Roy's salary almost could have come off the books this year

by dpnim on Dec 10, 2011 3:44 AM PST

So, I'm rewriting this because I jumped the gun and didn't research dates. Fail. I'll admit it, don't know why I'm still going to post this. Figure it would be a wasted effort if I don't. I deleted so much already.

So I'm reading Larry Coon's CBA Faq Page and was looking over question 55. What are the rules for retired players?:

...

There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is not included in the team's team salary. This is when a player is forced to retire for medical reasons and a league-appointed physician confirms that he is medically unfit to continue playing. There is a waiting period of one year following the injury or illness before a team can apply for this salary cap relief. If the waiting period expires mid-season (ON ANY DAY PRIOR TO THE LAST DAY OF THE REGULAR SEASON), then the player's entire salary for that season is removed from the team's team salary. For example, in March 2003 the Knicks were allowed to remove Luc Longley's entire 2002-03 salary from their books (and since the luxury tax is based on the team salary as of the last day of the regular season, the Knicks avoided paying any tax on Longley's salary). This provision can also be used when a player dies while under contract.

...

Well to make things quick, the last day of this years regular season is April 26th. For some reason, I was so sure in thinking Roy's last game last year was April 23rd (Game 4 vs Mavs) which would have put him a year disabled before the end of the regular season. Which would have allowed us to remove his salary from the books this year... but alas his last game of the season was April 28th... 2 days removed from the end of the last game of this years regular season. Bah... Dang it.

Also from the same excerpt. I guess we won't be able to get a Disable Player Exception for Roy either... Fantastic. /sarcasm

If a player retires, even for medical reasons, his team does not receive a salary cap exception to acquire a replacement player.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It might be more of an open question than appears

The rule is written based on date of injury – which actually occurred during the 2009/2010 season. Because Roy’s condition is degenerative, it is possible that a determination is made that his career-ending injury occurred before his last game played.

Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 10, 2011 4:08 AM PST reply actions

I imagine the Blazers are pursuing that angle.

They can use his double knee surgery during the regular season last year to say his injury(s) occurred prior to that date and that the surgery was unable to repair the injury which forced his retirement. The league might argue he played after the surgery (including impressively in at least one game). We will have to see what happens.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 10, 2011 11:16 AM PST up reply actions

If the player plays a certain number of games after the alleged injury occurred

the alleged date of the original injury cannot be used. Since Brandon exceeded that total (I believe it is 10 games), the Blazers have to go off of the last day of the 2011 playoffs.

Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

by HailOden! on Dec 10, 2011 12:12 PM PST up reply actions

It was 10 games in the previous CBA

by Storyteller on Dec 10, 2011 12:52 PM PST up reply actions

Thanks, Storyteller.

I assume we still have no info on what it is under the new CBA….

Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

by HailOden! on Dec 10, 2011 1:32 PM PST up reply actions

Add my thanks too!

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 10, 2011 3:35 PM PST up reply actions

That makes sense, but I didn't realize it was specified in the CBA. Thanks.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 10, 2011 3:35 PM PST up reply actions

Can we use the Amnesty on him now while trying to wait until

April to get his salary completely off the books? We still have to pay him and his spot on the roster can’t be taken by someone else but we could use the extra 2m from the full MLE but I doubt we’d get a decent enough SG for half of the full MLE since we also need another big man. So now we are after 2 players in FA or trades for a big man(center) and SG all for 5m IF we Amnesty Roy, tough to get done! It might even be cheaper if we don’t use the Amnesty on Roy and just bring in a big with the MINI MLE and let the rest of the roster stand as is.

by VinnyB on Dec 10, 2011 4:44 AM PST reply actions

Amnesty would not be wise

Because the retired player clause covers 80% of the contract with the NBA’s insurance(not out of Paul Allen’s wallet, which I’m sure he is stoked about). So we will likely pay his salary this year, then the NBA will pay the rest. If we used the amnesty clause, Paul would be responsible for 100% of the contract.

As of 12/9/2011 The Portland TrailBlazer Franchise has officially entered rebuilding mode...

by 420Phenom on Dec 10, 2011 8:29 AM PST up reply actions

the reason for using the amnesty is it eliminates the possibility no matter how small of Brandon coming back during the term of his contract

and the league retroactively applying his salary onto our cap and putting us in the luxury tax. I don’t think Brandon would do that out of spite, but likely more out of his desire to play and compete.

