Resigning someone you released

[Tfence92]

What are the rules regarding resigning someone you released.

Can you not sign them for a certain period of time (a year, length of the contract)?

Does buying the player out affect this?

Does stretching the cap hit affect this?

[DBoys]

Sign and release as many times in a row as you wish. It's your money.

[Smitty731]

The only time the timing matters is if you trade the player away, he is released and you want to re-sign him. You have to wait a year in that scenario.

I believe there is language around agreeing to a lesser buyout than the full amount of salaried owed and then signing a player for a lower number and lessened cap hit, but I could be wrong. DBoys will know on that for sure.

[DBoys]

1 The prohibition on signing the traded-away player is not about a player you released. It's about someone else's released player.
2 Sign and release and waste payroll, feel free. Do buyouts that reduce the waste, feel free. Sign again, have at it.
3 Can't sign to a 3rd 10-day deal in a season, but that's a limit on the type of new contract, not on the ability to sign the player in general.
4 Smitty you may be thinking of specialty situations regarding the cap, such as amnesty and medical retirements, where the rules about those specific situations prohibit a re-sign. IMO those prohibitions are different because you get cap FORGIVENESS in that player release, But when you generally release and pay off the deal as required and it hits your cap accordingly, then when you want to sign again, it's quite alright.

[Tfence92]

Thanks guys!

[Smitty731]

1 The prohibition on signing the traded-away player is not about a player you released. It's about someone else's released player.
2 Sign and release and waste payroll, feel free. Do buyouts that reduce the waste, feel free. Sign again, have at it.
3 Can't sign to a 3rd 10-day deal in a season, but that's a limit on the type of new contract, not on the ability to sign the player in general.
4 Smitty you may be thinking of specialty situations regarding the cap, such as amnesty and medical retirements, where the rules about those specific situations prohibit a re-sign. IMO those prohibitions are different because you get cap FORGIVENESS in that player release, But when you generally release and pay off the deal as required and it hits your cap accordingly, then when you want to sign again, it's quite alright.

I might be off, but I though there was some language for buyouts.

For example: If you buyout a guy who was making $10 million for this season and the agreed upon number is $5 million, $5 million hits the cap. Then if you were to re-sign that player for $2 million, you would have him for separate cap hits of $5 million and $2 million, for a total of $7 million. Thus saving $3 million against the cap.

I could be totally off, but I really thought there was something prohibiting that. If not, I'm surprised no one takes advantage of it. At least not that I can remember.

[BdeRegt]

When a team and player agree to a buyout, it does not affect the cap hit for the team. In your scenario, if the player had a cap hit of $10M guaranteed for the season was bought out and re-signed for $2M, his new cap hit to the team would be $12M. Buy outs are used when player and team wants to part ways as a way to adjust actual cash between player and team. It does not affect the cap.

[DBoys]

When a team and player agree to a buyout, it does not affect the cap hit for the team. In your scenario, if the player had a cap hit of $10M guaranteed for the season was bought out and re-signed for $2M, his new cap hit to the team would be $12M. Buy outs are used when player and team wants to part ways as a way to adjust actual cash between player and team. It does not affect the cap.

That is not accurate. Sorry. Not sure where you got that idea, but it's simply wrong. When the team pays less (ie a buyout), the cap is charged less. The cap (limit) on "player salary" is designed to reflect and limit exactly that - "player salary" being paid by the owner(s) - so since the player won't get 10M, the cap would not reflect 10M either.

For example, in the scenario Smitty offered, if a player with 10M owed this season was bought out for only 5M, and it was done in the summer, the team could have that 5M appear on their cap as a single 5M hit this season, or stretch it and have it appear as 1.6667M each of 3 years. If he signed a new contract with that same team or any other team, the new contract would be a separate cap item in the amount it's for.

[Smitty731]

When a team and player agree to a buyout, it does not affect the cap hit for the team. In your scenario, if the player had a cap hit of $10M guaranteed for the season was bought out and re-signed for $2M, his new cap hit to the team would be $12M. Buy outs are used when player and team wants to part ways as a way to adjust actual cash between player and team. It does not affect the cap.

That is not accurate. Sorry. Not sure where you got that idea, but it's simply wrong. When the team pays less (ie a buyout), the cap is charged less. The cap (limit) on "player salary" is designed to reflect and limit exactly that - "player salary" being paid by the owner(s) - so since the player won't get 10M, the cap would not reflect 10M either.

For example, in the scenario Smitty offered, if a player with 10M owed this season was bought out for only 5M, and it was done in the summer, the team could have that 5M appear on their cap as a single 5M hit this season, or stretch it and have it appear as 1.6667M each of 3 years. If he signed a new contract with that same team or any other team, the new contract would be a separate cap item in the amount it's for.

Thanks for jumping on that answer. Appreciated!

Any idea if there is anything limiting the scenario I laid out? Feels like a way to circumvent the cap a bit. Not really since everything seems legal and all, but it would be in effect a downward renegotiation of the salary. Am I just reading too much in to an unlikely scenario?

[DBoys]

In theory it's doable.

I recall when this stretch rule was added, and fans were imagining players getting waived right and left to be able to stretch their salary. But they didn't consider that owners don't like to give away their money for nothing, nor that after a player is waived or bought out, he has no obligation to re-sign with that same team, nor for a discount from his market value.

Of course, we do see some players here and there getting waived or bought out, and sometimes those salaries get stretched. But when that happens, they're not going back to the same team, because such are generally players of limited value to that team, and their salary was considered a sunk cost and no real loss of value in them being gone.