More cash, concern in rapid rise of salary cap
hile he was with the Nuggets, I always thought Arron Afflalo’s upcoming contract decision would be captivating.
Does he opt out of the final year of his contract and sign for what he can get this summer, getting the security that comes with it? Or does he risk it, opting in to the final year of his contract, which would make him an unrestricted free agent in 2016, the first summer the NBA’s out-of-thisworld money starts flowing in for the players?
Jameer Nelson, who just finished this season with the Nuggets and has an opt-out of his own, grinned at the prospect.
“That’s the thing,” he said. “Everything factors in when you’re talking about a business decision.”
He can opt in this year, earn his previously negotiated $2.8 million, and become a free agent next summer when the big money starts to arrive. Or not. What would you do? Better yet, what would teams do? What could the Nuggets do with $89 million? Or $108 million? Could money buy a star? Or two? Maybe. But then, they’d be in the midst of a Wild West-style bidding war. Right now, teams are tanking to get high draft picks and gutting rosters to clear salary cap space. In two years, at least the cap space might not matter. Then again, it might. Because the more room you have, the more max contracts can be given.
Reports say NBA teams were informed last week of just how astronomical the financial jumps will be because of the revenue from the league’s new $24 billion TV deal. Those projections include an $89 million salary cap with a $108 million luxury tax level for the 2016-17 season ... and a $108 million cap and $127 million tax level in 2017-18.
That’s right, $108 million. Let that sink in.
This seems like a good thing for teams such as the Nuggets. It’s definitely a good thing for players. If you’re the seventh player off the team’s bench, you could still be paid an eight-figure contract. Bona fide superstars? Nine, without batting an eye. ESPN’s Marc Stein estimated the salaries of top stars could top $30 million per year. Let that sink in too. Even with more money to make it rain on free agents, the impact on teams such as the Nuggets remains unclear. Yes, there’s more cash to woo a player who may not have otherwise taken a look. But the Los Angeles Lakers would have more money too. And New York. And Brooklyn. And Dallas. The big spenders could get back to being big spenders without much worry about the luxury tax’s consequences.
Unions such as the LeBron-WadeBosh get-together in Miami could happen without those players sacrificing significant money to do it. They’d have their Big Three and laugh straight to the bank. If the NFL is king, the NBA is moving into prince territory and clearly the No. 2 sport in the country behind pro football. NBA attendance this season was an all-time high, and the salaries will soon follow. No other league’s players, top to bottom, will be paid as well as NBA players.
But will the game be better for it? The NBA wanted to gradually increase its salary cap. But new NBA Players Association executive director Michelle Roberts quickly struck that down.
And the union should have. If the league gets its money immediately, so should the players. I’m just not so sure the welfare of the league benefits. I see more two-year contracts with third-year player options. I see more stars joining forces. I see teams in cities where talent grows up getting the return when that talent wants to play for the home team and gets the clout and freedom to make that happen.
I don’t necessarily see a more competitive league.
I hope I’m wrong. Christopher Dempsey: cdempsey @denverpost.com or twitter.com/ dempseypost