Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

Okay, I'm REALLY confused now about big Z's salary situation


sturt

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
To become a free agent and join a contender, Ilgauskas gave back $1.5 million of the prorated portion of his $11.5 million salary due, according to the Washington Post.

The Hawks have both their mid-level and bi-annual salary-cap exceptions available but they aren’t relevant in this case since Ilgauskas’ prorated salary would not be large enough to need them. That puts the Hawks and the other suitors on the same level as far as the salary they can offer.

Huh?

Help me out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Huh?

Help me out.

Where's that from? As far as I know, teams can offer Z only a prorated portion of whatever salary cap exceptions are available to them. For the Cavs and Mavs, that would mean the minimum salary exception. For the Hawks, it could mean the mid-level, bi-annual, or minimum. I think whoever said that is confused, and thinks that teams can offer either the full minimum salary or a prorated portion of the mid-level. Unless I'm mistaken, everything is prorated at this stage in the season, so the Hawks can offer more - it just probably won't make much of a difference at this point because the total dollar amount of the difference would be just a fraction of what it would have been over the summer. And something tells me Z isn't going to sign because the Hawks can offer him, a guy whose already made $120M in salary during his career, an extra $1.5M.

Edited by niremetal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. If he was bought out of his contract and is free to go wherever he wants then doesn't that mean he is a free agent? Why would his previous salary be relevant?

I can only assume this has something to do with the fact that there are only 26 games left in the season. The MLE (lets assume it is $6 million i don't remember) prorated over 26 games would be $1.8 million so maybe that is what they are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no way he's going to sign here unless the NBA forbids him to go back to Cleveland which is not going to happen.

You are almost certainly right but still I am curious because I haven't heard anything in the past about this. The Hawks do have much more space available than the Cavs since they didn't use their MLE so i don't see why they couldn't sign him for lets say $3 million. I am not buying what this guy says until i see a Coon link.

Edited by exodus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no way he's going to sign here unless the NBA forbids him to go back to Cleveland which is not going to happen.

You also said the ASG would never even ATTEMPT to give him a sales pitch b/c they are too cheap (in your opinion).

Moral of the story.............never say never............though the chances are not in our favor there is still a chance and until the door is shut we have to do our due diligence and try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You also said the ASG would never even ATTEMPT to give him a sales pitch b/c they are too cheap (in your opinion).

Moral of the story.............never say never............though the chances are not in our favor there is still a chance and until the door is shut we have to do our due diligence and try.

The cynic in me would point out that making a "pitch" to a guy you know isn't going to sign with you anyway is a perfect example of "illusion of competition".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Johnny- the Hawks could sign him to a 3 year contract right now for the full MLE if they wanted to.

Yeah. Also, having a player sign a contract now with an additional promise of signing a future contract would violate the CBA pretty severely. That's what got the Wolves in trouble in the Joe Smith fiasco 10 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yeah. Also, having a player sign a contract now with an additional promise of signing a future contract would violate the CBA pretty severely. That's what got the Wolves in trouble in the Joe Smith fiasco 10 years ago.

I'm wondering whether Cleveland will have the cojones to offer a one-year deal with a PO for the second year. That would be a flashing neon sign to the league, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...