PDA

View Full Version : Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.



Will Galen
07-24-2006, 02:11 AM
I wasn't going to do this until I found out what happens tomorrow. However, nothing is guaranteed to happen tomorrow and I wanted to see what our cap looks like. Since other people are interested I thought I would share my findings. Figures are correct as far as I could check. I did estimate James White's salary.

This is our salary cap situation according to various sites, as of 07-24-06.

PLAYER SALARIES
Jermaine O'Neal..........18,084,000
Steven Jackson............6,080,000
Marquis Daniels............5,883,600
Jamaal Tinsley.............5,714,286
Jeff Foster..................5,200,000
Sarunas Jasikevicius.....4,000,000
Danny Granger.............1,417,800
Darrel Armstrong..........1,178,348 vet minimum for 13 years.
Shawne Williams..........1,139,800
David Harrison...............960,840
Josh Powell...................744,551 not guaranteed
Rawle Marshall...............664,209 not guaranteed
Orien Greene.................664,209
James White..................664,209 est.

Total.........................52,395,852

Exceptions count against the cap just as player salaries do. We have 4 exceptions.

7,500,000 Peja trade exception.
..535,791 remaining from the James Jones trade exception. Expires 08-25-06.
5,215,000 Mid level Exception.
1,750,000 Biennial Exception.

Total....................... 15,000,791

Salaries plus exceptions equal 67,396,643.

The salary cap for the coming year is set at $53.135 million. So even if we renounced all of our exceptions we would be less than a million dollars under the salary cap.

53,135,000 salary cap.
52,395,852 player salaries.
-------------------------
739,148 under the cap.

Observation #1
Looking at the figures there is no way the Pacers can get far enough under the cap to sign Al Harrington out right. For the Pacers to get Al it has to be a sign and trade or Al would have to accept the mid-level exception.

Now lets look at player salaries with Al added.

PLAYER SALARIES
Jermaine O'Neal..........18,084,000
Al Harrington................7,600,000 (Trade exception plus 100,000)
Steven Jackson............6,080,000
Marquis Daniels............5,883,600
Jamaal Tinsley.............5,714,286
Jeff Foster..................5,200,000
Sarunas Jasikevicius.....4,000,000
Danny Granger.............1,417,800
Darrel Armstrong..........1,178,348 vet minimum for 13 years
Shawne Williams..........1,139,800
David Harrison...............960,840
Josh Powell...................744,551
Rawle Marshall...............664,209
Orien Greene.................664,209
James White..................664,209 est.

Total.........................59,999,852

The luxury tax level is 65.42 million for the coming year.

65,420,000 The point where the luxury tax kicks in.
59,999,852 player salaries.
-------------------------
5,420,148 under the luxury tax.

Observation #2.
We could use all the mid level exception and still be under the luxury tax.

Observation #3.
The reason for the rumors we might waive Josh Powell and Rawle Marshall might be so we could sign Scott Pollard to the vet minimum (1,071,225 for 9 years) and still use the full mid level exception and stay under the luxury tax threshold.

With Pollard signed and and a player signed to the full mid level we would have 17 players so we would have to get rid of two players anyway. That would likely be Josh Powell and Rawle Marshall because their contracts are not guaranteed.

SycamoreKen
07-24-2006, 02:14 AM
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I thought someone posted that we used the Jones exception to sign Greene?

Will Galen
07-24-2006, 02:18 AM
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I thought someone posted that we used the Jones exception to sign Greene?

We picked him up off of waivers.

Pacers Pick Up Greene

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/greene_signed_060709.html
By Conrad Brunner | July 9, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pacers added point guard Orien Greene to their roster Sunday. The former Celtics reserve will join the team in Orlando, where the Pacers begin summer-league play Monday, but it is uncertain if he will play. The Pacers have 15 players on their summer-league roster.
The 6-4 Greene was a second-round pick of the Celtics in 2005 from Louisiana-Lafayette and appeared in 80 games as a rookie, averaging 15.4 minutes, 3.2 points and 1.6 assists.

He was waived after the Celtics picked up two point guards on draft night, selecting Rajon Rondo of Kentucky and acquiring Sebastian Telfair in a trade with Portland.

