Why does CJ and Manu need to be renounced to sign LMA?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All I do is challenge people intellectually. Support what you claim and don't expect others to just take your flip word for it.

I actually have respect for you Chinook although you likely doubt that. You respond with intellectual bravery or just leave it alone. I respect that quite a bit actually.

The one you are quoting here do that? Not so much.

[Chinook]

Your ability to draw logical conclusions is pretty terrible. In short: no.

I'm not criticizing you for his sake. Look at what you finally did but didn't want to because you are on your phone. Think about it.

I didn't do anything but answer his specific question. But because he's not an asshole, I decided I'd help him if no one else did. Someone else did, so that's moot. More importantly, you haven't been on topic once in this thread.

[Rogbok]

I'm on my phone, which I why I didn't post a longer response. I have absolutely no beef with you. This is just the third thread on this topic that's been on the main page in the past day.

Joseph's hold is 250 percent of his previous salary. The hold you're using is the QO.

Anyway, as I said I have nothing against you. I'll give you longer response when I can if someone else doesn't give one first.

I did not think you had a beef with me. You are just showing your frustration of possibly having to repeat yourself. I took no offense at your response. As I said, the explanations that are out there does not explain it to me is all.

Indeed. Right now, at least one of them has to. But even if Manu plays for the min, he has to be renounced.

So, you are telling me that a team cannot use a vet minimum on their own players? I have not seen that. I have just seen that a player is guaranteed to not be paid less than a certain amount. It does not say a player has to be renounced that I saw yet, unless you are maybe talking about the exception aspect that prevents it from being counted against the cap? I mean could Manu or even Tim agree to a contract that pays them the minimum of $1,499,187 (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16) for players with 10+ years of experience if they so desired? Sure it would still might count against the cap, but it would be less then their cap hold and would be signed before LMA signs and thus preventing him being renounced.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q25 - MINIMUM PLAYER SALARY EXCEPTION -- Teams can offer players minimum salary contracts even if they are over the cap. Contracts can be up to two years in length. For two-year contracts, the second season salary is the minimum salary for that season. The contract may not contain a bonus of any kind. This exception can also be used to acquire minimum salary players via trade. There is no limit to the number of players that can be signed or acquired using this exception.

I look forward to your response when you get to a more suitable posting device.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Woah. No they aren't. They count as second-year vet salaries if they're only for one year. So that's another $300k to $400k they waste to offer the same contract. That's absurd.

Waste? The goal here is to sign Aldridge and reduce their cap holds to do it. There are more than one way to skin a cat. By your paradigm they are 'wasting' $5.5m to sign TD at the levels reported.

You have a penchant of projecting your feelings onto reality and assuming that others think as you do. Maybe the Spurs do and maybe they don't but it is what it is.

[Chinook]

I did not think you had a beef with me. You are just showing your frustration of possibly having to repeat yourself. I took no offense at your response. As I said, the explanations that are out there does not explain it to me is all.



So, you are telling me that a team cannot use a vet minimum on their own players? I have not seen that. I have just seen that a player is guaranteed to not be paid less than a certain amount. It does not say a player has to be renounced that I saw yet, unless you are maybe talking about the exception aspect that prevents it from being counted against the cap? I mean could Manu or even Tim agree to a contract that pays them the minimum of $1,499,187 (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16) for players with 10+ years of experience if they so desired? Sure it would still might count against the cap, but it would be less then their cap hold and would be signed before LMA signs and thus preventing him being renounced.



I look forward to your response when you get to a more suitable posting device.

The vet min is a cap exception. So it doesn't use cap space. So yes, the Spurs could use it on Manu, but they would have to renounce him to reap the full benefits of his salary. Renouncement isn't a bad thing. It's almost certainly what's going to happen to him, and it'll save the team at least a million in cap room.

[jhfenton]

I did not think you had a beef with me. You are just showing your frustration of possibly having to repeat yourself. I took no offense at your response. As I said, the explanations that are out there does not explain it to me is all.



So, you are telling me that a team cannot use a vet minimum on their own players? I have not seen that. I have just seen that a player is guaranteed to not be paid less than a certain amount. It does not say a player has to be renounced that I saw yet, unless you are maybe talking about the exception aspect that prevents it from being counted against the cap? I mean could Manu or even Tim agree to a contract that pays them the minimum of $1,499,187 (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16) for players with 10+ years of experience if they so desired? Sure it would still might count against the cap, but it would be less then their cap hold and would be signed before LMA signs and thus preventing him being renounced.

Manu has to be renounced, because until he's renounced or signed, his cap hold based on last year's salary will apply. Once he's renounced, his cap hold is $0 (although there may be a minimum roster charge kick in). If he's signed to a $2.8 MM deal under the cap or with Bird rights, then obviously $2.8MM applies. Obviously $0 is less than $2.8 MM or his current (large) hold.

[Nathan89]

This isn't a classroom. You can link as well as I can. Or explain it. Instead you fancy it helpful to comment on my comment.

I wasn't trying to be helpful to OP. I was pointing out that your comment was bull response that should be reserved for Ops with one line questions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't do anything but answer his specific question. But because he's not an asshole, I decided I'd help him if no one else did. Someone else did, so that's moot. More importantly, you haven't been on topic once in this thread.

Of course you did. This response here has nothing to do with it. I especially like the part where you front I haven't been talking about the Spurs cap situation in this thread.

