ATL room under the Tax, need confirmation please

[answerthink]

and infinitely more than I am… but at least I get the pleasure of watching my team get bounced from the playoffs for the next half decade in front of a laughing world…

[D21]

OK, so I was not understanding what you were saying to me.
That's why my examples were wrong.

Now, I think I understand why I did not understand what you said, and it was the only problem :
we didn't read this part of the CBA the same way.

I will try to show exactly from where come the problem, maybe it can help other people, since I am not the only one to understand this part like that ("So Cal Blazer Fan" who runs Storyteller's seems to use the same POV I used).

You are looking at the right phrase. I don’t know how better to explain it.

You were right, but I was looking, but not reading like you :
I did not see anything talking about reaching an amount, so I search where did you see this, and it can only be from "in excess of the Minimum Player Salary for a player with two (2) Years of Service"

Even if I have more confidence in Sham and your POVs than in mine, I will still try to explain my POV

I thought the "in excess" was talking about the kind of minimum contract the player has signed, compared to a 2-years veteran minimum salary contract.

For me, the text looks like that
"The Compensation paid to any player with three (3) or more Years of Service who signs a one-year, 10-Day or Rest-of-Season Contract for the Minimum Player Salary in excess of the Minimum Player Salary for a player with two (2) Years of Service shall be paid by the player’s Team pursuant to the terms of such player’s Uniform Player Contract, and then reimbursed to the Team"

What I get is "The compensation paid to the player shall be paid by the team, then reimbursed"
I saw the "in excess" part here to only talk about all the possible minimum contracts being greater than the one of a 2-years veteran minimum salary, so the minimum contract of a 3-years veteran, the minimum contract of a 4-years veteran,...

I hope I at least succeed to explain my POV and you will understand how I ended on this interpretation.


Now, I think I understand how you get your POV
For you, the text looks like that
"The Compensation paid to any player with three (3) or more Years of Service who signs a one-year, 10-Day or Rest-of-Season Contract for the Minimum Player Salary in excess of the Minimum Player Salary for a player with two (2) Years of Service shall be paid by the player’s Team pursuant to the terms of such player’s Uniform Player Contract, and then reimbursed to the Team"

So, "the compensation paid in excess of the Minimum Player Salary for a player with two (2) Years of Service" (or the prorated "Minimum Player Salary for a player with two (2) Years of Service" if the contract is prorated).

Now, I admit that I don't know exactly how I came to this sense.

Forget about this grey part, it was based on a misunderstanding of how you find the $482,478 as threshold of the three last contracts)
Meanwhile, I still don't find something that clearly says that the first part has not to get reimbursed.
Maybe I need a day of not thinking about it at all, but it only talks about the Salary the players gets, but not about the numbers of contract to get that salary, and what contracts should count and other should not.
You start by seeing if the first contract reach the amount : No, so no Reimbursement.
I am OK with that, but not if you used again this contract, added to the others, to this time reaching the amount. If you use this first contract in the sum to reach it, then why should it be excluded ? If you keep your logic, you should go ahead, and look at the following contracts, and they don't reach it too, so no reimbursement too.

What I say is just that he should get reimbursement on all the sum, or not at all because each part is not enough to reach the threshold.
I would even accept that only the last part get reimbursement, because it during this part that he reaches the amount, but if you count the two 10-days contract in the reimbursement, then the first contract should count too, being waived or not.

This seems to me like more logical, and I see the way you are making it the less logical of all the possibilities.
Nothing against you, just that I find it hard to think the CBA uses the less logical way, even if my logic has not to be the best
Would be curious to hear how "So Cal Blazer Fan" ended on the same thing than me.

Thanks again to both of you.
And I'm just reminding me, two days ago, thinking about "don't abuse of their patience"

[answerthink]

Mine is not a point of view. It is the correct interpretation of the language. I try will one more time to show you just how logical it is.

The threshold for reimbursement of a player with at least three years of experience on a one-year, ten-day, or rest-of-season minimum contract is the minimum salary of a two-year veteran. The team is responsible for all payments up to that threshold. Once that threshold is met, all additional payments to the player are reimbursed by the league.

The threshold for Wilkins' first contract was $663,408 (132/170 * $854,389). The contract was unguaranteed, and terminated before it reached this threshold. Therefore, there will be no reimbursement.

The thresholds for Wilkins' final three contracts were $50,258 (10/170* $854,389), $50,258 (10/170* $854,389) and $381,962 (76/170 * $854,389). Since all three contracts were fully guaranteed, all three automatically cross their respective thresholds. Therefore, all three qualify for full reimbursement.

The point you seem to be missing is that the threshold for ten-day and rest-of-season minimum contracts is prorated.

This topic was already covered in this forum a year ago: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=975470

[D21]

I get it !!!

The error came before the "in excess" part.

I did not miss the prorated part, if the salary is prorated, then the threshold has to be prorated.
I thought you told the $482,478 was the prorated Minimum Player Salary for a player with two (2) Years of Service" for 132 days, so including the first contract of Wilkins, instead of 96 days.
I was sure to have seen it in your first posts, and I was sure to have checked it, but I certainly didn't.

Actually, you were getting the $482,478 from the threshold (the sum of the three thresholds) of 96 days only, and not 132.
Now, it makes a lot of sense.

Sorry, and thanks again for you patience.

[answerthink]

I am having trouble understanding your diction so it’s hard for me to verify for you that you do get it, but I’ll take your word for it. I’m glad I could help.

[Three34]

D21, forget about why it works the way it does, or the language that says why it works the way it does. Just know that that's the way it works. That's all that really matters.

[D21]

D21, forget about why it works the way it does, or the language that says why it works the way it does. Just know that that's the way it works. That's all that really matters.

Thanks Sham, but since I never had this kind of problem understanding the rest of the CBA, it was hard for me to say "OK it works like that, and don't need to understand".

Sorry again for not having checked the numbers in your first posts, this wouldn't have been so long.
Now, I am be ready to help somebody else on this point in the future, thanks to both of you