Baker released

[DERRENMATTS]

Using the Amnesty clause, we have released Vin Baker tonight. He was set to make 10.7 million over the next 2 years.

In overall terms, this move is insignificant, since he is no longer on the team and has been out of our thoughts for a while now.

Mev, care to explain how this affects us salary wise?

[BCHISTORIAN]

right now it doesn't affect us since we are at 53 million now with our salaries. it does good to teams who are OVER the cap. they still have to pay salaries but doesn't have to pay dollar-to-dollar tax for it.
for example when a team with salaries of 80 million waives a player who has to get 10 million salary then the team doesn't have to pay 10 million penalty for that.

as i said above it doesn't affect us right now but if grousbecks intend to take on bigger contracts next year that push our salaries over the 60 million barrier then we don't have to pay luxury tax for it as long as we are not over the limit for more than the amount that gin baker gets.

my english got kind of fuzzy here...hope you understood

[DERRENMATTS]

So if the luxury tax is 60 million, and a team has a 70 million dollar salary, that means that they owe 10 million in luxury tax to the league, right? Dollar for dollar over the luxury tax of 60 million?

So if we still have to pay Baker's salary, why waive him now if its not going to affect us? Is the Amnesty Clause a one time deal only for this year? I understand if its only available this year. But if we could have used it in some other year, we should have saved it for a rainy day. I mean, its not like Baker was counting against our roster count anyways, right?

[BCHISTORIAN]

derrenmatts said:

So if the luxury tax is 60 million, and a team has a 70 million dollar salary, that means that they owe 10 million in luxury tax to the league, right? Dollar for dollar over the luxury tax of 60 million?

So if we still have to pay Baker's salary, why waive him now if its not going to affect us? Is the Amnesty Clause a one time deal only for this year? I understand if its only available this year. But if we could have used it in some other year, we should have saved it for a rainy day. I mean, its not like Baker was counting against our roster count anyways, right?

the answer for both question is yes.
yes for dollar-for.dollar luxury tax...
yes - amnesty clause is one time deal (for this year only)

[mev17]

derrenmatts said:

So if the luxury tax is 60 million, and a team has a 70 million dollar salary, that means that they owe 10 million in luxury tax to the league, right? Dollar for dollar over the luxury tax of 60 million?

So if we still have to pay Baker's salary, why waive him now if its not going to affect us? Is the Amnesty Clause a one time deal only for this year? I understand if its only available this year. But if we could have used it in some other year, we should have saved it for a rainy day. I mean, its not like Baker was counting against our roster count anyways, right?

The amnesty clause is a one time deal that had to be exercised by tonight; it could not be used next year. What cutting Baker means is that his $5.3 million will not count toward the luxury tax calculation either this year or next year (as he was on the books for two more years). We lose nothing by releasing Baker, who did not play for us anyway, and gained some leeway in case any trade inches us toward the luxury tax.

So, let's say the luxury tax is $60 million and our current payroll, including Baker, is $53 million. Ainge uses the trade exception he got in the Walker trade, plus a draft pick and Blount, and in return got a player making $5 million a year, and another player making $7.5 million per year. (This would work, for the trade would be structured as two different trades, the pick + exception for the $5 million player, and Blount for the $7.5 million player; since Blount has a 15% trade kicker, his $5.5 million salary becomes $6.3 million for the trade, and $7.5 million is within 25% of that). We basically traded our current $5.5 million salary and got $12.5 million in return, putting us at $60 million. But since we waived Baker, his $5.3 million does not count for the luxury tax, so we remain under the threshold, with $54.7 million.

[DERRENMATTS]

Thanks both of you. Its all Greek to me, but you guys make it much easier for me to understand it in leymen's terms.

Well, Ainge accomplished another of his feats, which was to get our salary into manageable territory.

[BCHISTORIAN]

mev you are better at explaining these things than i am. the language barrier is my disadvantage. from now on all CBA related questions belong to you

[The Eye of the Q is upon you!]

The luxery tax threshold is $61.7 million for those teams electing not to use the amnesty clause.

With this maneuver, Boston's luxery tax threshold went from 61.7 to 67.0 million dollars.

This is an important book-keeping manuever since our current cap number is about 53.5 million after signing all the rooks and Brian Scalabrine.

We are able to use that trade coupon of 7 million plus use the exceptions over the next two years without crossing the luxery tax threshold.

[Celtic17]

bchistorian said:

mev you are better at explaining these things than i am. the language barrier is my disadvantage.

BC-
I see nothing wrong with your knowledge of the English language.
You guys made this rule much more clear for me.

[Roadrunner]

Danny got rid of Gin & Juice. Good move. Gives the team more short-term leverage.

[Celtic17]

DA is the bartender, you know...

[BCHISTORIAN]

celtic17 said:

bchistorian said:

mev you are better at explaining these things than i am. the language barrier is my disadvantage.

BC-
I see nothing wrong with your knowledge of the English language.
You guys made this rule much more clear for me.

self-criticism and awareness of your limitations