The Celtics Actual Cap Situation: Dashing Dreams

By Zach Lowe, CelticsHub.com @ June 28th, 11:28 am Leave a reply »

Over the last week or so, there has been a lot of misinformation, both on blogs and in the mainstream media, about the Celtics cap situation going forward. This is my best attempt to get things right, and I have bounced this off of a few cap experts. There may be a minor error in here someplace—there almost always is when you write about the cap—but I believe this is as close to an accurate accounting of Boston’s cap situation as has been written, and I have heard nothing from anyone that would make me think otherwise.

The general theme is this: Boston does not have cap space (though they can get it, in theory), so it would be best to stop dreaming of the C’s getting into the free agent bonanza.

The nitty-gritty:

Let’s start with two assumptions many folks are making when they argue that, should a few things happen, the Celtics could have significant cap space:

1) Paul Pierce decides NOT to exercise his $21 million option for next season, becoming a free agent instead;

2) Rasheed Wallace retires in a way that costs the Celtics $0 in their 2010 cap figure. (Note: This is unlikely, but let’s just assume it happens for the purposes of this exercise).

Given those two events, the C’s would then have the following money committed to five players, according to the indispensable ShamSports, who is likely mourning England’s disastrous 4-1 loss to Germany:

Kevin Garnett: $18,832,044

Kendrick Perkins: $4,140,208

Glen Davis: $3,000,004

Rajon Rondo: $9,090,909

Avery Bradley: $1,181,800*

*Note for nit-pickers: The league’s collective bargaining agreement sets out salaries for first-round picks linked to their spot in the draft. Teams and draftees can negotiate salaries ranging from 80 to 120 percent of that set amount. For Bradley, I’ve used the set amount rather than a higher or lower amount in that 80 to 120 percent range.

That adds up to: $36,244,965. With a salary cap projected at about $56.1 million, your first instinct is to scream for joy that the Celtics, in this scenario, could have about $20 million in cap room.

But this is not how the NBA’s salary cap works.

First: League rules dictate that you must carry at least 12 active players. If you are on the hook for fewer than 12 players, you must artificially increase your cap figure by slotting in salaries for those leftover players.

In this Boston scenario, with five players signed, the team would have to account for seven imaginary players to reach the required 12. According to question #14 of Larry Coon’s salary cap Bible, the team does that by charging itself the rookie minimum salary for each of those seven spots.

The rookie minimum for 2011 is $473,684. Multiply that by seven and you get: $3,315,788.

Add that to our original figure, and you finish with this:

$39,560,753

Again: It appears the Celtics have enough cap room to offer a player a maximum contract!

But this is fool’s gold. The main reason is that a team’s own free agents don’t just disappear from its cap figure. As serious fans know, a team is allowed to go over the salary cap to sign its own free agents—this is what is commonly known as Larry Bird rights. However, the league does not allow teams to go through this sequence:

1) Get under the cap;

2) Maintain Bird Rights on all of its players;

3) Go over the cap by signing free agents from other teams;

4) Then sign its own free agents via Bird Rights

The way the league prevents this is by charging teams an artificial salary for each of their own free agents. This is called a cap hold, and it is based on each player’s prior salary and experience in the league. You can calculate each Boston free agent’s cap hold using the formulas here.

Ray Allen’s cap hold alone is about $20 million. If Paul Pierce opts out, his cap hold would also be about $20 million. Those figures count in Boston’s salary cap figure, meaning adding in cap holds for Pierce and Allen alone—not to mention cap holds for Tony Allen, Brian Scalabrine and others—takes the Celtics way, way, way, way over the projected cap of $56.1 million. **

In other words: The Celtics have no cap space.

**Adding in cap holds is the same as adding a roster spot, so as long as cap holds exist, you don’t have to fill in so many empty slots with the rookie minimum. That’s just a house-keeping note; it doesn’t change the cap situation in any meaningful way.

Now, you might ask: Can the Celtics get rid of those cap holds so that they can get their cap figure down to that trim-looking $39.5 million mark?

Yes, they can, and the way to do it is simple: The team could renounce its Bird rights on all of its free agents, including Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. Do that, and the team’s salary cap figure really would be $39.5 million, and they really would have about $16.5 million in cap room.

But here’s the thing: If the team renounces Bird rights on Pierce and Allen, it can no longer go OVER the salary cap to re-sign them. They would be prohibited from doing that.

So, sure, they’d have $16.5 million in cap room, but that is (basically) all they would have.

Repeat: That is all the money they would have to fill at least eight roster spots in order to get up to the league-required 13 players (12 active, one inactive).

They would NOT be allowed to go back over the cap.

They would LOSE their mid-level exception, because teams that are under the cap do not get one. You cannot start the official off-season under the cap, go over it and get back the mid-level exception.

They would KEEP the veteran’s minimum exception, since that remains with teams regardless of their cap situation.

Can you sign eight decent players with $16.5 million and only the veteran’s minimum to play with?

Anything is possible in theory, but this would take incredible and unrealistic financial sacrifices from a number of ring-hungry veterans.

64 Responses

  1. Perry says:

    @Dave

    You may be interested to learn that Dallas is pursuing Joe Johnson in a sign and trade with Atlanta. When expiring contracts are on the table, or when teams realize they might lose a player and get nothing back in return, smart minds come together.

  2. Shooter says:

    @Dave……..dude, teams are out for themselves they will make a trade if it helps them in anyway,first and foremost.

