Waive Thomas?

[BigWaxer]

With that new clause in the CBA for the one time waiver I got to thinking (a bad thing)

Should we think about waiving Thomas? He has a long contract that may be hard to move. It would give us some more cap space which is the benefit of this one time rule.

Of course if we could trade him to improve at the PF position I would rather see that.

I think a lot of teams are going to consider using this one time waiver, possibly leaving some quality players out there.

 

[thesanityannex]

If we waive Thomas, who plays PF? Although undersized, Thomas is better than most scrubs at his position.

 

[Warhawk]

I don't think you just *waive* a double-double threat....

If you don't want him, I am sure some other teams would.

 

[thesanityannex]

couldn't you just waive otag if anyone? get some space for a year.

 

[Bricklayer]

Tag actually has value because he's an ending contract.

Waiving Thomas....er...hadn't considered that before. But thing is that that one-time waiver thing actually only applies to luxury tax considerations -- apparently he would continue to eat our cap, just not penalize the owners double for the tax. So from a strictly basketball/personnel standpoint there would be no advantage, and a decent sized DISadvantage to doing that. Now if the deal were that you could just void the entire contract, that would be an idea (that would never have been agreed to by the players in negotiations, but still an idea).

(Kind of makes you wonder if the Maloofs wouldn't like to have that Webber contract back right about now -- could have played out the season, put up a better showing, then waived the contract in the offseason and avoided having to pay the luxury tax on it. )

One question I would have with the whole waivers thing is what happens if another team picks up your former player? Who pays and what's the split? Could educate a lot of these decisions teams are making, including us. I'm sure that this whole clause was put in there as an Allan Houston etc. big-contract injured player exception to the luxury tax, but if there was a chance that another team might pick your guy up and actually take the real salary off your hands as well, not just the tax, could be an interesting tactical decision to be made.

 

[funkykingston]

From ESPN:

Each team will be given a one-time option this summer to waive one player from its roster and receive luxury tax relief. The team will still have to pay the player and his salary will still count against the cap, but the team won't have to pay a luxury tax on his salary. For example, the Knicks' Allan Houston might a candidate to be waived because of this rule.

The Kings no longer have one of the highest payrolls in the league and I doubt they'll be over the luxury tax threshold at all. And that's the only possible relief that such a move would give.

Waiving Kenny Thomas wouldn't mean the Kings would get cap relief or that they would save money. This just isn't an option for the Kings.

 

[hrdboild]

They're also expanding the active roster from 12 to 14 players, so there's really no reason to waive Tag either. He can sit at the end of the bench if he can't get himself in shape, and his contract will be gone in a year anyway.

I guess this means the FA market will be getting bigger. Allan Houston, Michael Finley, or Jalen Rose anyone?

 

[mr. moustache]

Agreed. It's not simply waiving them completely. It's luxury tax relief. Kenny Thomas is too good of a player to simply toss in the trash. He'd be a 6th man of the year candidate if he accepted a 6th man role.

Also, someone mentioned keeping webber instead of trading him and then waiving him in this fashion. Yes we'd get some luxury relief, but we'd be paying $15mill for NOBODY. Dumba$$ move. We traded Webber for 3 players that can actually play.

I think Kenny and Skinner could be impact players on the right team(maybe ours), Corliss is best as a reserve on a playoff team. I'd like to deal him. He's too expensive as a backup to Peja and playing as a backup PF/C is ridiculous

Tag actually has value because he's an ending contract.

Waiving Thomas....er...hadn't considered that before. But thing is that that one-time waiver thing actually only applies to luxury tax considerations -- apparently he would continue to eat our cap, just not penalize the owners double for the tax. So from a strictly basketball/personnel standpoint there would be no advantage, and a decent sized DISadvantage to doing that. Now if the deal were that you could just void the entire contract, that would be an idea (that would never have been agreed to by the players in negotiations, but still an idea).

(Kind of makes you wonder if the Maloofs wouldn't like to have that Webber contract back right about now -- could have played out the season, put up a better showing, then waived the contract in the offseason and avoided having to pay the luxury tax on it. )

One question I would have with the whole waivers thing is what happens if another team picks up your former player? Who pays and what's the split? Could educate a lot of these decisions teams are making, including us. I'm sure that this whole clause was put in there as an Allan Houston etc. big-contract injured player exception to the luxury tax, but if there was a chance that another team might pick your guy up and actually take the real salary off your hands as well, not just the tax, could be an interesting tactical decision to be made.

