I can’t get mad at the average fan for not knowing the finer points of the NBA’s current collective bargaining agreement (CBA). It isn’t the easiest thing to digest, and besides, who needs rules when it comes to fantasizing about ways in which the Lakers can get better, right?
As soon as it seemed as if people finally got a grasp on the old CBA, the league’s owners decided to lock the players out and many of the major issues in the old CBA were either tweaked, repealed, or replaced. And while I can’t be mad at fans who don’t know about the changes, I have every right to be angry at respected members of the media who should have done their homework by now.
I only have so much time with which to answer the questions people send me on Twitter or let those aforementioned writers know that they incorrectly reported something that will most likely be read by hundreds of thousands of people.
Instead, I figured I’d use this space to educate you in the simplest way I can on some of the more common fallacies as they pertain to the Lakers and what they can or cannot do this off-season to improve their roster.
The Lakers Should Just Pay The Luxury Tax And Sign Chris Paul
You’d be surprised how many people think teams can just sign whichever free agent they want as long as they’re willing to pay the luxury tax. That’s 100% false. First things first, here’s what you need to know:
1) The salary cap for this season is $58 million.
2) The luxury tax threshold for this season is $70 million.
In an attempt to give owners the chance to keep their rosters together, the NBA allows teams to go over the salary cap only when it comes to re-signing their own free agents. The Lakers can re-sign Dwight Howard even though they are way over the cap but they couldn’t, contrary to what Bill Plaschke thinks, offer that same contract to Chris Paul instead. That’s because he’s not currently a Laker.
The luxury tax kicks in when teams pass the $70 million threshold in overall salary. In other words, teams have a $12 million cushion with which to go over the cap to retain their players before they have to pay taxes on the amount in which they are over.
That’s not all.
All of the teams who finish the season under the luxury tax threshold get to evenly split all of the money collected from the tax-paying teams. So being even a dollar over the luxury tax is much more costly than just being a dollar over because you then miss out on the millions shared by those teams under the luxury tax.
The Lakers Should Sign J.R. Smith or Nate Robinson For The Mid-Level Exception
I get this one sent to me a lot. If it’s not Smith or Robinson then it’s Tony Allen, Kyle Korver, or Jarrett Jack. The problem is this is another one of those things that changed dramatically with the new CBA. The mid-level exception (MLE) can still only be used by teams over the cap but there is now a different set of rules for teams that are either above or below the luxury tax.
Here’s what you need to know about the non-taxpayer MLE:
- The maximum first year salary for the non-taxpayer MLE this year was $5 million.
- The maximum number of years that can be offered using the non-taxpayer MLE is four.
- The non-taxpayer MLE can be split amongst multiple players.
- Teams can only use the non-taxpayer MLE so long as they are no more than $4 million over the luxury tax after having used it.
Here’s what you need to know about the taxpayer MLE (also called the mini-MLE):
- The maximum first year salary for the taxpayer MLE this year was $3.09 million.
- The maximum number of years that can be offered using the taxpayer MLE is three.
- The taxpayer MLE can be split amongst multiple players.
- Only teams more than $4 million over the luxury tax can use it.
The current non-taxpayer MLE is very similar to the one that was in the old CBA. The major difference is that under the old CBA every team over the cap was allowed to use it. In 2009, the Lakers were well over the cap but used the full MLE to sign Ron Artest to a 5-year, $34 million contract. In 2010, they used a nice chunk of it to sign Steve Blake to a 4-year, $16 million contract. Nowadays they wouldn’t have been able to sign either of those guys for that much. Instead have to settle for the likes of Josh McRoberts, who they signed using the mini-MLE in 2011, for only two years and only $6.2 million. Does anyone think Corey Brewer, Nate Robinson, Tony Allen, Kyle Korver, or Jarrett Jack is going to play for $3 million?
—- Check out this wallpaper featuring the legends of Lakers basketball! —-
Besides, with even steeper luxury tax penalties going into effect next season, that $3 million mini-MLE could end up costing the Lakers $10 million. So don’t be surprised if they either don’t use it or only use a portion of it.
Kobe Needs To Restructure His Contract To Free Up Some Cap Space
This is another one that I see and hear far too often. Don’t get me wrong. It would be nice if the Lakers could change the terms of Kobe’s contract from one remaining year at $30 million to 30 remaining years at $1 million but it isn’t allowed. NBA contracts cannot be restructured under any circumstance. It’s one of those things that the players union would never allow to to be included in the CBA.
The Lakers Should Sign-And-Trade Dwight Howard So They Don’t Lose Him For Nothing
The rules regarding sign-and-trades changed dramatically with the new CBA. While the new rules won’t have much of an effect on guys who aren’t worthy of a max contract, they will have a major impact on guys like Chris Paul and Dwight Howard. The difference now is that the maximum amount of years and money that a player can get in a sign-and-trade is exactly the same as the maximum years and money he could get if just signs with his new team as a free agent. In other words, why would a free agent intentionally weaken his new team by forcing them to give up players and/or draft picks when he can just sign with them for the exact same amount of money?
