CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: footey on October 12, 2008, 12:58:48 PM
-
Unfortunately, the Globe set us straight: Scal won't be cut due to his salary:
"Wait and see: Don't be surprised if the Celtics don't make the one needed cut to get to the 15-man roster until the deadline day, Oct. 27. It also looks very doubtful that they will make a trade. Don't expect Brian Scalabrine to be waived since the Celtics wouldn't eat his salary."
Looks like either Miles is cut, or BBD or Giddens is traded for a future pick. Hard to envision any other scenario, especially since Gabe is starting to step it up.
-
Uncuttable, perhaps... Unforgivable... perhaps...
-
It's really unfortunate that a player as terrible as Scal will be kept on our roster because of his contract. Miles is coming off of what was supposed to be career-ending knee surgery, and he still moves better than Scal and jumps higher. Frankly, I don't understand why the contract issue is even important. Scal will get his money either way, will not help the team either way, and is literally untradeable. There is not a team in this league that would take Scal as part of a deal unless he came along with Kevin Garnett. He has NEGATIVE value. He brings the worth of our trades DOWN. Scal and BBD for, I don't know, Hakeem Warrick, is something I can see being done because of this equation:
BBD + (-Scal) = Warrick
Scal doesn't belong in the NBA. I don't have a problem with him being in it, though, unless it impedes someone who DOES deserve the chance to be in the league from joining a team. Darius Miles functioning at 50% of his previous capacity is a better player than Scal. Someone please explain to me why money that will be paid to Scal either way should be the reason we keep him around. I'm at a loss.
-
Looks like either Miles is cut, or BBD or Giddens is traded for a future pick. Hard to envision any other scenario, especially since Gabe is starting to step it up.
People need to stop suggesting that Giddens will be traded, cut, etc...
He is a first round pick, in his first year. There is absolutely 0 chance that he would be traded, unless someone offered a first rounder which is unlikely.
-
Unfortunately, the Globe set us straight: Scal won't be cut due to his salary:
"Wait and see: Don't be surprised if the Celtics don't make the one needed cut to get to the 15-man roster until the deadline day, Oct. 27. It also looks very doubtful that they will make a trade. Don't expect Brian Scalabrine to be waived since the Celtics wouldn't eat his salary."
Looks like either Miles is cut, or BBD or Giddens is traded for a future pick. Hard to envision any other scenario, especially since Gabe is starting to step it up.
Sounds like nothing more than specualtion regarding eating scal's contract.
-
I wish Scal would be cut. He is a puzzle piece that just does not fit in our puzzle.
-
Uncuttable, perhaps... Unforgivable... perhaps...
unlovable...never
-
I read where Wyc said that they make decisions for basketball reasons and not for money reasons. I hope this will be one of those decisions made for the good of the team for basketball reasons and not for money reasons. Scal simply doesn't add anything to the team and has no future potential as the young guys do. Eating 2 years at 3 mill each shouldn't be a problem for a team that ate 3 years of Vin Baker's contract at 5 mill per year.
My alternate scenario would be to cut Sam and immediately add him to the coaching staff since that is what he seems to be doing now anyway.
-
He's not going to get cut because he's an asset to the team. Keep hoping. But it isn't going to happen.
-
An asset to the team? That's a good one!
;D
-
He's not going to get cut because he's an asset to the team. Keep hoping. But it isn't going to happen.
have you watched the preseason? i don't care how good of a guy he is in practice or behind the scenes its getting ridiculous. if he cared even a tiny bit about the team he would have come to camp in better shape.
-
He's not going to get cut because he's an asset to the team. Keep hoping. But it isn't going to happen.
Where did the 'et' come from?
Someone from the 16 has to be cut if there is no trade. An asset will be cut. The question is whether they feel that Miles has proven enough to get a contract for the season, forcing the Celtics to cut a guaranteed contract. If Miles doesn't show enough, then we go with the guaranteed guys.
