Barnes new contract? whats the deal with Nash?

[Austin]

For those who want Dudley to start, keep in mind, Dudley was playing the 3 or 4 position, which means that you would want to start Duds over Hill or Stat... lmfao, no way. the fact is, Matt Barnes should always be a bench player. The only reason he was a starter at the end of this season is because Amare was injured. Duds should come in BEFORE Barnes if they are both on the team, but he should not start.

[Miklo]

Duds is a great role player, a great prospect. But I think putting him in the starting unit is a little ambitious, I agree with Austin there.

[Go7enKs]

Dudley right now is a great 6th or 7th man and I can see him as a starter in a talented team down the road. He'll never be the focal point on offense but on a team that doesn't need him to socre more than 13-15 points per gme he can definetely be a starter with his rebounding ability and great D. We can let Barnes go considering we got him.

[rsavaj]

Thank Xenu for Jared Dudley

[JohnVancouver]

Duds ought to start and if he works on his offense this summer he could be a candidate for MIP.
I really like this guy.

And I haven't given up hope on Ariza ... I can see Kerr going to Sarver and making a case to spend the MLE on him.

[/quote]

LA can offer him the MLE too, so I'm thinking he'd probably just stay there. Really though, w/ the tax, the MLE becomes basically 10 million a year.[/quote]

--- My mistake then - I thought the "exception" was that it was not taxed. I had read that LA was moe interested in Odom, Farmar and someone else who they needed to resign and Ariza was a lower priority

[JohnVancouver]

For those who want Dudley to start, keep in mind, Dudley was playing the 3 or 4 position, which means that you would want to start Duds over Hill or Stat... lmfao, no way. the fact is, Matt Barnes should always be a bench player. The only reason he was a starter at the end of this season is because Amare was injured. Duds should come in BEFORE Barnes if they are both on the team, but he should not start.

--- My putting Duds in the starting lineup was predicated on Amare being shipped - but I must have confused this with another thread.

Anyway - Duds should get lots of time regardless, and Barnes should be given a firm handshake, a sincere thank-you and a copy of the Geyhound bus schedule.

[rsavaj]

--- My mistake then - I thought the "exception" was that it was not taxed. I had read that LA was moe interested in Odom, Farmar and someone else who they needed to resign and Ariza was a lower priority

Mmmm now that you raise the issue I'm having doubts...it might not be taxed, but I still think LA will offer Ariza at least the MLE

[nevetsov]

You still pay tax on the MLE, it's merely an exception to the salary cap.

I think the only way you avoid paying tax on any salary over the tax threshold might be to do with an insurance claim on a disabled player.. maybe.. ie like the Blazers claimed on D Miles (before he screwed them by coming back and playing). I think if D Miles wouldn't have played, the salary would have counted to their cap but would have not been payable and thus non taxable..

[WTFsunsFTW]

--- My mistake then - I thought the "exception" was that it was not taxed. I had read that LA was moe interested in Odom, Farmar and someone else who they needed to resign and Ariza was a lower priority

Mmmm now that you raise the issue I'm having doubts...it might not be taxed, but I still think LA will offer Ariza at least the MLE

The "exception" is that you can use it after you pass the salary cap. The cap forbids teams from signing free agents if they are past the set limit. The MLE, LLE (Hill's current contract), and vet minimum are ways to circumvent the cap restrictions. It still counts towards your luxury TAX though.

[amitg]

You still pay tax on the MLE, it's merely an exception to the salary cap.

I think the only way you avoid paying tax on any salary over the tax threshold might be to do with an insurance claim on a disabled player.. maybe.. ie like the Blazers claimed on D Miles (before he screwed them by coming back and playing). I think if D Miles wouldn't have played, the salary would have counted to their cap but would have not been payable and thus non taxable..

I believe this is slightly different.

