Wesley Matthews

[pillwenney]

I don't know the rule, you don't seem to either, I wouldn't assume anything.

I just don't see why it wouldn't apply, given the rule that KIE quoted. It would seem to just be replaced with the same player.

Regardless, we're arguing over a few hundred thousand bucks--ultimately chump changefor the Maloofs. If they weren't willing to spend it, they wouldn't.

[_SRV_]

What quote? KIE said nothing about that. We were talking about roster sizes.

To end this empty back and forth, here is the rule for league reimbursement.

When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract, the league actually reimburses the team for part of his salary - any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran. For example, in 2005-06 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $719,373, so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,138,500, the league would reimburse the team $419,127. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player's full salary. They do this so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive when filling out their last few roster spots.

So the Kings are paying $825,497 (that is the minmum for 2 years veteran this season) to Udoka, who they didn't need to sign to complete their roster size (it was complete before that), and this signing was totally redundant.

[KingInExile]

What quote? KIE said nothing about that. We were talking about roster sizes.

To end this empty back and forth, here is the rule for league reimbursement.

When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract, the league actually reimburses the team for part of his salary - any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran. For example, in 2005-06 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $719,373, so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,138,500, the league would reimburse the team $419,127. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player's full salary. They do this so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive when filling out their last few roster spots.

So the Kings are paying $825,497 (that is the minmum for 2 years veteran this season) to Udoka, who they didn't need to sign to complete their roster size (it was complete before that), and this signing was totally redundant.

Let's break this down to basic math:

Kings roster without Udoka = 13 players
Number of injured players on the inactive list = 2 (Martin and Garcia)

THEREFORE, Kings possible active roster size without Udoka = 13-2 = 11...which is a violation of the collective bargaining agreement.

So I guess you would rather have the team pay the fines associated with violating the collective bargaining agreement than sign a veteran for a cheep contract.

As of now, I'm done arguing this point since it seems abundantly clear that you're just interested in arguing for argument's sake and unwilling to acknowledge the facts put in front of you.

[_SRV_]

What quote? KIE said nothing about that. We were talking about roster sizes.

To end this empty back and forth, here is the rule for league reimbursement.

When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract, the league actually reimburses the team for part of his salary - any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran. For example, in 2005-06 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $719,373, so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,138,500, the league would reimburse the team $419,127. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player's full salary. They do this so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive when filling out their last few roster spots.

So the Kings are paying $825,497 (that is the minmum for 2 years veteran this season) to Udoka, who they didn't need to sign to complete their roster size (it was complete before that), and this signing was totally redundant.

Let's break this down to basic math:

Kings roster without Udoka = 13 players
Number of injured players on the inactive list = 2 (Martin and Garcia)

THEREFORE, Kings possible active roster size without Udoka = 13-2 = 11...which is a violation of the collective bargaining agreement.

So I guess you would rather have the team pay the fines associated with violating the collective bargaining agreement than sign a veteran for a cheep contract.

As of now, I'm done arguing this point since it seems abundantly clear that you're just interested in arguing for argument's sake and unwilling to acknowledge the facts put in front of you.

You're wrong, you need to have 13 players signed, and 12 players on the active list, but not 12 players suited, there is no violation, I presented that very clearly, I'm not arguing for argument sake, I've made one comment in this thread and was blasted with false come backs, I don't appreciate your false accusation.

[Three34]

Let's break this down to basic math:

Kings roster without Udoka = 13 players
Number of injured players on the inactive list = 2 (Martin and Garcia)

THEREFORE, Kings possible active roster size without Udoka = 13-2 = 11...which is a violation of the collective bargaining agreement.

Players don't automatically go in the inactive list just because they're injured. Chicago has 13 players, for example, and they had only 9 healthy for a while with all of Gray, James, Thomas and Hinrich out. Three of them stayed on the active roster even though they were unable to play. They just didn't dress.

The Kings could have done this too. They just didn't want to, nor feel that they had to.

[KingInExile]

Let's break this down to basic math:

Kings roster without Udoka = 13 players
Number of injured players on the inactive list = 2 (Martin and Garcia)

THEREFORE, Kings possible active roster size without Udoka = 13-2 = 11...which is a violation of the collective bargaining agreement.

Players don't automatically go in the inactive list just because they're injured. Chicago has 13 players, for example, and they had only 9 healthy for a while with all of Gray, James, Thomas and Hinrich out. Three of them stayed on the active roster even though they were unable to play. They just didn't dress.

The Kings could have done this too. They just didn't want to, nor feel that they had to.

In an argument over a chump-change contract for someone like Ime Udoka, worrying about details like this is just pointless.

[Three34]

That's an interesting way of saying "I was completely wrong yet really adamant about how right I was." But to each his own.

[KingInExile]

That's an interesting way of saying "I was completely wrong yet really adamant about how right I was." But to each his own.

Glad you admitted that you were completely wrong. Thanks for playing...feel free to drop by with worthless information any time.

[Three34]

Wait, what? You really think that?

OK, let's run this again.