Considering that the players who were ahead of Scal on the depth chart (BBD and Powe) have another year of development under their belt, Scal seems very unnecessary at this point. The only reason why management would consider keeping him is that they view him as someone who understands the defensive rotations.
I am not going to be presumptuous in saying that I can better evaluate Scal's performance than Doc or Ainge can, but his playing time seems to indicate that they don't think too highly of his ability to contribute.
-
Considering that the players who were ahead of Scal on the depth chart (BBD and Powe) have another year of development under their belt, Scal seems very unnecessary at this point. The only reason why management would consider keeping him is that they view him as someone who understands the defensive rotations. [/b]
Hello??? That's pretty much it in a nutshell. That, and in a pinch, he's an adequate sub at 3 different positions and knows them all defensively. Then there's his salary they'd have to eat.
He's not going anywhere. The reality is that Scal looks awful on the court. But as a rule, he doesn't hurt the team by being out there.
-
Considering that the players who were ahead of Scal on the depth chart (BBD and Powe) have another year of development under their belt, Scal seems very unnecessary at this point. The only reason why management would consider keeping him is that they view him as someone who understands the defensive rotations. [/b]
Hello??? That's pretty much it in a nutshell. That, and in a pinch, he's an adequate sub at 3 different positions and knows them all defensively. Then there's his salary they'd have to eat.
He's not going anywhere. The reality is that Scal looks awful on the court. But as a rule, he doesn't hurt the team by being out there.
This is it. For all of his offensive shortcomings (ineptness, suckiness, whatever you want to call it), Scal is still one of the best defensive players they have on their bench. He not only always makes the right rotations, but against certain matchups, he can be a shutdown defender (like against Dirk last year). He is a guy that the coach can feel comfortable putting in the rotation if there are injuries, without worrying about the defense completely falling apart...unfortunately, you can't say that about some of the other guys on the bench.
Also, it is not just about "eating" Scals contract. His contract also represents major flexibility. They can use it to match contracts in a trade. Also, if they just cut him, it removes any chance of gaining some flexibility to save luxury tax money next year. In the NBA today, things like that are immensely important. Just look at the Ratliff/Lafrentz deal. It rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it hurt the team immediately on the court...but it was necessary if they wanted to make a big splash later on (the Garnett deal).
-
Also, it is not just about "eating" Scals contract. His contract also represents major flexibility. They can use it to match contracts in a trade. Also, if they just cut him, it removes any chance of gaining some flexibility to save luxury tax money next year. In the NBA today, things like that are immensely important. Just look at the Ratliff/Lafrentz deal. It rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it hurt the team immediately on the court...but it was necessary if they wanted to make a big splash later on (the Garnett deal).
Its not major flexibility, its 3.2 mil this year and 3.4 next - Lafrentz and Ratliff had near max contracts, which was why we could use Theo's plus a ton of actual assets to get KG
we're not going to net a major player for 3 million dollars, because they just don't exist, unless they're under a rookie scale and a team would be foolish to trade a guy like that for veal...
while I wouldn't agree with eating Scal's contract, because it is a waste of money, its not a big enough chunk of change to alter the landscape of this basketball team one way or the other - and who knows, perhaps a buyout can be reached
-
Also, it is not just about "eating" Scals contract. His contract also represents major flexibility. They can use it to match contracts in a trade. Also, if they just cut him, it removes any chance of gaining some flexibility to save luxury tax money next year. In the NBA today, things like that are immensely important. Just look at the Ratliff/Lafrentz deal. It rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it hurt the team immediately on the court...but it was necessary if they wanted to make a big splash later on (the Garnett deal).
