Earl Watson waived

Post #1 » by **slick_watts** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:05 pm

i like that watson won't be a part of the team, but this is a little bit strange to me.. watson's expiring contract should have some value coming up on the deadline at least. why not waive atkins?

Post #2 » by **Charcoal Filtered** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:13 pm

Would like to see if there was any type of buyout or OKC will just take the setoff money.

Post #3 » by **wizkid27** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:21 pm

Yeah, definitely interesting. You would think that out of all of the contracts aside from Atkins' non-guaranteed one, Earl's would be the most attractive as several teams view him as a good backup point also.

To me, this is really an indication that we'll be holding our cards, letting the deals expire and that we've pretty much got the players that we're going to head into the season with.

Post #4 » by **slick_watts** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:50 pm

he had to have been bought out since there's no reason whatsoever to waive him outright. it would have been cheaper to waive atkins.

wiff · Post #5 » by **wiff** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:09 am

It is a little weird but there must not have been much of a market for him at 6.6mil, even if he was expiring. This past draft was riddled with PG's.

I would think Earl will find a suitor for at least a couple mil. So they must just view it as a 4mil buy out.

Or maybe they were concerned that Earl was going to be a large distraction? Really how many of us actually think he would be seeing many minutes this season and he is in a contract year.

Maybe Presti just felt it was best to avoid the distraction in the locker room.

I assume most of everyone in here has played a team sport growing up or work with a group of people as a team. All it takes is one jerk to bring the rest of the team down.

Not calling Watson a jerk, but not seeing many minutes in a contract year doesn't really sound like a receipt for success.

Post #6 » by **slick_watts** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:19 am

wiff wrote:I would think Earl will find a suitor for at least a couple mil. So they must just view it as a 4mil buy out.

huh? once watson clears waivers (he will, nobody's going to pay him $6m), okc is still responsible for that money, maybe a bit less but not much less.

wiff · Post #7 » by **wiff** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:04 am

OKC is responsible for the 6.6mil if he chooses not to sign a new contract.

But if Earl signs for 2mil somewhere then OKC is only responsible for 4.6mil

Post #8 » by **slick_watts** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:16 am

wiff wrote:OKC is responsible for the 6.6mil if he chooses not to sign a new contract.

But if Earl signs for 2mil somewhere then OKC is only responsible for 4.6mil

If another team signs a released player who had a guaranteed contract (as long as the player has cleared waivers -- see question number 54), the player's original team is allowed to reduce the amount of money they still owe the player (and lower their team salary) by a commensurate amount (this is called the right of set-off). This is true if the player signs with any professional team -- it doesn't even have to be an NBA team. The amount the original team gets to set off is limited to one-half the difference between the player's new salary and the minimum salary for a one-year veteran (if the player is a rookie, then the rookie minimum is used instead).

For example, suppose a fifth-year player is waived during the 2005 offseason, with one guaranteed season remaining on his contract. If this player signs a $1 million contract with another NBA team for the 2005-06 season, his original team gets to set off $1 million minus $641,748 (the minimum for a one-year veteran in 2005-06), divided by two, or $179,126. If this player had a $5 million salary with his prior team, then his prior team would be responsible for the remaining $4,820,874. Note that between his prior team and new team the player will earn a combined $5,820,874, which was more than he made prior to being waived.

so if watson signs for $2 million okc gets to set off $2 million minus $1,181,803 (eight year vet minimum) divided by two. this comes to $409,099. pretty insignificant if you ask me!

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q55

wiff · Post #9 » by **wiff** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:23 am

My mistake I didn't realize that it was then broken down. I thought it was more cut and dry.

I wonder if only 4.6 mil would count against the cap? Even though OKC would be on the line for more.

So I'm thinking Presti simply did Watson a favor to go play for a team that he can find minutes and get himself a decent new contract. Mean while avoided an ugly locker room.

Post #10 » by **slick_watts** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:43 am

earl watson will still count towards the okc cap. the amount being his full salary minus the settled off figure, still above $6 million.

i cannot imagine why watson was waived instead of atkins. it makes absolutely no sense however you try to rationalize it. you're paying a guy $6 million to play for another team, it's ridiculous. the condition of nba salary caps right now coupled with the scramble to get cap room in 2010.. watson's contract would have been valuable.

for someone that likes his flexibility this was a very strange move.

Post #11 » by **wizkid27** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:59 am

slick_watts wrote:the condition of nba salary caps right now coupled with the scramble to get cap room in 2010.. watson's contract would have been valuable.

That's the reason that I think we won't be making any moves. There HAD to be takers out there for it, but Presti/ownership aren't wanting to commit any more long-term money. Whether they're being cheap or smart remains to be seen

wiff · Post #12 » by **wiff** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:30 pm

Looks like Earl just signed with the Pacers.

Looks like OKC just simply didn't want him around and are willing to wait it out for his cap space.

Ontario · Post #13 » by **Ontario** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:34 pm

wiff wrote:Looks like Earl just signed with the Pacers.

Looks like OKC just simply didn't want him around and are willing to wait it out for his cap space.

If he just signed with the Pacers does that mean they took him off of waivers before he cleared them? Does that impact Oklahoma's financial obligations at all? It's possible Watson's agent had the Pacers interested in talks and Presti was simply doing the right thing by letting the guy go where he could play knowing there was already someone waiting in the wings to pick him up, (if doing so freed up some cash it would make sense).

I refuse to believe Earl would have had anything other then a professionally neutral impact or possibly a mentoring role/positive impact in the locker room.

Post #14 » by **wizkid27** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm

I don't believe that they claimed him off waivers, I think the news about the Pacers was just that Watson agreed that that is where he would go once he cleared. I could be wrong though...

HomieOmey · Post #15 » by **HomieOmey** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:13 pm

wiff wrote:Or maybe they were concerned that Earl was going to be a large distraction? Really how many of us actually think he would be seeing many minutes this season and he is in a contract year.

Maybe Presti just felt it was best to avoid the distraction in the locker room.

Has to be it. Most teams would love a veteran PG like him off the bench. Quite a few teams wouldn't mind his ending deal either. I've heard a few rumblings of him being unhappy, so my guess is that he just can't be the mentor and veteran off the bench many would hope for from a back up PG.

Knight has bounced from team to team for the same reason. Even when the Bobcats were desperately looking for PG help and he was amongst the best play makers in the league.