Does this change the Shaq Discussions?

[catalyst]

LINK

If Mia has to pay shaq for nothing for 3 years, what would it hurt to pay KVH for nothing for one season. I would not include diop now, given shaq injuries. Diop is not going to top MLE levels once he expires. I just like the discussion and the mavs position to take on a contract like this. I think this type of deal is what Cuban has been keeping his powder dry for several years now.

Defiant Shaq Says He Won't Retire Early
January 24, 2008 - 9:44 pm
Miami Herald -
Shaquille O'Neal again indicated on Thursday that he will not retire before his contract expires at the end of the 2009-2010 season, the Miami Herald is reporting.

In an interview Thursday, ESPN Radio's Jack Ramsay told O'Neal, ``I don't hear retirement in your voice.''

Responded O'Neal: ``No, never that. I am the son of an army drill sergeant, and when we enlist, we go full term. So I've got two years left on my term, and after that, I'll be looking to do other things.'' [READ]

[JD45]

I am all for spending Cuban's money on Shaq.

[FGump]

Oh I suspect Miami would LOVE that deal, because it would instantly give them the chance to have cap room and rebuild. But I think the price tag for Cuban would be way too high, considering how little Shaq has left in the tank.

It would cost Cuban $60M in luxury tax, plus another $50M in salary, and all he'd probably get from the deal is one playoff run (this season). I just can't see him tossing $110M away like that.

[dirkforpres]

I dont see Miami ever tradin him though... At least not this season

[catalyst]

The story seems to be placed out there my Heat that shaq will retire. They would still have to pay him, no?

[jwa1107]

I am all for spending Cuban's money on Shaq.

agreed!

[jwa1107]

MIA papers reported that if Shaq retired this offseason that his remaining $40m would not count against the cap according to their league office sources

not sure whether or not that is true...

[JES12]

The story seems to be placed out there my Heat that shaq will retire. They would still have to pay him, no?

I think it would be like the Shawn Bradley situation. Does not count towards the cap and insurance pays most of the contract. However, I don't know how much of that insurance will cover since he signed the deal after he turned 30.

[JES12]

Oh, btw, I would not trade KVH for Shaq as the salary alone is not worth it.

[FGump]

MIA papers reported that if Shaq retired this offseason that his remaining $40m would not count against the cap according to their league office sources

not sure whether or not that is true...

Technically it's true, but there's a catch.

I saw that story and I thought the writer was an idiot until I read it very closely. What he was saying was, if Shaq retired AND AGREED TO FORFEIT HIS LAST TWO YEARS OF SALARY then Shaq's cap charge would be erased going forward.

Obviously Shaq isn't at all interested in that idea, but I'm guessing his angry protestations that he isn't a quitter might have come from such an idea being floated by the media. Or maybe even the Heat themselves are trying to nudge him into such a silly idea, whispering such ideas to the media and telling Shaq privately "You oughta walk away with your legacy intact. Why don't you just toss that $40m in the trash? You have nothing left to prove. Keep your legend shiny. We'd hate it [*hehehe*] but we'll try to make do somehow."

Ain't gonna happen.

[JES12]

If he takes a Medical retirement, he does not forfirt the money AND still does not count against the cap.

Medical retirements don't count against the cap, but either insurance or their owner (or both in some combination) still pays shaq the money he is due.

[FGump]

The writer wasn't talking about a medical retirement and there is nothing in Shaq's medical history to indicate he'd be approved for one. Unless you count "being too chunky to play well anymore" a medical issue.

They are NOT that easy to get.

The Mavs tried to get one on Tariq Addul Wahad (who was truly impaired) with no luck, and same with Shawn Bradley who had knee issues. Both were rejected. I doubt there's any possibility for the Heat in that direction.

[JES12]

The Mavs tried to get one on Tariq Addul Wahad (who was truly impaired) with no luck, and same with Shawn Bradley who had knee issues. Both were rejected. I doubt there's any possibility for the Heat in that direction.

TAW's situation was totally different. 1) He did not want to retire and kept saying that he wanted to play (like Shaq now) and 2) his injury started before he was traded, thus the Mavs did not qualify for a medical retirement unless he healed from that knee injury and went down with a different injury.

[FGump]

(1)He did not want to retire and kept saying that he wanted to play (like Shaq now) and 2) his injury started before he was traded, thus the Mavs did not qualify for a medical retirement unless he healed from that knee injury and went down with a different injury.

Yep, TAW's played a lot in the NBA since he left the Mavs, hasn't he? And your 2nd point is completely irrelevant. It didn't matter what team he was on when he got injured-for-life.

Anyhow, they aren't easy to get, regardless, and there's no reason to believe that's an option at all for Shaq.

[JES12]

Yep, TAW's played a lot in the NBA since he left the Mavs, hasn't he?

Just because he wanted to, does not mean he was good enough to.

And your 2nd point is completely irrelevant. It didn't matter what team he was on when he got injured-for-life.

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

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.

There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is not included in the team's team salary. This is when a player is forced to retire for medical reasons and a league-appointed physician confirms that he is medically unfit to continue playing. There is a waiting period of one year following the injury or illness before a team can apply for this salary cap relief. If the waiting period expires mid-season (on any date prior to the last day of the regular season), then the player's entire salary for that season is removed from the team's team salary. For example, in March 2003 the Knicks were allowed to remove Luc Longley's entire 2002-03 salary from their books (and since the luxury tax is based on the team salary as of the last day of the regular season, the Knicks avoided paying any tax on Longley's salary). This provision can also be used when a player dies while under contract.