Its not major flexibility, its 3.2 mil this year and 3.4 next - Lafrentz and Ratliff had near max contracts, which was why we could use Theo's plus a ton of actual assets to get KG
we're not going to net a major player for 3 million dollars, because they just don't exist, unless they're under a rookie scale and a team would be foolish to trade a guy like that for veal...
while I wouldn't agree with eating Scal's contract, because it is a waste of money, its not a big enough chunk of change to alter the landscape of this basketball team one way or the other - and who knows, perhaps a buyout can be reached
Why would they want to buy Scal out? I'm amazed at how bad most people think he is. His pay is relatively low. He doesn't appear to disrupt team unity whether he plays 30 minutes or doesn't dress. As Chris said, he's absolutely valuable defensively. He's not only one of the best defensive players on the bench. He's one of the best defensive players on the team. I guaranty that Davis, Powe, Walker, Pierce, and Garnett benefit from going against Scal in practice.
Scal, thankfully, doesn't try to do the things he can't when the games count. The things he does do, even for 30 games a year and in practice, are what makes Scal uncuttable.
-
Also, it is not just about "eating" Scals contract. His contract also represents major flexibility. They can use it to match contracts in a trade. Also, if they just cut him, it removes any chance of gaining some flexibility to save luxury tax money next year. In the NBA today, things like that are immensely important. Just look at the Ratliff/Lafrentz deal. It rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it hurt the team immediately on the court...but it was necessary if they wanted to make a big splash later on (the Garnett deal).
Its not major flexibility, its 3.2 mil this year and 3.4 next - Lafrentz and Ratliff had near max contracts, which was why we could use Theo's plus a ton of actual assets to get KG
we're not going to net a major player for 3 million dollars, because they just don't exist, unless they're under a rookie scale and a team would be foolish to trade a guy like that for veal...
while I wouldn't agree with eating Scal's contract, because it is a waste of money, its not a big enough chunk of change to alter the landscape of this basketball team one way or the other - and who knows, perhaps a buyout can be reached
You gotta look at the contracts on this roster dude...3+ million isn't alot by itself, but its our best singular value contract beyond Perk and the big 3...Scal's contract is our best "add-in" asset to package together with younger, less experienced players in order to reach a 6-8 million dollar figure...
..Scal's value is as trade filler...he is versatile and competent defensively, but he's never going to be a part of the rotation...
edited to fix quotes - Chris
-
Also, it is not just about "eating" Scals contract. His contract also represents major flexibility. They can use it to match contracts in a trade. Also, if they just cut him, it removes any chance of gaining some flexibility to save luxury tax money next year. In the NBA today, things like that are immensely important. Just look at the Ratliff/Lafrentz deal. It rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it hurt the team immediately on the court...but it was necessary if they wanted to make a big splash later on (the Garnett deal).
Its not major flexibility, its 3.2 mil this year and 3.4 next - Lafrentz and Ratliff had near max contracts, which was why we could use Theo's plus a ton of actual assets to get KG
we're not going to net a major player for 3 million dollars, because they just don't exist, unless they're under a rookie scale and a team would be foolish to trade a guy like that for veal...
while I wouldn't agree with eating Scal's contract, because it is a waste of money, its not a big enough chunk of change to alter the landscape of this basketball team one way or the other - and who knows, perhaps a buyout can be reached
Why would they want to buy Scal out? I'm amazed at how bad most people think he is. His pay is relatively low. He doesn't appear to disrupt team unity whether he plays 30 minutes or doesn't dress. As Chris said, he's absolutely valuable defensively. He's not only one of the best defensive players on the bench. He's one of the best defensive players on the team. I guaranty that Davis, Powe, Walker, Pierce, and Garnett benefit from going against Scal in practice.
Scal, thankfully, doesn't try to do the things he can't when the games count. The things he does do, even for 30 games a year and in practice, are what makes Scal uncuttable.
I'm going to respectfully disagree - to say he "doesn't try to do the things he can't when the games count." is way off - A) he's rarely if ever on the floor when the games count - he played 10 mpg when he got in games this year (barely half of the games the team played) B) when the games really counted, i.e. the playoffs, guess how much he played this year? 0, none. He did nothing in a game to help us reach green 17.
