elindholm
edited for content
I am indebted to capologist for answering some questions for me. Every time I think I've got a handle on the CBA, I discover some new wrinkle that throws me. But I sorted out some questions, PM'ed our resident expert, and got answers. Here's what I learned:
The Suns do, technically, still have their MLE -- unless they've renounced it, which there would be no need for them to do yet. However, there's no real advantage for them in using the MLE, because it's less that than the cap space they could use otherwise.
A team's MLE counts against its team salary, even if a team is under the cap, until the team renounces it. What difference does it make? It has something to do with closing some loophole which I don't fully understand.
But the point is, if the Suns want to use their remaining $5-6 million of cap space, they have to renounce their MLE. This is because, until they renounce it, it counts on their team salary -- meaning that they aren't really under the cap at all, except by a few dollars.
To quote capologist:
The Suns can (assuming current cap estimates are correct) get $16.3M under the cap by renouncing the Bird rights of all their QVFAs (from elindholm: I think this means Qualifying Veteran Free Agents), their MLE, and their MDE. This would give them enough room to sign Nash and a ~$5M player.
If they do (from elindholm: I think this is a typo and he means "don't") renounce their MLE, then the MLE counts against the cap, leaving them with just about enough room to sign Nash. They can they use the MLE to sign a ~$5M player, but won't be able to sign a ~$5M without the MLE.
...
I suppose it's possible that there is no actual notification required (from elindholm: here he's talking about the procedure for renouncing the MLE), and teams are simply permitted to do anything that would be possible by some path. (I.e., you can sign Nash, and then sign a ~$5M player. You can then claim that you renounced the MLE and signed the ~5M with the room created by the difference between your Team Salary and the cap, or you can claim that you used the MLE to sign the player. But you can't eat your cake and have it too; there is no way you could have signed the $5M player and still have your MLE, so either way, it's gone at this point.)
...
If you want to be rigorously formal, then I'll grant that, in some technical sense, it's possible for a team that's below the cap by more than the amount of the MLE to use the MLE anyway--but in such a case, it wouldn't function as an exception in any effective sense. That is, it would not provide a mechanism by which the team could acquire a payroll in excess of the cap.
Whew! Everyone got that? The bottom line is, while it's not technically wrong to say that the Suns still have their MLE, it's meaningless -- they can spend the remaining $5-6 million they have in cap space, and that's it.
The Suns do, technically, still have their MLE -- unless they've renounced it, which there would be no need for them to do yet. However, there's no real advantage for them in using the MLE, because it's less that than the cap space they could use otherwise.
A team's MLE counts against its team salary, even if a team is under the cap, until the team renounces it. What difference does it make? It has something to do with closing some loophole which I don't fully understand.
But the point is, if the Suns want to use their remaining $5-6 million of cap space, they have to renounce their MLE. This is because, until they renounce it, it counts on their team salary -- meaning that they aren't really under the cap at all, except by a few dollars.
To quote capologist:
The Suns can (assuming current cap estimates are correct) get $16.3M under the cap by renouncing the Bird rights of all their QVFAs (from elindholm: I think this means Qualifying Veteran Free Agents), their MLE, and their MDE. This would give them enough room to sign Nash and a ~$5M player.
If they do (from elindholm: I think this is a typo and he means "don't") renounce their MLE, then the MLE counts against the cap, leaving them with just about enough room to sign Nash. They can they use the MLE to sign a ~$5M player, but won't be able to sign a ~$5M without the MLE.
...
I suppose it's possible that there is no actual notification required (from elindholm: here he's talking about the procedure for renouncing the MLE), and teams are simply permitted to do anything that would be possible by some path. (I.e., you can sign Nash, and then sign a ~$5M player. You can then claim that you renounced the MLE and signed the ~5M with the room created by the difference between your Team Salary and the cap, or you can claim that you used the MLE to sign the player. But you can't eat your cake and have it too; there is no way you could have signed the $5M player and still have your MLE, so either way, it's gone at this point.)
...
If you want to be rigorously formal, then I'll grant that, in some technical sense, it's possible for a team that's below the cap by more than the amount of the MLE to use the MLE anyway--but in such a case, it wouldn't function as an exception in any effective sense. That is, it would not provide a mechanism by which the team could acquire a payroll in excess of the cap.
Whew! Everyone got that? The bottom line is, while it's not technically wrong to say that the Suns still have their MLE, it's meaningless -- they can spend the remaining $5-6 million they have in cap space, and that's it.
