Asik career ending injury cap relief
Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:10 pm
How did Bulls get cap relief for a career ending injury the player had before Bulls acquired him?
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1860528
d-train wrote:How did Bulls get cap relief for a career ending injury the player had before Bulls acquired him?
There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is excluded from team salary. This is when a player suffers a career-ending injury or illness. The team must waive the player, and can apply for this salary exclusion following a waiting period. Only the player's team at the time the injury or illness was discovered (or reasonably should have been discovered) can apply for this salary exclusion.
The team can apply to have the player's salary excluded starting on the first anniversary of the player's last regular season or playoff game, and not before the one-year anniversary of the first regular season game for which the player was on the team's roster under his current contract. If the player played in fewer than 10 games in the last season in which he played, the team can apply on the one-year anniversary of the player's last regular season or playoff game, or 60 days after his last game in the current season, whichever is later.
Scoot McGroot wrote:d-train wrote:How did Bulls get cap relief for a career ending injury the player had before Bulls acquired him?
He played 4 games for the Chicago Bulls after he was traded there, and they waited the required amount of time (1 year from last day played).
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q61There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is excluded from team salary. This is when a player suffers a career-ending injury or illness. The team must waive the player, and can apply for this salary exclusion following a waiting period. Only the player's team at the time the injury or illness was discovered (or reasonably should have been discovered) can apply for this salary exclusion.
The team can apply to have the player's salary excluded starting on the first anniversary of the player's last regular season or playoff game, and not before the one-year anniversary of the first regular season game for which the player was on the team's roster under his current contract. If the player played in fewer than 10 games in the last season in which he played, the team can apply on the one-year anniversary of the player's last regular season or playoff game, or 60 days after his last game in the current season, whichever is later.
The important thing is that the Bulls waited for one year from when he played his first game with them, and one year from when he played his last game with them. They treated it as a new injury, or new severity/worsening of a pre-existing injury/condition, not the same exact injury from his time in NO.
d-train wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:d-train wrote:How did Bulls get cap relief for a career ending injury the player had before Bulls acquired him?
He played 4 games for the Chicago Bulls after he was traded there, and they waited the required amount of time (1 year from last day played).
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q61There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is excluded from team salary. This is when a player suffers a career-ending injury or illness. The team must waive the player, and can apply for this salary exclusion following a waiting period. Only the player's team at the time the injury or illness was discovered (or reasonably should have been discovered) can apply for this salary exclusion.
The team can apply to have the player's salary excluded starting on the first anniversary of the player's last regular season or playoff game, and not before the one-year anniversary of the first regular season game for which the player was on the team's roster under his current contract. If the player played in fewer than 10 games in the last season in which he played, the team can apply on the one-year anniversary of the player's last regular season or playoff game, or 60 days after his last game in the current season, whichever is later.
The important thing is that the Bulls waited for one year from when he played his first game with them, and one year from when he played his last game with them. They treated it as a new injury, or new severity/worsening of a pre-existing injury/condition, not the same exact injury from his time in NO.
His career ending injury was a known condition prior to Bulls acquiring Asik. It did not happen after Bulls got him. Bulls traded for a player with a prior injury that was career-ending. Career ending cap relief is only allowed to the team paying Asik at the time of the career ending injury. The cap relief isn't supposed to be transferable to teams that acquire the injured player on the cheap after the fact.
Edit: The only way this relief should be allowed is if the rule allows teams that acquire injured players to get career ending injury relief for injuries that happen before the player was acquired. The last time I looked at the rule, this was specifically disallowed. Otherwise, any player that sustains a career ending injury other than death, can be traded and his new team can trot him onto the court for some token appearances and get career ending cap relief.
d-train wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:d-train wrote:How did Bulls get cap relief for a career ending injury the player had before Bulls acquired him?
He played 4 games for the Chicago Bulls after he was traded there, and they waited the required amount of time (1 year from last day played).
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q61There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is excluded from team salary. This is when a player suffers a career-ending injury or illness. The team must waive the player, and can apply for this salary exclusion following a waiting period. Only the player's team at the time the injury or illness was discovered (or reasonably should have been discovered) can apply for this salary exclusion.
The team can apply to have the player's salary excluded starting on the first anniversary of the player's last regular season or playoff game, and not before the one-year anniversary of the first regular season game for which the player was on the team's roster under his current contract. If the player played in fewer than 10 games in the last season in which he played, the team can apply on the one-year anniversary of the player's last regular season or playoff game, or 60 days after his last game in the current season, whichever is later.
The important thing is that the Bulls waited for one year from when he played his first game with them, and one year from when he played his last game with them. They treated it as a new injury, or new severity/worsening of a pre-existing injury/condition, not the same exact injury from his time in NO.
