Bye Bye Grant

draftjack&Diogu · by **draftjack&Diogu** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:29 am

"The One Time Cut Exception & Luxury Taxâ€¦ The NBA will allow each team to cut one player this summer, without tax penalty on that cut â€“ teams will still be required to pay that player what is guaranteed under their contract, but this will give several teams a chance to cut dead weight or bad contracts. This will be a one time rule, and will likely be dubbed the â€œAllan Houstonâ€? Exceptionâ€¦ The trade rules will be changed, making trades easier - teams will now be able take on up to 125% of the salaries they send out plus or minus $100,000 - a considerable change from the 115% rule that made deals so hard to consumate... The NBA will still tax over spending owners, what has changed is the gap between allowed percentages and over spendingâ€¦ The NBA will guarantee 57% of revenue is paid to playersâ€¦ the luxury tax will kick in at 61.5% (after the Escrow tax is applied) so if revenue projections are off by 10 to 15%, the tax will kick in.

Bye Brian

KB24 · by **KB24** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:35 am

Damn Grant is a valuable trade bait. I donÂ´t know if I want to get rid of him. I think next trade-deadline he would be extremely valuable.
Its getting confusing with this damn rulez.

Mailman04 · by **Mailman04** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:43 am

this doesn't help the Lakers. All it would do is save Buss from having to pay the tax on Grant's contract. That wouldn't help the Lakers, only Buss.

abeer3 · by **abeer3** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:44 am

Mailman04 wrote:this doesn't help the Lakers. All it would do is save Buss from having to pay the tax on Grant's contract. That wouldn't help the Lakers, only Buss.

from everything i've read, you're right. better to just hang on to grant. this rule is for the owners to save cash.

Johny_Cash · by **Johny_Cash** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:57 am

With this new rule, you can only avoid the luxury tax...you're still hooked for his salary. When they say you can "waive", they mean waive from the luxury tax calculation and not waive from the books and the roster.

(v)Ã°|<Âªvâ‚¬Â¿Â¦ · by **(v)Ã°|<Âªvâ‚¬Â¿Â¦** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:42 am

abeer3 wrote:
Mailman04 wrote:this doesn't help the Lakers. All it would do is save Buss from having to pay the tax on Grant's contract. That wouldn't help the Lakers, only Buss.

from everything i've read, you're right. better to just hang on to grant. this rule is for the owners to save cash.

this is what the kinkcs dod with houston recently

bigsleepy · by **bigsleepy** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:13 am

At just over $14 mil, Brian Grant's salary actually costs the Lakers a whopping $28 million a year (as we are significantly over the salary cap and the luxury tax is dollar for dollar).

Thus, if the Lakers were to take the one time exemption, they would still have to pay his $ 14 mil, and it would still count against our cap (only as far as being able to sign other players) But over the next two seasons the lakers would save the approx $28 million in Luxury tax that he costs them, while also opening up another space on the roster (and potentially gaining more $$ offset if another team picks him up for less money after he clears waivers).

Just a thought, but its hard not to make that kind of business decision when just the tax they would save would mean enough money for the organization to pay Odom and Butler's salaries in their entirety for the next two years.

Hard to hold out for a potential trade next year when you can save the money now (and other teams that would be looking to unload big contracts through a trade next year for Grant's expiring K will now be able to see that relief immediately if they take this one-time exception instead).

abeer3 · by **abeer3** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:47 am

bigsleepy wrote:At just over $14 mil, Brian Grant's salary actually costs the Lakers a whopping $28 million a year (as we are significantly over the salary cap and the luxury tax is dollar for dollar).

Thus, if the Lakers were to take the one time exemption, they would still have to pay his $ 14 mil, and it would still count against our cap (only as far as being able to sign other players) But over the next two seasons the lakers would save the approx $28 million in Luxury tax that he costs them, while also opening up another space on the roster (and potentially gaining more $$ offset if another team picks him up for less money after he clears waivers).

Just a thought, but its hard not to make that kind of business decision when just the tax they would save would mean enough money for the organization to pay Odom and Butler's salaries in their entirety for the next two years.

Hard to hold out for a potential trade next year when you can save the money now (and other teams that would be looking to unload big contracts through a trade next year for Grant's expiring K will now be able to see that relief immediately if they take this one-time exception instead).

they'll have a helluva time explaining that to fans (myself included). i'll be very disappointed if they choose to simply get rid of a prime trade asset to save money. i completely understand from buss's standpoint, but it's sending the wrong message to me.

UKUGA · by **UKUGA** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:48 am

bigsleepy wrote:Just a thought, but its hard not to make that kind of business decision when just the tax they would save would mean enough money for the organization to pay Odom and Butler's salaries in their entirety for the next two years.

Hard to hold out for a potential trade next year when you can save the money now (and other teams that would be looking to unload big contracts through a trade next year for Grant's expiring K will now be able to see that relief immediately if they take this one-time exception instead).

On your last point. The issue I see there, though, is that we would be looking to trade Grant (& his contract) for a talented player, with a comparable salary, not necessarily "dead-weight".

