Can someone explain this for me?

[dbodner]

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/six ... ixers.html

Through a quirk in the collective bargaining agreement, the Sixers were able to add slightly more salary-cap space for the signing of Elton Brand by renouncing a group of former players who last played for them, but had not filed retirement paperwork. A source said the list included Rick Mahorn (who was last with the Sixers in 1999), former Villanova star Michael Bradley, Derrick McKey, Rodney Rogers and Alan Henderson. *

[lakerfan10770]

Technically speaking, every player that has not been renounced, resigned with another team, or retired has a "free agent amount" that impacts the amount of cap space that a team has available. The "free agent amount" is essentially what allows a team to maintain their "Bird Rights" to player.

A recent example of how this actually came into play was Keith Van Horn's inclusion in the Jason Kidd Trade. Even though KVH had not played for Dallas since the '05-'06 season, they still maintained their "Bird Rights" to him since he had not signed with anybody else or submitted his retirement paperwork. Also, Dallas never renounced him because there would be no advantage gained since they are so far over the cap, and there is really no disadvantage since his "free agent amount" is only a cap hold. Nonetheless, they still held "Bird Rights" to him, which allowed them to sign & trade him in the Kidd trade.

To be honest, renouncing those former players is such a no brainer that is almost not even worth mentioning. I suppose it gave the author something to write about though....

[dbodner]

It's just odd that players from 1999 still needed to be renounced. I understand about cap holds and such, but for some reason I thought they only extended for the first free agency after their contract expired. the KVH situation is a good example, though. Thanks.

[Three34]

Renouncing isn't automatic, and not doing it has its merits. See also, Keith Van Horn and Aaron McKie's inclusions in deadline deals mentioned above.

Kinda feel like it's going to change somehow, though, during the next CBA negotiations. I don't know how exactly, but i can't imagine the league (or other players) liked guys who didn't play getting free money.

[FGump]

I can't imagine other players being upset that Van Horn got free money. One day, it might be them. It didn't cost the others a cent, only Mark Cuban.

But yep it has to change, because the concept of a KVH-like deal makes no sense. Cuban paid him $4M he didn't earn to satisfy a technicality in the rules, and the rules said he had to waste $4M to do a deal, so he did. The league will have to close the loophole, or at least find a way to make that money be used in a productive way. As it, it's a horrendous business practice.

[Three34]

If I was out there bumming around on the rookie minimum, I'd be a bit miffed that some guy who's already earned the best part of 9 figures in his career goes and earns $10 times what I do for a few months of not even pretending to work. Seems unfair.

[arenas809]

Agreed, and they are still talking about the possibility of Van Horn being included in trades.

[LarryCoon]

KVH may go down in history by being the player who did more for teams by not playing than by playing.