Robertmto
07-24-2006, 02:26 AM
We picked him up off of waivers.

Waivers aint free ya know. We did use the TE

http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=433904&postcount=2

Will Galen
07-24-2006, 02:32 AM
Waivers aint free ya know. We did use the TE

http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=433904&postcount=2

Ah . . . I didn't have him down as free. Anyway thanks, I'll edit my post.

Robertmto
07-24-2006, 02:34 AM
Ah . . . I didn't have him down as free. Anyway thanks, I'll edit my post.

no problem

Hicks
07-24-2006, 02:36 AM
Since when does the MLE count against the cap if you don't use it? That doesn't make any sense.

Naptown_Seth
07-24-2006, 02:40 AM
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I thought someone posted that we used the Jones exception to sign Greene?They did. edit - WG fixed it, but I did some work here so I'll leave my response. :)

Greene was on WAIVERS and as I understand it you claim him at the salary he was getting by the team that waived him. Was Boston only paying him the minimum? I didn't realize that, I thought he was getting a little more.

Anyway, all this means is that PART of the JJ TE has been used, whatever the difference between Greene's salary with Boston for year 2 (664 is league min for signing a player with 1 year experience, but that's not what Indy did here).

I found this on his Boston contract (ledger.southofboston.com)

the Celtics offered him a three-year, $1.8 million contract
Off of waivers the Pacers pick up the last 2 years of that deal. From the SalaryCap FAQ (Larry Coon)

If a player on waivers is claimed, the new team acquires his existing contract and pays the remainder of his salary.
and

A team can claim a waived player only if one of the following is true:
(#3) The team has a Traded Player exception for at least the player's salary



Another slight mistake here is assuming that Armstrong does not retire. If he does Indy does not have to pay him, and if they don't then he comes off the cap. Whatever you pay to a retired player counts vs the cap, but only if you pay them (like Reggie or James Worthy got).

In essence a retiring Armstrong allows the Mavs to receive salary in the form of AJ without the Pacers really having to take any back. Mavs get something for nothing, Pacers get salary relief and perhaps something to use toward another situation.




The salary cap for the coming year is set at $53.135 million. So even if we renounced all of our exceptions we would be less than a million dollars under the salary cap.
You don't "renounce" exceptions, you LOSE THEM if you go under the cap. Yes, even the traded player exceptions. They are called EXCEPTIONS meaning exceptions you get if you are over the cap that allow you to do moves when the cap says you shouldn't be able to. They are spaces in the cap in which you can add salary when the cap says you aren't supposed to be able to add any more. You can't combine them either. And the space + 25% you get when you send a player(s) out is considered another exception, so no combining a player's salary (an exception) with the MLE or TE.

If you are under the cap then there is no limit to have an exception for, at least in the sense of these.


Maybe it was at RATS, but I went through this in detail yesterday and it boils down to this, with Fred going out the Pacers can use the full MLE and stay under the tax. Going below the CAP would be horrible because it would cost them the 7.6m space they want to use for AL (or something at the very least). They are no way near going 7.6m under the cap to make up for losing that if they went a little under the cap even.

So this is about being above the cap, using the exceptions they can to the point of avoiding the lux tax. You get Al in, lose Fred and AJ, perhaps have Armstrong retire, use the MLE, all's well and you miss the lux tax. Heck, you still have room for the vet minimum in that case, even if you sign Pollard at his seniority value.

In fact DA would basically be getting the contract Pollard would get if he was signed. So it could be that he retires and Pollard takes his place against the cap.


Also, until Pollard signs with another team he counts against the Pacers cap. All FA's create "holds" on their last team's cap until they are signed (or the Pacers renounce their BIRD rights for resigning him as they did with Fred). Pollard counts 150% against the Pacers cap because he wasn't on a rookie contract and his salary was at or above the NBA average I believe. I could be wrong and if his salary was actually below the average then he counts at 200% of last years salary.

Anyway, if they do renounce then they can't use the Bird rights to give him a better deal, but they can still sign him to a league minimum deal. In this case it's likely their intention to do that, so it wouldn't hurt them. At this point they probably want to maintain their above cap status (in order to retain the TE and MLE) and want to hold on to all their options for signing him until they are sure that they do or don't want to keep him.

