w/ the new bargain agreement...any time that is over the luxury tax can waive players til they are under it.... so if we were over the tax....waive Spoon to get us under....then re-sign in for the minimum....we would be paying him twice, but if u really wanted that player then u could do it..... thats y Finley, Houston, etc are prob gonna get waived soon....
My concern is that the one-time exemtion makes our expiring contracts less appealing. There is zero demand for Baker, Spoon and Mooch, and Wesley has limited value. This exemption's going to allow teams to unload serious albatross contracts and it seems fewer will be looking for cap relief next season. To me the contract we dump is Wards, and if worse comes to worse we'll be in good shape next season.
But with expiring contracts the team saves on both the player's salary and the lurury tax hit. If a team waives a player they are still on the line for their complete salary, not just the one year. By trading away the player for expiring contracts the teams save a ton of money.
you may have a point for now. however come the trade deadline in 2006, teams will be looking for ending contracts for capspace in the summer of '06. this summer those contracts aren't very valuable, I think we hold on to them until february and then add a nice piece for a playoff push.
Ok, let's summarize: 1. The rule that you are refering to is a one time thing and can only be used to waive a single player. 2. The rule says that you can waive a player and not have them count against the luxury tax. It has absolutely nothing to do with the team salary cap. If the Knicks waive Alan Houston, his entire salary still counts against the cap. 3. If you waive a player under this one-time rule, you are not allowed to resign that player for the duration of that contract. 4. Waiving Spoon won't get us under the cap, let alone far enough to sign somebody of any value. The new rule has very little effect on the trade exception.
from Smoothie: That is my hope, but I was hoping some teams might be interested now so it might give us greater flexibility if trades are involved. I think it's going to be tough to bring in 2 FA's (which we need) with our roster being stuffed - especially if Span and Badiane are in the mix. It also makes me think Wesley will be traded soon, Padgett's history, and now for the first time I think we might not sign Barry.
Exactly, here's a simple example to illustrate: Michael Finley has $51M remaining on his contract. Assuming that Dallas' payroll remains high, Cuban would have to pay an additional $51M in luxury tax over the life of that contract. So, if they keep Finley, he's effectively costing them $102M over the remaining years of his deal. If Dallas waives Finley, then they still owe him $51M, but they don't have to pay the $51M in luxury tax. That would reduce Finley's cost to the Mavs down to $51M. Now, let's say that Dallas trades Finley for expiring contracts. For argument's sake (and I'm too lazy to look it up), let's say that Finley makes $13M next season. Dallas takes back $13M in salary which they have to pay off next season. They're still in luxury tax territory, so they'll have to pay another $13M in taxes. That reduces their costs down to $26M.
Just in case some of you missed it.........READ THIS ^^^^^^^^ CAREFULLY. Exactly Deuce...once again you summarize it clearly and succinctly.
aelliott: Here's a question that has been posed in another thread, but we're not sure of the definite answer. If Finley is waived by Dallas and then signs with Phoenix for a 1 year $6 mil deal, does that mean that Dallas is now only responsible for $45 mil instead of $51? Or does Finley get to pocket a total of $57 mil?
This question can't be answered definitively until we see the actual text regarding this luxury tax exemption. Obviously, it's a new provision, so it's impossible to get some of the finer points until then.