Maybe he's a fantastic practice player and works really hard - but you know what? I'd much rather have Bill Walker, JR Giddens, Darius Miles, even Gabe Pruitt out there doing reps in practice and earning their minutes, because they are the ones who will actually play in the games
Now yes, 3 million is a good chunk of change to buy out by your standards or my standards, but this is the NBA - a land where a guy like Steve Francis was bought out by the Blazers for 30 million dollars
its time to see the writing on the wall and get real - Scal's positive effect on this team is so minimal that buying him out, or exploring a trade would be our most sensible options because there are 15 guys ahead of him who can help this team more
(now I'd be all for keeping Scal on as an assistant, ala Dana Barros, then he can practice with the team if that really is helping them)
-
espn's profile for Scal:
"2007-08 season: As a rotation player, Scalabrine is a disaster. As a 12th man, though, you could do a lot worse. He's smart and prepared, he plays hard, and everyone likes him, plus he's not a defensive liability so putting him into a game won't screw everything up.
That said, most healthy players on five-year contracts don't spend the postseason in civilian clothes; that Scalabrine was says all you need to know about the wisdom of inking him to that generous deal three years ago. Scalabrine is one of the least effective offensive players in basketball, shooting a ghastly 30.2 percent last season and ranking in the bottom five at his position in both TS% and turnover ratio. He's also an extremely poor rebounder for the power forward spot, and ended up ranking dead last among power forwards in PER.
Scouting report: Offensively, the one thing Scalabrine can kind of sort of do is hit 3-pointers, where he's at 34.7 percent for his career, but he won't shoot them unless he's wide, wide open. He's also a decent ball handler for his size. Otherwise, he mostly tries to stay out of the way.
Defensively, he's a good team defender who gives up his body and gets to the right spots, but average at best in 1-on-1 situations. He can play either forward spot, but usually the match-ups are much better for him at the 4.
2008-09 outlook: Scalabrine has two guaranteed years left on his deal, so he'll be waving a towel from the behind the bench again this spring. With all the outstanding personnel moves Danny Ainge made to build the Celtics into champions, Scalabrine's five-year, $15 million deal stands out even more as a glaring exception."
also note he ranks 2nd to last in the league for the Hollinger rating (among players w/ significant minutes):
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/rankings?pos=-1&start=310 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/rankings?pos=-1&start=310)
the writings on the wall people - if Scal is on this roster it is because of salary and salary alone
at least if he is let go he has a hobby to hold him through:
(http://www.allsportyoga.com/bora_images/mag-shot.jpg)
-
OK, if you want to rehabilitate Scal, then you need to simplify his game. He needs to continue to go quick on D (where he is pretty good) and he needs to really slow it down on O. What I mean is, he should continue to block shots, rebound and get the steals; and then he needs to hang on to the ball and wait for a guard to come up right next to him. (The guards need to help him out by coming back to him.) Hand the ball off or give a short pass. No way he should be throwing long outlets or trying to do too much. Slow it down. He's not part of a fast-break offense. On offense, he needs to set picks and sit out at the three-point line (and get back on transition). Only if he has a wide open 3 should he be shooting. Simplify his game and he'll play better.
My question is whether BBD has learned enough to fulfill these roles just as well. If so, Scal becomes a bit more expendable.
The other thing, and you all heard it hear first, is whether the Celts will ever go to a Twin Towers lineup.
Just wondering. With O'Neill and Bosh, with Brand and Dalembert, with Bynum and Gasol, it might make sense sometimes (if KG is resting or in foul trouble) to play Perk and O'Bryant (particularly if Baby and Powe are getting abused). In a strange way, this flexibility may also mean that Scal is less necessary defensively at the 4; and I don't see him playing backup at the 3 over Tony and Bill Walker.
I'm not saying it's going to happen. But I definitely don't think it's impossible that Scal is cut.
