RealGM

I was wondering if anyone knows that in a buyout situation like big Z or others. Does the player end up making more money then he would have if he wasn't traded? I mean after he signs again with Cleveland or another team (ya right). Or does he end up making about the same? Maybe its case by case? Anyone know?

Well his buyout was 1 million less then he was going to earn, so assuming he signs for vet minimum (1mill?) he makes around the same.

ok, but he "actually" lost a million to be a free agent, wouldn't the new million vet minimum be pro rated since thier isnt much of the season left?

Depends on how much they give up in a buy-out and how much they sign for when they go to their new team.

Some player makes X salary per year.
Lets say he got traded after he made half of his money, then he already got 0.5X
Then the team he was traded for buys him out for Y (has to be less then his ramaining salary, 0.5X).
Then he signs a new contract for some team making Z.

So he ended up earning 0.5X+Y+Z. If Y+Z is more then 0.5X he got richer, if not then he didnt.

I doubt I made it clearer for you, but whatever...

Depends on the situation. But usually the player ends up coming out ahead or about equal.

Although when Antonio McDyess was bought out by Denver last year, he got significantly screwed money wise...and did it all to go back to a terrible team.

my point to all of this is that I have never heard any of the players complain that they lost money in any of these buyouts, so I have a feeling that if indeed there are wink-wink deals to come back to the original team, I think the player may make a little more money for "taking one for the team" so to speak. Or at least break even. I just can't wrap my head around a player happily going back to a team that traded him away, and he lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process. So I don't think thats what happens.

J Smitty wrote:Depends on the situation. But usually the player ends up coming out ahead or about equal.

Although when Antonio McDyess was bought out by Denver last year, he got significantly screwed money wise...and did it all to go back to a terrible team.

Thats because Dyess wanted to get bought out. Denver wanted to play him so that was his problem.

He was supposed to make 6.5 in 08/09 and 6.84 in 09/10. He was bought out for 3 in 08/09 and 2.8 in 09/10. He also made 0.8 in Detroit in 08/09 and 4.5 in SA 09/10.

Supposed to make: 13.4 mill
Made: 11.1 mill

Wow. He lost 2.3 mill. That must suck.

lol, that 2.3 million he doesnt need or miss right now, but when he is 50 or 60, me may look back and regret that move.

Z will get basically every penny he was entitled to from his original contract. He could have gotten another $3M above that had he signed for the MLE with Utah or Atlanta so some of these guys can definitely make more than their original contract.

Just for more clarification:

The MLE and BAE don't start declining until January 10th.

Starting January 10 of each season, the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual, Larry Bird, Early-Bird and Non-Bird exceptions begin to reduce in value. For example, if there are 180 days in the season, then these exceptions (if they are still unused) reduce by 1/180 of their initial value each day starting January 10. If a team uses their $5 million Mid-Level exception on February 1, then the exception is actually worth $4,361,111.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q20

The general difference between the Hawks' prorated MLE offer starting on Monday and the Cavs' prorated BAE offer on the 22nd is roughly $3M for this season.