PDA

View Full Version : Ford: The Allan Houston Rule



timvp
07-25-2005, 12:38 PM
Celtics, Lakers, Sixers need 'Allan Houston rule'
By Chad Ford
ESPN Insider

The "Allan Houston Rule" allows teams a one-time opportunity to release a player and avoid paying the luxury tax on his salary.

The teams asked for the rule as part of the collective bargaining agreement, and it gives teams a unique opportunity to save money now and in the future that could be better spent on bringing in players.

But now that they have it, most teams, it appears, will shun the opportunity, including several teams in danger of paying the luxury tax this season and in future seasons.

Here is our team-by-team report, based on conversations with a number of team executives, that reveals what each team is expected to do, and what each team should do.

Note: Salaries are estimated numbers, as of the morning of July 25, based on committed payroll and updated to reflect recent agreements on free agents and trades. Salaries in red denote teams that are expected to have to pay the luxury tax (expected to start at between $60-64 million) for next season.

The Allan Houston Rule: Team-By-Team Analysis

Team Salaries Potential cuts

Atlanta Hawks $25M None
The Hawks don't have a lot going for them right now. However, one thing they do have is an absence of bad contracts. GM Billy Knight has done a good job of stripping the books of any long-term deals. They have zero use for the amnesty rule.

Boston Celtics $51M Mark Blount
The Celtics have two pretty bad contracts on the books and are dangerously close to paying the luxury tax. Raef LaFrentz has the worst contract, with four years, $47 million remaining on his deal. However, he still a productive player when he's healthy. Blount signed a six-year deal at the mid-level last summer, and it immediately looked as though the Celtics had made a mistake. He was a major disappointment and the Celtics could use relief from the five years, $33 million remaining on his contract. Dumping Blount would be admitting an expensive mistake, but it could also free up the Celtics to spend more money down the road.

Charlotte Bobcats $25M None
GM Bernie Bickerstaff has kept the Bobcats' payroll thin so they'll have big cap room going into summer 2006. The Bobcats have zero bad contracts on their books and no real use for the amnesty rule.

Chicago Bulls $36M None
GM John Paxson has done a great job of getting the Bulls' books in order. The Bulls should have major cap room in 2006 if they don't go hog wild re-signing Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler this summer. They don't have any bad contracts left on the books and won't need to use the amnesty clause.

Cleveland Cavaliers $46M Eric Snow
This is a tough one. The Cavs' payroll is under control, but they do have a bad contract they could dump. Snow has four years, $25 million left, and his talent doesn't justify that. Then again, he is the Cavs' only point guard, is a solid veteran presence and still can play defense. If the Cavs aspire to make a run at a championship this year, dumping Snow wouldn't be smart. However, if the team wants maximum flexibility in the future, he would be worth cutting.

Dallas Mavericks $88M Michael Finley
Owner Mark Cuban loves Michael Finley, but he might have little choice but to waive him. The Mavs are hopelessly over the luxury tax threshold and could save as much as $51 million in tax penalties by letting him go. Cuban was a carefree spender his first few years in the league, but he has gotten more conservative lately. As good as Finley has been, there's no way he's worth the extra $51 million in taxes. Look for Finley to be the most sought-after amnesty-rule casualty.

Denver Nuggets $44M Eduardo Najera
The Nuggets made a slight misstep in February when they traded the expiring contracts of Nikoloz Tskitishvili and Rodney White for Najera. Not only did his contract prevent them from getting far enough under the cap to make a run at a top free agent, it also could hurt them down the road as they continue to make forays into the free-agent market. Najera's a nice hustle player, but he's not really worth the three years, $13 million he has left on his contract. I'm not sure the Nuggets will waive him, but they probably should.

Detroit Pistons $54M None
President Joe Dumars has done a great job of keeping a winner on the floor without overpaying for players. The only contract on the books that could be considered bad is Rasheed Wallace's. Wallace is due $50 million over the next four years, and with Larry Brown's leaving the Pistons, it's unclear whether Wallace will continue to stay under control. Still, it's highly unlikely that the Pistons would waive Wallace, and given their cap position the next few seasons, they probably don't have to.

Golden State Warriors $56M Adonal Foyle or
Derek Fisher
The Warriors look as though they're on the cusp of being a playoff team, but a couple of rookie mistakes by GM Chris Mullin might come back to haunt them. Mullin gave huge deals to Foyle and Fisher last summer. Foyle has four years, $35 million left on his contract. Fisher has five years, $32 million left on his. Although both players provide a veteran presence on a young roster, they can't produce at the rate they're getting paid. If the Warriors are going to avoid future luxury tax problems and retain some flexibility to use their mid-level exception down the road, they'll need to swallow their pride and let one of these players go this summer. Look for it to be Fisher. Although he was more productive than Foyle last season, his contract is longer and the Warriors need him less.

