Suns can use KT trade exception to acquire Cassell off waivers

[fordronken]

My understanding is the team picking up a player on waivers after a buyout would only have to pay the prorated salary of the player's buyout for the remainder of the season.

Yes. Right. I should have thought of that. So the prorated salary, with the luxury tax is...what...6 million?

Somebody make sure Kerr knows he can do this.

 

[BeeBeard]

My understanding is the team picking up a player on waivers after a buyout would only have to pay the prorated salary of the player's buyout for the remainder of the season.

Nobody wants to pay $2 milion so that they can rent Sam Cassell for the rest of the season. Every team that wants him will wait two days and offer him something in the 400k range.

 

[elindholm]

No no, the two things are separate. The buyout always goes down regardless

I haven't read anything authoritative to support that. If the Suns claim him off waivers, what is the status of the "buyout"? The buyout dissolves and he is on his original contract. The whole point of a buyout is that it terminates a contract. Someone can't employ a player on a "buyout contract."

 

[jlove]

Well, since I was wrong in the whole waivers thing, if anyone knows how to get a hold of Kerr, Jerry C, or D'Antoni, they need to get ahold of them and tell them to use the TPE to get Cassell off waivers as soon as he goes on. If we could come out of the next few days with Barry and Cassell, I'd be freakin ecstatic beyond belief. Our inside is secure with Amare, Shaq, Diaw, and Skinner. Then we'd have Nash/Cassell, Bell/Barbosa, Hill/Barry. We'd definitely be 10 deep, and would have at least 2 fourth quarter assassins in Cassell and Barry along with Amare.

 

[BeeBeard]

I haven't read anything authoritative to support that. If the Suns claim him off waivers, what is the status of the "buyout"? The buyout dissolves and he is on his original contract. The whole point of a buyout is that it terminates a contract. Someone can't employ a player on a "buyout contract."

The two things have nothing to do with each other. That's why you won't find any information about it. I don't even know how this "waivers" discussion even got started.

The buyout is just an agreement between the team and the player to release the player from his current obligation to the team. The contract is kaput. In fact (and feel free to consult our friend with the giant FAQ) the only way you would even know that a contract existed is because the way in which the LOWER buyout amount is paid to the former player, and counted against the salary cap both change. And usually to the benefit of the team for which the player used to play.

 

[elindholm]

In case people missed it before, I've highlighted the key word:

59. What is a contract buy-out?

Sometimes players and teams decide to divorce each other. They do this by mutually agreeing that:

* The team will waive the player;
* IF the player clears waivers, the compensation protection for lack of skill (see question number 90) will be reduced or eliminated;

* Optionally the payment schedule for the remaining salary may be shortened or lengthened.

If the player does not clear waivers, there is no buyout.

 

[Mainstreet]

Yes. Right. I should have thought of that. So the prorated salary, with the luxury tax is...what...6 million?

Somebody make sure Kerr knows he can do this.

It's funny we're so wired into Cassell that we have forgotten Barry. So hypothetically, what is the cost of a Championship?... priceless.

 

[BeeBeard]

In case people missed it before, I've highlighted the key word:



If the player does not clear waivers, there is no buyout.

Change that to "when", please, or else feel free to name an example in which the player has never cleared waivers after a buyout. You know, like how I kindly asked someone to do like 4 posts ago.

 

[fordronken]

Change that to "when", please, or else feel free to name an example in which the player has never cleared waivers after a buyout. You know, like how I kindly asked someone to do like 4 posts ago.

We need to find an example or the rule doesn't exist? If the Suns claim him off waivers, then guess what? He doesn't clear them, and then he isn't bought out.

 

[elindholm]

Change that to "when"

Why? In your last post, you invited me to consult Coon as an authority. Maybe you should take up your proposed word change with him.

feel free to name an example in which the player has never cleared waivers after a buyout.

Whether it has happened and whether it can happen are two entirely different things, as I assume you understand.

 

[sunsfn]

When Cassell goes on waivers,

If a team claims him, there is no buyout and the team that claims him pays his salary that is left on his contract. If it is just this year or 10 more years.

The Clips would be off the hook on the buyout if Cassell is claimed on waivers.

That has been that way for many years as I understand it.

 

[BeeBeard]

We need to find an example or the rule doesn't exist? If the Suns claim him off waivers, then guess what? He doesn't clear them, and then he isn't bought out.

My point is that it's just a masturbatory exercise because no team ever takes a player in that fashion when the original contract with the old team was so onerous to begin with. So it's stupidity itself to talk about "What if's?" regarding things that simply don't happen. That's why I said the two things have nothing to do with each other. Because in actual practice, they sure don't.

I'm sorry you missed that and decided to fight to the death about how a Cassell 20 game rental should be worth $4 million to a team.

