of course its not going to happen, this summer will play a huge role in what happens around the whole league not just for the lakers. If the bulk of players do only want 1 year deals then its going to be mayhem the following summer when teams will be making it rain. I am calling it now that in the next CBA teams will want to have two amnesty provisions to cancel out all the crazy deals they have gave the players. But the majority of teams, at least half will have max space available, that is unheard of. Most summers 5 or 6 teams if that have max cap space.
With so many teams having money to throw at players it is going to be hard to find good value for money players. Again the whole reason why we should have been building the core of our team last summer and not starting now. If the lakers saw Hill as part of our future we should have signed him to a deal similar to Young's and gave him $25/30 million over 4. With the salary cap increasing by amounts never seen before, that contract would have been a steal. The FO just don't have any forward thinking and are trying to rebuild on the fly.
Only way these numbers will stick is if EVERY team signs nothing but 1 year deals this
year. Including their draft picks. That's onviously not going to happen. I think a
lot of players won't want a 1 year deal. A lot of players will want security.
No but they can preserve the cap space if they want to. Is that not what the Lakers did the Past 2 summers? Of the top free agents available this summer most of those teams if not all are well under the projected cap and could still have max cap space that summer. You said it was impossible for them all to have max cap space, now your just being pedantic.
I don't think I said impossible. Now you're just misquoting and using big words. But I don't think they all will. Anyways, your point is taken. By your numbers some teams will have more money than others. Which was my only original point.
The big thing from this is getting players on long term deals in 2015 because they will be cheaper than all the 2016 free agents. Id say build a good team next but leave somewhat of a hole at small forward for Durant in 2016.
That's the problem, a lot of players are going to sign short term deals because they know they can make more money the following year.
I don't understand why so many think this specifically benefits the Lakers. EVERY team will have the same Cap, so we're in the same boat, just spending more to keep up. And you need a stout FO to manage it, and we have't got that. I don't see how this helps us at all. It's still a level playing field cap wise, and we'll be competing with everyone. AND too many players will now be grossly overpaid. IMO it kinda sucks. I was hoping lowering the cap in the last CBA would have at least created an environment whereby players would be more reasonably paid. Now all bets are off. Where will it go from here? $40mill max contracts down the road? It's going to be outta control again. I'd rather see them keep the max down to $20m and allow more than 15 players per team, for injuries sake. Or allow practice squads a la the NFL. Spend the money more wisely to improve the sport and player's health, not just to benefit the few stars again.
If the Lakers need ten bucks to solve a problem and the cap is evenly raised, at least the Lakers are in the conversation at that point. The dynamic shifts from limitations to desire when the league is wealthy. I often use the NBA as a metaphor for the USA economy. I have seen glimpses that a similar dynamic may be resolve in the near future for the entire nation and planet for that matter. It's important to keep things in perspective.
How is the NBA like the US economy?
I'll give you the very short answer.
The USA has been Fascist since 1946 while sustaining the illusion of Capitalism and Democracy. The NBA is a corporate business. Corporations generally form the leading edge of the Fascist infra-structure. When you see the emphasis shift from a massive imbalance in favor of the corporation to an equal if not dominant position by the players, the producers, the 'People', it serves as a microcosm for larger trends that are happening nationwide.
^^^ Good Answer
The USA has been Fascist since 1946 while sustaining the illusion of Capitalism and
Democracy. The NBA is a corporate business. Corporations generally form the
leading edge of the Fascist infra-structure. When you see the emphasis shift from a
massive imbalance in favor of the corporation to an equal if not dominant position
by the players, the producers, the 'People', it serves as a microcosm for larger
trends that are happening nationwide.
Facist? More like plutocracy.
Plutocracy is refined Capitalism. Fascism is Corporate-Government partnering. This is what we are.