Example: Team A has a disgruntled star making $14 million and has 4 years left on his contract. If Team A "waives" this player, they do not clear any cap room, and are required to pay his salary for the remaining 4 years.

If, however, Team A is willing to trade its disgruntled star (& contract) to the Lakers for Brian Grant, they can still waive Grant, not pay any luxury tax (if Team A is over the cap), and see the cap room free up in 2007, when Brian Grant is a FA. (Or, they can hold onto Grant, and still see his cotnract come off the books in '07).

mojoballer · by **mojoballer** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:52 am

bigsleepy wrote:Thus, if the Lakers were to take the one time exemption, they would still have to pay his $ 14 mil, and it would still count against our cap (only as far as being able to sign other players) But over the next two seasons the lakers would save the approx $28 million in Luxury tax that he costs them, while also opening up another space on the roster (and potentially gaining more $$ offset if another team picks him up for less money after he clears waivers).

That's a really good point. However, if they were holding Grant's contract to trade it for the so-called "disgruntled star" - they wouldn't have it the full 2 remaining years. They'd probably be stuck with it for only 1 more year, so the savings would be cut in half.

I hear what you're saying though. Unless they feel they have a potential trade in the works (or at least in discussion) - it's hard to swallow that much money when Buss knows he doesn't have to.

bhatta · by **bhatta** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:21 pm

abeer3 wrote:
bigsleepy wrote:At just over $14 mil, Brian Grant's salary actually costs the Lakers a whopping $28 million a year (as we are significantly over the salary cap and the luxury tax is dollar for dollar).

Thus, if the Lakers were to take the one time exemption, they would still have to pay his $ 14 mil, and it would still count against our cap (only as far as being able to sign other players) But over the next two seasons the lakers would save the approx $28 million in Luxury tax that he costs them, while also opening up another space on the roster (and potentially gaining more $$ offset if another team picks him up for less money after he clears waivers).

Just a thought, but its hard not to make that kind of business decision when just the tax they would save would mean enough money for the organization to pay Odom and Butler's salaries in their entirety for the next two years.

Hard to hold out for a potential trade next year when you can save the money now (and other teams that would be looking to unload big contracts through a trade next year for Grant's expiring K will now be able to see that relief immediately if they take this one-time exception instead).

they'll have a helluva time explaining that to fans (myself included). i'll be very disappointed if they choose to simply get rid of a prime trade asset to save money. i completely understand from buss's standpoint, but it's sending the wrong message to me.

i know you'll be disappointed, but when Buss just shelled out 10 mill for a coach (that the fans basically demanded), this is an understandable move .. i agree with sleepy that you should save your money now rather than hold out for something that isn't set in stone (as far as a trade goes)

venturalakersfan · by **venturalakersfan** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:59 pm

pbhatta542 wrote:
i know you'll be disappointed, but when Buss just shelled out 10 mill for a coach (that the fans basically demanded), this is an understandable move .. i agree with sleepy that you should save your money now rather than hold out for something that isn't set in stone (as far as a trade goes)

The Lakers would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Grant is worth more in a trade than in luxury tax savings. Let someone else get those savings, if the Lakers can get a quality player in return, Buss will more than make up that money in playoff revenue. Luckily for us, Buss usually thinks long term, not short term.

KB24 · by **KB24** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:22 pm

UKUGA wrote:
bigsleepy wrote:Just a thought, but its hard not to make that kind of business decision when just the tax they would save would mean enough money for the organization to pay Odom and Butler's salaries in their entirety for the next two years.

Hard to hold out for a potential trade next year when you can save the money now (and other teams that would be looking to unload big contracts through a trade next year for Grant's expiring K will now be able to see that relief immediately if they take this one-time exception instead).

On your last point. The issue I see there, though, is that we would be looking to trade Grant (& his contract) for a talented player, with a comparable salary, not necessarily "dead-weight".

Example: Team A has a disgruntled star making $14 million and has 4 years left on his contract. If Team A "waives" this player, they do not clear any cap room, and are required to pay his salary for the remaining 4 years.

If, however, Team A is willing to trade its disgruntled star (& contract) to the Lakers for Brian Grant, they can still waive Grant, not pay any luxury tax (if Team A is over the cap), and see the cap room free up in 2007, when Brian Grant is a FA. (Or, they can hold onto Grant, and still see his cotnract come off the books in '07).

Thats a nice point. Utah could still say hey we have to pay Boozer for 5 years and he will be a cap handycap for 5 years. Now lets trade him for Grant and he comes off the books 3 years erlier.

Vito Andolini · by **Vito Andolini** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:35 pm

Cut Grant and re-sign him for the LLE.

GuRu · by **GuRu** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:21 pm

his is actually not horrible for us. This makes him tradeable sooner. You can trade Grant to a team so THEy can use him for the luxury tax cut

thats always an option

Dime Dropper · by **Dime Dropper** on Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:19 pm

KB8@CL wrote:Damn Grant is a valuable trade bait. I donÂ´t know if I want to get rid of him. I think next trade-deadline he would be extremely valuable.
Its getting confusing with this damn rulez.