Houston Rockets $59M Clarence Weatherspoon or Juwan Howard
The Rockets have done a good job of ridding their team of bad long-term contracts. Only two, Weatherspoon's (1 year, $6.4 million) and Howard's (four years, $26.5 million), remain on the books. Given their current tax situation, the Rockets could just dump Weatherspoon and be done with it. As it stands the Rockets will be under the cap next season. But long term, they need to seriously consider Howard. With Yao Ming entering extension talks soon and the recent signing of Stromile Swift, they might want to get Howard's contract out of the way to facilitate a large payroll bump in the coming years.

Indiana Pacers $78M Austin Croshere or
Reggie Miller
The Pacers are a small-market team with a large-market payroll. They certainly have an excuse to take advantage of the amnesty rule. Croshere is the most obvious candidate. He has two years, $15.2 million on his contract and hasn't lived up to expectations. However, team president Larry Bird loves Croshere and the Pacers have made it clear that they're going for a title this summer. Dumping a player, even a role player, doesn't necessarily fit with that goal. The team also could choose to dump Reggie Miller's contract -- since he's retiring anyway. But the savings would be much more modest with that move.

Los Angeles Clippers $40M None
Give Donald Sterling some credit for being a cheapskate. When you hardly ever sign free agents (including your own), and seldom trade for a big contract, you don't have too many bad deals on the books, and you don't pay the luxury tax.

Los Angeles Lakers $69M Brian Grant
The Lakers are another year away from getting big-time cap/tax relief, but you can expect owner Jerry Buss to start the party early. Grant didn't play a big role in L.A. last season and isn't worth the two years, $30 million left on his contract. Given that the Lakers are already in luxury tax land, and they've brought in Kwame Brown and rookie Andrew Bynum to patrol the paint, this one seems to be a slam dunk.

Memphis Grizzlies $65M Brian Cardinal
Owner Michael Heisley wants the team to start trimming the payroll. The Grizzlies can get under the luxury tax threshold by doing nothing this summer. Unfortunately for Grizz fans, that means letting three important role players -- Stromile Swift, Earl Watson and Bonzi Wells -- walk out the door. Still, the Grizzlies might need to swallow their pride and let Cardinal walk, as well. The five-year span (totaling $29 million) left on his contract is too much to bear and takes away any cap flexibility the Grizzlies might have for future signings. Cardinal is a great asset at 1 or 2 million a year, but not at 6 million apiece.

Miami Heat $63M None
You'd think the Heat would dump Eddie Jones and the two years, $30 million left on his contract. Although Jones is still productive, cutting him would provide great savings and flexibility to keep spending. However, the Heat are determined to make a run at an NBA title this coming season. With Shaq not getting any younger, the window is closing. Jones might not be earning his paycheck these days, but he's an integral part of the team. Pat Riley insists that the Heat won't waive him, luxury tax be damned.

Milwaukee Bucks $57M Calvin Booth
GM Larry Harris went on a spending spree this summer. Once you factor in the new contracts for Michael Redd, Bobby Simmons, Dan Gadzuric, Andrew Bogut and possibly Zaza Pachulia, the Bucks will be looking at a payroll that comes very near the luxury tax threshold. If the team wants to retain any flexibility, it'll dump the two years, $13 million of Booth's contract. He is unnecessary, given the pieces the Bucks have acquired, and could save them a tax payment next season should the team decide to add another player with the mid-level exception.

Minnesota Timberwolves $58M Troy Hudson
Minnesota is trying its best to trade away Sam Cassell and Hudson. Cassell shouldn't be too hard to move, being in the last year of his deal and still productive (though temperamental). No team, however, wants to pay the $29 million (for five years) left on Hudson's deal. That puts the Timberwovles in a quandary. Given their problems at the point, they probably need Hudson. But he's so overpaid as a backup that the team is likely to invoke the luxury tax if it spends any more money. This one is really a toss-up.

New Jersey Nets $59M None
President Rod Thorn and GM Ed Stefanski have done a great job assembling the Nets and doing it in a cost-conscious way. They wisely resisted the temptation to pay Kenyon Martin the max and now have landed a better player (Shareef Abdur-Rahim) for half the cash. The truth is that the Nets have no bad deals on the books and therefore no use for the amnesty rule.

