using the stretch provision on Turkoglu?
by kerem on Nov 28, 2011 2:58 PM EST
Email
PrintPretty much a given we'll be amnestying Gilbert Arenas.
But what about using the stretch provision on Turk? Instead of owing him $11 mil over each of the next two years, we'd owe him $4.5 mil each of the next five years. Is having that extra $6.5 million over the next two years worth it? I'm inclined to think so -- we'd have about $50 mil in salaries, meaning we might actually have room to sign some decent FAs.
A very very optimistic idea of a possible lineup for us next season under this scenario:
Nelson / Delonte West / Duhon
Redick / Shannon Brown / Q-Rich
Grant Hill / Harper
Bass / Anderson / Orton
Dwight / Kurt Thomas
This FanPost was made by a member of the Orlando Pinstriped Post community, and is to be treated as the opinions and views of its author, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
or forget about kurt & delonte
and go for david west. teams might be scared off by the injury, and he might prefer a contender to somewhere like indiana.
I would rather keep Gil and his contract that Delonte on a minimum
At least Gil has potential. Delonte is a sub-par player on the decline. He rode the LeBron wave in Cleveland and only stays relevant because once a month he has a good game.
by travell7288 on Nov 28, 2011 3:26 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Intriguing suggestion! $6.5M a year (in cap space per year) vs. 3 extra years of an aging/declining player?
In a general sense, the question is what the extra $6.5M in cap space will bring to the Magic? I, honestly, cannot answer that question, and would think that it has to be put to test in actual scenarios which we are faced with (i.e., specific players/trades).
I feel you.
But don’t all GM decisions ultimately come down to trying to assign tangible value to money (money being intangible, basketball-wise).
In any case, I feel that if we’re not trading Dwight, we need to go all in to keep him. And that means signing and/or trading for big contracts.
Absolutely both on your second paragraph assertion and the necessisty of quantifying the intangibles.
However, on the latter point based on current trends, I don’t find the current GM – and the top management for that matter – competent enough to make those critical calls.
I thought you quit. SUPER FAIL!!
Okay, a simple "wrong" would've done just fine.
"They say that nobody is perfect. Then they tell you practice makes perfect. I wish they'd make up their minds." -Wilt Chamberlin
by Both_Teams_Played_ on Nov 28, 2011 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I don't think we can use the stretch provision on Turk.
From what Larry Coon posted on ESPN, it says that the stretch provision only applies to contracts signed under the 2011 CBA. Unless this is wrong, there would be no way we can use it on anyone we have now.
"LeBron doesn’t guard the other team’s best scorer until crunch-time of games, if at all. ... LeBron spends the vast majority of his time defending a non-threat on the perimeter, leaving him free to roam for weak-side blocks or steals." -John Krolik, Cavs: the blog
You're reading that incorrectly.
This is entirely at the team’s discretion, but it applies only to contracts signed under the 2011 CBA.
He means contracts that are already in place, ie Turk. Teams can’t pick up a player next year and then use the stretch in two years. Same as with the amnesty provision.
by kerem on Nov 28, 2011 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Correct me if I am wrong
But doesn’t “only to contracts signed under the 2011 CBA” mean that it CANNOT be used on people who are CURRENTLY under contract, because those contracts would have HAD to be signed before 2011 CBA, since the 2011 CBA has even yet to be ratified?
Therefore, Turk the stretch provision couldn’t be used on Turk because he is currently under contract signed before the 2011 CBA.
You can't reason with stupid.
http://www.twitter.com/JShannonhouse3
http://www.twitter.com/Amway_Get_Loud
you are wrong
when Stern was answering questions about the owners proposal I asked him about this and yes it’s only for new contracts, you can’t use it on Hedo.
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/11/13/twitter-transcript/index.html
Unfortunately, you have it completely backwards.
It can only apply to contracts signed from now on.
I like to watch.
by MoveThoseChains on Nov 29, 2011 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
Never doubt Larry Coon
Guy’s ridonkulous.
