What happens to Kidd and Hill's salaries?

orangeparka · Post #1 » by **orangeparka** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:31 am

What happens to their future salary considering their retirement? I assume neither one's case can count as due to medical issues/career-ending injury.

Logically thinking, I'm guessing that their remaining salaries for the 2013-2014 season (and 2014-2015 for Kidd) will be off the Knicks' and Suns' books completely? Surely they don't continue to receive their paychecks for not playing and screw their teams' payrolls.

I consulted the Larry Coon CBA FAQ but it's a little ambiguous on the matter, I couldn't really see a definite answer on whether it counts against their payroll (luxury tax implications) and whatnot.

DBoys · Post #2 » by **DBoys** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:51 am

orangeparka wrote:What happens to their future salary considering their retirement? I assume neither one's case can count as due to medical issues/career-ending injury.

Logically thinking, I'm guessing that their remaining salaries for the 2013-2014 season (and 2014-2015 for Kidd) will be off the Knicks' and Suns' books completely? Surely they don't continue to receive their paychecks for not playing and screw their teams' payrolls.

I consulted the Larry Coon CBA FAQ but it's a little ambiguous on the matter, I couldn't really see a definite answer on whether it counts against their payroll (luxury tax implications) and whatnot.

What happens to the contract and cap hit depends on the truth of why and how they "retired." If there's more to the story than they simply chose to stop playing (and more often than not, there is), it will not be made public; so we have to wait and see the Knicks and Clipps cap next season, see if they are on there, and work backwards from there.

My best guess is that they have been placed on waivers, with the salary stretched for cap purposes. If that's true, they would certainly be paid and count against the future cap.

Post #3 » by **Three34** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:08 pm

Don't take this as gospel because I don't know for sure yet, but apparently Kidd got expunged completely over the next two years.

comingbacktousa · Post #4 » by **comingbacktousa** » Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:52 pm

Sham wrote:Don't take this as gospel because I don't know for sure yet, but apparently Kidd got expunged completely over the next two years.

That makes sense considering he has another NBA related contract.

orangeparka · Post #5 » by **orangeparka** » Mon Jul 1, 2013 7:08 am

Sham wrote:Don't take this as gospel because I don't know for sure yet, but apparently Kidd got expunged completely over the next two years.

I see. I'm guessing he gave it up so he could pursue a coaching career?

What would theoretically happen to Hill though? What if the team still wants him there, but he decides that he's had enough of basketball in his life and wants to be with his family/whatever. Surely he doesn't get PAID for that? Since it was entirely his decision and the team still wants him there.

That'd basically be ****ing over the team, no? Taking their cash and not even being eligible to be moved/used as expiring contract. Especially with LAC close/at the tax and etc.

DBoys · Post #6 » by **DBoys** » Mon Jul 1, 2013 7:30 am

"Since it was entirely his decision and the team still wants him there."

You assume this to be the situation. But more often than not in these "retirements," reality is not the same as you are being told.

orangeparka · Post #7 » by **orangeparka** » Thu Jul 4, 2013 1:56 pm

DBoys wrote:"Since it was entirely his decision and the team still wants him there."

You assume this to be the situation. But more often than not in these "retirements," reality is not the same as you are being told.

I get that, but I'm wondering what would happen if this were the case?

For Grant Hill, I could see it as totally possible.

Dunkenstein · Post #8 » by **Dunkenstein** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:30 am

According to the information I have, neither Kidd nor Hill are currently on any team's salary cap.

shrink · Post #9 » by **shrink** » Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:40 pm

This feels like treacherous ground to me, since a player's decision to retire could be influenced by the size of the check to take a coaching job.

DBoys · Post #10 » by **DBoys** » Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:09 pm

shrink wrote:This feels like treacherous ground to me, since a player's decision to retire could be influenced by the size of the check to take a coaching job.

But why shouldn't that be the case? When any of us chooses to change jobs, that decision is always influenced by the attractiveness of the alternatives - and rightly so.