New Orleans Hornets $37M None
The Hornets are well under the cap and don't need to take advantage of the rule. The closest thing they have to a bad contract is the two years, $16 million left on P.J. Brown's contract. However, Brown is veteran role model and a local celeb who is providing solid production, so look for them to keep him around.

New York Knicks $120M Allan Houston
Well, it's called the Allan Houston rule. However, we could call it the New York Knicks rule -- because most of the roster Isiah Thomas has assembled needs to be discarded under the amnesty provision. Though, to be fair, Thomas didn't sign Houston to his monstrous contract. By waiving Houston, the Knicks will save $40 million in luxury tax fees over the next two years. We'll see whether they use it wisely.

Orlando Magic $73M Doug Christie
Christie was one of former GM John Weisbrod's biggest missteps. The Magic needed Cuttino Mobley more than they realized, and Christie didn't want to play in Orlando. He has asked for a trade. The problem is that no one is beating down the door to pay him $8.2 million next season. The Magic will be taxpayers next year, and the $8.2 million in savings will be worth losing Christie. There's talk that Grant Hill would be a more financially prudent way to go, given that the Magic could save $32.5 million in tax penalties by waiving him. The problem is that fans and the media would stage a revolt. And after years of rehabbing a bad ankle, Hill is finally earning his salary.

Philadelphia 76ers $82M Aaron McKie
Their payroll is already out of control and they added another $16 million by agreeing to terms with Samuel Dalembert, Kyle Korver and Willie Green in free agency. That puts gives them a payroll of nearly $82 million. Chris Webber has a terrible contract. He has 3 years, $62 million left and no one believes he's going to be able to earn it. However, the Sixers just traded for him in February and with new head coach Mo Cheeks running the show, they believe they'll be able to get some value out of Webber for the next couple of years. McKie was once a solid role player, but he's way past his prime. He turns 33 in October, and there's no way the Sixers can justify keeping the three years, $20 million left on his contract on the books. The team would save $20 million in luxury tax penalties by letting him go.

Phoenix Suns $52M None
The Suns purged their roster 18 months ago, ridding themselves of all their bad contracts. They really don't have anyone to waive. However, if they're forced to match a Hawks' max offer for Joe Johnson, they're looking at a potential $64 million payroll next season, which means they're likely to be taxpayers.

Portland Trail Blazers $55M Derek Anderson or Theo Ratliff
GM John Nash says the team has no intention of dumping Ratliff. Maybe that's because Nash signed Ratliff to a ridiculous three-year, $35 million extension last summer. With owner Paul Allen preaching fiscal responsibility and a host of young players starving for playing time, Ratliff looks like a luxury the Blazers no longer can afford. Instead, look for the Blazers to dump Anderson who, mostly because of injuries, has been a big disappointment in Portland. Dropping Anderson would save the Blazers $18 million in luxury tax penalties over the next two seasons.

Sacramento Kings $58M None
Some will argue that Kenny Thomas and Brian Skinner are overpaid, but the truth is that neither is in serious danger of being waived. Look for the Kings to sit this one out.

San Antonio Spurs $59M Rasho Nesterovic
The Spurs tried to pawn off Nesterovic to the Blazers for Abdur-Rahim but look as though they're now out of luck. Given where their payroll seems to be heading, they might want to get out of the four years, $30 million left on Nesterovic's deal before it's too late.

Seattle SuperSonics $39M Danny Fortson
The Sonics are not in danger of paying the luxury tax unless they start spending like crazy for their remaining free agents. Fortson is the only guy in danger of being waived. He's an excellent rebounder who nonetheless seems to fall out of favor with every team he plays for. He has two years, $13 million left on his contract.

Toronto Raptors $56M Jalen Rose
The Raptors are very close to the tax threshold, and Rose is one of the most overpaid players in the league. He's still fairly productive, but if the team continues to spend this summer, it will be tough to justify the two years, $32 million left on his contract. That said, a source in Toronto says the team is leaning strongly toward keeping him. Go figure. Instead, look for them to use Alonzo Mourning's buyout as the contract they try to get amnesty for.

Utah Jazz $49M None
The Jazz never have been big spenders, which keeps them off the taxpayer list this fall. They paid too much money to Mehmet Okur and Carlos Boozer, no question. But both players are productive and neither will be waived by the Jazz.

Washington Wizards $52M None
The Wizards have stayed out of trouble. Etan Thomas' contract is a bit excessive, but only if he can't get healthy.

Kori Ellis
07-25-2005, 12:40 PM
San Antonio Spurs $59M

So, I guess that my estimate of Horry getting $4M was close ... I had $59.3M as the Spurs total.

