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

[sturt]

Would the MLE even appeal to Z as he heads into FA? As a big man in a game where big men capable of starting have plus-value, should he be able to expect more than that in his next contract?

[AHF]

I doubt he commands more in salary at his age than Gortat did last summer.

[exodus]

I know Z is returning to Cleveland, but I desperately want the Hawks to leverage their MLE to force the league to end this loophole once and for all.

+1

[niremetal]

I know Z is returning to Cleveland, but I desperately want the Hawks to leverage their MLE to force the league to end this loophole once and for all.

I really don't see how it would force the league to do anything. They can say without lying that of the teams courting Z, Cleveland has the best chance of winning a title. And Z can say with a straight face that at his age, winning a title is more important than making a little more money (and considering how much he's made in his career, the extra money we can offer him right now is a pittance). I think the criticism of Riley, Jackson, etc will have more of an impact than us offering a few hundred thou more.

[mrhonline]

I really don't see how it would force the league to do anything.

It's this summer that will catch the league's attention, not the remainder of this season.

If Ilgauskas takes a discount to return to Cleveland on a one-year deal (with the "one year" part being the most important), and then signs a bigger deal with them next year, it will most definitely catch the league's attention.

Not to mention the fact that Stern already wants to end this loophole.

I think the criticism of Riley, Jackson, etc will have more of an impact than us offering a few hundred thou more.

The Hawks can offer almost $3 million more.

[thecampster]

It's this summer that will catch the league's attention, not the remainder of this season.

If Ilgauskas takes a discount to return to Cleveland on a one-year deal (with the "one year" part being the most important), and then signs a bigger deal with them next year, it will most definitely catch the league's attention.

Not to mention the fact that Stern already wants to end this loophole.

The Hawks can offer almost $3 million more.

No they can't. They can offer a prorated 3 million more. 2/3rd of the season is now over. They can offer 1/3rd of 3 million more or about 1 million dollars more and they blow their MLE to do so.

[niremetal]

It's this summer that will catch the league's attention, not the remainder of this season.

If Ilgauskas takes a discount to return to Cleveland on a one-year deal (with the "one year" part being the most important), and then signs a bigger deal with them next year, it will most definitely catch the league's attention.

Not to mention the fact that Stern already wants to end this loophole.

The Hawks can offer almost $3 million more.

No they can't. The Hawks can't even offer $3M period for the rest of this year, much less $3M more than anyone else. The prorated MLE is less than $2M right now, and it becomes lower with every game. And since Z can be a free agent this summer if he signs just for the rest of the year, EVERY team can offer him the MLE after the year is over.

Edited February 26, 2010 by niremetal

[mrhonline]

No, they can offer a prorated $3,864,000 (5.854M - 1.99M) more.

Plus, they can sign Ilgauskas three weeks sooner, which will eat into Cleveland's BAE even more. The difference between the amount Atlanta can offer on Monday versus the amount Cleveland can offer on the 22nd is ~$2.9 million.

And that's not even taking a second year into consideration. If (and it's about 99.9% likely) Ilgauskas re-signs with Cleveland, he'll be passing on some MAJOR money.

[mrhonline]

The MLE and BAE don't start declining until January 10th, guys.

Starting January 10 of each season, the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual, Larry Bird, Early-Bird and Non-Bird exceptions begin to reduce in value. For example, if there are 180 days in the season, then these exceptions (if they are still unused) reduce by 1/180 of their initial value each day starting January 10. If a team uses their $5 million Mid-Level exception on February 1, then the exception is actually worth $4,361,111.

http://members.cox.n...larycap.htm#Q20

I've seen people use 169 days and others use 170 days to calculate these numbers, but the general difference between the Hawks' prorated MLE offer starting on Monday and the Cavs' prorated BAE offer on the 22nd is roughly $3M per season.

Edited February 26, 2010 by mrhonline

[exodus]

The MLE and BAE don't start declining until January 10th, guys.

http://members.cox.n...larycap.htm#Q20

I've seen people use 169 days and others use 170 days to calculate these numbers, but the general difference between the Hawks' prorated MLE offer starting on Monday and the Cavs' prorated BAE offer on the 22nd is roughly $3M per season.

I knew Larry would straighten this mess out. I was just too lazy to look it up.

[niremetal]

The MLE and BAE don't start declining until January 10th, guys.

http://members.cox.n...larycap.htm#Q20

I've seen people use 169 days and others use 170 days to calculate these numbers, but the general difference between the Hawks' prorated MLE offer starting on Monday and the Cavs' prorated BAE offer on the 22nd is roughly $3M per season.

Fair enough. Now explain to me the other part - why a guy who has made $120M+ in his career in salary alone will give a damn about making a fraction of that when he has the ability to go back to where he's played all his life, where his family lives, and have a better chance of winning his FIRST ring?

Frankly, he'd be an idiot to take the money and come here. This is not a good test case.

Edited February 26, 2010 by niremetal

[mrhonline]

I read somewhere he gets a ring either way...

That'd be funny wouldn't it?

Edit: Some random yahoo answer suggests it's up to the team. Melvin Ely apparently got one from the Spurs for only playing in 6 games. LOL.

Edited February 26, 2010 by mrhonline

[mrhonline]

On a side note - I'm curious how the Cavs intend to fill their center position next year if they keep LeBron. I wonder how many more years they'd be comfortable with the current rotation...

[exodus]

Fair enough. Now explain to me the other part - why a guy who has made $120M+ in his career in salary alone will give a damn about making a fraction of that when he has the ability to go back to where he's played all his life, where his family lives, and have a better chance of winning his FIRST ring?

Frankly, he'd be an idiot to take the money and come here. This is not a good test case.