 

[elindholm]

My point is that it's just a masturbatory exercise because no team ever takes a player in that fashion when the original contract with the old team was so onerous to begin with.

Dude, check the title of this thread. The point is that the Suns can do it, not that they will. You chose to argue that it was impossible, but that simply isn't the case. I agree that, from a practical standpoint, the question is moot because it won't happen, but that's not the debate.

So it's stupidity itself to talk about "What if's?" regarding things that simply don't happen.

It's just curiosity about the CBA. Some people find the pursuit of knowledge valuable irrespective of any immediate practical application of that knowledge. You evidently don't.

That's why I said the two things have nothing to do with each other.

No, the reason you said that was that you were mistaken, as you are now trying to cover up by disqualifying the entire debate as a waste of your precious time.

I'm sorry you missed

The only thing you regret is that you took such a hard-line stance and have now been proved wrong.

a Cassell 20 game rental should be worth $4 million to a team.

Actually, no, that was never discussed at all.

 

[BeeBeard]

Why? In your last post, you invited me to consult Coon as an authority. Maybe you should take up your proposed word change with him.



Whether it has happened and whether it can happen are two entirely different things, as I assume you understand.

Your semantics are extremely tiresome. You don't win any brownie points by trying to point out that a GM could do something that no GM ever does, because it's like flushing money down the toilet to do so.

See my prior post regarding how petty and ridiculous it is to try to take me to task over things that don't happen. I'm not impressed at all.

 

[fordronken]

I'm sorry you missed that and decided to fight to the death about how a Cassell 20 game rental should be worth $4 million to a team.

If that's what you consider a fight to the death, you should be very glad you aren't a professional gladiator. Or even an American Gladiator for that matter.

 

[BeeBeard]

Dude, check the title of this thread. The point is that the Suns can do it, not that they will. You chose to argue that it was impossible, but that simply isn't the case. I agree that, from a practical standpoint, the question is moot because it won't happen, but that's not the debate.

There is no "debate" because you're simply arguing for something that simply doesn't happen, "dude." If I argue over something, it's going to be over practical things, not hypothetical NBA personnel practices that only exist in the ether. Earlier, you tried to argue that "It could happen!" and now probably feel like an ass considering it never does. Trying to discount your not realizing this earlier is not the same as apologizing for not realizing this earlier.

It's just curiosity about the CBA. Some people find the pursuit of knowledge valuable irrespective of any immediate practical application of that knowledge. You evidently don't.

If that were actually true, you would have just cited to the actual CBA (Google for it, it's not hard to find) instead of the frequently inaccurate Cliff's Notes summary. No, you're just trying to make a petty point for the sake of absolutely nothing, least of all your knowledge or anyone else's.

No, the reason you said that was that you were mistaken, as you are now trying to cover up by disqualifying the entire debate as a waste of your precious time.

This is you making things up. If you read what I wrote, I said "they have nothing to do with each other" and encouraged somebody to find an example in which they did. You can mischaracterize a post all you want, but it doesn't make it the truth.

The only thing you regret is that you took such a hard-line stance and have now been proved wrong.

"They have nothing to do with each other. The waivers are a mere formality." Wow, I said it a third time. And it's still just as true as ever.

Actually, no, that was never discussed at all.

It's back-of-the-napkin math as far as how much Cassell would be owed on the remaining season. You missed that, too.

For somebody who claims to be debating here, you sure

1. Picked something pretty stupid and moot to try to argue about and
2. Fail to even acknowledge anything any other posters have said, including me

That's not you debating, or even having a conversation. That's you disappointing us.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

BeeBeard, you are completely missing the point of why the Suns (and any other team with the ability) would do this in this particular situation.

Almost always you are correct, a team won't claim someone off of waivers because they are better off competing for his services on the open market when they could like sign him for the minimum.

However, in the case of Cassell, it is pretty much written in stone that if he clears waivers he is going to sign with Boston. Now if another competing team wanted to get him on their roster, they can ensure that they get him. They won't have to compete, and lose to Boston for his services.

Normally it would never happen, but with how crazy teams in the west are right now trying to pick up every last piece to help them - it isn't unreasonable to see it is a legit possibility that he gets claimed.

 

[weakbomb]

Phoenix Suns doesnt need Sam Cassell. Sam Cassell must retire. He is done.

 

[BeeBeard]

BeeBeard, you are completely missing the point of why the Suns (and any other team with the ability) would do this in this particular situation.

Almost always you are correct, a team won't claim someone off of waivers because they are better off competing for his services on the open market when they could like sign him for the minimum.

However, in the case of Cassell, it is pretty much written in stone that if he clears waivers he is going to sign with Boston. Now if another competing team wanted to get him on their roster, they can ensure that they get him. They won't have to compete, and lose to Boston for his services.

