http://mavsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/06/clause-in-brendan-haywoods-contract-coul.html Am I the only one who think this article is just a dumb sportswriter writing whatever his source told him without thinking much? Anyhow, Eddie Sefko of Dallas Morning News reported that Brandon Haywood, who is owed $27 million over 3 years has a contract provision that, in case he is waived, allows his team to "spread" the payment of the amount that he's owed (and presumably the cap hit) over a 14-year period. Sefko reported that this provision makes Haywood's deal, which looks like an albatross on first glance, to become a possible "sweetener" in a trade. I am not sure how this makes sense. Sure, it's better to have that option than not, and it helps a team that wants immediate cap room to open up $7 million more to pursue a free agent (or make a contract-eating trade) in the current year. However, I am not sure how the hell a contract that burdens your team with a $2 million cap hit for 14(!) frigging years is supposed to be a "sweetner." If a team wants the option of immediate cap room, there are much better options out there than Haywood's contract, which hurts you (though not in a huge way) for 14 years. For example, there will be team with cap room who can eat contract money. Also Sam Dalembert's contract is guaranteed for only $1.5 million next year, Brad Miller, Ronnie Brewer, Martel Webster, CJ Watson, Kyle Korver each has non-guaranteed or partially guaranteed deals (and there are more out there). This reeks of some Mavs lackey telling Sefko about the spread provision and their spin on it and Sefko passing the **** along without thinking.
Are you sure this impacts the cap hit at all? I'm thinking it's strictly about when you have to pay him. Either way, I agree. Hard to see anybody take on Haywood, payment/cap hit sweetener or or not.
The question I had when I saw this was whether it was even valid within the CBA. Not the pay-out but the cap hit. Can you, or anyone, confirm?
From Larry Coon's Salary Cap FAQ: Since Haywood was signed prior to the new CBA, it seems like this revised contract payout status would refer only to the team's cash flow. It would seem highly illegal for a team to be able to write a provision that creates instant cap space in this way. Obviously, a 14-year payout with a 0% interest rate would be very favorable to a team, as it would save them millions, but that's only if you're dumping an even worse contract, and right now there aren't many worse than Haywood.
If you put enough sugar on manure, someone might eat it. Heck they might even think its sweet at the time, until the reality sets in.
I was thinking of it more like, if someone is going to make you eat a fisful of arsenic, wouldn't you rather it had a sweetener in it?
this reminds me of something i heard the thumb talking about the other day when referencing old nfl contracts and that earl campbell is still recieving money on a deal given that they used to spread them out forever because all the agents cared about was their split on the total deal. cuban's good, but not that good.
Agree with you, CH. His statement... ... makes no sense to me. If they're looking for a functional center, then they're paying out the nose for one in Haywood. If they waive him, they don't get the functional center and are paying $2M a year for 14 years -- AND if I understand HI Mana's post correctly, the cap hit (9ish million every year) stays intact for each of the next 3 years. Don't see the benefit at all unless you are unloading far, far worse contracts.
you can't spread a cap hit across years like that. It is illegal. You can only spread out the payments, not the effect it has on Team Salary.
+1 yet again for the Larry Coon Salary Cap FAQ. It's truly amazing how much one man has done to revolutionize how fans think about transactions in the NBA. Also love how Sefko says there's confusion based on his terrible report that manages to entangle the amnesty clause, the spread provision and a fairly standard revised payment schedule. Thinking aloud, there are probably 4 teams out there right now who might be able to actually take advantage of this long buyout: Sacramento: The Maloofs are clearly in huge financial trouble, and they've been flirting with the salary floor for the last few years. Getting Haywood and waiving him would basically mean he counts $9M against the cap, but almost nothing in real dollars. This would allow the Kings to spend even less on their roster over the next few years until they get an arena deal done. Additionally, depending on what they do with Tyreke and Cousins over the next few years, they may not need cap space. Atlanta: The ownership group is a complete mess, and had a potential sale fall apart last summer. If they were able to wipe off the liability of Joe Johnson's contract, it would probably facilitate a deal. Additionally, any salary they don't have to pay in the next few years is just money that goes into their pockets, while future deferred compensation will be paid for by new owners. New Orleans: Although Haywood's cap hit extends an extra year after Okafor's, he would still expire a year before Anthony Davis would be due for a big money extension, so assuming they sign Landry to a 3-year deal at max, they would have a unique opportunity to splurge in free agency when the only contracts they have are Eric Gordon and rookie deals. If they are truly building through the draft, it's likely going to take them at least 3 years just to make the playoffs, so reducing their expenses would be preferable to having a solid but unspectacular veteran who doesn't fit into their window. Orlando: I'm sure that Sefko had the Magic in mind; Glen Davis and Jason Richardson are players that don't fit on a Howard-less Magic team; the extra savings would probably be worth it, and it's pretty hard to see any team taking them on if they weren't packaged with Dwight.