Here's the analysis. First, can Miles contribute more than Scal to the team. (You have to figure in practice squad and locker room. This might favor Scal.) Second, if Miles can contribute more, is his contribution minus his salary worth more than Scal and the value of his expiring contract. (Scal's salary is a sunk cost. It doesn't fit into the equation. It gets paid regardless.)
This is a high hurdle for Miles. He has to show he's a team guy and a solid citizen. He has to contribute more now than Scal, and more in the future than whoever we could get with the extra money next year. He may not meet the threshold. But if he does, the Celts management will make that decision.
I guess another question is: do you think BBD can do everything at the 4 that Scal can do? If so, do you think Scal is better defensively at the 3 than Bill Walker and Darius Miles will be? My read is that BBD has more potential than Scal, and so does Bill Walker. So, we're talking about the fifteenth guy. The only question is whether it's Scal (probable) or Miles (possible, but a very high hurdle). We don't know the answer yet.
-
OK, if you want to rehabilitate Scal, then you need to simplify his game. He needs to continue to go quick on D (where he is pretty good) and he needs to really slow it down on O. What I mean is, he should continue to block shots, rebound and get the steals; and then he needs to hang on to the ball and wait for a guard to come up right next to him. (The guards need to help him out by coming back to him.) Hand the ball off or give a short pass. No way he should be throwing long outlets or trying to do too much. Slow it down. He's not part of a fast-break offense. On offense, he needs to set picks and sit out at the three-point line (and get back on transition). Only if he has a wide open 3 should he be shooting. Simplify his game and he'll play better.
My question is whether BBD has learned enough to fulfill these roles just as well. If so, Scal becomes a bit more expendable.
The other thing, and you all heard it hear first, is whether the Celts will ever go to a Twin Towers lineup.
Just wondering. With O'Neill and Bosh, with Brand and Dalembert, with Bynum and Gasol, it might make sense sometimes (if KG is resting or in foul trouble) to play Perk and O'Bryant (particularly if Baby and Powe are getting abused). In a strange way, this flexibility may also mean that Scal is less necessary defensively at the 4; and I don't see him playing backup at the 3 over Tony and Bill Walker.
I'm not saying it's going to happen. But I definitely don't think it's impossible that Scal is cut.
Here's the analysis. First, can Miles contribute more than Scal to the team. (You have to figure in practice squad and locker room. This might favor Scal.) Second, if Miles can contribute more, is his contribution minus his salary worth more than Scal and the value of his expiring contract. (Scal's salary is a sunk cost. It doesn't fit into the equation. It gets paid regardless.)
This is a high hurdle for Miles. He has to show he's a team guy and a solid citizen. He has to contribute more now than Scal, and more in the future than whoever we could get with the extra money next year. He may not meet the threshold. But if he does, the Celts management will make that decision.
I guess another question is: do you think BBD can do everything at the 4 that Scal can do? If so, do you think Scal is better defensively at the 3 than Bill Walker and Darius Miles will be? My read is that BBD has more potential than Scal, and so does Bill Walker. So, we're talking about the fifteenth guy. The only question is whether it's Scal (probable) or Miles (possible, but a very high hurdle). We don't know the answer yet.
pretty balanced analysis, and I love that you used the sunk cost fallacy... although one thing to remember is sunk costs are only sunk if there's nothing to recover - with Scal in a buyout situation perhaps we get back some of that money, or in a trade situation we get an asset equal to or less than that money... so yes its a foregone conclusion if he stays in green or is cut/boughtout the money goes to him, but he could end up elsewhere
-
If I had an extra $3Mil laying around, I'd help the Celtics pay off Scal just to get rid of him. Great teammate, horrible player.
-
He did nothing in a game to help us reach green 17.
Really?
That chunk of time that Garnett was out and Scal filled in wasn't a critical juncture? The defense didn't miss a beat, 911. Scal had a lot to do with that the minutes he filled in for Garnett. They won more of those games than they lost against some very good teams.