Well it's cap relief, but your right, with his contract up next year, we could have gotten a very valuable player who's team wants to rid of a contract, toss in Grant and a few players and picks for Kidd, ect.

bhatta · by **bhatta** on Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:03 am

venturalakersfan wrote:
pbhatta542 wrote:
i know you'll be disappointed, but when Buss just shelled out 10 mill for a coach (that the fans basically demanded), this is an understandable move .. i agree with sleepy that you should save your money now rather than hold out for something that isn't set in stone (as far as a trade goes)

The Lakers would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Grant is worth more in a trade than in luxury tax savings. Let someone else get those savings, if the Lakers can get a quality player in return, Buss will more than make up that money in playoff revenue. Luckily for us, Buss usually thinks long term, not short term.

i agree with what you're saying that someone else could possibly take the contract savings, but we're all neglecting to see that we haven't found that someone yet

cutting grant loose for the savings NOW is better than risking it later on in the season - unless someone is willing to trade for him before the start of the next season, i don't think we should keep him. we already know he's injury prone and you never know what will happen to affect his tradability

if we don't find someone to take it now (when it'll be easy to get rid of him), i highly doubt it'll get any easier, but like Guru said, this only makes him more appealing to take NOW

LOUIE04 · by **LOUIE04** on Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:28 am

mAN WHY DO YOU GUYS ALL OF A SUDDEN CARE SO MUCH ABOUT GRANT IF HE FUC*** SUX!! HE DESERVES TO BE WAIVED WITH THAT SALARY AND THAT PUSS* a$$ GAME THAT HE HAS HE IS NOT WORTH IT AT ALL!!! :mad1:

stigmaXXL · by **stigmaXXL** on Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:29 am

what if we traded grant now for say, a supertsar.... and we throw in like a second rounder or something and then that team cuts him and saves money and we get talent NOW.

LOUIE04 · by **LOUIE04** on Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:32 am

Come on now just because this luxury tax can be applied to Grant that does not mean that he can get us a good trade remember that he still suckkkkkkkksssssssssss!!!!!!!!!! :mad1:

P X · by **P X** on Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:28 pm

People, people, waiving Grant won't save us any money, LA would still be obligated to pay him the remainder of his contract.
This new, one year exception, it's for lux tax only.

The Lakers are OVER the cap and UNDER the lux tax treshold number.

The cap it's somewhere around 46 mill, the lux-tax treshold it's around 60 mill.

This exception will help teams like NY or Dallas, who have payrolls near 100 mill.

LA will have a payroll of about 62 mill next year if they pick Vlade's option.

Lets say they do, and lets say the treshold is at 60 mill, LA would be forced to pay a 2 million penalty (lux tax).

If they want to make sure not to pay a cent of lux tax, they won't pick Vlade's option (5 mill).

Remember, it's not the salary cap number that counts here, it's the luxory tax treshold number. 2 different things.

Savage1 · by **Savage1** on Sat Jun 25, 2005 3:41 pm

Vito Andolini wrote:Cut Grant and re-sign him for the LLE.

From what I've read about his, once you waive a player using this exception, you can't re-sign him until his contract would be finished. For Grant, we would have to wait until the summer of '07 before he could re-up.

JbOi112 · by **JbOi112** on Sat Jun 25, 2005 4:13 pm

Savage1 wrote:
Vito Andolini wrote:Cut Grant and re-sign him for the LLE.

From what I've read about his, once you waive a player using this exception, you can't re-sign him until his contract would be finished. For Grant, we would have to wait until the summer of '07 before he could re-up.

^ To add to that, the exception wouldn't apply to Brian Grant anyway since he only has two years left on his contract. The exception is for players with 3+ left on their contract.

EDIT: This whole exception is actually confusing. Houston's contract supposedly ends the same year as Grant's.. therefore it would work for Grant? Either way, it won't help the Lakers really, more Buss' wallet.

warriorfan1 · by **warriorfan1** on Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:21 pm

draftjack&Diogu wrote:"The One Time Cut Exception & Luxury Taxâ€¦ The NBA will allow each team to cut one player this summer, without tax penalty on that cut â€“ teams will still be required to pay that player what is guaranteed under their contract, but this will give several teams a chance to cut dead weight or bad contracts. This will be a one time rule, and will likely be dubbed the â€œAllan Houstonâ€? Exceptionâ€¦ The trade rules will be changed, making trades easier - teams will now be able take on up to 125% of the salaries they send out plus or minus $100,000 - a considerable change from the 115% rule that made deals so hard to consumate... The NBA will still tax over spending owners, what has changed is the gap between allowed percentages and over spendingâ€¦ The NBA will guarantee 57% of revenue is paid to playersâ€¦ the luxury tax will kick in at 61.5% (after the Escrow tax is applied) so if revenue projections are off by 10 to 15%, the tax will kick in.

So with the new agreement is there anything in there that'll make it easier for Fisher to come back to the Lakers with his huge contract?
Bye Brian

Bye Bye Grant

Bye Bye Grant

I wouldn't be so quick to say bye to Grant

Re: I wouldn't be so quick to say bye to Grant

Re: I wouldn't be so quick to say bye to Grant

Re: Bye Bye Grant

Who is online