Cap holds for teams under roster minimum.

User avatar
bgassassin
Starter
Posts: 2,231
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 17, 2005
Location: Memphis, 10SC

Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#1 » by bgassassin » Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:39 am

Hello all. I was wondering how much the cap hold would be for each spot a team is under the league minimum? I was barely able to find information to even confirm this, so I didn't know where else to go to get this specific info.
LarryCoon
Rookie
Posts: 1,113
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 09, 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Contact:

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#2 » by LarryCoon » Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:43 pm

User avatar
casey
General Manager
Posts: 7,660
And1: 7
Joined: Jun 18, 2005
Contact:

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#3 » by casey » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:15 pm

I was wondering about something similar lately. If a team has 11 players and is under the cap, when they sign a 12th player does that cap hold disappear. I mean simultaneously as they're signing the player. Let's say with 11 guys they are $10Mil under the cap, but with the cap hold for that 12th spot they're only ~$9.5Mil under. So can they sign a guy for $10Mil or only $9.5Mil?
"I'm Ricky Rubio."
--Ricky Rubio
User avatar
bgassassin
Starter
Posts: 2,231
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 17, 2005
Location: Memphis, 10SC

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#4 » by bgassassin » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:13 pm

LarryCoon wrote:http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q14

Ninth bullet item.


Thank you, O wise sage of the CBA. Casey brings up a good question as well, even though I would be under the assumption that they gain use of the money under the hold when signing a player.
Dunkenstein
Starter
Posts: 2,454
And1: 13
Joined: Jun 17, 2002
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#5 » by Dunkenstein » Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:30 am

casey wrote:I was wondering about something similar lately. If a team has 11 players and is under the cap, when they sign a 12th player does that cap hold disappear. I mean simultaneously as they're signing the player. Let's say with 11 guys they are $10Mil under the cap, but with the cap hold for that 12th spot they're only ~$9.5Mil under. So can they sign a guy for $10Mil or only $9.5Mil?

It is my understanding that the cap hold for the eleventh man does not go away until after the new player is signed. So in your scenario the team can sign a player to a contract not exceeding $9.5M.

I have no document to cite. I was explained this by a wise man last fall when such a situation arose.
FGump
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,050
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 14, 2004

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#6 » by FGump » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:30 pm

The 12th man cap hold can be part of the 12th man's salary. If it was NOT allowed to be used for that 12th man's salary, how could they sign him? By definition, it's there just for that purpose.

Let's say the minimum/cap hold is 500K.

A team fills up 11 roster slots to the brim and leaves 500K in room for slot 12, as they must do.

So as they sign that 12th player, it must be for 500K and they are using that cap hold of 500K.

The formula: after you sign player # N, you must have a remainder in cap space of 500K x (12-N). The number N changes as a player is added, so a cap hold SIMULTANEOUSLY is eliminated with that new contract.

That formula appears in word form in the CBA itself Art VII Sec 4 (f)
Dunkenstein
Starter
Posts: 2,454
And1: 13
Joined: Jun 17, 2002
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#7 » by Dunkenstein » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:08 am

FGump wrote:The 12th man cap hold can be part of the 12th man's salary. If it was NOT allowed to be used for that 12th man's salary, how could they sign him?

By using cap room (not including the 12th man cap hold), an MSE, a BAE or an MLE. The MSE is available to every team.

And yes the formula will be adjusted. But not until after the player is signed.

I thought it operated the way you outlined it. It seemed logical to me. But as we often find, the NBA uses it's own logic. As it was explained to me that the 12th man cap hold remains in place until after the 12th man is signed.
FGump
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,050
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 14, 2004

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#8 » by FGump » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:49 am

Dunk, I hear you saying you have been told that, but I just can't buy that for several reasons.

One is, the CBA itself says otherwise.
It says you calculate the team salary by adding salaries plus empty slots. Before you add the 12th salary, there is one empty slot so you add a cap hold. After you add the 12th salary, there is no empty slot so no cap hold to be added in that calculation. That makes it as either/or of course.

Second, common sense.
If you are $5M under the cap with 11 players, you obviously have $5M left to spend on that 12th player. Not $4.5M.

Third, NBA history.
It's very relevant that teams spend right up to their cap. All of it.

Fourth, one purpose of the cap hold itself is to set aside money to be used on that 12th player.

Fifth, another point of having cap holds on the first 12 slots is to prevent teams from filling their cap and then using the MSE to fill those slots.

Whoever told you that just wasn't thinking clearly.
GrandAdmiralDan
RealGM
Posts: 15,104
And1: 1,291
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: New Berlin, WI (Milwaukee)
Contact:
     

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#9 » by GrandAdmiralDan » Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:03 am

FGump, it is indeed as Dunkenstein says.