-
Also, it is not just about "eating" Scals contract. His contract also represents major flexibility. They can use it to match contracts in a trade. Also, if they just cut him, it removes any chance of gaining some flexibility to save luxury tax money next year. In the NBA today, things like that are immensely important. Just look at the Ratliff/Lafrentz deal. It rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it hurt the team immediately on the court...but it was necessary if they wanted to make a big splash later on (the Garnett deal).
Its not major flexibility, its 3.2 mil this year and 3.4 next - Lafrentz and Ratliff had near max contracts, which was why we could use Theo's plus a ton of actual assets to get KG
we're not going to net a major player for 3 million dollars, because they just don't exist, unless they're under a rookie scale and a team would be foolish to trade a guy like that for veal...
while I wouldn't agree with eating Scal's contract, because it is a waste of money, its not a big enough chunk of change to alter the landscape of this basketball team one way or the other - and who knows, perhaps a buyout can be reached
Why would they want to buy Scal out? I'm amazed at how bad most people think he is. His pay is relatively low. He doesn't appear to disrupt team unity whether he plays 30 minutes or doesn't dress. As Chris said, he's absolutely valuable defensively. He's not only one of the best defensive players on the bench. He's one of the best defensive players on the team. I guaranty that Davis, Powe, Walker, Pierce, and Garnett benefit from going against Scal in practice.
Scal, thankfully, doesn't try to do the things he can't when the games count. The things he does do, even for 30 games a year and in practice, are what makes Scal uncuttable.
Scal DOES try to do things he can't. Look at all of his bad passes. It is bizarre when he dribbles the ball in the open court and then runs over a defender or throws an alley oop way too high. Sadly, Scal is able to do a lot of damage on offense.
The big question is whether his team defense makes up for it. His rarely being active for games seems to say 'no'.
-
Maybe I'm just being dense; but if you buy out Scal's contract for less than the total amount due (he can still play in Europe) and replace him with a lesser rookie or vet minimum contract, you are likely to have a wash on a total dollar basis. The only loss is the value of his contract in a trade.
Not sure how a buyout counts in terms of cap or luxury tax, perhaps that is the kicker
-
He did nothing in a game to help us reach green 17.
Really?
That chunk of time that Garnett was out and Scal filled in wasn't a critical juncture? The defense didn't miss a beat, 911. Scal had a lot to do with that the minutes he filled in for Garnett. They won more of those games than they lost against some very good teams.
and that won them the championship? note Scal did not play in the playoffs. Scal barely played in the regular season. Yes they won some games when he was in there, but KG came back and Scal went right back to the shadows.
just for fun, lets take a trip down memory lane
1st game w/out KG - at Orlando - loss - Scal plays 21 minutes, scores a whopping 1 point, grabs a huge rebound and has a goose egg for all other stats - also he is a -4 for the game. C's lose by 3.. oops
2nd game - at Miami - Win 117-87 - yeah we needed Scal's defense to knock off those Heat, what would we have done without him? It might have been 117 - 97! (line was 2 pts, 5 boards, 4 fouls, 2 steals and an assist - in 16 minutes of play)(oh Powe had 25 off the bench...not too shabby)
3rd game - home vs. Dallas - can't get the box score for this one...
4th game - at Cleveland - 5 points in 17 minutes, we lose...he's a -3 for the night, we lose by 1.... oops again
5th game - home vs LAC - Scal starts and plays a whole 7 minutes in the win - he nails a three pointer and picks up an astounding 4 fouls in 7 minutes - Patrick O'Bryant would be jealous!