  3. Perry says:

    @love – @K.J. Lee

    Agreed. It’s a bit of a misnomer, but as it stands, $18m for Ray Allen remains on the books. That’s a bad contract. Eddie Curry for sure is a bad contract.

    The tail end of Iguodala’s contract may be considered max money once the new cba is set in motion. Right now at $12m Iguodala is a bargain and a nice complement to Rondo. But only Pierce would suffice, and you would need Nocioni’s contract to make the dollars work. I doubt Pierce would be willing to go to a non-contender, and Collins seems to be drafting around Iggy…a smart move. He’s only 26.

  4. I love Green says:

    Im not going to trade Pierce for Iggy. Im pretty sure he’s never made it out of the first round of the playoffs. Now if we resign Ray, and trade him and Sheed for Iggy I’d be overjoyed. Then we sign EDDDIIIEEEE!! for the veterans minimum to get back some 3s we’d be missing.

  5. I love Green says:

    Oh but that is very very unlikely to happen. Although it is a delightful thought…

  6. Shooter says:

    Yessir get Eddie House back here and Powe.I was pissed when they let Powe go.

  7. K.J. Lee says:

    @Perry,

    For the new CBA, it is very likely that the NBA Commissioner would sanction some amnesty laws, as he did in 2005. In fact, the greater the changes, the greater the likelihood of these amnesty laws. Otherwise, why would the owners of profitable franchises like the Boston Celtics and LA Lakers ever agree to these changes if it would undermine their dominance on and off the court?

    I do not think that the NBA would ever introduce a hard cap similar to that of the NFL, as it would destroy many features of which Stern was himself the architect. In all likelihood, in the new CBA, the players’ mandated share of the revenue would drop from about three fifths to two fifths, with ramifications towards the salary and luxury caps. In addition, the maximum length of contracts would be shorter by a year or even two.

    But as I mentioned, it is very likely that NBA Commissioner would institute some amnesty provisos.

  8. Perry says:

    @love

    Never said I’d trade Pierce. Just devised a way for the trade to work in terms of matching dollars.

  9. Perry says:

    @K.J. Lee

    I agree with you on trimming the length of contracts and I would think annual increases in salaries would be trimmed as well. But the handwriting is on the wall with regards to the salary cap. It’s likely coming in at $56m this week – down from $57.7m. That’s a hellva a lot better than the $51m Stern was seeking. I would think teams will able to carry less personnel to compensate for a max contract.

    You could make an argument on behalf of liquidity, like in the case of Cuban who always seems to field a contending team. But then you have Dolan and the perennial losing Knicks. So I’m not sure where your going with the amnesty. Are you saying Stern will try to bleed the profitable franchises for the sake of the overall good?

    Basically the players are going to have to make salary concessions. I doubt they will be receptive. Here’s why. The NBA is a player driven league. The NFL is not. It’s brand revolves around fat cats like Lebron and Kobe. It’s hard to alter public opinion when it sees the brass jetting off to players’ homes or throwing them all night parties hosted by Jay-Z. Never have I seen this before in professional sports. not even from Steinbrenner.

  10. Jay P says:

    Yes, sign Eddie, cause exactly what we need is an unathletic one dimensional shooter who can’t defend or do anything but run around screens and spot up.

    Besides where are you going to play him? At the 2 with Bradley? That’s the exact reason you wont see Bradley with Rondo on the court much, that back court can’t guard anyone.

    In situational games, where teams play a smaller 2, maybe, Bradley has the length to guard players slightly bigger than him, but there’s a limit to that.

    Either way, it makes no sense for them, there’s too many match up problems with Eddie/Bradley or Eddie/Rondo out there.

  11. TBall says:

    Not sure if someone mentioned this, but your $16.5m is off. That is the maximum you could use to sign one player. You would have $20m to sign 8 players. You set aside the $3.5m to sign 8 veteran minimums and then didn’t include it in the available money.

  12. Bill C says:

    I don’t understand why the Celtics would have these “Cap Holds” for their players who are free agents but other teams seemingly don’t. Does anyone know why the Celtics seem so handcuffed with just 5 guys on salary for 2011?

  13. Celticjay says:

    The ball is in Pierce’s court – after all he chose to opt-out. If his ultimate goal is to win another ring (as he always says)…. then the only teams with real cap space would not be on his list – because they are still years from contending (Knicks, Nets, Clippers, Heat, Bulls) – even if they get Lebron and/or Bosh. Noe of these teams have big men to control the front of the rim like the Celtics do in Perkins & KG.

    Pierce only has 2 or 3 years left in his tank and NO other team is going to spend $65 Million on him. The only exception might be Cleveland if Lebron bolts but they have to renounce Shaq’s Bird Rghts ($20 Mil).

    Ray Allen is in a similar situation. If they want one more 3 yr contract, without taking serious pay cuts they should stay with the Celtics. Because of the Cap Holds their agents know the Celtics are strapped and can’t really negotiate, but the Celts have time on their hands and are the only team who can go over the Cap to re-sign them without luxury tax penalty.

    As the big-name free agents get signed, the market value on Paul & Ray decreases. If Doc leaves and the Celtics decide to try & rebuild, look for Danny to try & work a sign & trade.

    As a die-hard Celts fan I want these guys to retire in Green, but if they get greedy and want to cripple the team financially for years, let them find suitors elsewhere.

  14. Pete says:

    Paul can go to a contender for 50 over 3 IMHO. Paul’s agent can go after those teams that can offer 1.75 “Max” players.

    So he could follow Lebron to the Bulls or Bosh to Miami for example..

Leave a Reply