I assume he signs the vet minimum. He doesn't care if the blazers pay him or some other team. The Blazers would save $1M plus 1/2 the minimum salary for a 5 year veteran ($1.02M). So the Blazers get to set off $1M - $1.02M/2 = ~$500K. Roy makes an extra $500K.
You're not reading that correctly. Under that scenario, the Blazers would save ($1M - $762,195)/2 = $118,902 Brandon would get the rest of his approximately $16M this year plus $1M from his new team, or nearly $900K more.
I'm really hoping Chicago picks up Roy. I think he is the perfect addition to that ball club. Rose can't be their only playmaker and Roy coming off the bench would be perfect for them. It would also give Rose more rest and allow him to gradually get back into the game next season. I'm seriously crossing my fingers here because it would be the best case scenario for him. Also, we wouldn't have to face him but 2 times during the season; unless we actually meet them in the finals.
This is going to be like watching the ex-girlfriend you're still in love with, with another guy. crappy!
I'm pretty sure (though not 100% sure) that Brandon can't make above the maximum salary for a player of his tenure in the league unless his contract was grandfathered in (like K*be's). He has a max salary for 2012-13, and if $$ weren't offset he'd violate the CBA. His contract wasn't bought out, was it? From Coon's article about amnesty: I'm severely micro-picking here, and I know he's talking about secondary waivers, but it seems like the relevant principles are a) the salary still is paid out in yearly amounts (14.2M salary in Billups' case), and b) Chauncey wasn't getting more than 14.2M. Now, if PA wrote Brandon a $60M check and said "have a nice life", then I could see how you'd zero out any "salary" Roy would have this year. But I don't think that's the case. He wasn't bought out, he was amnestied.
You used the minimum salary for a 1st year player. Roy is a 5th year player. Plugin the $1.02M for 5th year minimum salary. For example, suppose a fifth-year player is waived with one guaranteed season remaining on his contract for $16 million. If this player signs a $1 million contract with another team for the 2011-12 season, his original team gets to set off $1 million minus $1.02M (the minimum salary for a five-year veteran in 2011-12), divided by two, or $500,000. The team is still responsible for paying $15.5M of the original $16 million. Note that between his prior team and new team the player will earn a combined $16.5M, which was more than he earned prior to being waived. $16.5M he would make minus $16M for his contract is $500K difference. Show me the math error, my friend.
What's the incentive for him to sign a $5M deal with another team? For example, suppose a fifth-year player is waived with one guaranteed season remaining on his contract for $16 million. If this player signs a $5 million contract with another team for the 2011-12 season, his original team gets to set off $5 million minus $1.02M (the minimum salary for a five-year veteran in 2011-12), divided by two, or $500,000. The team is still responsible for paying $11.5M of the original $16 million. Note that between his prior team and new team the player will earn a combined $16.5M, which was more than he earned prior to being waived. Wouldn't he want his new team to have the $4M difference to use on FAs?
Well now you're just changing what Mr. Coons said in FAQ #64 and compounding it with a math error: It doesn't say that you use the 5th year minimum salary if it's a 5th year player. The only time something other than the one-year vet minimum is used is if the player is a rookie. You're also doing the math as $1M - ($1.02M/2) = $500K when Coons's example computes the set-off amount as ($1M - $762,195)/2 = $118,902
Again, you haven't computed the set-off amount the way that Coon says it is to be done. In the case of a new $5M contract the set-off amount would be: ($5M - $762,195)/2 = $2,118,902. The amount the Blazers would pay Brandon would be reduced by the set-off amount from $16M to approximately $13.8M. Brandon would get $13.8M + $5M = $18.8M. Sounds like a pretty good incentive to me.
No need to differ over which minimum to use, Year 1 vs Year 5. Roy will get the $5M, not the minimum. Hokay. Is Roy an angel sent to Earth?
It might be an incentive, but it still doesn't remove the fact that Brandon's knees are total hamburger. Even if he is gaming the system, his career as a franchise level player was over and there wasn't going to be much use for paying the guy 14-17 million a year from the Blazer's perspective. He was an amnesty candidate regardless of whether or not he considered retirement.
Can the Blazers trade for Roy if another team signs him first? I'd imagine no but I've never seen that rule specified for amnesty waivers.
Then we'd pay him the max + $5M per year for a few minutes every 3rd game. This would set some kind of productivity record not just in sports, but industry, too.