6th game - road at Minn. - 18 minutes - 0 pts, 3 rebounds, 2 fouls a steal a turnover - hero of the game, Leon Powe off the bench with 16 and 8 (and the gamewinner if I remember correctly)
7th game - home vs. San Antonio (a game I went to) Scal starts, plays 15 minutes, 2 pts, 4 boards, 3 fouls, 1 TO - hero of the game? Big Baby's D on Duncan
8th game - at Indiana - Can't get box for game this one- C's win
Last game w/out KG - vs. NY - C's Win 111-103 - Scal starts, Scal plays 2 minutes and 37 seconds and grabs a whole rebound...wow
so we played 9 games without KG and won 7 of them. Scal filled in a bit, but the real guys who stepped up were Powe and Baby (in the SAS game). The only critical games for playoff seeding would be Orlando and Cleveland (as the others were either non-playoff teams or Western conference teams) and guess which 2 games we lost... if you said Cleveland and Orlando ding ding ding...we have a winner...
and just to go to the super absurd and suggest that without Scal we lose 4 more of those games, we'd still have won the Eastern Conference, so that stretch, while morale building, showing we could play without KG, in the long run really didn't do anything, as KG came back, Scal went back to obscurity (or remained in it, as my analysis shows) and we won the title. Scal wore street clothes. We rejoiced.
I anxiously await your attempt at a comeback
-
Maybe I'm just being dense; but if you buy out Scal's contract for less than the total amount due (he can still play in Europe) and replace him with a lesser rookie or vet minimum contract, you are likely to have a wash on a total dollar basis. The only loss is the value of his contract in a trade.
Not sure how a buyout counts in terms of cap or luxury tax, perhaps that is the kicker
Good question: here's what I found:
"60. How do buy-outs affect a team's salary cap?
The agreed-upon buy-out amount (see question number 59) is included in the team salary instead of the salary called for in the contract. If the player had more than one season left on his contract, then the buy-out money is distributed among those seasons in proportion to the original salary. For example, say a player had three seasons remaining on his contract, with salaries of $10 million, $11 million and $12 million. The player and team agree to a buyout of $15 million. The $15 million is therefore charged to the team salary over the three seasons. Since the original contract had $33 million left to be paid, and $10 million is 30.3% of $33 million, 30.3% of the $15 million buyout, or $4.545 million, is included in the team salary in the first season following the buyout. Likewise, 33.33% of $15 million, or $5 million, is included in the team salary in the second season, and 36.36% of $15 million, or $5.455 million, is included in the team salary in the third season.
The distribution of the buy-out money is a matter of individual negotiation. Changing the number of years in which the money is paid does not change the number of years in which the team's team salary is charged. In the above example in which the player's contract is bought out with three seasons remaining, the buyout amount is always charged to the team salary over three seasons. It does not matter if the player is actually paid in a lump sum or over 20 years (a spread provision)."
so if we buy him out for say 3.3 mil total, that 3.3 counts against the cap evenly distributed over 2 years (and thus the luxury tax as well)
-
I haven't seen the preseason games, but the box scores look pretty dissastrous. After Posey left, I thought that opened up a great opportunity for Scal. He is a good defender, but too inconsistent 3 point shooter. I thought if he got himself into super shape, and really worked on his 3 oint stroke, he could get some decent minutes. From the sound of things, he has not taken advantage, and is open to some criticism.
-
Fans keep hoping the Celtics will cut Scalabrine and eat his contract... and that's natural enough. Fans are always ready to spend somebody else's money. But what I want to know is, how much is Sam Cassell's contract? Are the Celtics really tied down to it? And did Ainge put anything in there so he can shift Sam over to the coaching side?
I'd rather have Scalabrine on the roster than Cassell. Scalabrine is apparently not a problem in the locker room or practice. And he'll only be activated if other players get hurt. But I definitely don't want Cassell on the roster, becuase I don't want him impeding the progress of Gabe Pruitt. Pruitt may never dislodge Eddie House from the backup point guard position. But I don't want his chances complicated further by having Cassell suited up.
-
Maybe I'm just being dense; but if you buy out Scal's contract for less than the total amount due (he can still play in Europe) and replace him with a lesser rookie or vet minimum contract, you are likely to have a wash on a total dollar basis. The only loss is the value of his contract in a trade.
