← Team Metrics
Latest

Orlando Magic

2016-17
2016-172017-182018-192019-202020-212021-222022-232023-242024-252025-26
Latest available releaseLive database

How much flexibility did the Orlando Magic actually have in 2016-17?

ORL 2016-17 carried $104,096,951 of selected player charges (110.6% of the cap), placing it in over cap below tax on selected player charges. Its highest contracted function cost was creation at 18.0% of the cap; highest measured need was shooting and spacing. Exact exception and transaction legality is withheld without team cap-hold and exception-use ledgers.

Current cap position

Current position on selected player charges — not every cap hold or dead-money charge.
SupportedOver the cap, below the tax line, on selected player charges
Selected player charges
$104.1M
Share of cap
111%
Tax line
$9.19M under
First apron
$13.2M under
Second apron
No governed line that season
Exact thresholds
Salary cap: $94,143,000Luxury tax line: $113,287,000First apron: $117,287,000Second apron: —Selected player charges: $104,096,951Source-reported payroll: $104,096,951

Option exposure

Optional decisions ahead — reported amounts, not commitments.
Player options (1)
$17.0M
Team options (0)
None

Where the money maps

Which basketball functions the payroll is actually buying — shown beside need, never blended.

The largest contracted function cost is creation at $16.9M; the highest measured need is shooting and spacing.

2 critical-need functions2 underfunded needs6 redundant-cost functionsmapping covers 90% of charges

Acquisition paths

Threshold candidates only — a candidate route is not exact transaction legality.
Bird-rights retention (threshold candidate)Trade salary matching (threshold candidate)Non-taxpayer exception (threshold candidate only)Minimum signing
WithheldExact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence

Cash cost: Withheld — no cash-salary sample.

Selected player charges do not include every cap hold, dead-money charge or roster charge.

Threshold route candidates are not exact transaction legality.

Cash, cap and economic commitment remain separate; no universal flexibility or front-office score.