Back in April, teams were advised by the NBA’s Board of Governors that the league’s salary cap could rise past the $100MM mark as soon as the 2017/18 season. The league has been careful to stress to its teams that any projections are contingent on the NBA and its players avoiding a work stoppage after the 2016/17 season when the league and the NBPA can opt out of the current CBA. A higher salary cap will certainly increase the amount of teams that will have available cap space to compete for free agents, not to mention the average annual salaries that will be agreed upon as a result.
One other effect that may also result from a significant salary cap increase is in how expiring contracts are valued as potential trade chips. We may have already witnessed the beginning of a change in how these deals are regarded, given the difficulty that Cleveland had in dealing Brendan Haywood and his sizable non-guaranteed contract this offseason. In the past, non-guaranteed or expiring contracts like Haywood’s were highly sought after commodities that would allow teams to shed salary without having to take back undesirable deals or unwanted personnel.
This brings me to today’s topic: What effect do you see a rise in the salary cap having on how non-guaranteed/expiring deals are valued?
Will the increase in the salary cap make it nearly impossible to recoup anything of value in exchange for these types of contracts? If so, just how dramatic will the change be? Or are you on the other side of the fence, and believe that teams will fall over themselves to use every bit of available cap space, and thus, will still need trade partners to help them recover from contractual missteps? Take to the comments section below to share your thoughts and opinions on the matter. We look forward to what you have to say.