To avoid paying tax on salary over the tax: buy out a player. (i think there's a limit of one player).
i believe this started with the knicks buying out Allan Houston. This was also the reason the mavs bought out Finely, and that's the major reason for a team to buy out a player (they continue to pay him, he counts for their cap space, but they don't pay the tax on his salary).

the career ending injury of miles would have given the blazers cap relief this summer, since after 2 years of not playing, he would've counted retired by injury, and his salary would have dropped from the blazers payroll (thus CAP + TAX), but since he returned, his contract will be counted for their payroll next year as well (but not for luxtax)

[JohnVancouver]

--- My mistake then - I thought the "exception" was that it was not taxed. I had read that LA was moe interested in Odom, Farmar and someone else who they needed to resign and Ariza was a lower priority

Mmmm now that you raise the issue I'm having doubts...it might not be taxed, but I still think LA will offer Ariza at least the MLE

The "exception" is that you can use it after you pass the salary cap. The cap forbids teams from signing free agents if they are past the set limit. The MLE, LLE (Hill's current contract), and vet minimum are ways to circumvent the cap restrictions. It still counts towards your luxury TAX though.

--- Okay, let's see if i got this. You can use the MLE if you're over the cap amount and you have to pay tax on it regardless, at dollar-for-dollar. Yikes - so really, you would have to be seriously in love with an FA to pay what works out to double the MLE in order to sign him.

Thanks for esplainin' it - now, how does the Trade Exception work? I Remember we had one form the Kurt T deal and let it expire?

Here's another - how exactly does a team shed salary? If you're in the tax you have to take back 100 per-cent (plus/minus 25%) in trade? (The overage is only available to teams under the cap, right? How does that help your budget?
Say we move Shaq to the Grizzlies at $20m for his last year. They're under the cap so we can take back $15mil in contract?
Failing a deal with someone under the cap then, all you can really do is move a huge expiring deal for players you like better and picks you wouldn't have. The other team gets flexibility with the huge expiring and you've hopefully improved your roster, but you're still paying out the same amount (and maybe even more if high picks are part of the deal.)

Surely I have this wrong ...

[WTFsunsFTW]

The "exception" is that you can use it after you pass the salary cap. The cap forbids teams from signing free agents if they are past the set limit. The MLE, LLE (Hill's current contract), and vet minimum are ways to circumvent the cap restrictions. It still counts towards your luxury TAX though.

--- Okay, let's see if i got this. You can use the MLE if you're over the cap amount and you have to pay tax on it regardless, at dollar-for-dollar. Yikes - so really, you would have to be seriously in love with an FA to pay what works out to double the MLE in order to sign him.

Thanks for esplainin' it - now, how does the Trade Exception work? I Remember we had one form the Kurt T deal and let it expire?

Here's another - how exactly does a team shed salary? If you're in the tax you have to take back 100 per-cent (plus/minus 25%) in trade? (The overage is only available to teams under the cap, right? How does that help your budget?
Say we move Shaq to the Grizzlies at $20m for his last year. They're under the cap so we can take back $15mil in contract?
Failing a deal with someone under the cap then, all you can really do is move a huge expiring deal for players you like better and picks you wouldn't have. The other team gets flexibility with the huge expiring and you've hopefully improved your roster, but you're still paying out the same amount (and maybe even more if high picks are part of the deal.)

Surely I have this wrong ...

Yes, but only if youre over the luxury tax

TE allows you to sign a player to the max of your TE even if youre over the salary cap. If using the TE puts you over the lux tax, then you have to pay the tax.

No, you never HAVE to take back 100% salary. You can take back 0 salary as long as your trading partner can absorb the contracts. If you are over the salary CAP, and are engaging in a trade that will keep you over the cap, then the incoming contracts must be within 125% of the contracts going out (ie. If you're over the cap, moving $50M in contracts, you can actually take back $62.5M, but will still have to pay all lux taxes if applicable.)

Moving Shaq to Memphis would put them over the salary cap, but I completely forget the restrictions when a trade puts your OVER the cap, but I know they cant simply take on his contract. However, if they send out contracts in return, as long as its within the 125% rule, the trade is fine.