We know that the Spurs don't need to do what you claim. Your complaint was lack of efficiency which doesn't mitigate my point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Manu has to be renounced, because until he's renounced or signed, his cap hold based on last year's salary will apply. Once he's renounced, his cap hold is $0 (although there may be a minimum roster charge kick in). If he's signed to a $2.8 MM deal under the cap or with Bird rights, then obviously $2.8MM applies. Obviously $0 is less than $2.8 MM or his current (large) hold.

I think his point is that while that certainly is one option to make the accounting work there are other ways that do not require that it be done that way. The cap holds need to come down certainly but either way is possible.

[jhfenton]

I think his point is that while that certainly is one option to make the accounting work there are other ways that do not require that it be done that way. The cap holds need to come down certainly but either way is possible.

But there's no other way to get Manu to $0 (or $525K). And they're going to be tight under the cap as it is, squeezing 8 guys plus minimum/rookie cap holds under $67-69MM.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But there's no other way to get Manu to $0 (or $525K). And they're going to be tight under the cap as it is, squeezing 8 guys plus minimum/rookie cap holds under $67-69MM.

I think the OP is trying to figure out how to keep Cojo. Can the Spurs can indeed sign Cojo to a lesser amount and make the accounting work? I think they can. Whether or not that happens is suspect though.

[jhfenton]

I think the OP is trying to figure out how to keep Cojo. Can the Spurs can indeed sign Cojo to a lesser amount and make the accounting work? I think they can. Whether or not that happens is suspect though.

We're all trying to figure out a way to keep CoJo. I don't see it, without a sign-and-trade somewhere in the mix or Duncan and CoJo splitting $6MM or CoJo taking the Room MLE or minimum. Duncan at $6MM, TP, Patty, Boris, Kyle, LMA, plus DG and KL's cap holds, plus roster charges is pretty much equal to the cap, give or take a million or two.

[Chinook]

I think the OP is trying to figure out how to keep Cojo. Can the Spurs can indeed sign Cojo to a lesser amount and make the accounting work? I think they can. Whether or not that happens is suspect though.

Yes. Duncan takes the min or the room exception with Manu getting the min, and Joseph can stay. Or Cory can agree to the room exception. Or sign his QO (which drops his hold by a couple million). Or the Spurs can do a sign-and-trade.

There are plenty of ways if guys are willing to take less, but almost all involve renouncing someone.

[Spur|n|Austin]

Yes. There are explanations in plenty of other threads.

The thread with hundreds of pages - yeah just have OP search through that instead of giving a quick response.

[Chinook]

The thread with hundreds of pages - yeah just have OP search through that instead of giving a quick response.

Nah, the threads that list all the info in the OPs. Or the threads where such a post would have been made without making a new thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We're all trying to figure out a way to keep CoJo. I don't see it, without a sign-and-trade somewhere in the mix or Duncan and CoJo splitting $6MM or CoJo taking the Room MLE or minimum. Duncan at $6MM, TP, Patty, Boris, Kyle, LMA, plus DG and KL's cap holds, plus roster charges is pretty much equal to the cap, give or take a million or two.

That Duncan figure is 1000 lbs gorilla. Renounce Manu sign Cojo to the RLE. Cojo could reduce his hold by signing for less than $5m. There is enough wiggle if all parties are willing. We are operating under a very large amount of ignorance here.

[kaji157]

Duncan is not going to sign for the Vet Min, please stop saying that.
Combined, Duncan and Ginobili have played for below market value for all but 3 seasons in Ginobili´s case and all but 5 in Duncan´s. There is no ing way both of them are going to sign for the minium when Parker is making twice his market value for a few seasons now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes. Duncan takes the min or the room exception with Manu getting the min, and Joseph can stay. Or Cory can agree to the room exception. Or sign his QO (which drops his hold by a couple million). Or the Spurs can do a sign-and-trade.

There are plenty of ways if guys are willing to take less, but almost all involve renouncing someone.

Corey signs the RLE. Manu and Tim sign for $3m a piece. I can think of tons of permutations of those scenarios. Almost all my ass.

[Chinook]

Corey signs the RLE. Manu and Tim sign for $3m a piece. I can think of tons of permutations of those scenarios. Almost all my ass.

Cory gets renounced in that scenario.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Cory gets renounced in that scenario.

Manu doesn't.

[Chinook]

Manu doesn't.

Pretty sure I said that someone had to be in almost all scenarios.

[jhfenton]

We are operating under a very large amount of ignorance here.

We agree on that. (And I don't mean that sarcastically.) The numbers are all very tight, and the margin of ignorance is several million dollars. We don't even know the cap more accurately than +/- $2MM.

But, yes. Unless Manu, Duncan, and Corey divide up a comparatively tiny sum, one or more of them are getting renounced.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pretty sure I said that someone had to be in almost all scenarios.

Weren't you the one complaining about not addressing the OP? What is the le of the thread?

[jhfenton]

And I'm pretty sure the Spurs have a dozen or so former players that they will finally have to formally renounce, in addition to Ayres, Bonner, and Williams.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We agree on that. (And I don't mean that sarcastically.) The numbers are all very tight, and the margin of ignorance is several million dollars. We don't even know the cap more accurately than +/- $2MM.

But, yes. Unless Manu, Duncan, and Corey divide up a comparatively tiny sum, one or more of them are getting renounced.

That is fair. I just think it important to point out that the widely reported Duncan to ~$6m and renounce everyone not named Danny or Kawhi solution is not the only way to get there.