Normally it would never happen, but with how crazy teams in the west are right now trying to pick up every last piece to help them - it isn't unreasonable to see it is a legit possibility that he gets claimed.

This is actually the first good, non-semantic argument I've read in this thread.

I think the problem with it is that Cassell himself is just not down for that kind of indentured servitude. Cassell has said that he has plenty of money, his first underpaid years with the Rockets notwithstanding. That's why buyout talks, aiding the Clippers, are even on the table. He's rich enough as it is. So it's hard to tempt a player with that mindset with monetary incentives such as the remainder of his old contract or more money than the veteran's minimum.

You have to resort to intangible carrots, and here again Cassell is hard to tempt. He has two rings already, so he's not trying to go ring-hunting with a contender--and Boston was the sole team mentioned as a destination, post-buyout, strictly because of Cassell's positive past history with Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. And even then, Sam has been teasing the people of Boston by saying he'd like to play for the Celtics, then he doesn't, then he does...best guess is that he finally makes up his mind and flies back to his home planet.

 

[jlove]

Phoenix Suns doesnt need Sam Cassell. Sam Cassell must retire. He is done.

You're smoking crack. He would be a perfect fit here behind Nash. Plus he's one of the best 4th quarter assassins in the league. If you think he's done and that the Suns don't need him, you don't know basketball.

 

[elindholm]

Earlier, you tried to argue that "It could happen!" and now probably feel like an ass considering it never does.

Heh! Of course I know it hasn't happened. I'm sure I'm older than you are and I follow the league just as carefully. If you weren't new to this board, you would know that I have a long history here of helping people to understand CBA rules.

If that were actually true, you would have just cited to the actual CBA (Google for it, it's not hard to find) instead of the frequently inaccurate Cliff's Notes summary.

You're the first person to characterize Coon's FAQ as "frequently inaccurate." It is, in fact, one of the most respected resources in professional basketball. If you have found some geniune errors in it, I know that Coon would appreciate your having pointed them out to him. He takes the FAQ very seriously and enjoys feedback on it. (He has responded to my emails on multiple occasions when I have asked him for clarification on one of the finer points.)

This is you making things up. If you read what I wrote, I said "they have nothing to do with each other"

You also wrote, "The buyout always goes down regardless, but as another poster said, what a new team who picks the player up may or may not have to pay is contingent on their waiver status." That is completely wrong.

"They have nothing to do with each other. The waivers are a mere formality." Wow, I said it a third time. And it's still just as true as ever.

I agree with you there. It is "just as true as ever" in the sense of being equally false all three times. If the Suns weren't such penny-pinchers, they could very well go after Cassell here -- and it could even be considered good strategy, although it would be a tough case to make.

It's back-of-the-napkin math as far as how much Cassell would be owed on the remaining season. You missed that, too.

What makes you think I missed it?

For somebody who claims to be debating here, you sure

1. Picked something pretty stupid and moot to try to argue about and

I'm correcting your errors. Had you not made them, there would be nothing for me to say. But if someone on this board asks a question about the CBA, I (among others) try to make sure that the right answer is presented.

2. Fail to even acknowledge anything any other posters have said, including me

I've quoted your errors several times. In what way does that not acknowledge you?

That's you disappointing us.

In my experience here, most people want the facts, so no, I'm not disappointing them at all.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Phoenix Suns doesnt need Sam Cassell. Sam Cassell must retire. He is done.

You're smoking crack. He would be a perfect fit here behind Nash. Plus he's one of the best 4th quarter assassins in the league. If you think he's done and that the Suns don't need him, you don't know basketball.

He might not have seen CASSELL kill us in the 4th quarter when we played them THIS YEAR.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Change that to "when", please, or else feel free to name an example in which the player has never cleared waivers after a buyout. You know, like how I kindly asked someone to do like 4 posts ago.

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't.

There is no place mentioned where the process is different because of a buyout.

You are wrong on this one. Any waived player can have his contract picked up by another team. This almost never happens because the contract is not desirable and no team wants to let the player's old team out of their obligation.

Teams love to wait until aftward because it allows the waived player to double dip. He gets paid his old deal, plus he gets whatever any new team wants to pay him.

 

[BeeBeard]

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't.

There is no place mentioned where the process is different because of a buyout.

You are wrong on this one. Any waived player can have his contract picked up by another team. This almost never happens because the contract is not desirable and no team wants to let the player's old team out of their obligation.

Teams love to wait until aftward because it allows the waived player to double dip. He gets paid his old deal, plus he gets whatever any new team wants to pay him.

Couldn't have said it better myself:

http://arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1634826#post1634826

 

[dreamcastrocks]

elindholm is right about Coon's FAQ's. There are correct.