Will Galen
07-24-2006, 03:01 AM
Since when does the MLE count against the cap if you don't use it? That doesn't make any sense.

It's counted again the cap for purposes of signing players. It's not actually added to the payroll.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#20

20. How do exceptions count against the cap? Does being under the cap always mean that a team has room to sign free agents? Do teams ever lose their exceptions?

If a team is below the cap, then their Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or Traded Player exceptions are added to their team salary, and the league treats the team as though they are over the cap. This is to prevent a loophole, in a manner similar to free agent amounts (see question numbers 29, 30, 31, 32). A team can't act like they're under the cap and sign free agents using cap room, and then use their Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or Traded Player exceptions. Consequently, the exceptions are added to their team salary (putting the team over the cap) if the team is under the cap and adding the exceptions puts them over the cap. If a team is already over the cap, then the exceptions are not added to their team salary. There would be no point in doing so, since there is no cap room for signing free agents.
So it is not true that being under the cap necessarily means a team has room to sign free agents. For example, assume the cap is $49.5 million, and a team has $43 million committed to salaries. They also have a Mid-Level exception for $5 million and a Traded Player exception for $5.5 million. Even though their salaries put them $6.5 million under the cap, their exceptions are added to their salaries, putting them at $53.5 million, or $4 million over the cap. So they actually have no cap room to sign free agents, and must instead use their exceptions.

Teams have the option of renouncing their exceptions in order to claim the cap room. So in the example above, if the team renounced their Traded Player and Mid-Level exceptions, then the $10.5 million is taken off their team salary, which then totals $43 million, leaving them with $6.5 million of cap room which can then be used to sign free agent(s).


Starting January 10 of each season, the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual, Larry Bird, Early-Bird and Non-Bird exceptions begin to reduce in value. For example, if there are 180 days in the season, then these exceptions (if they are still unused) reduce by 1/180 of their initial value each day starting January 10. If a team uses their $5 million Mid-Level exception on February 1, then the exception is actually worth $4,361,111.


The Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and Traded Player exceptions may be lost entirely, or the team may never receive them to begin with. This happens when their team salary is so low that when the exceptions are added to the team salary, the sum is still below the salary cap. If the team salary is below this level when the exception arises, then the team doesn't get the exception. If the team salary ever drops below this level during the year, then any exceptions they had are lost.

For example, with a $49.5 million salary cap, assume it's the offseason, and a team has $41 million committed to salaries, along with a Mid-Level exception for $5 million, a Traded Player exception for $2.5 million, and an unrenounced free agent whose free agent amount is $2 million. Their salaries and exceptions total $50.5 million, or $1 million over the cap. What if their free agent signs with another team? The $2 million free agent amount comes off their cap, so their team salary drops to $48.5 million. This total is below the cap so the team loses its Mid-Level and Traded Player exceptions.

There is logic behind this. The whole idea behind an "exception" is that it is an exception to the rule which says a team has to be below the salary cap. In other words, an exception is a mechanism which allows a team to function above the cap. If a team isn't over the cap, then the concept of an exception is moot. Therefore, if a team's team salary ever drops this far, its exceptions go away. The effect is that a team may have either exceptions or cap room, but they can't have both.
----------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE=Naptown_Seth]

Another slight mistake here is assuming that Armstrong does not retire. If he does Indy does not have to pay him . . .

It's not a mistake to assume he's not going to retire. He said in one of his press confrences that he wanted to play one more year then go into coaching.


You don't "renounce" exceptions, you LOSE THEM if you go under the cap.

You only lose them if you go the amount of your total exceptions under the cap. If we go a million dollars under the cap we don't lose them, it has to be their total. We are under the cap right now and haven't lost them.

And teams can renounce exceptions.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#14

The combined amount of any Mid-Level, Bi-Annual, Disabled Player (see question number 19) or Traded Player exceptions (see question number 69) available to the team (see question number 20), if the team is under the salary cap. (Teams may renounce these exceptions, in which case they no longer are included in team salary.)