All the things you mentioned make it that much more likely it was a prearranged deal.

[niremetal]

All the things you mentioned make it that much more likely it was a prearranged deal.

I don't disagree. But my point is that the fact of the Hawks offering more money does not really create more than a negligible amount of additional pressure. A more convincing argument would be that he passed up a chance to go to teams with an equal or greater chance of winning a title compared to the Cavs - like, say, the Nuggets - in order to return to the Cavs.

[mrhonline]

I really like the Nuggets, but to suggest that they have a far greater chance of beating the Lakers, Mavs & company than the Hawks do the Magic & Cavs is...subjective.

[niremetal]

I really like the Nuggets, but to suggest that they have a far greater chance of beating the Lakers, Mavs & company than the Hawks do the Magic & Cavs is...subjective.

It's all subjective. But I think most people would agree that the Nuggets have a better chance of winning the Finals than do the Hawks. It's all subjective, but oddsmakers have the Hawks at 10:1 and the Nugs at 8:1. The Celtics are at 6:1, btw, and they also could conceivably use a guy like Z (but I haven't heard them mentioned as an interested team). The Cavs are at 8:5, second only to the Lakers (7:5).

In any case, none of that gets past my central point: I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that Z is more interested in playing in and winning the Finals than he is in making an amount of money that will be a fraction of what he's already taken home in his career. And the Cavs offer a significantly better chance of giving that than do the Hawks. A better argument would be that Z was turning down an even better chance at a title to go back to Cleveland, but those teams don't really exist (unless the Lakers make an unexpected offer). I agree the rule should be changed, but the fact that the Hawks offered him more money and he turned it down would not be a persuasive reason why in Z's case.

Edited February 26, 2010 by niremetal

[AHF]

The persuasive reason why is easy - teams are now using the rule as a loophole to return players to their roster at minimum salaries after trading that player away and whether there is evidence of collusion or not it is obvious that the effect of this rule is to encourage players to boomerang back to their original teams. There is no way this rule survives the next CBA, IMO.

[niremetal]

The persuasive reason why is easy - teams are now using the rule as a loophole to return players to their roster at minimum salaries after trading that player away and whether there is evidence of collusion or not it is obvious that the effect of this rule is to encourage players to boomerang back to their original teams. There is no way this rule survives the next CBA, IMO.

Again, I'm not disputing any of that.

Let me try this again. Here's another way to put it: Every year, there are multiple vets who turn down the opportunity to make more money in order to play for a contender. Thus, taken out of context, it would not be surprising that Z would turn down a bigger money offer in order to play for a contender (especially since his family already lives there).

From Z's perspective, given the current rule, the logical choice for him would be to return to Cleveland - ie that's what he would do regardless of whether there was a pre-arranged deal. For the twentieth time, I'm NOT disputing that the rule needs to be changed. Just that Z isn't the type of player who is likely to care about money over winning a ring, and that it therefore the fact that Z would turn down a higher money offer is not a persuasive reason to change the rule. Of course the rule should be changed. But it's the possibility of collusion and the ability to do strawman cap-compliant trades that create the persuasive reasons to change the rule, NOT the fact that Z is likely to turn down a bigger money offer.

Edited February 26, 2010 by niremetal

[AHF]

Again, I'm not disputing any of that.

Let me try this again. Here's another way to put it: Every year, there are multiple vets who turn down the opportunity to make more money in order to play for a contender. Thus, taken out of context, it would not be surprising that Z would turn down a bigger money offer in order to play for a contender (especially since his family already lives there).

From Z's perspective, given the current rule, the logical choice for him would be to return to Cleveland - ie that's what he would do regardless of whether there was a pre-arranged deal. For the twentieth time, I'm NOT disputing that the rule needs to be changed. Just that Z isn't the type of player who is likely to care about money over winning a ring, and that it therefore the fact that Z would turn down a higher money offer is not a persuasive reason to change the rule. Of course the rule should be changed. But it's the possibility of collusion and the ability to do strawman cap-compliant trades that create the persuasive reasons to change the rule, NOT the fact that Z is likely to turn down a bigger money offer.

Z's situation is a good example of why the rules should change but you are right that it is not simply the fact that he is turning down a bigger offer.

(1) Z's situation shows that the 30 day rule does not deter players from returning to their team. The 30 day wait period was put in there to discourage players from returning to their former teams when cut. Simply put, it isn't working.

(2) Z's situation shows that loyalty outweighs money and playing time for some players. Z's situation is one of several that show that players are loyal enough to former teams that they will turn down millions of dollars to return to their former teams. The rules are designed to not allow teams to get this kind of advantage and the reason the loop hole is open now is the assumption that better offers will be persuasive in convincing players to go elsewhere. Z's situation shows this is not the case.

(3) Z's situation is also good because it is the best team in basketball taking advantage of this rule which feeds into a resentment of "the richer get richer" scenario that this rule breeds. Don't think this isn't a highly relevant factor. If Z plays any part in the Cavs winning the championship this year, there will be a lot of resentment from every team the Cavs beat and from a lot of other fans because of this abuse of the 30 day loop hole. If the defense of the rule is that "the Cavs are the best team so of course he wants to win a championship with them" that isn't going to fly. This isn't the offseason. This is not a competitive advantage to the best team in the league in signing a free agent. This amounts to a break in the salary cap rules where Cleveland loses Z for 30 days and then pays a pittance of the salary they would have paid him had he remained on the roster. They are effectively getting additional cap room to trade for a free agent in a way that would not be possible for other teams who aren't exploiting this rule. Thus, the notion that he wants a championship is likely to breed more resentment for the rule not provide a persuasive justification for it.

Edited February 26, 2010 by AHF