Interesting tidbit from Chad Ford's article about the new CBA

[Skins4Life]

Second, each team will be given a one-time option this summer to waive one player from its roster and receive luxury tax relief. The team will still have to pay the player and his salary will still count against the cap, but the team won't have to pay a luxury tax on his salary. For example, the Knicks' Allan Houston might a candidate to be waived because of this rule.

[Shaver]

Re: Interesting tidbit from Chad Ford's article about the new CBA

Someone give this man a prize... he actually found a way to work "Interesting" and "Chad Ford" into the same sentence.



We would have also accepted "Here's an interesting way that I've thought of killing Chad Ford"......

or...

"It's interesting how Chad Ford can type with his head completely up his ***."

[tenth]

Re: Interesting tidbit from Chad Ford's article about the new CBA

[Dynasty4Kobe]

Re: Interesting tidbit from Chad Ford's article about the new CBA

I read this too, but I don't quite get it. The article said that the Lakers could be a major player in the 2006 Offseason free agency market if they waive off Brian Grant's contract. But if it still goes against the cap, then how exactly does it free up cap space?

[Skins4Life]

Re: Interesting tidbit from Chad Ford's article about the new CBA

I read this too, but I don't quite get it. The article said that the Lakers could be a major player in the 2006 Offseason free agency market if they waive off Brian Grant's contract. But if it still goes against the cap, then how exactly does it free up cap space?

It doesnt free up cap space, it more or less helps if you are over the luxory tax.

What are waivers?
It's a temporary status for players who are released by their team. A player released between August 15th and the end of the regular season stays on waivers for 48 hours. A player released at any other time stays on waivers for 10 days. During the waiver period other teams may claim a waived player. If more than one team tries to claim the player, the team with the worst record gets him. If a player on waivers is claimed, the new team acquires his existing contract and pays the remainder of his salary. There is also a fee of $1,000, payable to the league office, for claiming a waived player.

A team can claim a waived player only if one of the following is true:

The team is far enough under the salary cap to fit the player's entire salary.


The team has a disabled player exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 17 ).


The team has a trade exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 68 ).


The player's contract is for one or two seasons and he is paid the minimum salary.
If no team claims a waived player, he is said to have "cleared waivers." The player may sign with the team of his choice at that point. The player's new team only pays the pro-rated minimum salary to the player. The player's original team continues to pay the balance of the player's salary. For this reason, few players are actually claimed while on waivers.

If a player is waived after March 1, he is ineligible to be included in the playoff roster of any team that signs him for the remainder of that season.
-----

Heres a question. Does that mean the Pacers could waive Croshere, then after he clears waivers resign him to the minimum salary and thus get the tax relief?

No one will claim him on waivers so he can then sign with the team of his choice. If he resigned with the Pacers they would still pay him all his money but his salary over the minimum wouldn't count for tax purposes.

This loophole will probably be closed by not letting the player sign with the team that waived him. Of course I see nothing wrong with letting the player sign with any team. After all it's just a device for teams not to pay the luxury tax, so what difference does it make.

[tenth]

Re: Interesting tidbit from Chad Ford's article about the new CBA

I read this too, but I don't quite get it. The article said that the Lakers could be a major player in the 2006 Offseason free agency market if they waive off Brian Grant's contract. But if it still goes against the cap, then how exactly does it free up cap space?

You're right. The caps supposed to come in at around 50 million. The Lakers have nearly 65 million in payroll for next season. Waving Grant's ~15 mill only puts them right at the cap.

They'd only save that marginal amount they'd be over the luxury tax threshold, which has no impact on their ability to sign free agents.

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: Interesting tidbit from Chad Ford's article about the new CBA

Second, each team will be given a one-time option this summer to waive one player from its roster and receive luxury tax relief. The team will still have to pay the player and his salary will still count against the cap, but the team won't have to pay a luxury tax on his salary. For example, the Knicks' Allan Houston might a candidate to be waived because of this rule.

WOOOHOOO!!!

[Vince]

Re: Interesting tidbit from Chad Ford's article about the new CBA

This is great. Now we can waive Jalen Rose!

[Pointguard]

Re: Interesting tidbit from Chad Ford's article about the new CBA

You're right. The caps supposed to come in at around 50 million. The Lakers have nearly 65 million in payroll for next season. Waving Grant's ~15 mill only puts them right at the cap.

They'd only save that marginal amount they'd be over the luxury tax threshold, which has no impact on their ability to sign free agents.

This rule wont help LA or any team get cap space.

It helps the owners save money.

[tenth]

Re: Interesting tidbit from Chad Ford's article about the new CBA

This rule wont help LA or any team get cap space.

It helps the owners save money.

Was more contemplating a "what if" scenario even if it the waive did clear cap space, although apparently I left that out of the post, lol.

I haven't heard any number on where the luxury tax number will be, but I'm pretty positive there's always been a fair amount of room between the cap and the theoretical luxury tax number, which means it probably wouldn't help out teams like the Lakers much, if at all, in saving money off of overpaid players. If the tax comes in at $60 million (guesstimation), they could only save a maximum of 5 million. It's really only important to the top spenders of the league.