Naptown_Seth
07-24-2006, 03:16 AM
My mistake on the exceptions counting on cap status. I misunderstood Donnie Walsh in his press conference 2 weeks ago, he must have meant that it wasn't worth giving up (losing them in that sense) the exceptions. I also thought the FAQ had it in there, but obviously this contradicts it and I probably misread.

edit - I see what I misread now. I overlooked that in making this example he was already including the exceptions. Ooops.
:sorry:

For example, with a $49.5 million salary cap, assume it's the offseason, and a team has $41 million committed to salaries, along with a Mid-Level exception for $5 million, a Traded Player exception for $2.5 million, and an unrenounced free agent whose free agent amount is $2 million. Their salaries and exceptions total $50.5 million, or $1 million over the cap. What if their free agent signs with another team? The $2 million free agent amount comes off their cap, so their team salary drops to $48.5 million. This total is below the cap so the team loses its Mid-Level and Traded Player exceptions.

There is logic behind this. The whole idea behind an "exception" is that it is an exception to the rule which says a team has to be below the salary cap. In other words, an exception is a mechanism which allows a team to function above the cap. If a team isn't over the cap, then the concept of an exception is moot. Therefore, if a team's team salary ever drops this far, its exceptions go away. The effect is that a team may have either exceptions or cap room, but they can't have both.



On Armstrong, I do think its a mistake to assume he won't retire. I'm not saying its right to assume he will either. My point is that from our view the team could have something planned with that either way, it could be that DA has an understanding now behind the scenes. So for the sake of looking at salary situation I think you look at it the same as considering if they will resign Pollard or not.


Anyway, at least I was right about the Pollard on the cap still thing. ;) What was the average salary last year because I don't know. :confused:

Will Galen
07-24-2006, 03:25 AM
What was the average salary last year because I don't know. :confused:

I don't remember either. Let me Goggle it.

According to Wikipedia, "The mid-level exception in 2004-05 was $4.9 million, while in 2005-06 it is $5 million under the terms of the new CBA."

Naptown_Seth
07-24-2006, 06:31 AM
I don't remember either. Let me Goggle it.

According to Wikipedia, "The mid-level exception in 2004-05 was $4.9 million, while in 2005-06 it is $5 million under the terms of the new CBA."
:dunce: I am an idiot. I forgot the last CBA put the MLE at average right off the bat, so that knowing the MLE answered the question. Its basically the point of the MLE. :)


Pollard at 6.270 last season, goes to 9.405 (150%) against the cap as an FA hold then. One thing is certain, good guy or not, he ain't getting that 6.2 again.

:sadbanana
:pollard:

Anthem
07-24-2006, 08:40 AM
Exceptions count against the cap, but not against the LT barrier. So for a team already over the cap, it's essentially meaningless to worry about exceptions. They're only a problem if they're under the cap.

Naptown_Seth
07-24-2006, 02:47 PM
Exceptions count against the cap, but not against the LT barrier. So for a team already over the cap, it's essentially meaningless to worry about exceptions. They're only a problem if they're under the cap.
I think you misunderstood the tract of the discussion. The point was to look at where the Pacers were technically speaking (which is why you count Pollard and the TE/MLE on the salary), and then see where they could get to downward and what they had to worry about upward.

If they sign players to those TE and MLE amounts they clearly do count toward the lux tax. ;) I'm certain that neither Will or I were saying otherwise, just considering "what if those exceptions are used on players".

The other side discussion was my misunderstanding that you couldn't give up your exceptions and that they didn't count toward your status as being over the cap, and therefore capable of keeping them. I was obviously wrong in thinking that. Will set me straight without ripping me, which I appreciate.

blanket
07-24-2006, 03:13 PM
I think that, unless we include one or both in a trade as filler, we'll take Powell and Marshall into training camp -- even if it's a 17/18-man roster -- and give them a look.

