Ok, so my understanding of the new CBA is that there is a claus that allows a team to WAIVE one player on their roster, with no responsibility to pay that player, or incur any fines....Would someone please tell me if this is correct because that would mean the Lakers could Waive Brian Grant and the $25 + million still owed him??? I haven't heard anything about this happenign, but if that is how the claus works than that would be the most logical thing for the lakers to do. By waiving him the lakers would suddenly have salary cap space to lure a marquee free agent... So...what does everyone think?
Actually it only saves the Lakers luxury tax money, but his cap figure still counts against the salary cap and the Lakers still need to pay him. His contract will actually be valuable and can be used to trade after this season. So the Lakers don't really benefit if they waive Grant.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TwinTowers:</div><div class="quote_post">The Lakers really need him gone so that they can get some cap room.</div> Exactly I agree, The lakers just need him gone to free up cap room.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheTruth5:</div><div class="quote_post">Exactly I agree, The lakers just need him gone to free up cap room.</div> It dosent free up cap room it saves them luxury tax money.
Is it a possibility that they can somehow get rid of him without having him finish his contract and without trading him?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting miamiballa12:</div><div class="quote_post">It dosent free up cap room it saves them luxury tax money.</div> what is luxury tax anyway? and does it hurt the team in any way finacially? from what i heard, luxury tax only hurts the owner, cuz it's the owners money. is that true?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting lakerman34:</div><div class="quote_post">Is it a possibility that they can somehow get rid of him without having him finish his contract and without trading him?</div> Yes if he agrees to retire. Yao Ming - The luxury tax only hurts the owner.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">Actually it only saves the Lakers luxury tax money, but his cap figure still counts against the salary cap and the Lakers still need to pay him. His contract will actually be valuable and can be used to trade after this season. So the Lakers don't really benefit if they waive Grant.</div> Hmm, I read what you said somewhere but I read somewhere else that BGrant's contract would NOT count against the salary cap if he was waived...can't remember exactly where I read it. I'll look for the link again for confirmation.
Sorry if the heading was misleading...but yeah I just reread the CBA and your right, it only saves the luxury tax money...and there are a couple of ways that we could avoid paying Brian Grant without a trade or waiving him... 1) Shoot him in the parking lotat El Segundo - this is the most effective way 2) Buy out his contract - effective, expensive, but realistic. 3) Frame him for murder- Just as effective as the first way, but tricky and time consuming.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting ilive4ball:</div><div class="quote_post">Sorry if the heading was misleading...but yeah I just reread the CBA and your right, it only saves the luxury tax money...and there are a couple of ways that we could avoid paying Brian Grant without a trade or waiving him... 1) Shoot him in the parking lotat El Segundo - this is the most effective way 2) Buy out his contract - effective, expensive, but realistic. 3) Frame him for murder- Just as effective as the first way, but tricky and time consuming.</div> You forgot option 4 ... trade him to the Knicks, they love overpaid, undersized PFs.
Why when the Lakers traded Shaq did they have to get him? Why couldn't they four players, two with expiring contracts? The Lakers couldn't have thought that Brian Grant would have made a difference, so just use Shaq to clear up salary cap space in two seasons.
