homeytennis
Well-Known Member
He's a vet and can't be assigned to the DLeague.
Roger Braille Buyout Problems (merged)
- Thread starter nightmare3983
- Start date
Chris
Well-Known Member
How did Lamar Odom end up there last year with the Mavs?
Who?
homeytennis
Well-Known Member
Good point on LO. I thought the DLeague was reserved for players in their first couple of years. There were a lot of old vets playing there last year hoping for a call up but they were not the property of any team.
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
my bad.
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
lamar odom voluntarily went to the d-league to work his way back into playing shape.
vets can't be "sent down" though, homey was right.
//r00t 4 Jazz
Well-Known Member
I honestly assumed that it was changed last year in the CBA, guess I should've looked it up.
Mods, as the starter of this thread (or at least the starter of one the threads merged together), I respectfully request that you change the title to read "Roger Braille buyout problems" (without the quotation marks). Thanks!
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
it was changed a little. starting next season, you can send guys with 0-2 years experience an unlimited number of times, as opposed to the old rule which was 0-1 years experience guys with a limit of 3 times per year. but a vet still can't be sent without his and the union's consent.
I am re-issuing this request for the mods and would at least like a response even if the request isn't granted.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
My thought process is that whether Bell was claimed or not, any salary he signs for would be subtracted from what the Jazz owe him. In that scenario, there is no reason not to take the added benefit of reducing the cap figure, and thus a player has to give something back to persuade the team not to do it.
If amnesty is different than Bell being a player who cleared waivers, then the Jazz would be obligated to pay his full salary, and Bell gets the veteran min on top of that. In that scenario, Bell would have the leverage since the Jazz want savings, not cap relief. But I'm not sure what the actual rules are and can't find this particular situation in Coon's FAQ.
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
you actually have it backwards... there is little to no discount for the jazz if they waive him and someone else picks him up, but there could be a discount to the jazz if they had amnestied him and someone else bid on him.
in the event of a simple waiver, the jazz would only get a break of 1/2 the difference between the player's new salary and the minimum for that player. if raja signs for the minimum somewhere, then 1/2 of 1.35M minus 1.35M is a salary break of zero dollars. let's say bell gets some team to give him the bi-annual. in that case, 1/2 of 1.96M minus 1.35M is about 305K. and even if he got some team to sign him for the same 3.3M he was set to make here, the set-off for the jazz is only about 1M of that (and a 3.3M contract for bell is extremely unlikely at this point).
so in most scenarios, the jazz will see little to no set-off as a result of simply waiving bell.
and as far as amnesty, i think you actually have it backwards -- THAT is where a team can get a break from paying that portion of his salary, but only if someone makes a bid for raja while he's on amnesty waivers. if he had been amnestied, then a team could have made a bid that was as low as his minimum salary of 1.35M, and then that amount gets subtracted from what the jazz owe him. once he clears the amnesty waivers, then the jazz are on the hook for all 3.3M of his salary, regardless of what happens next. in that scenario, raja could "double-dip" as yoiu suggested, earning his jazz contract plus whatever his new team signed him for, but only if nobody made a minimum bid for his services.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
I can't find anything in the legalese that differentiates a player who clears amnesty from a player who clears waivers. But if the double dipping scenario is true, then Roger has the leverage.
Assuming that is true, he did want to avoid the amnesty process and worked a 'deal' with KOC to do so. Presumably that deal wasn't as simple as being able to negotiate freely with other teams while under contract. Because there was risk (not in hindsight, of course) that he could be claimed in amnesty which would be a horror scenario for Roger.
So KOC had some leverage. There should have at least been some talk about what the buyout would be if the Jazz let him shop and he didn't get his deal.
Assuming that is true, he did want to avoid the amnesty process and worked a 'deal' with KOC to do so. Presumably that deal wasn't as simple as being able to negotiate freely with other teams while under contract. Because there was risk (not in hindsight, of course) that he could be claimed in amnesty which would be a horror scenario for Roger.
So KOC had some leverage. There should have at least been some talk about what the buyout would be if the Jazz let him shop and he didn't get his deal.
Done and done
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
I support this fully.
Former Member
Banned
This thread is glorious. That is all I have to say at this point.
Thanks Nate!
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
The only thing more immature than you requesting this change is Nate granting the change. Rep to both of you.
Who?
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
https://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q64 describes how set-off works for players who are simply waived -- namely, 1/2 of the difference between new salary and that player's minimum. in roger's case, that's likely to be 0-300K.
around the middle of https://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q67 you'll see how amnesty set-off amounts are different IF the player is bid on during amnesty -- namely, that the original team gets to subtract the amount of the bid (at least the min salary), any bonuses, and any non-guaranteed salary from what they still owed the player. in roger's case, that would have resulted in at least 1.5M savings.
in the same question, you see how there are no set-offs at all if someone is amnestied and then clears amnesty waivers.
so basically, the jazz had a chance of saving either $0 or some amount north of 1.5M if they had amnestied him. roger and his agent convinced the jazz to not cash in on that opportunity, which tells me the original buyout had to allow the jazz a chance to recuperate some of the possible 1.5M. why else would the jazz not just tell him tough luck and amnesty him in hopes of saving all that cash?
exactly. for roger, the benefit of saying "just buy me out" is having the freedom to dictate his own future (sort of -- he could still be claimed off waivers, but that's less likely at the full salary). but for it to be worth the jazz, there had to be a financial windfall that was close to what they could have gotten by amnestying him.
HAD some leverage, yeah. and that's probably when the verbal agreement was reached. but now that KOC has lost the leverage of the amnesty threat, bell renegs on the verbal agreement and can suddenly play hardball because KOC has no fall-back option. at least that's my read on the situation, i clearly have no inside info. but it sounds an awful lot like roger pulled a fast one after initially agreeing to something that made sense for the jazz to not exercise their amnesty right.