The real question here is whether or not the Pacers will use their Mid-Level or Biennial Exceptions. I expect them to sign one or two more free agents -- even if it's just Pollard -- but I have serious doubts we'll use the MLE. And if we do, I think we'd be more likely to split it or just use part of it rather than using it all on one player. Besides, what FAs are left that are worth the full MLE?. Since use of the MLE requires at least a 3-year contract, I don't see us extending that to anyone that's still available in free agency.

rel
07-24-2006, 03:17 PM
i don't see the point of waiving them, atleast see what they got

especially with the lack of big men we have, Powell is just that...

and Rawle looks like a decent prospect

Chauncey
07-24-2006, 03:50 PM
Rawle Marshall has played very well for the Mavs Summer league team

Yet he couldn't get playing time at Ball State under Buckley...hence a reason Buckley was fired

Since86
07-24-2006, 03:57 PM
Rawle Marshall has played very well for the Mavs Summer league team

Yet he couldn't get playing time at Ball State under Buckley...hence a reason Buckley was fired

Pssh, he was "reassigned.":rolleyes:

Will Galen
07-24-2006, 04:58 PM
I think that, unless we include one or both in a trade as filler, we'll take Powell and Marshall into training camp -- even if it's a 17/18-man roster -- and give them a look.

That's sensible and what I expect the Pacers to do. However they would have to really impress to be kept over someone with a guaranteed contract.

The thing is it's still early in the off season. We traded 1 player for three, we could reverse that and make a three for one player swap. More likely for us to trade two for one though since most of the people we want to trade make at least 4 million. (Saras $4m, Jax $6m, Tins $5.7m, Jeff $5.2 million.)

For instance, Jax and Saras for Maglorie works, and Tin's and Jeff for Andre Miller works. Those are just examples of how we could clear roster spots if we liked both or one of the new guys.

sixthman
07-24-2006, 05:42 PM
Since when does the MLE count against the cap if you don't use it? That doesn't make any sense.

I agree. If you are under the cap you have a choice when signing a player of using your cap space or the MLE, when the cap space is smaller than the MLE. But the MLE has nothing to do with determining one's cap position.

CableKC
07-24-2006, 06:00 PM
I'm too stupid to figure out all your mumbo-jumbo with big words and numbers. Given certain assumptions....that Powell and Marshall will be let go...and Pollard resigned for the Vet minimum....our roster and salaries is as follows:

PLAYER SALARIES
Jermaine O'Neal..........18,084,000
Al Harrington................7,600,000 (Trade exception plus 100,000)
Steven Jackson............6,080,000
Marquis Daniels............5,883,600
Jamaal Tinsley.............5,714,286
Jeff Foster..................5,200,000
Sarunas Jasikevicius.....4,000,000
Danny Granger.............1,417,800
Darrel Armstrong..........1,178,348 vet minimum for 13 years
Shawne Williams..........1,139,800
David Harrison...............960,840
Orien Greene.................664,209
James White..................664,209 est.
Scot Pollard.................1,071,225 est. vet minimum

That would total 59,665,877 for 14 players.

With the Luxury tax set at $65.42 million....does that mean that we can acquire a 15th player for anything less then $5.75 mil and still...technically...be under the Luxury Tax?

Will Galen
07-24-2006, 06:36 PM
I'm too stupid to figure out all your mumbo-jumbo with big words and numbers. Given certain assumptions....that Powell and Marshall will be let go...and Pollard resigned for the Vet minimum....our roster and salaries is as follows:

PLAYER SALARIES
Jermaine O'Neal..........18,084,000
Al Harrington................7,600,000 (Trade exception plus 100,000)
Steven Jackson............6,080,000
Marquis Daniels............5,883,600
Jamaal Tinsley.............5,714,286
Jeff Foster..................5,200,000
Sarunas Jasikevicius.....4,000,000
Danny Granger.............1,417,800
Darrel Armstrong..........1,178,348 vet minimum for 13 years
Shawne Williams..........1,139,800
David Harrison...............960,840
Orien Greene.................664,209
James White..................664,209 est.
Scot Pollard.................1,071,225 est. vet minimum

That would total 59,665,877 for 14 players.

With the Luxury tax set at $65.42 million....does that mean that we can acquire a 15th player for anything less then $5.75 mil and still...technically...be under the Luxury Tax?Yes.

blanket
07-24-2006, 06:43 PM
With the Luxury tax set at $65.42 million....does that mean that we can acquire a 15th player for anything less then $5.75 mil and still...technically...be under the Luxury Tax?

Yes... but is there a free agent still on the market who you'd give the full MLE to? (not including remaining free agents like Bonzi, Wilcox, Gooden, etc. who aren't likely to be had for only the MLE.)

Now, splitting it among multiple players might make some sense. Maybe a big like Van Horn or Ely, and a guard like Delk or Atkins. I'd like to have Delk's 3pt shooting...

