If a team caps out with less than 12 players...

[Malinhion]

Do they have to fill the rest of the roster spots with league min guys?

Let's take the 2009 Miami Heat. Say the cap drops enough that they pick up options on Beasley, Cook, Chalmers, Jones, Wade extends, and they sign a max free agent. Let's say this takes all their cap room. They only have six players under contract. What now?

[Three34]

If they've run out of (or renounce) other salary exceptions - including the Rookie Salary Exception and all cases of Bird rights - then yes, the Minimum Salary Exception is what they'll have to use. This is the risk you take. Well done on foreseeing a scenario in which James Jones doesn't get waived, though.

[Dunkenstein]

Do they have to fill the rest of the roster spots with league min guys?

Let's take the 2009 Miami Heat. Say the cap drops enough that they pick up options on Beasley, Cook, Chalmers, Jones, Wade extends, and they sign a max free agent. Let's say this takes all their cap room. They only have six players under contract. What now?

Don't forget to add Joel Anthony to your list. He was just given a PO for 10-11.

[LarryCoon]

Change your number from 12 to 13 -- teams are required to have at least 13 players.

The other option is trades, of course. A team can trade one guy for two, for example.

[Schad]

Pretty sure that, owing to the cap holds from those six roster spots below the minimum of twelve, a team couldn't technically spend up to the cap, but rather up to something like $2.75m below it (the rookie minimum x6).

Basically semantic quibbling because they'd still have no option but to sign minimum-salaried players to fill the remaining spots, but it does make freeing up the necessary space all the more difficult.

[FGump]

Pretty sure that, owing to the cap holds from those six roster spots below the minimum of twelve, a team couldn't technically spend up to the cap, but rather up to something like $2.75m below it (the rookie minimum x6).

correct ..except there would be cap set asides for "seven roster spots below the minimum of thirteen"

[Dunkenstein]

Pretty sure that, owing to the cap holds from those six roster spots below the minimum of twelve, a team couldn't technically spend up to the cap, but rather up to something like $2.75m below it (the rookie minimum x6).

correct ..except there would be cap set asides for "seven roster spots below the minimum of thirteen"

While the CBA requires that each team have a minimum of thirteen roster players on opening day, Art VII, Sect 4 (f) states that:

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.

[Malinhion]

Right. Kinda forgot about cap holds. I'm not even sure how.

If they've run out of (or renounce) other salary exceptions - including the Rookie Salary Exception and all cases of Bird rights - then yes, the Minimum Salary Exception is what they'll have to use. This is the risk you take. Well done on foreseeing a scenario in which James Jones doesn't get waived, though.

I don't think he's moving, to be honest. It doesn't make sense to waive him for half the cash. Dealing him next summer would be near impossible because of the timing on the option. I can't forsee any suitors who would really want to hang on to him.

[FGump]

Pretty sure that, owing to the cap holds from those six roster spots below the minimum of twelve, a team couldn't technically spend up to the cap, but rather up to something like $2.75m below it (the rookie minimum x6).

correct ..except there would be cap set asides for "seven roster spots below the minimum of thirteen"

While the CBA requires that each team have a minimum of thirteen roster players on opening day, Art VII, Sect 4 (f) states that:

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.

Dunk, your point is correct if we're talking about the way the CBA says to do the calculation of "current Team Salary."

But if we're talking about spendable cap room, in reality we have to account for 13 roster slots each time a player is signed - the others already signed, plus cap holds to the 12th, and then this player is 13.

So in the example given in the OP, Miami would have to have been setting aside 7 cap holds or more (not 6) as they signed each of those six players, and for practical purposes if we're Miami trying to fit all six onto our roster, we have to set aside seven cap holds in determining room to sign those six.

[Dunkenstein]

I see your point. In the scenario presented by the OP there would be five players under contract and seven cap holds. The difference between the salary cap and the sum of the aforementioned contracts and holds would be the maximum amount that Miami could offer a free agent.

[FGump]

Yep, it's kinda quirky in the way the CBA reads, but since the use of cap space is to add a player, they make you calculate the salary tied up in the first 12 - and then the guy you are signing can take whatever is left for slot 13. In that methodology, despite the wording in the CBA, you're actually subtracting empty roster slots from 13 if you include that player you're wanting to sign as one of the roster.

[answerthink]

As quoted above, Section 4(f) of the CBA states that a roster charge equal to the rookie minimum contract (currently $457,588) will be added in the offseason to a team for each player it has below 12.

While it does not explicitly state if the charge gets removed once the number of players again reaches 12, my assumption based on the language is that it does. I believe the intent of these roster charge is to restrict the amount of money that can be spent on any one player… as opposed to restricting the overall amount of money available to a team to an amount less than the actual salary cap level, which would seem to benefit neither the players association nor the NBA. Is that correct?

Would a team just below the salary cap be allowed to complete a trade if the resulting roster charge would push the team beyond the salary cap threshold by more than $100,000 (e.g., if a team with 13 players included in its Team Salary trades away 3 players for 1 in return)?

[FGump]

If a trade results in a team ending up above the cap, the "over the cap" trade limits would apply to that trade to determine if it's allowed - ie 125% + 100K

[answerthink]

FGump,

Thank you very much. I believe you are utilizing Article VII, Section 6(h)(3) as the basis for your response.

Would you happen to know the answer to the first part of my question? Are roster charges removed once a team below the 12 player minimum during the offseason adds players? Article VII, Section 4(f) does not specifically deal with this, but it seems to me to suggest they do get removed. Perhaps this question seems like a technicality but it would have mathematical implications for teams well below the cap next offseason.

[FGump]

I don't understand the great mystery here - I think you're overthinking something that is inherently simple. Roster holds for empty roster slots are added when they are applicable. If a team's number of players change, then obviously the cap charges will change according to whatever the new mix is.