Teams are not allowed to trade for disabled players and then apply for this salary cap relief. Only the team for which the player was playing when he was disabled may request this relief.

If a player retires, even for medical reasons, his team does not receive a salary cap exception to acquire a replacement player.

The info is free. What you do with it or believe about it is up to you. And you are welcome.

[FGump]

The info is free. What you do with it or believe about it is up to you. And you are welcome.

The Mavs applied repeatedly. Do you think they didn't know the league rules? Get real. The fact is, TAW was "eligible" but was denied, because those approvals are hard to get. Bradley was also denied because those approvals are hard to get.

And whether you are aware of it or not, many players have been traded, retired, and then the new team claimed the permanently-disabled cap exception.

Your problem is, you have "a little knowledge" which makes you arrogant and you wanna strut around this forum and talk down to others condescendingly. You feel too proud to listen and learn from someone who knows way more than you about the rules. If you wanna double check my credentials on knowing my stuff on the rules, check in at the CBA board, where you have people who actually read the CBA itself and discuss the fine points on the rules talking about them, including Larry Coon who wrote the FAQ you cited.

SO WHY ARE YOU SO WRONG?

You are quoting the wrong CBA. That rule you cited began in the 2005 CBA, but the injury situation we are talking about occurred prior to then, at which time there was no such restriction. But nope, rather than discuss it or ask, you think you'll throw it in my face arrogantly and show me up or something.

The truth remains: the permanently-disabled exception is very tightly administered and often hard to get. TAW and Bradley were turned down, although both were definitely impaired and no longer able to play in the NBA as a result. There's no reason to believe Shaq would pass that sort of qualifier when neither of those could.

The info is free. What you do with it or believe about it is up to you. And you are welcome.

[Darren]

MIA papers reported that if Shaq retired this offseason that his remaining $40m would not count against the cap according to their league office sources

not sure whether or not that is true...

Shaq counters by saying he would play up to his contract. It sounds like you've to pay me regardless. If you think I'm done, you'd better send me to a contender. Or you'll be sorry.

I don't mind spending Mark Cuban's money. I think the Mavs would be as serious as another contender if we add Shaq for basically nothing.

[JES12]

Did it ever occur to you that the reason it is "so hard to get" after several attempts is because the injury happend in Denver?

And Bradley was approved. I don't know where you get your info from.

Give me some examples of "And whether you are aware of it or not, many players have been traded, retired, and then the new team claimed the permanently-disabled cap exception. "

And it very much looks like you are the one that is "arrogant and you wanna strut around this forum and talk down to others condescendingly."

Sorry if I embarresed you. Looks like I found your hot spot.

[FGump]

[JES, you can believe what you want to believe. It doesn't make it right, but go right ahead. The following is not for you, because you don't want to listen, and that's up to you.]

For everyone else, who knows my research and my contributions at realGM over the year and understands my in-depth knowledge of the rules, if you want to know the real facts for future reference, here they are. You can be your own judge on whom you trust in such an area:

1. The statement that Bradley was exempted was WRONG. Medical privacy rules restrict that info from being released in a press release, but I have discovered ways to definitively find out after the fact how it actually was ruled, and multiple sources make it clear. Others at the CBA board are as certain as I am. He was not exempted.

2. The belief that TAW was ineligible because the knee was injured in Denver was WRONG. The Mavs applied for it repeatedly. If the rule had made him ineligible, there would have been no point to apply, and it's silly to think the Mavs wouldn't even know the rules. But the reality is, such rules (that now prevent trade-and-retire-injured) did not exist at the time.

3. The assertion that "trade-and-retire-injured to gain an exemption" hasn't been done many times prior to the rule change was WRONG. Those of you who have been around for awhile and know the NBA can name plenty of names, as I can. In the context of this conversation and it's tone I'm not amenable to offering all the numerous instances, other than to say the rule was changed BECAUSE it had been occurring so much. Again, if you really want more details, ask the ones who chat about such things repeatedly at the CBA board and know not only the rule but the history of how and why it came to be, just like I do.

And in summary ....

I stand by my original assertion that the chances of Shaq being eligible for a retire-and-exempt move on the cap are virtually nil. It's just too hard to get and there's no reason to believe his impairment is anything that a crash diet wouldn't cure.

[JES12]

The injury first occured in Denver. When he was included in the trade, he thought he had recovered, but the nagging effects reoccured. Mavs tried claiming that as a seperate injury so we would be eligible, but failed because the NBA knew the injury occured in Denver no matter how we presented it.

Bradley does not count towards the cap. Yes, we pay him, but the Mavs are on schedule to pay about 3.4 mil in lux tax. And "multiple sources" have a ballpark figure in that same range. If Bradley counted towards the cap, we would be paying closer to 8.6 mil in lux tax, meaning he does not count towards our cap.

So here it is you, the self proclaimed know it all about the CBA, verus everyone else related to and reporting on the NBA. Needless to say, since you are the only one that says that, I tend not to believe you.