Hicks
07-24-2006, 06:43 PM
The luxury tax is $65.42mm?? Wow, I thought it was something like $61.7mm

Either way, given those #s (which I think are all pretty good estimates), I don't see why shedding AJ for cash was necessary. Maybe it really was just to clear up the PG trio, as well as bring in a leader and possible future coach. And maybe some F prospects.

ChicagoJ
07-24-2006, 06:48 PM
What about next year's LT? AJ was traded for three expiring contracts.

I don't think anybody views these guys as anything more than training camp bodies. Sure, they've got potential, just like Jamison Brewer and Omar Cook.

JayRedd
07-24-2006, 10:19 PM
The luxury tax is $65.42mm?? Wow, I thought it was something like $61.7mm

Either way, given those #s (which I think are all pretty good estimates), I don't see why shedding AJ for cash was necessary. Maybe it really was just to clear up the PG trio, as well as bring in a leader and possible future coach. And maybe some F prospects.

I don't think it was so much a move to avoid next year's luxury tax. But Danny for sure needs to be given a fairly substantial contract in the near future. And I'm assuming Hulk is part of Larry's "five-year" plan as well. So shedding 2-3 million may seem like a headscratcher now, but it will help give us more flexibility in 2-3 years when we have $20 mil going to JO, $10 mil going to Baby Al, $8+ mil going to The Gift, and $5+ mil going to Harrison.

After all that, there's not a lot of money for 34 year old career backup PGs, when an Oriene Green, young'n on a rook contract will fill in just as well.

Naptown_Seth
07-25-2006, 02:14 AM
I agree. If you are under the cap you have a choice when signing a player of using your cap space or the MLE, when the cap space is smaller than the MLE. But the MLE has nothing to do with determining one's cap position.
As Will pointed out, it certainly does.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have both cap space AND ANY exception, MLE or otherwise. So no "choice" there.

The choice comes with chosing to GIVE UP your MLE (means you lose it for good that year) and if that gets you below the cap then you have whatever space is there.

It is impossible to get MORE cap space just be dropping exceptions however, because you don't get those exceptions if adding them into your salary cap figure doesn't put you over the cap. This is what Will straightened me out on.

So if you have the MLE let's say, then at best you are even with the cap WITH the MLE. So you recind it and it comes off your cap. Now you have cap space equal to the MLE, ie you didn't change anything for yourself other than MLE restrictions that cap space doesn't have.



I don't see why shedding AJ for cash was necessary
It clearly wasn't. My twist on the "refused physical" conspiracy theory makes more sense than that. It was really a bit of an odd move unless my crackpot view is correct OR AJ really was a problem in the Lroom, or both even.

I mean we are bringing up splitting the MLE, well heck, they could have traded AJ for some of those types of players and still cleared the logjam. Are we supposed to believe that the Pacers really wanted Armstrong specifically? Great guy, but a vet with 1 final year is the target? Odd.

Naptown_Seth
08-18-2006, 04:42 PM
:bump:

Thunderbird just joined up and PM'd be about the current salary situation, and I figure this thread is a good jumping off point to continue it.

No Al still, Pollard's hold off the books, signed Baston, minimal contract guarantee to Snap has been made. And didn't Powell's contract already hit the deadline to become guaranteed for 06-07, or was it Marshall's?

Only way to clear enough space to sign Al would be to move a player like Jack for no returning salary. This obviously wouldn't be to Atlanta or they would just make that straight up trade. Charlotte is the only team with cap space (or a TE big enough if anyone had one) to take on Jack without sending something back.


And that would still probably leave them $2m short or so.


Still seems strongly unlikely that this approach (clear cap space) is an option.

Frank Slade
08-18-2006, 04:50 PM
:bump:

Thunderbird just joined up and PM'd be about the current salary situation, and I figure this thread is a good jumping off point to continue it.

No Al still, Pollard's hold off the books, signed Baston, minimal contract guarantee to Snap has been made. And didn't Powell's contract already hit the deadline to become guaranteed for 06-07, or was it Marshall's?

