Salary Dumping; Spurs might dump Rasho?

[usckk]

Sam Smith for the Chicago Tribune

Link (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/printedition/cs-0506270012jun27,1,2620359.column?coll=cs-sports-print&ctrack=1&cset=true)

"The headlines in the new NBA labor agreement were the age minimum of 19, increased drug testing and the development of a full minor league. But a little-discussed clause could prove a boon to title-contending teams and even teams like the Bulls, which have limited financial flexibility."

"The clause allows teams to waive high-salaried players on a one-time-only basis and escape serious consequences under the luxury tax imposed on high-salaried teams."


"The Spurs probably will look to deal--or perhaps buy out--Rasho Nesterovic, who played little in the playoffs after being replaced by Nzar Mohammed. Argentinean power forward Luis Scola is expected to come aboard. ... "

[Marcus Bryant]

Puro Holt Cat.

I know I've had my complaints about Radoslav but he isn't that bad. Teams are always in need of a decent starting center. He has 4 years and roughly $30 mil left on his deal right now. That's not horrible for a NBA big with his skill.

[ducks]

spurs buy out rasho wtf?

[mookie2001]

seems foolish

[Kori Ellis]

I don't trust an article that can't even spell Nazr.

[usckk]

haha.

[Marcus Bryant]

I haven't looked at the projected salaries recently but even with TP's extension it doesn't seem like they would be hitting the lux tax threshold anytime soon.

[Kori Ellis]

I don't see why the Spurs would even consider just dumping Rasho when he can be easily traded. Last season there were a lot of offers for Rasho (when the Spurs were trying to trade Malik) and the Spurs turned them down.

So if they really want to, they can trade Rasho and don't need to waive him.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, the argument for releasing him would be that in order to trade him they would have to take back contracts with some years left on them.

[Kori Ellis]

Well, the argument for releasing him would be that in order to trade him they would have to take back contracts with some years left on them.

Yeah, I understand that, but they are over the cap for years to come anyway. They won't be creating cap space. I also think they could get someone that would actually play in return (if that's what they want to do). Being a 7 foot body in the NBA is worth more than some people think.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

What do you expect, the guy's from Chicago. For as good as they've been lately there's not exactly a stellar history of front office genius running through the Bulls franchise.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah, I understand that, but they are over the cap for years to come anyway. They won't be creating cap space. I also think they could get someone that would actually play in return (if that's what they want to do). Being a 7 foot body in the NBA is worth more than some people think.


I was thinking more along the lines that they would be looking at releasing Rasho to reduce their potential lux tax exposure over the next few years so taking back contracts with a number of years on them would kind of defeat that purpose.

[desflood]

I see the "ditch Rasho" threads are out in full force today!

[Solid D]

Several teams are dumping salaries because they are over the lux tax and it's a one-time escape. Example, Mark Cuban dumping $51M salary of Michael Finley so that he doesn't have to pay the same amount in lux tax.

That's why Peter Holt has always held the line on not going over the line on salaries. If a team like the Knicks goes over $50-60-70 Meg, then they are out double that in payouts.

The Spurs aren't over. Is the clause there for teams already over the cap or for teams that intentionally go over in the new CBA year and then wish to dump? If it's the former, then Sam's article doesn't fit.

[Kori Ellis]

I was thinking more along the lines that they would be looking at releasing Rasho to reduce their potential lux tax exposure over the next few years so taking back contracts with a number of years on them would kind of defeat that purpose.

Yeah, if they took back a contract as long or longer than Rasho's, then maybe. Who knows if they'll be close to paying luxury tax. It depends on who gets signed this season (i.e. Nazr). I just know that there's probably enough interest in Rasho that they don't have to take back that bad of a contract.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, the argument for releasing him would be that in order to trade him they would have to take back contracts with some years left on them.Or trade with a team under the cap -- I think Cleveland would be a prime candidate for this kind of deal.
The Spurs aren't over. Is the clause there for teams already over the cap or for teams that intentionally go over in the new CBA year and then wish to dump? If it's the former, then Sam's article doesn't fit.That's my understading.
I don't trust an article that can't even spell Nazr.I don't trust an article with a Sam Smith byline.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well sure, if they could deal him to a team and not have to eat $30 mil they would. But if that isn't available and Holt Cat is 'fraid of the lux tax...

[spur219]

What offers were made for Rasho Kori?

[GoSpurs21]

I cant see the Spurs buying out Rashos contract when he can be traded. I just dont see Holt throwing away 30M.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

People (idiots like Sam Smith included) seem to underestimate what a serviceable center in this league can get back in return value.

I don't see Rasho staying here for the duration of his contract, but I don't see Holt Cat eating 30 million+ in salary, either.

Golden State, Atlanta, New Orleans, all are looking for a center.

[Marcus Bryant]

The Spurs are in a rather nice position. They don't have to move Rasho. Their bigman rotation is pretty well set without him (TD-Nazr-Horry-Scola). His contract is quite reasonable for a bigman.

Unless someone came along with a too good to pass up offer for him or a need becomes too glaring to ignore (ie SF) I think the Spurs should keep him.