 

[BigWaxer]

Thanks for the info Brick, I wasn't sure how that fully worked... now that I do I would agree that it's no advantage to us.

This wasn't a post to bash on KT in anyway, if it gave us relief (which it doesn't) then I thought it was something to explore.


In the Dallas Morning News they talked about possibly waiving Finley

 

[sono]

Each team will be given a one-time option this summer to waive one player from its roster and receive luxury tax relief. The team will still have to pay the player and his salary will still count against the cap, but the team won't have to pay a luxury tax on his salary. For example, the Knicks' Allan Houston might a candidate to be waived because of this rule.

thanks funkykingston clarifying it to me (us).

 

[LPKingsFan]

In the Dallas Morning News they talked about possibly waiving Finley

I caught that too, and what the rules are on picking up these waived players could make things interestng. I might take heat for this... but if the Kings could pick up Finley on the cheap, well... you might have to think about it.

 

[Diabeticwonder]

I still want to know if a player is waived and his former team is still paying his salary what does his new team do for him? I thought about Finley as well...it's not a bad idea.

 

[funkykingston]

If the Mavs are really thinking of waiving Finley it means one of three things:

(1) Finley wants out and Cuban sees a way to help one of his guys while improving the bottom line. In this case, it wouldn't hurt for the Kings to take a look

(2) The Mavs think Finley's got nothing left. Not good.

(3) Cuban sees a way to save money AND keep Finley. They waive him, cutting his salary from luxury tax consideration and then re-sign him to a cheaper deal, still saving money.

As long as Finley clears waivers (I can't imagine he wouldn't) he's free to sign with whoever he wants. A minimum deal with the Mavs still means more cash than before. I haven't heard any reason that a team would be prohibited from doing it and I certainly wouldn't put it past Cuban.

 

[LPKingsFan]

(3) Cuban sees a way to save money AND keep Finley. They waive him, cutting his salary from luxury tax consideration and then re-sign him to a cheaper deal, still saving money.

Apparently you can't resign a player you waive in this occasion for the remainder of their previous contract. So I don't think this option works.

 

[SLAB]

I love Finley's game, and if we could bring him in as our starting OG while Mo/Martin get another year or two of development, I say do it.

In a second.

 

[Bricklayer]

Finley is a big name, but if you watched the Mavs play at all last year it is clear that he has slipped. This is no longer the 20pts 5reb 5ast athletic slasher of years past. His numbers last season:

36.8min 15.7pts (.427 FG .407 FT .831 3pt) 4.1rebs 2.6ast 0.8stl 0.3blk 0.9TO

Cat can give you similar numbers (albeit as a smaller player -- be nice to have actual size for once). And the thing is, whether it be Cat or Finley, its another guy who needs the ball to be effective. I think a major problem for us last year is too many offensive minded players who need their touches and shots, and not enough guys to do the dirty work that the prima donnas can't be bothered with, and to willingly pass to set up all of our unathletic jumpshooters.

 

[Evenstar]

we could never bring finley here!!!

who would we blame?!?!?!?!!?

 

[Diabeticwonder]

I agree that Finley's game has dropped a bit, but I still want to figure out in a situation like this one with the Mavs still paying his salary what would his new team have to do?

 

[piksi]

who would we blame?!?!?!?!!?

duh

 

[elitedude]

Can they waive corliss?

 

[hrdboild]

Look at Finley's contract - 3 more years at 16, 17, and 18.5 million. That's why Dallas might waive him. His skills at this point are not worth that much to them. It's the same with Allan Houston and Jalen Rose. They're all on the tail end of huge contracts. It's not so much that they have nothing left, just that what they have left is not worth killing your payroll for the next 2-3 years.

 

[Bricklayer]

I agree that Finley's game has dropped a bit, but I still want to figure out in a situation like this one with the Mavs still paying his salary what would his new team have to do?

I'm still curious as about that myself. Who pays what if one of these guys gets picked up?

 

[LPKingsFan]

I would assume that the new team pays whatever contract they come to terms with, and the old team pays the difference?

 

[VF21]

Can they waive corliss?

Why would they? Corliss plays with heart and he's not afraid to body up on someone or throw the hard foul if needed.

 

[Bricklayer]

I would assume that the new team pays whatever contract they come to terms with, and the old team pays the difference?

I considered that, but what would the possible motivation be for either the new team or the player to negotiate for more than the minimum in that case?