Only way to clear enough space to sign Al would be to move a player like Jack for no returning salary. This obviously wouldn't be to Atlanta or they would just make that straight up trade. Charlotte is the only team with cap space (or a TE big enough if anyone had one) to take on Jack without sending something back.


And that would still probably leave them $2m short or so.


Still seems strongly unlikely that this approach (clear cap space) is an option.

Yes it was Marshall's contract that is now guaranteed, and Powell's won't be until Oct I believe. Bruno seemed to think that waiving both was a very possible option.

So are you suggesting the Pacers could be contemplating dumping salary to sign Al outright ?

Naptown_Seth
08-18-2006, 04:58 PM
Yes it was Marshall's contract that is now guaranteed, and Powell's won't be until Oct I believe. Bruno seemed to think that waiving both was a very possible option.

So are you suggesting the Pacers could be contemplating dumping salary to sign Al outright ?
No. T'Bird (who came over from RATS a couple of days ago) was asking about that possibility and I couldn't remember the exact numbers. Hoopshype and other places are a bit sketchy about the current cap situation so I bumped this up for him so he could see the numbers.


So we have to add on Marshall and Baston to the cap, which isn't a lot but still enough to be a problem even if the Pacers moved out a healthy chunk of salary to CHA.

Straight up deals for guys like Jack and Tinsley at a MAX drop of 25% still only reduces the cap situation by a few million, nothing like the 7-8 needed. Even trading JO for a max loss of salary only saves 4.5m or so.

And to get Al this way the Pacers would have to lose the MLE and TE (which they paid 250K to get).

Anthem
08-18-2006, 05:03 PM
Right. So basically, it ain't gonna happen (getting far enough under the cap to sign Al outright).

able
08-18-2006, 07:09 PM
1: we will not get far enough under the cap, impossible.
2: there are seperate rules for league minimum salaries, certainly where it concerns vet players where the league pays part and min. salary contracts with the exception of rookie contracts do not count against the cap.

capology is not a loose term.

Will Galen
08-18-2006, 07:37 PM
This is an update

Player.....................2006-07
Jermaine O'Neal........$18,084,000
Stephen Jackson.......$6,120,000
Marquis Daniels.........$5,880,000
Jamaal Tinsley..........$5,850,000
Jeff Foster...............$5,225,000
Sarunas Jasikevicius...$4,000,000
Danny Granger..........$1,417,800
Darrell Armstrong.......$1,178,348
Shawne Williams........$1,139,800 (2)
Maceo Baston...........$900,000 (1)
Josh Powell...............$744,551 (5)
David Harrison...........$739,080
Rawle Marshall...........$664,209
Orien Greene.............$664,209
Jimmy (Snap) Hunter...$412,718 (4)
James White..............$744,400 (3)

Total......................$53,764,115 (The luxary tax threshold is $65,420,000)


1 http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060804/SPORTS04/608040541/1088

2 Rookie scale

3 White reportedly got two years guaranteed, and it was reported by the Star he got 1st round money. So my guess is he got the same money as the 30th pick. http://www.blackathlete.net/artman/publish/article_02082.shtml

4 Hunter received $100,000 guaranteed of a most likely minimum contract.

5 Not guaranteed.


Adding Al and Edwards to our payroll would have put us at}

Currant payroll....$53,764,115
Edwards............$1,080,000
Al.....................$7,600,000
----------------------------
Total................$62,444,115

thunderbird1245
08-18-2006, 10:09 PM
This is an update

Player.....................2006-07
Jermaine O'Neal........$18,084,000
Stephen Jackson.......$6,120,000
Marquis Daniels.........$5,880,000
Jamaal Tinsley..........$5,850,000
Jeff Foster...............$5,225,000
Sarunas Jasikevicius...$4,000,000
Danny Granger..........$1,417,800
Darrell Armstrong.......$1,178,348
Shawne Williams........$1,139,800 (2)
Maceo Baston...........$900,000 (1)
Josh Powell...............$744,551 (5)
David Harrison...........$739,080
Rawle Marshall...........$664,209
Orien Greene.............$664,209
Jimmy (Snap) Hunter...$412,718 (4)
James White..............$744,400 (3)

Total......................$53,764,115 (The luxary tax threshold is $65,420,000)


1 http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060804/SPORTS04/608040541/1088