Useruser666
07-25-2005, 12:58 PM
3 year and $62 million left on Webber?!!! Holy shit! Philly should cut him at first chance.

ChumpDumper
07-25-2005, 01:12 PM
New Jersey Nets $59M None
President Rod Thorn and GM Ed Stefanski have done a great job assembling the Nets and doing it in a cost-conscious way. They wisely resisted the temptation to pay Kenyon Martin the max and now have landed a better player (Shareef Abdur-Rahim) for half the cash. The truth is that the Nets have no bad deals on the books and therefore no use for the amnesty rule.Can they re-waive Zo?

Kori Ellis
07-25-2005, 01:13 PM
Can they re-waive Zo?

I read in an article a few weeks ago that they can. But I'm not sure.

clubalien
07-25-2005, 01:14 PM
I read that they could cut zo again to save money

Guru of Nothing
07-25-2005, 03:24 PM
[Brian]Cardinal is a great asset at 1 or 2 million a year

Hmmmmmm.....

spurster
07-25-2005, 03:27 PM
Waive bye to Rasho!

usckk
07-25-2005, 03:45 PM
Man, if we waive Rasho, it would be a horrible mistake, but considering how cheap Mr. Holt is, I guess it would be the right move.

clubalien
07-25-2005, 03:50 PM
losing nazr(if not re upped) and rasho
but never fear we have oberto Oh BOY

50 cent
07-25-2005, 03:55 PM
Does Chad Ford realize that cutting a player doesn't create cap space? He seems to insinuate that teams could use the cap space in a lot of cases.

clubalien
07-25-2005, 03:58 PM
it creates cap space in that it creates "lux space" meaning now that huge contracts are off the books, they are free to sign other players for huge contract LMAO

Useruser666
07-25-2005, 03:59 PM
Does Chad Ford realize that cutting a player doesn't create cap space? He seems to insinuate that teams could use the cap space in a lot of cases.

I think he means teams will use the money lost to the luxury tax on other players.

Aggie Hoopsfan
07-25-2005, 04:16 PM
it creates cap space in that it creates "lux space" meaning now that huge contracts are off the books, they are free to sign other players for huge contract LMAO

It doesn't create any cap space if the team is still over the salary cap. LMAO

clubalien
07-25-2005, 04:47 PM
how many times does it have to be said it doesn;t create cap space, but if suns could dump a contract they ight be more likely to give max to their own player becUse they will pay less luxary tax


spurs if cut rasho might be more lilkey to give devin 1mil insted of 700k because they don;t pay tax on the 2 mill or whatever

they might be mroe likely to give nazr an extendion if salary is cut and they can give him money and not pay lux tax as high if had both

if 76ers cut someone givein max to dilbert isnlt as much lux tax

It doesn;t create cap space, but it means teams might be mroe lilkely now that bad contracts are gone (malik rose) to sign someone else to a high contract (nazr, manu, tony parker)

i am LMAO off because imagin cutting a huge contract, and then turing around and giving an oiver paid contract to another player

basicly you just got another bad contract but you donlt have TWO bad contracts

Rick Von Braun
07-25-2005, 06:43 PM
Orlando Magic $73M Doug Christie
Christie was one of former GM John Weisbrod's biggest missteps. The Magic needed Cuttino Mobley more than they realized, and Christie didn't want to play in Orlando. He has asked for a trade. The problem is that no one is beating down the door to pay him $8.2 million next season. The Magic will be taxpayers next year, and the $8.2 million in savings will be worth losing Christie. There's talk that Grant Hill would be a more financially prudent way to go, given that the Magic could save $32.5 million in tax penalties by waiving him. The problem is that fans and the media would stage a revolt. And after years of rehabbing a bad ankle, Hill is finally earning his salary.
I know this is a dream, and it will not happen... but could you imagine for a second a healthy Grant Hill being waived and then signing with the Spurs! http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smismokin.gif

Welcome to championship, after championship, after championship....




ok, time to wake up http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smidrunk.gif

CHAMPS AGAIN
07-25-2005, 07:36 PM
Man, if we waive Rasho, it would be a horrible mistake, but considering how cheap Mr. Holt is, I guess it would be the right move.

paying for the big 3 SPURS players wow that is CHEAP :lol :lol :lol

RobinsontoDuncan
07-26-2005, 12:23 AM
I thought Timvp said the Spurs can't waive Rasho? I hope they do, 30 million dollars is tied up with that fool?

