retiring players

[C.lupus]

So I'm hoping there is a CBA guru here that can answer this qusetion. If a player retires (non-medical), is he still due his salary? And, if so, does it count against the team's salary cap? It seems like a simple question but I haven't been able to find an answer.

Thanks.

[HartfordWhalers]

So I'm hoping there is a CBA guru here that can answer this qusetion. If a player retires (non-medical), is he still due his salary? And, if so, does it count against the team's salary cap? It seems like a simple question but I haven't been able to find an answer.

Thanks.

Non-medical retirement would basically be like a buyout, with in this case I'm assuming you are thinking of the player forgoing all future salary. So, no, no future salary (unless they negotiate this with the team). The player's salary up until then would count against the cap, but anything not paid wouldn't.

There is an added wrinkle in there about if a team doesn't want to accept a non-medical retirement.

https://webfiles.uci.edu/lcoon/cbafaq/salarycap.htm#Q55

[HartfordWhalers]

Alternatively, if a player is owed a considerable sum, it might be safer to assume they are able to get some of the future money with some sort of buyout even if they aren't planning on playing again, and with the standard cap inclusion of this amount prorated according to the original contract over the remaining years.

[C.lupus]

Thanks.

[DBoys]

You can't assume that retirement includes a buyout of some sort. "Retirement" is simply a shorthand term for PR purposes that the player isn't going to play anymore. But it doesn't tell us about the money, and it often doesn't really tell us whose decision it was either.

It's incredibly rare for a player to simply walk away when there is guaranteed future money still to be paid.

In order to remove him from their roster, the player has to be waived. When he's waived, he would be owed the remainder of the guaranteed money on the contract. So a "retirement" clearly could be (and often is) preceded by a negotiation between team and player over that remainder. But if the team is actually sending him on his way because he can't play anymore, and they are agreeing to announce it as a retirement to allow the player to look good, they may be paying him the full amount due.

The cap hit will depend on the financial terms, with the new CBA's stretch rules also coming into play.

[HartfordWhalers]

You can't assume that retirement includes a buyout of some sort. "Retirement" is simply a shorthand term for PR purposes that the player isn't going to play anymore. But it doesn't tell us about the money, and it often doesn't really tell us whose decision it was either.

It's incredibly rare for a player to simply walk away when there is guaranteed future money still to be paid.

In order to remove him from their roster, the player has to be waived. When he's waived, he would be owed the remainder of the guaranteed money on the contract. So a "retirement" clearly could be (and often is) preceded by a negotiation between team and player over that remainder. But if the team is actually sending him on his way because he can't play anymore, and they are agreeing to announce it as a retirement to allow the player to look good, they may be paying him the full amount due.

The cap hit will depend on the financial terms, with the new CBA's stretch rules also coming into play.

Definitely true about a retirement once it happens, then there is the real answer to be found. But in terms of predicting what would happen if lets say Darko didn't particularly want to return to the Timberwolves, then I think as a forward looking prediction I would stick with the buyout as the safer assumption versus a complete walkaway from 5+ million, since as you say, it is extremely rare.

The availability of the stretch provision is a good thing to note in that sort of scenario.

Any insight into if a buyout would prevent amnestying a player? Suppose for instance Darko (I'm pretty sure he was the question's originla topic, if not apologies to him ) agreed to take 3 million buyout next offseason. Could the team amnesty him (it is an old cba contract) after the buyout and eliminate that cap hit also? I am under the understanding a player needs to be on the active roster, so my inclination is that it would need to be an amnesty and -- if amnesty waivers are cleared -- then a buyout reducing the remaining salary due with only financial and not cap implications at that time. It isn't so much a distinction for the waiving team, but for the player contemplating retirement the process of possible being amnesty claimed prior to a buyout could complicate things.

[DBoys]

A "buyout" is in essence a negotiated change in the amount (or pay schedule) due when the player clears waivers and the contract ends, but the player still has to go through waivers first without being claimed before that takes effect.

If a player is claimed via the amnesty process, a negotiated buyout amount would not apply to alter the cap hits for each team, as the contract still remains in effect.

You couldn't amnesty a player after a buyout, since by definition the player will have already been waived as the trigger for the negotiated change in guarantee taking effect.

[C.lupus]

You can't assume that retirement includes a buyout of some sort. "Retirement" is simply a shorthand term for PR purposes that the player isn't going to play anymore. But it doesn't tell us about the money, and it often doesn't really tell us whose decision it was either.

It's incredibly rare for a player to simply walk away when there is guaranteed future money still to be paid.

In order to remove him from their roster, the player has to be waived. When he's waived, he would be owed the remainder of the guaranteed money on the contract. So a "retirement" clearly could be (and often is) preceded by a negotiation between team and player over that remainder. But if the team is actually sending him on his way because he can't play anymore, and they are agreeing to announce it as a retirement to allow the player to look good, they may be paying him the full amount due.

The cap hit will depend on the financial terms, with the new CBA's stretch rules also coming into play.

Definitely true about a retirement once it happens, then there is the real answer to be found. But in terms of predicting what would happen if lets say Darko didn't particularly want to return to the Timberwolves, then I think as a forward looking prediction I would stick with the buyout as the safer assumption versus a complete walkaway from 5+ million, since as you say, it is extremely rare.

The availability of the stretch provision is a good thing to note in that sort of scenario.

Any insight into if a buyout would prevent amnestying a player? Suppose for instance Darko (I'm pretty sure he was the question's originla topic, if not apologies to him ) agreed to take 3 million buyout next offseason. Could the team amnesty him (it is an old cba contract) after the buyout and eliminate that cap hit also? I am under the understanding a player needs to be on the active roster, so my inclination is that it would need to be an amnesty and -- if amnesty waivers are cleared -- then a buyout reducing the remaining salary due with only financial and not cap implications at that time. It isn't so much a distinction for the waiving team, but for the player contemplating retirement the process of possible being amnesty claimed prior to a buyout could complicate things.

Yeah, Darko was the main guy I was thinking about. Brad Miller has also announced he will retire at the end of the season. I'm just trying to get a handle on what the cap implications would be for these guys leaving.

Some guys on the Wolves board are saying Darko will just retire and go back to Serbia because he isn't happy. I'm thinking he has $7 million guaranteed left on his contract so why would he just walk away from that. It seems like the amnesty option with a potential buyout is the best deal for the team. I doubt anyone else will pick him up and I doubt he would play for anyone else anyway.

[DBoys]

In round numbers, Miller gets $5M if he plays next year, but $1M if the Wolves waive him. It sounds to me like he's already seen the handwriting on the wall, knows he's not getting anyone to pay him another big contract, and is PR-ing it as if it's going to be his idea when he's waived. They'll announce it as a "retirement" and glowing words will be said, but the result won't be anything different than if he wanted to play for 10 more years ...he'll get waived either way, same future (almost no potential for more than the minimum), and he and Minny will go their separate ways.

On Darko, even if he wanted to, he can't leave for Europe unless Minny and he work out a buyout to the Wolves' satisfaction, because he's under contract. Amnesty isn't a solution as it could lock him up with another team, and Minny ends up paying him to play elsewhere in almost every scenario.