Doubt on Minimum Salary

[shrink]

Yesterday, when the timberwolves made their cuts, I was surprised to hear that Calvin Booth made the team. I strolled over to Larry Coon's FAQ, where I always get relief when the questions of the NBA cause me angst, and I read something I had not seen before:

When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract, the league actually reimburses the team for part of his salary - any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran. For example, in 2005-06 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $719,373, so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,138,500, the league would reimburse the team $419,127. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player's full salary. They do this so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive when filling out their last few roster spots.

This year, the two-year minimum is $797,581 and Calvin is starting his 10th year of NBA service so the vet min is $1,147,533.

I was surprised, because I had never noticed this in the great sites I go to for salary information, so I was seeking confirmation. Is it Christmas morning, and I woke up to find my favorite team have about $350,000 more cap space than I realized?

Lastly, I was also surprised by this line:

http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/wol ... n-richard/

Expect the Wolves to try to trade Calvin Booth’s $1.14 million salary slot for some kind of draft pick.

Why would the Wolves front office think that a team offer a pick for Calvin Booth?

[Scoot McGroot]

and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract,

Isn't that the most important part? Isn't Booth playing on the second year of a two year contract? I would assume that Booth wouldn't fall into this category then.

[Dunkenstein]

and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract,

Isn't that the most important part? Isn't Booth playing on the second year of a two year contract? I would assume that Booth wouldn't fall into this category then.

You are correct, sir.

[shrink]

and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract,

Isn't that the most important part? Isn't Booth playing on the second year of a two year contract? I would assume that Booth wouldn't fall into this category then.

Thanks Scoot and Dunkenstein.

What am I missing about the Booth contract where the Wolves think they can trade Booth for a pick?

[Dunkenstein]

^^^ There's nothing about Booth's contract that would prohibit the Wolves from trading him . . . for a player, a pick, or a combination of both. It's the same contract that the Sixers traded to the Wolves.

[FGump]

^^^ There's nothing about Booth's contract that would prohibit the Wolves from trading him . . . for a player, a pick, or a combination of both. It's the same contract that the Sixers traded to the Wolves.

You are correct in noting the Wolves have that option. But I think he was asking what makes the Wolves think that an offer of a pick for Booth was possible enough (if they wanted it) to mention - and the answer to that one is, unless you smoke the same crack that McHale does, you can never comprehend their thinking.

[Three34]

Waiving Ahearn for Booth - faaaaaaaantastic!

[shrink]

Waiving Ahearn for Booth - faaaaaaaantastic!

To be fair, it was waiving Ahearn for Kevin Ollie. The Wolves hope Foye develops as a big PG instead of a small SG, which means they need to play him at PG, and makes a fourth PG on the squad unnecessary. Ahearn showed promise, and I'd have prefered him, but the wolves may have been thinking with all the youth, Ollie would be better directing traffic.

However, keeping Booth and cutting both David Harrison and Chris Richard was a surprise.

[shrink]

For the sake of closure (and the McHale/crack cocaine rumors),

Lastly, I was also surprised by this line:

http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/wol ... n-richard/

Expect the Wolves to try to trade Calvin Booth’s $1.14 million salary slot for some kind of draft pick.

Why would the Wolves front office think that a team offer a pick for Calvin Booth?

I learned yesterday that Philly agreed to pay all of Booth's salary, and about two-thirds of Carney's plus the protected 1st for the little bit of cap space needed to sign Elton Brand.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/ ... hance.html

[Dunkenstein]

It is illegal under CBA rules for one team to pay the salary of another team's player. What most likely happened is that along with the two players and the pick, Philly sent Minnesota a check for around $2.5M that Minnesota could use to pay all of Booth's salary and about 2/3 of Carney's salary.

[shrink]

It is illegal under CBA rules for one team to pay the salary of another team's player. What most likely happened is that along with the two players and the pick, Philly sent Minnesota a check for around $2.5M that Minnesota could use to pay all of Booth's salary and about 2/3 of Carney's salary.

Got it. Its another example of the news getting it wrong with its "continue to pay"

When he needed just a little more space, he traded Carney and Calvin Booth to the Minnesota Timberwolves, ostensibly for a second-round draft choice. He even agreed to continue to pay Booth's salary and about two-thirds of Carney's salary.

So now I'm wondering .. does CBA rules require extra cash be paid at the time of the trade?

And in a related question, how does MEM demand last month that NYK pay two thirds of Zach's salary in a trade when CBA limits the cash to $3 mil? That another rumor gone bad in the papers?

[FGump]

...how does MEM demand last month that NYK pay two thirds of Zach's salary in a trade when CBA limits the cash to $3 mil? That another rumor gone bad in the papers?

Obviously we can tell the writer of that item doesn't know what he's talking about, wrote it anyhow, and now you know to question his reliability in general.

[Dekko1]

...how does MEM demand last month that NYK pay two thirds of Zach's salary in a trade when CBA limits the cash to $3 mil? That another rumor gone bad in the papers?

Obviously we can tell the writer of that item doesn't know what he's talking about, wrote it anyhow, and now you know to question his reliability in general.

Was 1/3. Had to do with the max allowed 30% deferred payments past Zach's contract.
25.2 million over 6 years starts in 2012.

Started with the Grizzlies' beat writer Ronald Tillery in his blog but he labeled it rumor.
FRANK ISOLA asked Walsh about it and he refused to answer.
And it zoomed though the blogs and forums...

But if a loophole did exist it would help explain why Sterling would take on that contract...

[Dunkenstein]

Further to what Dekko1 said, we all know that the maximum amount that a team can convey to another in a trade is $3M. However, in a trade, other financial considerations can come into play.

Say the player has a trade bonus, either team can pay that bonus. So which team is paying the bonus has to be written into the trade document.

Then there's the issue of deferred salary. A player can defer up to 30% of his salary each year. When that player is traded, the two teams have to decide if one or both of the teams will assume responsibility for paying the deferred salary already accrued. Sometimes one team agrees to pay the entire accrued amount, in other cases the two teams may agree to split the obligation.

Apparently, Randolph has accrued a sizable amount of deferred salary on his current contract and the Clippers and the Knicks (I'm assuming that the Knicks previously agreed to pay the amount accrued while Zach was in Portland) had to agree which teams would pay how much of the deferred salary already accrued.

I read an erroneous report in some paper that a team wanted to trade for a player (it may have been Zach) who had a 30% yearly deferral in his contract, and the team wanted his original team to pay for the deferrals on moneys to be earned for the remainder of the contract. That is illegal under the CBA. A team trading away a player cannot pay any portion of that player's salary that is earned after he is traded. The original team, however, can agree to pay any or all of the deferred salary earned by the player prior to being traded by the team when the deferred obligation becomes due in the future.