the KVH situation

[dYYYh.k²]

hi mavs fans
i was reading some of your posts regarding shaq. you always mention KVH and his expiring contract.
since hes already half retired.. would you explain the whole situation to an outsider?

thanx

[catalyst]

KVH has not retired or been renounced. He is technically unsigned. That leaves the mavs with the right to S&T.

[jwa1107]

and since he earned 15m the last year of his contract he could be signed for around that amout or more to a deal which would be built as a 3 year deal with only the first year guaranteed, essentially making it an expiring contract.

were a team to acquire him via S&T and waive him, they would only be responsible for the salary of the first year of the contract (and only the portion of it that applies to the remained of the season).

[unbiased]

I think the question is will it be used, because I've never read anything from a mavs official that he will be used in any deals.

[JES12]

Many people from the Bull's board keep saying that we cannot use it past June 30th of his last year under contract, however, i cannot find no such limitation. The only June 30th stipulation is actually almost opposite. Larry's CBA site mentioned if we did renounce him, we cannot sign him wit bird rights until after the following June 30th and only using our exceptione within that year.

[FGump]

Many people from the Bull's board keep saying that we cannot use it past June 30th of his last year under contract, however, i cannot find no such limitation. The only June 30th stipulation is actually almost opposite. Larry's CBA site mentioned if we did renounce him, we cannot sign him wit bird rights until after the following June 30th and only using our exceptione within that year.

Not sure why the Bulls board is so misinformed. I know one of their mods sloppily tends to state "facts" that don't exist, so maybe that's why they are so messed up. But the CBA specifically gives rules for this very sort of situation, if you look closely, so if there are rules for it, it certainly must be both allowed and anticipated.

He has never retired. He has never been renounced. The Mavs have his Bird rights and can SNT him accordingly, if he wants to sign a contract with them or with a different team.

[arkuo]

with the way cuban and the mavs organization has been passing on our "expiring" contracts recently the past few years, i doubt they'd touch KVH any time soon.... we let croshere and his huge expiring walk away from trade deadlines.. we resign stack to an extension, ignoring his expiring... KVH would possibly count with those too... so with cubes just being passive with regards to expiring contracts on trade deadlines, i doubt anything would disturb KVH from his long vacation... unless a very impossible deal was to knock on cuban's door.. something like kobe for KVH or a situation of that magnitude.. but anything less or a lateral move for the franchise, im pretty sure cuban would just shrug it off...

[catalyst]

This is a unique situation and players with shaq sized contracts do not get traded every day

[oldschool1]

Is the Shawn bradley contract tradable?

[FGump]

no

[jwa1107]

^^^ mostly because it is the mantis
regardless of the retirement paperwork he filed...

[Tommy Udo 6]

-= original quote snipped =-



Not sure why the Bulls board is so misinformed. I know one of their mods sloppily tends to state "facts" that don't exist, so maybe that's why they are so messed up. But the CBA specifically gives rules for this very sort of situation, if you look closely, so if there are rules for it, it certainly must be both allowed and anticipated.

He has never retired. He has never been renounced. The Mavs have his Bird rights and can SNT him accordingly, if he wants to sign a contract with them or with a different team.

That's me - but show me where i am wrong.

Rules are that a team retains rights to a player for one year after their last professional contract.

The player does not need to retire or be renounced. He just needs to be out of contract for one year.

I'll gladly admit I'm wrong if you can show me that there is an exception in the KVH case that I am not noticing. I checked the CBA & dont find the rule that Gump is talking about

[FGump]

-
Rules are that a team retains rights to a player for one year after their last professional contract.

There is no such "rule."

[Tommy Udo 6]

-= original quote snipped =-



There is no such "rule."

There is - but I see that it relates to draft selections.

I cant find where it relates to players who just stopped playing, like KVH

Of course, I cant find where it doesnt relate to him either.

So, therefore the logical way to handle this is to admit that I cant prove that Dallas cant sign & trade KVH.

Of course, that doesnt mean that they can - but maybe they can.

So I will no longer say that they cant.

Maybe we'll see soon.

All indications are that Kidd is going to Dallas. Let's see if KVH is part of the deal.

[FGump]

[Sorry but your quote on the draft rule is not exactly right either, but that's a different topic for another day.]

1. As I noted, there is no such rule as you said, and now you too see that there isn't.

2. On top of that, for what it's worth, you have respected writers all around the NBA noting that the Mavs can use KVH's contract if they wish. You know they have asked teams and the NBA to confirm that.

The best explanation I've seen is here. http://dallasbasketballdotcom.yuku.com/topic/8469 Look for the part by David Lord (posts as DLordOfBasketball) who is part of the Dallas media and is a rules guru. (I get lots of my info from reading him.)

3. The CBA (I'll use Coon's FAQ if you don't mind) also makes reference to the situation of a player who is renounced, and then doesn't get a contract for a full season. What happens? If he doesn't sign elsewhere, the team gets full Bird rights again when the ensuing season begins again. In other words, the renouncing only lasts for that one cap year.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#32

Of course, the Mavs didn't renounce KVH, so they have had (and continue to have) Bird rights if they (and he) want to use them.

4. The rule is written this way in order to allow KVH not to lose the ability to get as much salary as he otherwise would be able to get, if he comes back to the league (ie, signs a contract) sometime down the road.

It doesn't specify why the player might be gone for more than a year, and so it doesn't matter that he is sitting at home with his feet on the couch.

5. The rules make it clear you can sign a player just to serve as cap filler in a trade, which is what would happen with the various KVH scenarios. You do understand that, I trust.

6. There are more allusions in the CBA that make it clear there is nothing out of bounds with such a move. Obviously teams don't go this direction since it jacks up their payroll and cap, but they could.

-------------------

I hope that has given you way more than enough.

[jwa1107]

and the team to which KVH would be traded would only be responsible for the prorated portion of his 2007 salary, so signing him to a 15m contract for 2007 doesn't cost 15m in real dollars out the door...

[FGump]

and the team to which KVH would be traded would only be responsible for the prorated portion of his 2007 salary, so signing him to a 15m contract for 2007 doesn't cost 15m in real dollars out the door...

Unfortunately, I'm fairly certain that is NOT accurate. He gets paid for whatever he signs for, and if they want to pay him less in consideration of partial year service, then they have to write the deal for that amount. Only minimums are prorated.

[jwa1107]

then that sucks for the team on the trade end of the S&T...

say it's Kidd for KVH traded at midseason
and Kidd has been paid half his salary before the trade so DAL only pays the other half
but NJN has to pay KVH the full amount?

it makes it a deal much less likely to occur the closer the deadline gets it would seem

[Tommy Udo 6]

Ok - I'll concede that Dallas can sign & trade him if it wishes.

I understand that s & t must be for a minimum of 3 years, but only the first year is guaranteed.

[FGump]

Ok - I'll concede that Dallas can sign & trade him if it wishes.

I understand that s & t must be for a minimum of 3 years, but only the first year is guaranteed.

1. "If it wishes" is the operative phrase. Lots of conjecture, but the payroll implications make it unlikely even though legal.

2. In a snt the first year MUST be guaranteed. And there must be at least 3 years in total. But there can be MORE guarantee and more years, if desired.