Hey, I was posting with someone on the other board and it had me honestly thinking, do any of our quasi GM's out there (isles, mck1, knight, etc.) really have a viable plan that gets us under the cap, regardless of wins and losses?

How soon can you do it? What would you do?

even if it's crazy...even if it leaves us with nothing but draft picks and a bead necklace...well, I wouldn't go that far...how Could you get us under the cap and when would we be under the cap? And what would the team look like?

Now is your chance.

It would have been a lot easier to institute a plan last year, before Curry and James were signed. Back then you could have just let all expirings expire and trade Steph for short/expirings. All that would have been left would have been JC, Q, Ariza, Nate, Frye and Lee, plus Shandon. Realgm and hoopshype show different contract terms for Rose, so it's not clear when he expires. I think Houston's retiring has him come off a year early now.

That's off the top of my head, maybe someone wants to crunch the numbers...

We still have Houston, Anderson, under contract until the end of 2006/07 and JYD until 2007/08 with a team option, that yr is the closest we get to be under the cap with only 9 players under contract. To fill the roster out you would have get some cheap free agents or trade for draft picks (that won't be easy) to keep the rest of the salary under the cap.
In 2007/08 our highest salaries will be Marbury and Curry, then Q, Crawford, Rose, James.
Team Options on Frye, Robinson and Lee.

not with RV's allergies...

I think I have a plan that could get us under the cap by the 07/08 season with a marginal decline in wins, but Im not sure if it will work becuase hoopshype doesnt show eddys currys contract beyond this year

Posted by rvhoss:

yeah, I thought hoops hype was the definitive, but to my dismay, it's not...Maybe we should table this until we can figure out what the salaries are...or maybe the question, which has been asked and answered in a previous poll, is it important to be under the cap to win a championship?

Thats a very good question, i personally beleive that you don't have to necesarily be under the cap to win championship(how could you really since you have to spend money to have championship callibar talent) but I do beleive that is is important to have a manageable payroll in order to compete for a championship in such a way so that if you dont win it all you can try agiain next season. the thing is I dont think that NY could mend its roster very well with a 120 mill payroll.

is it important to be under the cap to win a championship?

Being under the cap is definitely neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for winning the championship. Many (actually most) championship teams have been built without cap room. That doesn't mean cap room is the wrong way to build. You CAN build a championship team with cap room; a lot of people don't realize that it's not the only way and actually quite an uncommon way.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 12-01-2005 6:32 PM]

I've always been of the opinion a franchise like NY (with money to spend and great FA draw potential) shouldn't steer itself below the cap as an aim unto itself, but to get within vicinity of the cap so they can avail themselves of an opportunity should one arise. Like if Lebron's agent tells Isiah he'd love to come to the Knicks in '08 if money is available. Then you make a move, like Phoenix did in dumping Steph and Penny for Nash and Q, or like the Clippers did for Kobe (while losing little in wins in the process).

That's simply a degree of opportunistic flexibility that we don't have now; flexibility that can turn the fortune of a franchise on a dime.

In addition, as a 'what if'... what if we had a payroll where everyone had a good market value contract, not burdened with 'unmovables' and dead weight? Wouldn't that help our trade options too? There are many teams out there who operate like that and remain quite competitive, like Phoenix, Detroit and San Antonio, to name a few.

I think we learn better and better every day that payrolls full of enormous, bloated and undesirable contracts leads to inflexibility which does NOT make a winning formula in this league.

Below I've compiled a list of teams in descending order of payroll from last season. Biggest spenders up top, lowest beneath. Next to each teams payroll (Based on the rosters for 12/20/04 http://www.dfw.net/~patricia/misc/salaries05.txt) I put their season final winning percentage. After each group of ten teams I looked at how many were over .500, .600, and .700. As you can see, the highest spenders fare no better than the middle or lowest thirds in any on those categories of winning.

Team Payrolls:


Team / Payroll / winning percentage
1. New York Knicks $102,442,544 -- .402
2. Dallas Mavericks $91,553,496 -- .707
3. Portland Trailblazers $83,671,312 -- .329
4. Philadelphia 76ers $71,951,888 -- .524
5. Minnesota Timberwolves $70,060,920 -- .537
6. Memphis Grizzlies $67,010,824 -- .549
7. Orlando Magic $66,445,252 -- .439
8. Indiana Pacers $65,792,068 -- .537
9. Los Angeles Lakers $65,059,100 -- .415
10. Boston Celtics $64,577,356 -- .549