This is good news if you want the Lakers to re-sign Dwight because it means that there isn’t a scenario in which he plays for another team next season without having to take a $30 million pay cut over the length of the contract. However, if Dwight is intent on signing with Houston and taking that pay cut, the Lakers would probably try to get back a few of the young players the Rockets would have to renounce to free up the cap space they need to give Dwight the most money they can offer him.
However, if Dwight was content with taking the pay cut and was adamant about leaving the Lakers and playing for a team without the cap space to sign him, the Lakers would have to engage in sign-and-trade discussions to accomodate him and get something back in return.
Another new rule under the new CBA states that teams more than $4 million over the luxury tax cannot acquire a player via sign-and-trade. So don’t waste your time dreaming up scenarios in which Paul Millsap or J.J. Redick is signed-and-traded to the Lakers.
The Lakers Should Just Let Dwight Leave
If your rationale for not wanting Dwight back is because you don’t think he’s worth the max and you are worried about how much cap space he will consume, you still need to remember that he is also the reason why any free agent would want to sign with the Lakers when they have cap space in 2014.
Even if you were unimpressed with the season Dwight had and you want him gone, you have to realize how few prime assets the Lakers currently have. Their best player is about to turn 35 and has a torn Achilles, their starting power forward will soon be 33 and just underwent a procedure to remove scar tissue from both of his knees, their starting point guard is 39 and has a back condition called spondylolisthesis, and their small forward is 33 and shot 40 percent last year.
In other words, keeping him and trading him later is still preferable to letting him walk for nothing. This isn’t Major League Baseball where teams get compensatory draft picks for losing free agents.
Besides having a bunch of old guys who are breaking down physically, they only have two first round picks between now and 2018. The NBA prohibits teams from trading consecutive first-round draft picks. Since the Lakers already traded away their 2013, 2015, and 2017 picks in the Ramon Sessions and Dwight Howard trades, they can’t trade their 2014, 2016, or 2018 picks without acquiring an additional pick in one of those drafts first. They can also give teams the right to swap picks with them in 2014, 2016, or 2018, since they would still have a pick.
I always hear Lakers fans include hypothetical first-round picks in trade scenarios because they think that will be enough to convince a team to make a lopsided trade. Besides the fact that it’s wrong, try to remember that it isn’t really possible right now either.
The Lakers Should Amnesty Kobe (Then Sign Him for the Minimum)
There are a few things wrong with any amnesty scenario involving Kobe, the most important of which is that even if he were to go unclaimed, the Lakers wouldn’t be able to re-sign him until July 1, 2014. A prearranged deal in which Kobe would agree to sign with the Lakers after the season is also illegal. More importantly, the Lakers would also lose his Bird Rights and the ability to go over the cap to sign him.
Besides, if he is amnestied and claimed by another team and is healthy enough to play at any point next season, does anyone really think he’d choose to stay sidelined for the rest of the year and not play? What’s to prevent him from re-signing with his new team if he’s happy and his new team is close to a championship?
—- Kobe Bryant has evolved over the years. Check this wallpaper of the Black Mamba! —-
The other thing about this scenario that a lot of people seemed to be confused by is that just removing Kobe’s salary from the books still wouldn’t be enough to give the Lakers any cap space. That’s how far over the cap they are. It would only give them luxury tax relief. There is a common misconception that amnestying a player allows you to spend every dollar of that player’s salary elsewhere. That’s only the case if amnestying the player gives them cap space. Even if the Lakers were to free up significant cap space by amnestying Kobe and finding a team to take Pau, is Chris Paul giving up $30 million to play with Dwight, Metta, Steve Nash, and Steve Blake? Bill Simmons seems to think it’s possible but it’s not really as easy as he makes it sound (for more on why Simmons isn’t entirely accurate plus the different ways in which the Lakers could sign Dwight and Paul, click here.)
Personally, I don’t think the Lakers will amnesty Kobe. I don’t think many season ticket holders will be excited to renew their seats to watch last year’s team without Kobe. Oftentimes people forget a team still has to pay almost all of an amnestied player’s salary. Even with a massive luxury tax savings, that’s still a lot of money to pay someone to play for another team, even for only one season. Paying $85 million for Kobe with the luxury tax might still be worth more to the franchise than paying him $25 million to play for the Mavericks. As long as Kobe is on the roster, the franchise will remain relevant, regardless of their record.
That doesn’t mean I’m 100% convinced the Lakers wouldn’t amnesty him if it puts the franchise’s future in better shape and keeps season ticket holders renewing.