2 Rookie scale

3 White reportedly got two years guaranteed, and it was reported by the Star he got 1st round money. So my guess is he got the same money as the 30th pick. http://www.blackathlete.net/artman/publish/article_02082.shtml

4 Hunter received $100,000 guaranteed of a most likely minimum contract.

5 Not guaranteed.


Adding Al and Edwards to our payroll would have put us at}

Currant payroll....$53,764,115
Edwards............$1,080,000
Al.....................$7,600,000
----------------------------
Total................$62,444,115

Thanks to Naptown Seth and Will Galen for all their explanations and research to put in this thread. It would seem we are one big salary dump away from being able to do something creative, along with having to "renounce" the rights to about 4 players. Probably won't happen I agree. However, I have a couple of questions to the CBA experts on the board:

1. If we were to "renounce" the contracts of say....Powell, Marshall, Greene, Hunter, and Armstrong, what are the exact rules of resigning them later, after we've theoretically signed Al? The total of those contracts, if ive added correctly, is $3, 664, 035. Remember that number as I ask my second question.

2. Having no clue if this rumor the other day was true (I dismissed it mainly, but lets go with it for a sec)....what if Sarunas was unhappy enough to want to return to Maccabi Tel-Aviv? If there was a buyout situation there, would his 4 million not also come off our cap figure? What are the rules in the CBA as far as a buyout from a foreign entity like the Euroleague?

Theoretically formula for signing Al then would go like this:

Salaries from 5 guys "renounced" above + Sarunas contract total = Al

3.664035 Million + 4 million + extra money under cap (neglible but still there) = approx 8 million first year salary to give to Harrington.

Pacers would have to renounce their Bi Annual exception and MLE, and would limits Im sure on resigning the 5 guys we "renounced" in order to do this. Is this even remotely a possibility?

ChicagoJ
08-18-2006, 11:06 PM
I think the only thing you can renounce is the right to sign your own FA.

You could cut some of those guys and only have to pay the guaranteed portion. And I still think that will happen with Powell and Marshall (but I think they'll be used as training camp bodies.)

But why in the world would the Pacers commit money for Greene, Hunter and Baston in one month and waive them the next month? For that matter, why in the world would the Pacers commit money to Greene, Hunter and Baston this early in the summer anyway? I guess I still see five guys that "shouldn't" make the roster plus Armstrong is going to be more of an assistant coach anyway.

Naptown_Seth
08-19-2006, 05:31 AM
Yes, if a contract is guaranteed then you take the cap hit regardless. And while I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head, there are intentionally created restrictions on renouncing rights and then resigning players.

The CBA is designed to prevent exactly what you have in mind.


Now SarJas just walking away for Maccabi is a different situation. I think it would have to do with if he signed with them or not. A player that DIES (like Collier) still is a cap hit for a period of time, so its very tough to free yourself of contracts against the cap.


Thanks to Will for updating the roster salary situation, which will still be handy for future discussions. However according to Harrington the deal failed based on the number of YEARS the Pacers were willing to give him, not Atlanta's demands. So that makes the point of getting below the cap moot, at least to acquire him.

ChicagoJ
08-19-2006, 11:37 AM
Don't the NBA and FIBA have recipricol non-competes to prevent the raiding of players under contract? Saras is under contract to the Pacers. He must buy himself out of that contract before he just up-and-leaves for Europe. Maybe his Euro-suiters can afford the buyout, and maybe they can't.

The Pacers have a lot of AB's (Adult Boomer's) airplane tickets and hotel nights to get reimbursed for on this investement-gone-screwy.

Naptown_Seth
08-19-2006, 06:18 PM
Don't the NBA and FIBA have recipricol non-competes to prevent the raiding of players under contract? Saras is under contract to the Pacers. He must buy himself out of that contract before he just up-and-leaves for Europe. Maybe his Euro-suiters can afford the buyout, and maybe they can't.

The Pacers have a lot of AB's (Adult Boomer's) airplane tickets and hotel nights to get reimbursed for on this investement-gone-screwy.

What I mean by leave is in cap terms. If he is bought out, does he come off the cap? I assume so, but I don't know the rules on that stuff.

I agree that it's not likely and is more wishful thinking on his part than a real option.