You contend that if a team has only 13 players and 2 or more injuries, then they are unable to meet the 12 active players limit and should be fined or prosecuted or liquidated or something. Right?

Now, I present to thee the example of this year's Bulls. They have only thirteen players (Rose, Salmons, Deng, Miller, Noah, Gibson, Hinrich, Johnson, Pargo, Hunter, Gray, Thomas, James), and yet they've had more than 1 concurrent injury. They still do; both James and Thomas are out injured right now, as were Hinrich and Gray until recently. This leaves them with only 11 healthy bodies, which, as is pretty obvious, is less than 12.

So if you're right, and that injured players automatically go on the inactive list,why are the Bulls not being fined for having an active roster of only 11?

Answer = you're not right. Injured players do NOT automatically go on the inactive list, and there is not a minimum of 12 players dressed for each game. The minimum you can dress for each game is 8, and that's why very often there are players on the active list who are not able to play. If the inactive list is full, or if the roster is too small to fill it, then injured/unavailable players can be on the active list. And as shown by the above example, they often are.

Or, if that one doesn't work for you, how about tonight versus Portland? They had 6 players out injured. Does this mean they had an active roster of just 9, and thus got fined? Nope - they had an active roster of 12. Three of them just wore ties.

And so that's why the Kings didn't NEED to sign Ime Udoka. They just wanted to.

For a man who's very wrong, you're being very preachy about this.

[Smills91]

KIE is wrong, he usually is(about Martin Garcia counting against the total number of 'active players' SRV is correct here), but he's also right in a different aspect. The league wide average needs to average 14. So most teams need to have 14 players signed, I think this is why the NBA pays for a large portion of vet min. contracts, to fulfill the CBA with the damn union.

[Three34]

The league pays a portion of veteran minimum salaries for old guys so that:

a) older guys get paid more, and
b) teams aren't deterred from signing them just because they'd old.

As for the league wide average, there would need to less than 420 players under contract for that to kick in. And even in this lame economy, with more than a dozen teams scheduled to be taxpayers, there are 432. I have never known that league wide average to be an issue, and even if it was, the league is surcharged, not the Kings.

The Kings had no obligation to sign Udoka. They did it because they wanted to and because they could.

[KingInExile]

Wait, what? You really think that?

OK, let's run this again.

You contend that if a team has only 13 players and 2 or more injuries, then they are unable to meet the 12 active players limit and should be fined or prosecuted or liquidated or something. Right?

Now, I present to thee the example of this year's Bulls. They have only thirteen players (Rose, Salmons, Deng, Miller, Noah, Gibson, Hinrich, Johnson, Pargo, Hunter, Gray, Thomas, James), and yet they've had more than 1 concurrent injury. They still do; both James and Thomas are out injured right now, as were Hinrich and Gray until recently. This leaves them with only 11 healthy bodies, which, as is pretty obvious, is less than 12.

So if you're right, and that injured players automatically go on the inactive list,why are the Bulls not being fined for having an active roster of only 11?

Answer = you're not right. Injured players do NOT automatically go on the inactive list, and there is not a minimum of 12 players dressed for each game. The minimum you can dress for each game is 8, and that's why very often there are players on the active list who are not able to play. If the inactive list is full, or if the roster is too small to fill it, then injured/unavailable players can be on the active list. And as shown by the above example, they often are.

Or, if that one doesn't work for you, how about tonight versus Portland? They had 6 players out injured. Does this mean they had an active roster of just 9, and thus got fined? Nope - they had an active roster of 12. Three of them just wore ties.

And so that's why the Kings didn't NEED to sign Ime Udoka. They just wanted to.

For a man who's very wrong, you're being very preachy about this.

#1, where the hell did I say that injured players "automatically" go on the Inactive list? It's a team choice and the Kings made the team choice to place guys who were going to be out for an extended period on the inactive list.

#2, before you waste your time using this year's Bulls as an example of anything, you might want to take a simple look at their record. Your arguments using the Bulls as an example of a roster management choice would hold some level of credence if the Bulls weren't in last in the Central Division.

[TexFTW]

Matthews is a great steal. He is better than Dahntay Jones, who is killing @ Indiana, was last year. Hell, at 23 Wes might be better than Ronnie Brewer.

[_SRV_]

#1, where the hell did I say that injured players "automatically" go on the Inactive list? It's a team choice and the Kings made the team choice to place guys who were going to be out for an extended period on the inactive list.

Kings roster without Udoka = 13 players
Number of injured players on the inactive list = 2 (Martin and Garcia)

THEREFORE, Kings possible active roster size without Udoka = 13-2 = 11...which is a violation of the collective bargaining agreement.

So I guess you would rather have the team pay the fines associated with violating the collective bargaining agreement than sign a veteran for a cheep contract.

Seriously, I thought you hated arguing for the sake of arguing, you were wrong, you were shown your mistake very clearly, let's move on.

[KingInExile]

Obviously some people can't comprehend simple English languange...

Point out the word "AUTOMATICALLY'.

Reading is fundamental...learn how to do it some time.

[pillwenney]

All right, this has been off topic for a while, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere that's really positive at all.