Not sure how a buyout counts in terms of cap or luxury tax, perhaps that is the kicker
Good question: here's what I found:
"60. How do buy-outs affect a team's salary cap?
The agreed-upon buy-out amount (see question number 59) is included in the team salary instead of the salary called for in the contract. If the player had more than one season left on his contract, then the buy-out money is distributed among those seasons in proportion to the original salary. For example, say a player had three seasons remaining on his contract, with salaries of $10 million, $11 million and $12 million. The player and team agree to a buyout of $15 million. The $15 million is therefore charged to the team salary over the three seasons. Since the original contract had $33 million left to be paid, and $10 million is 30.3% of $33 million, 30.3% of the $15 million buyout, or $4.545 million, is included in the team salary in the first season following the buyout. Likewise, 33.33% of $15 million, or $5 million, is included in the team salary in the second season, and 36.36% of $15 million, or $5.455 million, is included in the team salary in the third season.
The distribution of the buy-out money is a matter of individual negotiation. Changing the number of years in which the money is paid does not change the number of years in which the team's team salary is charged. In the above example in which the player's contract is bought out with three seasons remaining, the buyout amount is always charged to the team salary over three seasons. It does not matter if the player is actually paid in a lump sum or over 20 years (a spread provision)."
so if we buy him out for say 3.3 mil total, that 3.3 counts against the cap evenly distributed over 2 years (and thus the luxury tax as well)
Thanks - TP for the investigative reporting.
-
Lots of energy expended over a guy who will be one of 4 C's who will play only in blowouts or if injuries dessimate the team. #s 12, 13, 14, and 15 are guys who simply won't play much.
The only reason to care would be if Scal were taking a roster spot away from someone who a) has potential or b) would actually be a rotation player. Seeing that 'b' would be silly (he is not remaining in favor of a guy likely to be in the rotation), let's look at 'a': Players with potential who might be on the bubble: Pruitt, Giddens, BBD. I don't think Scal looks to be beating any of these guys for a roster spot and I doubt DA would cut any of these players in favor of Scal (though Danny knows best). On the other hand, the other 2 on the bubble are Sam and Darius. I don't see either of these guys as 'potential' guys -- they either still have it or they don't. I trust the C's brainstrust to determine who of Sam, Darius and Scal is the least valuable to the team.
My guess - Cassell will be cut as it makes sense for him to remain as coach/ practice player and be available as insurance if injury strikes, a trade creates a spot, or if one of the roster players doesn't pan out.
-
Yeah - sign a guy to a guaranteed contract and then cut him...makes perfect sense to me. ::)
-
Yeah - sign a guy to a guaranteed contract and then cut him...makes perfect sense to me. ::)
are you talking about cutting Cassell (guaranteed? not even sure this year)
or Scal
signed 3 years ago guaranteed... its not like we just signed him and then are cutting him, its that he didn't pan into the player we thought he'd be - I really think Danny felt Scal would be a 6th man here
-
Yeah - sign a guy to a guaranteed contract and then cut him...makes perfect sense to me. ::)
Makes more sense than cutting someone who will contribute more, if that is their justification.
I doubt Sam would have signed a non-guaranteed contract.
I will wait before getting down on Sam's first full season. He deserves a chance to go through camp with us.
-
Yes, I was talking about Cassell. His contract was guaranteed. Like Scal, he will not be cut.
Your cut candidates are:
Pruitt
Miles (doubtful)
Walker (not happening)
That leaves: Pruitt.
-
Yeah - sign a guy to a guaranteed contract and then cut him...makes perfect sense to me. ::)
For reasons previously mentioned, with Cassell it does make sense -- especially if his contract is vet minimum (someone please chime in here who knows), since there is no added impact via luxury tax or cap. At about $1 million, what is the loss? Granted it's not my million, but I imagine Wyc, et al will sacrifice a million (actually they'll get Sam to coach and the net cost will be even less) if it means keeping a more talented player.