You can’t use the stretch on a player currently under contract. Only contracts signed under the new CBA can be “stretched”. Existing contracts can only be amnestied or bought out by agreement.
by eltharion_doa on Nov 29, 2011 4:34 AM EST up reply actions
Amnesty is a one time thing, mutual buy out is what Ilgauskas did with the Wizards
Amnesty is a one-time thing where the team is cuts the player but still pays them (pending bids from other teams). The player has no say whatsoever.
A buyout is when a player agrees to be cut and give up their contract for some amount of money. I’m sure there are many restrictions on who, when, and how much involved, but that’s how Cleveland got Ilgauskas back after he was “traded” for Jamison a few years ago. I do know the new CBA would prevent that from happening again, but does not prevent buyouts.
Fingers crossed and beard still growing.
I guess what I'm getting at
is if we buy out a player (mutual) does that number come off the cap like with amnesty? Is the ONLY difference the mutuality?
Yugly.
No, it still has a cap hold for that particular season, I believe.
You can't reason with stupid.
http://www.twitter.com/JShannonhouse3
http://www.twitter.com/Amway_Get_Loud
According this cap FAQ....
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q62
The amount paid in the buyout is applied to the cap over the same number of years and in the same percentages of the original contract.
For example, a player owed 10, 11, and 12 million over the next 3 years is bought out for 3 million dollars. Even if he is payed the 3 million up front, the team’s cap would be charged (something like) 800K, 1M, and 1.2M over those 3 years.
So, if you get a cheap buyout, it can offer significant cap relief, but it must be completed before January 10th (if I understand the rules correctly).
Fingers crossed and beard still growing.
You need the player to agree to it
And whatever you pay the player to get rid of him counts against your cap. Plus there are, I think, limited circumstances in which you can do it.
by eltharion_doa on Nov 30, 2011 4:38 AM EST up reply actions
Does the player have a say in this matter?
I mean you told this guy “i give you 10M for 2 years”, and suddenly he needs to play 5 years to get that money, maybe he wanted to retire after the 2 years or something. Or you make a good deal like Brandon Bass contract so you say “you know what, I like your contract so instead of 2 years, you are going to play for this team for 5 years for the same money”. It would be a steal for the Magic, but a rip off for the player.
The player gets released if he's "stretched"
So he can retire or sign with someone else – he still gets the full value of his original contract, just spread over more time.
by eltharion_doa on Nov 30, 2011 4:43 AM EST up reply actions
MY BAD
to respond to Leandro, though, I think the guy maybe still gets paid as he would have. The stretching applies to how it counts against the cap. I think? A little confused.
Meanwhile, this from David West:
I’m glad they’re doubting me. I am going to shock folks. I have not stopped working. No vacations. No family time. No chilling. I have not worked this hard or as consistent in any point of my career, college or pro.
Basically, I’m looking at the best option for the next few years of my career. I want to win. … I’m really going to look at every option closely and make a well thought-out decision.
Just sayin’.
You have no concept of final, a bet you don't even own a jock strap.
But is it enough to endure ad hominem insults by people who are not good enough to carry one’s jock straps just to maintain a presence?
Okay, a simple "wrong" would've done just fine.
"They say that nobody is perfect. Then they tell you practice makes perfect. I wish they'd make up their minds." -Wilt Chamberlin
by Both_Teams_Played_ on Nov 29, 2011 7:11 PM EST up reply actions
I can't wait until Evan starts writing for this site again.
Supporting from Hawai'i
by 808duck on Nov 30, 2011 3:26 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I would be against stretching Turkoglu
I see why it would be considered.
But in general I think that owing him $4.5 million that counts against the cap for 5 years while he plays for some other team is an inferior option than paying him $11 million for two years while he plays for the Magic.
Also keep in mind after one more year he becomes an expiring contract. That in and of itself has value especially as it would be right before the stricter penalties of the new CBA kick in.
by aTasteLikeBurning on Nov 30, 2011 3:57 PM EST reply actions
Cant stretch Turk.
Can only stretch players that are signed under the new CBA of 2011. Turk’s contract was signed (obviously) under the old CBA of 2005.
You can't reason with stupid.
http://www.twitter.com/JShannonhouse3
http://www.twitter.com/Amway_Get_Loud
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Orlando Pinstriped Post
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