[nevetsov]

--- Okay, let's see if i got this. You can use the MLE if you're over the cap amount and you have to pay tax on it regardless, at dollar-for-dollar. Yikes - so really, you would have to be seriously in love with an FA to pay what works out to double the MLE in order to sign him.

Be mindful that the salary cap and luxury tax threshold are 2 totally different amounts - The cap was around $58 mill this season, and the tax threshold is around $69ish mill I think. So there is a "buffer zone" between going over the salary cap (and thus being restricted to what exceptions you can use) and having to pay dollar for dollar on your overage - so using the MLE (which you don't get until you exceed the cap) doesn't necessarly induce a dollar for dollar tax.

Say we move Shaq to the Grizzlies at $20m for his last year. They're under the cap so we can take back $15mil in contract?

If any team is $20mill under the salary cap then they can take on Shaq's contract for something as minimal as a 2nd rounder (no outgoing salary) as it would put them at the salary cap. At the other end of the spectrum, they could theoretically give out as much as we could take on (125% +100k).

If a team is only $10 mill under the cap, they can still take him on, but the 10 mill that would then put them over the cap is what would come into play when determining the 125% +100k rule. (ie giving out $7,920,000 would allow them to take on a max of $10 mill of overage).

Sorry if that's a poor explanation, it's been a long day!

[nevetsov]

So here's an example that saves us even more cash - say Nawlins is really financially screwed (and if you look at their cap situation it's not all that farfetched!) - And they just want to downgrade as many pieces as possible. Lets say Detroit has interest in pairing Shaq with Stuckey, Rip and Tayshaun. And say Phoenix has interest in Shaq for Chandler.

Phoenix out: O'Neal
Phoenix in: Chandler

Detroit out: Kwame Brown
Detroit in: O'Neal

Nawlins out: Chandler
Nawlins in: Kwame Brown

Contingent on Brown picking up his PO of course. Huge downgrade for the Hornets but financially it would just about get them out of lux tax territory (saving them around $15mill).

Phoenix shaves 9 mill off it's payroll for 2009-10 and also likley gets out from the luxury tax threshold.

Detroit gets a year of Stuckey/ Rip/ Prince/ Amir/ Shaq with around 8 mill still left before reaching the cap. So that's another 2 role players, plus and MLE player.

[WTFsunsFTW]

Hornets need at least 2 draft picks to even entertain that idea.

[Austin]

yeah, I'd say that the piston's need to give some draft picks to NO to make it happen as well.

[JohnVancouver]

Be mindful that the salary cap and luxury tax threshold are 2 totally different amounts - The cap was around $58 mill this season, and the tax threshold is around $69ish mill I think. So there is a "buffer zone" between going over the salary cap (and thus being restricted to what exceptions you can use) and having to pay dollar for dollar on your overage - so using the MLE (which you don't get until you exceed the cap) doesn't necessarly induce a dollar for dollar tax.

--- Right, I had forgotten that detail.

Say we move Shaq to the Grizzlies at $20m for his last year. They're under the cap so we can take back $15mil in contract?

If any team is $20mill under the salary cap then they can take on Shaq's contract for something as minimal as a 2nd rounder (no outgoing salary) as it would put them at the salary cap. At the other end of the spectrum, they could theoretically give out as much as we could take on (125% +100k).

--- That would be like the deal Denver did for Camby, no? Clips paid about nothing for him as I recall.

If a team is only $10 mill under the cap, they can still take him on, but the 10 mill that would then put them over the cap is what would come into play when determining the 125% +100k rule. (ie giving out $7,920,000 would allow them to take on a max of $10 mill of overage).

Sorry if that's a poor explanation, it's been a long day!

--- No, not at all unclear. What a Byzantine set of rules. I had totally forgotten the twilight zone between salary cap and lux tax.
Thanks for the tutorial