His career ending injury was a known condition prior to Bulls acquiring Asik. It did not happen after Bulls got him. Bulls traded for a player with a prior injury that was career-ending. Career ending cap relief is only allowed to the team paying Asik at the time of the career ending injury. The cap relief isn't supposed to be transferable to teams that acquire the injured player on the cheap after the fact.
Edit: The only way this relief should be allowed is if the rule allows teams that acquire injured players to get career ending injury relief for injuries that happen before the player was acquired. The last time I looked at the rule, this was specifically disallowed. Otherwise, any player that sustains a career ending injury other than death, can be traded and his new team can trot him onto the court for some token appearances and get career ending cap relief.
Indomitable wrote:It got worse.
DBoys wrote:"Bulls traded for a player with a prior injury that was career-ending. Career ending cap relief is only allowed to the team paying Asik at the time of the career ending injury."
1 You recite the rules correctly. I understand your sense of things. But otoh how you define terms, and apply those terms, may not be quite the same as how the NBA wants to do that.
2 When there is a gradual debilitation, it's not a " career ending injury" when he first began to be a bit impaired, but rather it BECOMES that when he reaches the point where he no longer can play at all.
3 The fact he was able to play some games in CHI creates a legit argument that he wasn't actually at the career-ending point yet in NO (because, factually, his career did NOT end in NO).
4 If you look at his last two seasons in the league, the way he was used in CHI was not inconsistent with how he was used in NO. He played sporadically yet he kept being used again later, after long stretches of inactivity.
5 Even if CHI got him with an impairment to some significant degree, it doesn't become "career ending" until that impairment is such that the docs say it's over.
6 His play in CHI wasn't a token 30 second appearance in a single game of walking onto the floor and walking off, but rather 13-18 minutes in 4 consecutive games where he was playing both ends of the floor, shooting, rebounding, blocking shots, fouling, passing, etc.
7 Ultimately, the question of gradual debilitation makes it a bit of a judgment call, but probably ends up being decided in favor of when he last played, and for whom.
d-train wrote:The question I have is who gets to make amendments to the rules after the fact. It seems the rules are just a loose guideline and anyone with a better idea should be able to use the courts to make their case.
d-train wrote:This is an amendment to the rules after the fact. Career ending injury cap relief is now transferable regardless of language in the CBA that clearly intends to disallow it.
DBoys wrote:"Bulls traded for a player with a prior injury that was career-ending. Career ending cap relief is only allowed to the team paying Asik at the time of the career ending injury."
1 You recite the rules correctly. I understand your sense of things. But otoh how you define terms, and apply those terms, may not be quite the same as how the NBA wants to do that.
2 When there is a gradual debilitation, it's not a " career ending injury" when he first began to be a bit impaired, but rather it BECOMES that when he reaches the point where he no longer can play at all.
3 The fact he was able to play some games in CHI creates a legit argument that he wasn't actually at the career-ending point yet in NO (because, factually, his career did NOT end in NO).
4 If you look at his last two seasons in the league, the way he was used in CHI was not inconsistent with how he was used in NO. He played sporadically yet he kept being used again later, after long stretches of inactivity.
5 Even if CHI got him with an impairment to some significant degree, it doesn't become "career ending" until that impairment is such that the docs say it's over.
6 His play in CHI wasn't a token 30 second appearance in a single game of walking onto the floor and walking off, but rather 13-18 minutes in 4 consecutive games where he was playing both ends of the floor, shooting, rebounding, blocking shots, fouling, passing, etc.
7 Ultimately, the question of gradual debilitation makes it a bit of a judgment call, but probably ends up being decided in favor of when he last played, and for whom.
Having written this, I see that Scoot posted what is a more concise and better response while I was writing mine. Maybe my wordiness will help, but see what he wrote for the TL:DR version.
d-train wrote:The issue that is raised by this bogus decision is the administration of the rules. The NBA cannot be a fair administrator of the rules. The CBA needs to be administered by a third party whose interest is only to enforce the agreement evenhandedly.
Scoot McGroot wrote:d-train wrote:The issue that is raised by this bogus decision is the administration of the rules. The NBA cannot be a fair administrator of the rules. The CBA needs to be administered by a third party whose interest is only to enforce the agreement evenhandedly.
If the players and the owners wanted that, they would’ve negotiated it.
d-train wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:d-train wrote:The issue that is raised by this bogus decision is the administration of the rules. The NBA cannot be a fair administrator of the rules. The CBA needs to be administered by a third party whose interest is only to enforce the agreement evenhandedly.
If the players and the owners wanted that, they would’ve negotiated it.
When rules are unilaterally changed, it doesn't matter what is negotiated. Thus, to uphold the basic elements of an agreement, disputes have to be policed and resolved by a third party referee. Or, the agreement is a farce.
Smitty731 wrote:My question would be this: How was Asik's career over when the Bulls acquired him if he then went on to play games for the Bulls?
That alone covers Chicago. The rest of this is just speculation and conjecture.