Quick question...

[mikhailjordan]

I understand that exceptions count against the salary cap until renounced so if a team is $1.5 million below the salary cap... Can they sign someone to a contract using the MLE?

Does the MLE (BAE, etc.) amount just count against the cap and the team doesn't actually get the MLE? Or does a team get an actual usable MLE?

[Three34]

There's no reason to charge someone for the cost of an MLE if they don't actually get an MLE. What would be the point of that?

[Malinhion]

Once they go over the cap they can't use the MLE. If a team is $1.5m below the cap, they can only use $1.5m of their MLE. Not sure why they would do that, though.

[Three34]

^ That's completely incorrect.

[Three34]

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

[Malinhion]

^ That's completely incorrect.

My phrasing was just really crappy.

If you're under, you don't have an MLE. You have a hold. You'd have to renounce it to use the remaining cap room. That's what I meant by saying they could only use $1.5m of it.

If they're already over the cap, they can just use the full amount of the MLE.

If they have $1.5m in space in addition to the MLE cap hold, they can just use that amount and keep the $1.5m free space.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Is it impossible for the first situation to exist?

[lakerfan10770]

^ That's completely incorrect.

My phrasing was just really crappy.

If you're under, you don't have an MLE. You have a hold. You'd have to renounce it to use the remaining cap room. That's what I meant by saying they could only use $1.5m of it.

If they're already over the cap, they can just use the full amount of the MLE.

If they have $1.5m in space in addition to the MLE cap hold, they can just use that amount and keep the $1.5m free space.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Is it impossible for the first situation to exist?

That still doesn't make sense, if a team is under the salary cap by more than the MLE, then they will not receive the MLE, therefore they could not use it. In this scenario any players signed would be done so with cap space.

[DBoys]

"If they have $1.5m in space in addition to the MLE cap hold" <<that is a contradiction in terms.

Option 1 - At the start of the season (July 1) you add together all your cap holds, annual exceptions, trade exceptions, existing contracts, and so on. If that total is over the cap (and it almost always is, at that point, for every team), you have no cap space. Each of those holds uses up cap space, and the MLE also uses up cap space.

Option 2 - At any point thereafter, perhaps your total falls below the cap. That can come from renouncing exceptions, from cap holds that are removed (for example, a former player signs a contract, the hold is eliminated and the contract itself goes on yours or another team's cap), trade exceptions expire, and so on. When you fall below the cap, at that time you have cap space, and your exceptions (which allow you to add a player despite being over the cap) are no longer pertinent because you are no longer over the cap. So you have cap space, but no MLE.

Cap space-MLE/BAE. It's either-or.

[Three34]

^ That's completely incorrect.

My phrasing was just really crappy.

If you're under, you don't have an MLE. You have a hold. You'd have to renounce it to use the remaining cap room. That's what I meant by saying they could only use $1.5m of it.

If they're already over the cap, they can just use the full amount of the MLE.

If they have $1.5m in space in addition to the MLE cap hold, they can just use that amount and keep the $1.5m free space.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Is it impossible for the first situation to exist?

Why don't we just use the link to the given explanation itself, rather than nitpick your attempted re-writing of it?