RealGM

javascript:newwind('http://blogs.sltrib.com/jazz/2009/07/future-of-matt-harpring.htm','127') According to this Article on Hoopshype Harping can barely walk and has no cartlege in Knee. Maybe the jazz can work out a trade or Buyout with Harping contract.

The article in the Trib said "He likely won't retire because he would forfeit his money, but he could negotiate a settlement with the Jazz or his contract could be used in a trade with a team that does not expect him to report. "

But I thought we established that it's up to the team to pay a player if he retires. Is it Jazz policy to not pay retired players?

I thought you got paid regardless of whether you retired or not, I would imagine insurance would pick up the tab in those circumstances........

The CBA leaves it up to the team as to pay or not pay retired players. Bad treatment of a retiree, due to injuries, would probably not be a good thing for future recruiting efforts.

Especially if he is retiring for medical reasons.

The best idea I heard was buy him out for cheap and sign him to a nice broadcasting job. That is something that he would like to do.

I emailed Steve Luhm and here's what he said:

"I was told by a Jazz official that if Harpring retire he would not get his money. The person I talked to should know. That is what I went by."

One thing that could be negotiated (assuming that Harpring is open to it) is a contract settlement where the remaining amount is spread over the next few seasons to lessen the impact on the Jazz this year. The annual amount paid to him would count towards the salary cap each year but they could save a bunch off the $6.5 mill impact he would otherwise have this year.

HappyProle wrote:I emailed Steve Luhm and here's what he said:

"I was told by a Jazz official that if Harpring retire he would not get his money. The person I talked to should know. That is what I went by."

Luhm is correct. However, his contract would still be on the cap figure and we would pay lux tax for it. Now if we buy him out and then he retires it would mutually benefit both.

HappyProle wrote:I emailed Steve Luhm and here's what he said:

"I was told by a Jazz official that if Harpring retire he would not get his money. The person I talked to should know. That is what I went by."

Interesting...though it would be interesting to work out a buyout to get him some money but also help the Jazz as far as money goes this year.

The Sheik wrote:

HappyProle wrote:I emailed Steve Luhm and here's what he said:

"I was told by a Jazz official that if Harpring retire he would not get his money. The person I talked to should know. That is what I went by."

Luhm is correct. However, his contract would still be on the cap figure and we would pay lux tax for it. Now if we buy him out and then he retires it would mutually benefit both.

No. He either gets paid and it counts against the cap or he doesn't and it doesn't. The CBA leaves it up to the discretion of each team.

See Larry Coon's CBA FAQ:

53. How do retired players count against the cap?

Any money paid to a player is included in team salary, even if the player has retired. For example, James Worthy retired in 1994, two years before his contract ended. He continued to receive his salary for the 1994-95 and 1995-96 seasons, so his salary was included in the Lakers' team salary in those seasons. It is at the team's discretion (or as the result of an agreement between the team and player) whether to continue to pay the player after he has retired.

Based on what Luhm says it sounds like the Jazz have a policy of NOT paying retired players.

The Jazz would pay Matt. Maybe not this year or the next if retires now but he would eventually get some kind of money. They are not just going to leave him and his family out to dry like that after everything he did for this organization.

UTJazzFan_Echo1 wrote:They are not just going to leave him and his family out to dry like that after everything he did for this organization.

He's not going to live in a homeless shelter or anything. Sheesh. They're just not going to pay him $6.5M for NOT playing basketball.

Carlos Boozer makes a comment about the benefits of no income tax and everyone jumps on him for being an insensitive millionaire.

When the notion that Harpring may not get $6.5M for retiring the pity party starts up in full force.

Keep this up and I'm going to be drinking red's Kool Aid.

Hmm if we could buyout Harpring for a small amount each year say 1 mil a year for 5 that would help us out more too.

Guys shouldn't be paid not to work. You think a guy that works at a company for 35 years but there wasn't any retirement setup gets paid for a year after retiring? No.

Now in the NBA it is a contract that should be fulfilled by both sides. If one can't meet the expectations then the other one shouldn't either. Its not like the Jazz are being unreasonable. Harp will work out a buyout to get some money and the Jazz can work with their cap a little more.

Harprings wife is an MD and owns her own private practice. The Harprings monitor and control their money very well. You dont have to worry about Uncle Matt ending up at the local mission.

Xanthis wrote:Guys shouldn't be paid not to work. You think a guy that works at a company for 35 years but there wasn't any retirement setup gets paid for a year after retiring? No.

Now in the NBA it is a contract that should be fulfilled by both sides. If one can't meet the expectations then the other one shouldn't either. Its not like the Jazz are being unreasonable. Harp will work out a buyout to get some money and the Jazz can work with their cap a little more.

If he gets hit in the head by a 2x4 while at work, and can't continue to work because of it, he shouldn't get payed?

Bat wrote:

Xanthis wrote:Guys shouldn't be paid not to work. You think a guy that works at a company for 35 years but there wasn't any retirement setup gets paid for a year after retiring? No.

Now in the NBA it is a contract that should be fulfilled by both sides. If one can't meet the expectations then the other one shouldn't either. Its not like the Jazz are being unreasonable. Harp will work out a buyout to get some money and the Jazz can work with their cap a little more.

If he gets hit in the head by a 2x4 while at work, and can't continue to work because of it, he shouldn't get payed?

That is a different situation. Don't think blue collar job for my example. A guy that retires because of chronic back pain for working many years isn't going to get paid his salary after retirement.

I understand that. But the fact is if Harpring was doing something else for a living, chances are he wouldn't have these injuries. He has sacrificed his body for this contract he signed. If I did that I would want all the money I signed for.

Bat wrote:I understand that. But the fact is if Harpring was doing something else for a living, chances are he wouldn't have these injuries. He has sacrificed his body for this contract he signed. If I did that I would want all the money I signed for.

I see what you are saying, Bat, but why should the team have to bear all of the risk? Players are more like contractors than they are employees. They are paid to perform a job or service. They know that there are risks inherent in that job (i.e injuries). If the contractor can't/won't perform the services required by the contract, then the team is well within their rights to terminate that contract and hire another contractor to complete the work.

If you hire a guy to remodel your kitchen, but in the middle of the job he slips and hurts his back and can't work for six months, does that mean you have to pay him while he recuperates, all the while having your kitchen in shambles? No, the contract is terminated by his failure to perform and you both move on. Hopefully he has insurance (as I'm sure Matt does), but thats not your (the Jazz's) problem, its his.

Admittedly, thats a very simplified example that would be infinitely complicated by the Player's Union and the CBA, but thats basically how I see it.