Some questions about minimum salary

Can someone please help me understand the NBA minimum salary rules. Specifically

1. As I understand, teams are required to reach the floor by trade deadline. Is it correct?
2. If teams reach the floor by deadline, then for the first half of the season, they pay only the pro-rated pay, potentially saving millions of dollars over the year. Again, is this correct?

For example, the floor will be around 90M this year. Our salary, will probably be in the region of around 50M (may be off, but let's go with this for argument's sake for now). So, for the first half of the season, we'll pay out around 25M. For the second half, if we add the rest of the salary, we pay 50% of the then salary (45M). So, for the full year, we pay 70M, saving the ownership around 20M.

Is this correct? All this time I've been under the impression that money will be spent because it has to be spent. However, if the above is true, I wonder if there will be some motivation for the owners to not go after some FAs (not something I exactly mind, except for some young guy who can be part of the future), or take on bad contracts for assets before the deadline. Latter could be a problem, particularly because lot of teams will be making moves once FA starts.

For example, the floor will be around 90M this year. Our salary, will probably be in the region of around 50M (may be off, but let's go with this for argument's sake for now). So, for the first half of the season, we'll pay out around 25M. For the second half, if we add the rest of the salary, we pay 50% of the then salary (45M). So, for the full year, we pay 70M, saving the ownership around 20M.

Is this correct?

To the best of my understanding, that is correct.

I can understand the ownership's reluctance to spend an extra 15-20 million dollars for a late/protected first found pick for a team that's expected to be bad for the next 2-3 years. As fans though, we can hope that they splurge lavishly and purchase lot of assets

Thanks for confirming. In fact, just saw an article on STR, that too confirmed it.

Let's see if this is a factor in taking on contracts once FA hits. I was disappointed that we didn't use Arron's contract on draft night. Now, I'm wondering if it was driven by financial calculations.

I can understand the ownership's reluctance to spend an extra 15-20 million dollars for a late/protected first found pick for a team that's expected to be bad for the next 2-3 years. As fans though, we can hope that they splurge lavishly and purchase lot of assets

This minimum salary business isn't a big deal. Don't know how well it's been explained, but a team can wait till the trade deadline, and trade for a player with a bigger salary, and the total worth of his yearly salary will count against the cap, but the Kings are only obligated to pay what remains of his salary for the rest of the year. That's how a lot of the teams get around this rule. Any amount that's below the minimum at years end, is then distributed to the members of the team. For instance, lets say that the Kings end the year 12 mil under the minimum. That 12 mil would then be equally distributed to the 15 players holding the roster spots.

Thanks for the the simple explanation. Makes sense. I still think there's a big signing or two coming up in FA for this year. We're not a dead end place anymore. There's a some subdued excitement around the league due to our impressive youth collection.

I just glanced at a top 50 list though and I don't see any big stars that immediately stand out that would be a great fit for us. Some defense would be good. Porter's not leaving the Wizards.

Zach Randolph for a year or two to teach our young bigs crafty moves would be cool.

But I wouldn't be sad about signing Gordon Hayward.

I think we prioritize mature vet leadership here more than a big name talent. We need more Temples. Maybe we upgrade the backup PG and get Patty Mills.

This minimum salary business isn't a big deal. Don't know how well it's been explained, but a team can wait till the trade deadline, and trade for a player with a bigger salary, and the total worth of his yearly salary will count against the cap, but the Kings are only obligated to pay what remains of his salary for the rest of the year. That's how a lot of the teams get around this rule. Any amount that's below the minimum at years end, is then distributed to the members of the team. For instance, lets say that the Kings end the year 12 mil under the minimum. That 12 mil would then be equally distributed to the 15 players holding the roster spots.

Actually, I'll be very interested in Iguodala. I understand that he's not likely to come here, but I wouldn't mind throwing big money on him for a short term deal (2 years, with the 3rd year a team option).

He plays a position of our greatest need, is a hard nosed veteran known for defense, can hit the outside shot, has been an integral part of two championship teams, and a finals MVP. Along with Temple, would be an ideal mentor for the kids, and teach them how to be pros in the league.

Yes, he'll likely help us win a few more games than ideal next year. However, I think that helping our current crop grow would provide better long term returns than a potentially higher draft position.

The Rise Guys were talking about Iguodala seeking a 4/72 deal. 18M per seems ridiculous on the surface, but is only 4M more than they reportedly offered him a few years back and isn't all that bad considering the size of salaries and the cap these days.

Assuming Iggy still has a lot left in the tank (he's 33 now), it might not be the worst thing in the world and 18M per just might get him to leave the situation he's currently in.

Giving a 4 year deal to a 33 year old would be ridiculous.

I would rather sing him to a deal that pays him max for two seasons than something that gives him 4 years.

Giving a 4 year deal to a 33 year old would be ridiculous.

I would rather sing him to a deal that pays him max for two seasons than something that gives him 4 years.

Giving a 4 year deal to a 33 year old would be ridiculous.

I would rather sing him to a deal that pays him max for two seasons than something that gives him 4 years.

But they're gonna give it to someone apparently.

This scares me. Making free agency signings because you feel like you have to spend the money is a recipe for disaster