It's kind of interesting because I don't think they should renounce their rights to Freeland. Kopponen I do, but not Freeland. Talented bigs are hard to find, and San Antonio was able to bring many of their draft picks who were overseas, but talented, over after a few years. They still have the right to Tiago Splitter I believe. Maybe in about 2 years, we might really need him here. If something doesn't go right with Greg, or a player leaves via free agency, we might be in a jam without retaining his rights.
What do we gain by renouncing Pete? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Having a million bucks less on the cap in the offseason is worthless. Ed O.
Correct. When I watched Freeland I thought he could play in the NBA, and probably fairly soon. With Peterri, I didn't get that feeling. The problem is, I haven't got to see Kop play for over a year. Freeland I have.
I think you are right in that perspective. The only reason I could ever see it having an impact is if we were at the luxury cap threshold and it got penalized dollar for dollar, and for Paul Allen, that is not really a big deal. The one place I could see it making a difference is if it determined if we were above or below the cap. As long as you are below the cap, you can do a lopsided deal. It doesn't matter if it is $1 or 1 million dollars. You are under the cap, and can pull the trigger on a lop sided deal.
I don't think that cap holds for unsigned first rounders count against the luxury tax. I'm not sure about that, though. You've said this before and I've questioned it before. Because it makes no sense to me. What are you talking about? Ed O.
You mean you didnt know? 1$ and $10,000,000 under the cap are basically the same thing! as long as we are under the cap.. salaries dont have to match.
It matters as to how lopsided. If you are $1 under the cap, you can take back one extra dollar of salary then you send out. If you are $1 million under the cap, you can take back an extra $1 million of salary. So being $1 under the cap is essentially worthless.
I haven't seen anywhere where it has said you can't take back more than you can take in as long as you are under the cap when the trade is made Anybody have a spot to look it up? Just because nobody hasn't done it, doesn't mean it can't be done. The way I understand it, all that is required for you to make a lop sided trade it to be under the cap. I have seen nothing which says that you have to match up dollar for dollar and end up being under or equal to the cap when it is done. Teams can go over the cap you know.
Not in trades, except by $100,000. Only in re-signing their own free agents. Cap space is allowed to make up the difference in salaries. It doesn't allow a team to simply ignore the salary cap altogether. From Larry Coon's pretty definitive CBA FAQ: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q67 He goes on to detail the exceptions, but this clearly shows that you cannot go more than $100,000 over the cap in trade unless you use one of three exceptions (Traded Player Exception, Minimum Salary Exception, Disabled Player Exception).
Yea I just found that myself. So 100,000 is pretty much nothing in the scheme of thigns, so it is useless. WTF man it's like they thought about this like a criminal would when trying to get around it.
I was reading blazersedge and came across this article about Freeland: http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/7/28/966931/the-latest-on-joel-freeland So it sounds like if he impresses them down the line they could still decide to bring him over in a few years.