FGump wrote:Fourth, one purpose of the cap hold itself is to set aside money to be used on that 12th player.

Fifth, another point of having cap holds on the first 12 slots is to prevent teams from filling their cap and then using the MSE to fill those slots.


The key to your mistake is right there. You actually have the logic correct, but you are off by one player. It is designed around the 13th player, not the 12th player. To alter the words you used "One purpose of the cap hold itself is to set aside money to be used on that 13th player"

The reason it is designed around the 13th player is because of the minimum required roster size of 13.
This was a corresponding change in the 2005 CBA. If you recall, in the 1999 CBA, there were only roster spot holds covering 11 spots because of the 12 man minimum required roster. Now it is 12 spots for a 13 man roster.

Certainly you guys have noticed many CBA related things before I have, but in this case I'm surprised that you (and Dunk, before the discussion he refers to) didn't notice this one much sooner. I recall noticing this one basically right away after the 2005 CBA went into effect. Are you sure this just didn't slip your mind? Maybe you two are getting rusty like I am ;) Perhaps the three of us should start training in order to sharpen our CBA skills. Obviously, this training would need to be done in montage form.
http://www.videovat.com/videos/5600/TEA ... ntage.aspx
97-98
Nick Van Exel (LAL) on defending the Stockton-Malone pick-and-roll: "Yeah,
I got a way to defend it. Bring a bat to the game and kill one of them."
Three34
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 36,406
And1: 123
Joined: Sep 18, 2002

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#10 » by Three34 » Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:27 am

Always fade out in a montage. Always.
LarryCoon
Rookie
Posts: 1,113
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 09, 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Contact:

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#11 » by LarryCoon » Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:29 pm

My understanding is that since the 12th player contract and the empty 12th roster spot never exist simultaneously, the cap hold and the contract never apply to the cap simultaneously. But I haven't spoken to anyone specifically about this, and as Dunk says, the league often uses its own logic.
FGump
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,050
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 14, 2004

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#12 » by FGump » Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:27 pm

Larry, you're correct that I didn't even give a second's thought to the minimum roster size of 13, in that I was focused on the CBA which (in the portion in question) uses "12". That fallacy on my part answers the common sense issues, but it also means that the CBA's wording on the computation of Team Salary is pretty screwy in its logic, exhibiting that they have come from a weird approach. Just like Dunk said.

(1) If at any time from July 1 through the day prior to the first day of the Regular Season a Team has fewer than twelve (12) players, determined in accordance with Section 4(f)(2) below, included in its Team Salary, then the Team’s Team Salary shall be increased by an amount calculated as follows:

STEP 1:

Subtract from twelve (12) the number of players included in Team Salary.

STEP 2:

If the result in Step 1 is a positive number, multiply the result in Step 1 by the Minimum Annual Salary applicable to players with zero (0) Years of Service for that Salary Cap Year.


The bizarre thing is, there is never a roster hold for the last (13th) slot, but since they do it as they do it where a roster hold isn't released until AFTER that slot is filled (rather than AS it is filled), the result comes out the same.
LarryCoon
Rookie
Posts: 1,113
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 09, 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Contact:

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#13 » by LarryCoon » Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:06 pm

As much as I enjoy hearing "Larry, you're correct," I'm afraid that was Dan.
FGump
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,050
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 14, 2004

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#14 » by FGump » Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:19 pm

Wow. This is really not my week. I think I need to play groundhog and go hibernate for a while and come back when I can think straight.

Sorry GAD. And Dunk. And Larry. And everyone else watching me play Village Idiot.
GrandAdmiralDan
RealGM
Posts: 15,104
And1: 1,291
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: New Berlin, WI (Milwaukee)
Contact:
     

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#15 » by GrandAdmiralDan » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:55 am

LarryCoon wrote:As much as I enjoy hearing "Larry, you're correct," I'm afraid that was Dan.


Larry, you're correct.


Oh. You tricked me into saying that again :wavefinger:

:lol:
97-98

Nick Van Exel (LAL) on defending the Stockton-Malone pick-and-roll: "Yeah,

I got a way to defend it. Bring a bat to the game and kill one of them."
Three34
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 36,406
And1: 123
Joined: Sep 18, 2002

Re: Cap holds for teams under roster minimum. 

Post#16 » by Three34 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:24 am

FGump wrote:Sorry GAD. And Dunk. And Larry. And everyone else watching me play Village Idiot.


Don't apologise to those of us watching you play the village idiot. I'm just happy to have been here, It's the highlight of my week normally.

Return to CBA & Business