The Lakers Should Trade Nash and Pau For Draft Picks and Young Players
While that’s not a bad strategy for a team in dire need of getting younger and more athletic, it’s much easier said than done. Per the rules of the CBA, teams that are over the luxury tax can take back up to 125% of the outgoing salary plus $100,000.
Let’s say Pau’s salary for next season is $20 million (instead of $19 million). The Lakers could trade him for any combination of players making up to $25.1 million combined. In other words, the Lakers couldn’t trade Pau to another taxpaying team for just a future first round pick and someone on a rookie deal making only $2 million.
But the rules are different if the Lakers wanted to trade Pau to a non-taxpaying team. The thing to remember is the more cap space a team has or the further they are below the luxury tax threshold, the easier it is to consummate a trade. Teams like Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta, who will have plenty of cap space this summer, could all trade for Pau without the Lakers having to take back anything close to Pau’s $19 million. Considering the Lakers are on pace to pay an exorbitant amount in luxury taxes next year, they would probably prefer to dump Pau’s salary and have another team pay him than use the amnesty on him and have to pay him close to $19 million to play for someone else. Trading him would also allow them to save their amnesty for either Metta World Peace or Steve Blake, if they so choose.
The Lakers Need To Sign Kyrie Irving When He’s A Free Agent
All fans like to fantasize about signing the league’s best young players but it’s a bit of an exercise in futility. The rules of the CBA are designed to give teams a massive advantage when it comes to signing players on rookie deals. Besides being able to offer more money they can also extend them a year before any other team can even make them an offer in restricted free agency. That’s why it’s extremely rare for an emerging star not to sign an extension with the team that drafted him.
The exception to the rule is what happened with James Harden. In that instance, the Thunder couldn’t afford to sign Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka, and Harden to 8-figure extensions. So they opted to trade Harden to Houston, who immediately extended Harden through 2018, with the chance for him to opt out in 2017. Harden has made $8.3 million through his first four seasons. You think he needed time to think about it when the Rockets offered him five years and a guaranteed $80 million? In a sport in which everyone is just a play away from tearing a knee, anyone on a rookie deal who’s offered the max or close to it, will sign it 99.99% of the time.
Besides the fact that there’s less than a .0001% chance of the Lakers acquiring Irving before 2019, the Lakers possess neither the draft picks or the promising young players that a team forced to trade a great young player is interested in. The Thunder got back Kevin Martin, rookie Jeremy Lamb, who the Rockets drafted 12th overall, two future first-round picks, one of which will be in the this year’s lottery, and a future second-round pick.
So until the Lakers can accumulate some draft picks or young players that anybody wants, stop talking about adding Kyrie Irving or Damon Lillard. You’re just wasting people’s time.
The Lakers Should Sign Brandon Jennings
This one isn’t a misconception so much as it is a demented wish. For starters, Jennings can be a restricted free agent and the Lakers have nothing to offer him that the Bucks wouldn’t match immediately. More importantly, Jennings isn’t very good so please stop lobbying for him, Allen Iverson, Gilbert Arenas, or any other overrated or washed up players.
Just stop.
The Lakers Have Their Eye on LeBron James In 2014
While this isn’t necessarily false, it’s also a bit of a fantasy. It’s true the Lakers are primed to have plenty of cap space in 2014. However, if they re-sign Dwight they’re looking at about $30 million committed to just Dwight, Nash, and their first-round pick. That’s half of this year’s salary cap but it doesn’t include Kobe. Even though LeBron, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Carmelo Anthony, and a few other big names can opt out of their current deals in the Summer of 2014, Bosh might be the only realistic name in that group. That’s only because the new luxury tax penalties might force the Heat to let one of their big three go and I don’t think the Lakers would sign Dwyane Wade at 32.
The Summer of 2015 is the one that Lakers fans might want to pay a little more attention to. That’s when Kevin Love and Rajon Rondo will be free agents. That’s also when Steve Nash’s contract expires. Don’t be surprised if the Lakers have already realized this and trade Pau’s expiring deal for someone making less money but with two years left on his deal. That would allow them to save money next season while still having the flexibility to make moves in 2014 and 2015.
If the Lakers have a chance to sign a big name free agent in 2014 and need additional cap space, they can use another asset called the stretch provision that can only be used on players signed under the new CBA. Teams are allowed to stretch the money owed to one player, as well as the cap hit, over twice the amount of years left on the contract plus one year. So the final year and $9.7 million owed to Nash in 2014-15 could be split over three years, freeing up close to $6.5 million in cap space space. The downside is it would keep Nash counting against their cap beyond 2015, when his deal is supposed to expire.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Have You Seen Our Top 5 Kobe Dunks Of The 2012-2013 Season? If not, check out our video below and don’t forget to click here to subscribe to our YouTube Channel!