Marcus Bryant
07-26-2005, 07:19 AM
The only thing worse for Holt Cat than being locked into a long term contract for a player is paying a long term contract to a player who isn't with the team anymore (ie Smith, Charles the First).

If the Spurs risk being over the lux tax threshold by a mil or two a year why on earth would they give up Radoslav? Especially with Nazr a free agent next summer, Oberto not having stepped a foot on a NBA court and Horry at 35 years of age?

Radoslav is my least favorite current Spur, but come on, I'm not seeing this.

TheTruth
07-26-2005, 07:27 AM
I agree with Marcus. The Spurs FO would never let the team go so far into the lux tax territory that it would be financially reasonable to pay rasho's full contract without him playing for them.

George Gervin's Afro
07-26-2005, 07:29 AM
Maybr I am in the minority but NBA 7 foot centers don't grow on trees. If keeping Rasho casues us to lose Nazr then we are down to 1 7ft player. If we release Rasho and Nazr leaves anyway then we would have shot our selves in the foot. Unless a deal comes along that is to good to pass up I vote for keeping Rasho becasue in the end his money would be counted on the cap regardless.

Marcus Bryant
07-26-2005, 07:33 AM
Why would you pay Radoslav not to play when the alternative is losing a mil or two a year (at most) in foregone escrow distributions to keep him?

Marcus Bryant
07-26-2005, 07:37 AM
Maybr I am in the minority but NBA 7 foot centers don't grow on trees. If keeping Rasho casues us to lose Nazr then we are down to 1 7ft player. If we release Rasho and Nazr leaves anyway then we would have shot our selves in the foot. Unless a deal comes along that is to good to pass up I vote for keeping Rasho becasue in the end his money would be counted on the cap regardless.


Absolutely. As much as I find faults with Radoslav's game, he could start for at least 3/4ths of the teams in this league. His deal isn't bad as in Brian Grant bad by any stretch of the imagination.

In addition, we are also forgetting that Rasho could end up on a rival in need of a center. Think the Suns wouldn't be interested in a center on the cheap who can block shots, rebound, sets good picks and generally stays out of the way? Remember how well Rasho played when the Spurs were a running team.

RobinsontoDuncan
07-26-2005, 11:21 AM
no way, he doesnt see floor time, why the hell do you pay a guy 30 million to sit on the bench, and you guys all miss the big picture, all of our talent over seas, including the young man we just spent a first round pick on, are bigs. Nazr is not the long term sloution for center, he is here until some of our draft picks can come and take his job, they all have more upside and could be better and cheaper

Joesteds
07-26-2005, 11:42 AM
no way, he doesnt see floor time, why the hell do you pay a guy 30 million to sit on the bench, and you guys all miss the big picture, all of our talent over seas, including the young man we just spent a first round pick on, are bigs. Nazr is not the long term sloution for center, he is here until some of our draft picks can come and take his job, they all have more upside and could be better and cheaper

Wow thats a lot to ask of some of these guys. I know the Spurs have done well with foriegn players in Ginobili and Udrih and Parker, but I wouldnt put all my eggs in one basket for foriegn big men. Besides Dirk there hasn't really been a star that has come over. I guess Gasol is up there. I just have my reservations about foriegn big men. Also that draft pick from this year must improve on: Overall Skill Set. That doesn't sound like he will be playing for the Spurs in the next few years.

Marcus Bryant
07-26-2005, 11:45 AM
no way, he doesnt see floor time, why the hell do you pay a guy 30 million to sit on the bench,


Why the hell do you want to pay him $30 mil to not play for you and potentially for a rival? This isn't football with partially guaranteed contracts or whatever.



and you guys all miss the big picture, all of our talent over seas, including the young man we just spent a first round pick on, are bigs.


So what? That doesn't make them a NBA player, let alone a starter. I'm not missing anything.




Nazr is not the long term sloution for center, he is here until some of our draft picks can come and take his job, they all have more upside and could be better and cheaper

Who has more "upside" than Nazr?

Someone needs to lay off the mid-morning cocktail.

ChumpDumper
07-26-2005, 02:55 PM
Nazr is not the long term sloution for center, he is here until some of our draft picks can come and take his job, they all have more upside and could be better and cheaperWe have a grand total of one draft pick that might be able to play at Nazr's level someday. Given that Mahinmi might not even be here in 06-07 and even if he is might not be ready for prime time, you're willing to bet the future of the Spurs' center position on him and another guy who has yet to play in the NBA?

ChumpDumper
07-26-2005, 03:38 PM
if we must, but let's not pay him $30 million to play for another team.