Teams over .500 = 6. Teams over .600 = 1 Teams over .700 - 1

11. Sacramento Kings $61,807,688 -- .610
12. Toronto Raptors $61,703,772 -- .402
13. Houston Rockets $60,222,300 -- .622
14. Miami Heat $58,949,072 -- .720
15. Chicago Bulls $57,276,136 -- .537
16. Milwaukee Bucks $57,137,128 -- .366
17. New Orleans Hornets $56,572,880 -- .220
18. Golden State Warriors $54,943,724 -- .415
19. New Jersey Nets $54,729,028 -- .512
20. Detroit Pistons $54,574,980 -- .659

Teams over .500 = 6. Teams over .600 = 4. Teams over .700 = 1

21. Seattle Sonics $53,821,300 -- .643
22. Washington Wizards $49,547,056 -- .549
23. Cleveland Cavaliers $49,175,272 -- .512
24. San Antonio Spurs $47,149,172 -- .720
25. Los Angeles Clippers $45,170,768 -- .451
26. Denver Nuggets $45,621,812 -- .598
27. Phoenix Suns $44,256,720 -- .756
28. Utah Jazz $43,160,808 -- .317
29. Atlanta Hawks $40,684,848 -- .159
30. Charlotte Bobcats $23,380,124 -- ..220

Teams over .500 = 6. Teams over .600 = 3. Teams over .700 = 2

My best hunch is that somewhere in that middle group, with a payroll in say the 47-58M range is the sweets spot which gives the best balance of talent and roster/financial flexibility. And not surprisingly we see some of the better situated clubs of today, like Phoenix, Denver, San Antonio, Detroit, and Miami.

If spending big and 'over paying' for talent had a great track record in the league there'd be no argument against it, but we see all the big spenders of the past, like NY, Portland and Dallas, rethinking their strategies and finding a better, more flexible way.

But there are so many factors to why certain teams have the payroll and the rosters they do. Alot of it has to do with chance and luck.

Detroit has a collection of has beens from other teams, none of whom they drafted except T. Prince. Their best players were aqcuired through trades or FA signings, and no one of them was regarded as anything remarkable, witht the exception of Rasheed Wallace.

SA got lucky, drafted #1 and have drafted pretty excellently since in not so good draft position.

Lakers got a superstar demanding a trade to LA, and drafted a superstar.

Miami Drafted one and traded for one.

Houston Drafted one and traded for one.

Indiana traded for all of their key players except Tinsley.

Sac-town drafted one and traded for bibby and c-webb (who was not super highly regarded at the time).

Minny drafted a superstar, and never made anything really happen with him.

Clippers continue to draft high year after year, but have finally seemed to put something together.

Dallas drafted a superstar and traded for Nash. they have alot of complimentary players now.

The moral of the story is, there is no one proven way to do it, different great teams have different strategies.

san antonio, miami, houston, indiana, sacratomato, minny, clippers, dallas....all different stories. they are not prime time free agent destinations.

the premiere destination for every free agent is la and new york. the ONLY time LA was under the cap was for shaq. and for us, it was the summer of allan houston.

common thread...draft - that's proven and no disputing that.

Is it safe to say that if Houston was healthy we would be over 402. And if Houston was healthy our team would be completely different right now. Who knows maybe we even beat the Nets that yr in the playoffs. And everyones value is higher when the team is winning. Especially guys like KT & Muhammad. We could have won games and Isiah could have continued to draft well and build a core for the future. Or if he traded the picks you could bet it would have been for a stud as well to put along side of Marbury-Houston-Sweetney and possibly make us a contender. From there anything can happen like maybe try and get another piece and go for it all. Houston got hurt though. The offense that Crawford provided last game we would be getting consistantly and effiecently from Houston. If Isiah took that other road and did everything he could to get under the cap. Like package Lampe & Milos with Anderson, for an ending contract, and a first rd draft pick with Eisley for an ending contract. Then just moved Spoon for Norris and Ameachi. Then just let Dice, Ward, Mutombo, etc.. and the 2 other contracts expire. Then we sign a young stud in free agency instead of trading for Marbury. Or sign a few solid players. Regardless we would have gave away some prospects/assets. And once Houston gets hurt it would have been a huge hit. Plus we would have signed free agents to good contracts and be stuck with there salary hoping they pan out. The difference though would have been no Penny, JYD, Rose, Taylor either.

Where this team got set back was 2002 and 2003. Instead of drafting Amare or Nene and keeping Camby we trade 2 qualty frontcourt assets for Dyess who just missed 2 seasons in a row with injury. If Isiah was drafting we would have drafted Amare to go along with Camby and then we aren't talking about this right now. And instead of tanking for BronBron/Melo/Milicic/Bosh/Wade we stay mediocre. Then again if we had Amare & Camby with Houston & Spree we would have won a lot more then we lost.

Anyone know the availabe free agents the summer after Isiah was hired, and the summer after??