Printable View
Vegas is July 11-20.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manufan909
The schedule is here:
http://www.nba.com/summerleague2008/schedule_08.html
Quote:
NBA TV will broadcast 23 games from Las Vegas as well as provide reports on the Summer League teams, featuring interviews with players, coaches and team executives. In addition to features, game recaps and statistics, NBA.com will also be providing live webcasts of all games.
Why can Barry only make the BAE?
The Spurs don't have his Bird rights so they need to use one of the exceptions to retain him.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
Ya, but he can make a portion of the MLE correct? He is not limited to the BAE, that was just an estimation right...
Yeah, the MLE is an exception. My point was that if the Spurs want to sign another player to a full MLE deal, the most money Barry could then make is the LLE.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
Just trying to get some clarification Timvp: if a team is over the cap, they can only offer the MLE and the BAE to FA's correct? If a team is over the cap and has Bird Rights on a player, that team can re-sign that player to whatever contract they want even if it puts them over the luxury tax limit without paying the luxury tax? If a team is under the cap, they can sign a player to any contract they want if they own his Bird Rights (AI2 for example) even if it puts them into luxury tax area without having to pay the luxury tax?
I'm really looking forward to seeing how Hairston plays in the summer league. If his game can translate to the N.B.A. level, I could see him playing Fin's role with some fresher legs.
Probably not right away, but he's pretty money shooting from mid-range ala Fin. Hopefully with time, he'll be able to extend his shot out to the 3 as well as Fin has been able to do.
I'm hoping that being a little unlucky in free-agency allows the Spurs to find a diamond in the rough by being forced to develop Hairston and Gist.
Hey, Crazier shit has happened.
I'm really trying to be optimistic.
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
If you have Bird rights you can pay the player up to the max but you have to pay the lux tax no matter what. If you go over the lux tax, you must pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
So a team that is under the cap can not offer a FA (without owing their Bird Rights) a Max contract if it will put them over the cap? That is why they sign FA's like that first, then use their Bird Rights to sign their own?
Nice post. :tu
That what I thought for a long time but it's not the case, Vaughn will count for his full salary against the luxury ax.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#11
Vaughn is playing under a 2 years contract and doesn't fall in this category.Quote:
When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract, the league actually reimburses the team for part of his salary - any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran. For example, in 2005-06 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $719,373, so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,138,500, the league would reimburse the team $419,127. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player's full salary. They do this so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive when filling out their last few roster spots.
Thanks:toast
I'm a little slow but are they really wanting to keep Barry?
They were offering the MLE to Maggette and supposedly (if the Argentian newspaper was correct) offering the LLE to Delfino. Unless they're hoping he signs for the minimum.
i dont think the argentian source ever said anything about offering the BAE. it just said that the spurs had made an offer. and because we were in the maggette hunt, everyone assumed it meant the BAE. but delfino would never agree to a BAE deal (his QO is about 2.7 mil), and i doubt the veracity of that report to begin with. it was probably just speculation made up to look like fact (kinda like every vecsey article).Quote:
Originally Posted by loveforthegame
Holy Crap Matt Bonner getting paid almost 3 mil a year, is he really worth that much?
For some reason I just pictured RC posting as DPG21920 and it made me laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
now go read spurman20 and picture that as RC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Helicopter Jones
One more question to anyone who knows...
If a team is over the cap, they have the MLE to use, but the use of the MLE causes them to go over the luxury tax line, does that mean they have to pay the luxury tax on him? If so what is the point of allowing teams to only use the MLE if they are over the cap if they are going to pay luxury tax anyways?
any salary on the books counts toward the tax figure, even if you sign a player with an exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
The luxury tax is a dollar for dollar penalty. So if the lux tax threshold is $71 million and a team is at $70 million in salary and signs a guy to the $5.8 million MLE, that puts their salary at 75.8 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
They pay a 4.8 million dollar luxury tax penalty (75.8 - 71).
The point of the MLE is to give teams a method to better themselves no matter their cap situation. It's up to the team's owners and front office to determine if the extra cost of going over the luxury tax is worth the luxury tax penalty.
That's why some on this forum want us to go after J.R. Smith. Denver is already about 7 million over the luxury tax without paying him a dime. If the Spurs offer him the full MLE (5.8 million), his true cost to Denver for 2008-2009 would be 11.6 million.
Thanks...I get all of that and I understand what happens when you go over the luxury tax, I was just asking in a round-about why we even have a cap..Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
I was implying that I know if you are over the cap you should theoretically not be able sign anyone, but the MLE allows for you to sign someone while also placing constraints on how much you can spend as a penalty for being over the cap. If you are over the cap, close to the luxury tax line as in your example and have the MLE to spend that puts you into the luxury tax, I was just saying whats the point. Why not let teams spend and have no cap...I am good with the cap or without it...
Maybe you have a better idea of what the Nuggets salary looks like or maybe I am wrong in my thinking, but I believe that in that 7 million over, it already includes his Qualifying Offer of roughly 3 million. Therefore, if we offered MLE, it would only cost them twice the difference ((5.585 - 3.0 = 2.5) *2 = ~5 million). I think they might spend the 5 million to match.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
because a team like the blazers (owned by paul allen, one of the top 50 riches men on earth) would just have a roster worth 100+ mil a year. it would turn the the nba into the mlb, where several very rich franchises simply outbid the smaller markets out of any available talent.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
To even out the playing field for obtaining players. Larger organizations could spend all they wanted with being hindered by luxury tax payments. While some don't mind paying luxury tax, most teams don't want to spend that extra money for nothing in return. The rest of the teams in the league under the tax line get a distribution of those that paid in.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
So...MLB is America's "past-time" and all of their fans do not seem to care and the world keeps on turning...Quote:
Originally Posted by ss1986v2
That is not stopping teams like the Knicks, Mavs, Cavs, Nuggets, Suns, Boston and others from going over the cap and such, rich owners will spend the money no matter what...
I know all of that, I know the reasons behind it, I am just saying would the league be better off without the cap? Could argue both ways...Quote:
Originally Posted by oligarchy