However, from where it stands today and the language that has been used from all related parties the chances of him attempting a comeback appear to be slim to none, and even if he did attempt it it seems highly unlikely that he would be cleared to play given the degenerative nature of his problems.

I think this team is still feeling the effects of the D. Miles debacle though, so it behooves them to explore all potential scenarios.

I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_twain_4.html#ixzz1IE4sPu16

by Tyler Durrden on Dec 10, 2011 10:28 AM PST up reply actions

That's a consideration, but as you say a very slim possibility that Roy attempts a comeback.

Taking the amnesty now would save the Blazers perhaps $8M-$10M this year in luxury tax plus get the higher MLE. I still believe the Blazers insurance policy on Roy should pay off even if they amnesty him first and then he medically retires. (See my comment on that below.) So the only reason not to amnesty him is if they want to save it to use on another player later.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 10, 2011 11:03 AM PST up reply actions

I think they can use the amnesty and then after clearing waivers Roy will retire.

I expect the insurance company will still have to pay off the Blazers because the Blazers are still responsible to pay Roy’s salary. The insurance policy was a separate policy taken out by the Blazers when he signed his long term deal with the Blazers. His injuries occurred while under contract to the Blazers during the term of the insurance policy and the Blazers are responsible for the salary. I don’t see how the insurance would get off the hook to the Blazers.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 10, 2011 10:58 AM PST up reply actions

You make a good argument

I’m still not fully convinced.

It’s all in how the insurance policy is written, isn’t it? If it’s written that if Roy, as a member of the Trail Blazers, retires for medical reasons, the franchise is covered. But if the team waives him and then he retires, he’s not a member of the Trail Blazers anymore at the point at which he retired.

If it’s written that 80% of money paid to Brandon after he retires for medical reasons is reimbursed by insurance, you could be right.

Like I said, it’s all in how the policy is written.

by Storyteller on Dec 10, 2011 1:30 PM PST up reply actions

Yep depends how it is written. Could even end up in court. We shall see.

Seems like the point of the policy would clearly be to protect the Blazers from paying the long term salary of a player suffering a career ending injury while under contract to the Blazers. As long as the Blazers are stuck with the salary it wouldn’t seem to matter what happened after the injury occurred. For instance, suppose Pendergraph had been insured last year when he was injured. Then the Blazers waived him for roster space (no one picked him up). Then it’s discovered during his rehab that he isn’t going to heal properly/adequately and will never play again. Have the Blazers negated their insurance policy claim because they waived him? I very much doubt it.

In this case though, I would expect the order of actions to be:

1) the Blazers file an insurance claim saying they believe Brandon will never be able to play again because of his injuries.

2) THEN they waive him with the Amnesty Clause (in case someone else wants to take a chance he will someday change his mind and try to play again, taking some of the salary burden off the Blazers – this is not totally far fetched knowing what we do about Brandon’s competiveness).

3) THEN Brandon officially files to retire.

I think the bigger issue is whether the league would allow a player to be Amnestied that had already announced his intention to retire (as Brandon has already done).

Anyway, I’m certain the Blazers are first talking to the league and the insurance company to explore all variations in this situation to see if they can get an agreement before doing anything. We shall see.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 10, 2011 6:35 PM PST up reply actions

Can you trade him? After all, until he's officially off the books,

he becomes the equivalent of a $16 expiring contract – which insurance is paying for.

by ebenc on Dec 10, 2011 5:49 AM PST reply actions

Total cold hearted move

As of 12/9/2011 The Portland TrailBlazer Franchise has officially entered rebuilding mode...

by 420Phenom on Dec 10, 2011 8:27 AM PST up reply actions

PR nightmare

that would be an epic fail by the blazers and embarrass the entire organization even more so then we have been over the last few seasons, with our front office and their lack of no how when it comes to running and NBA franchise, I respect the guys in the front office, and they have a tough job but they need to get this stuff figured out.

by nolan.waters.kinney on Dec 10, 2011 10:37 AM PST up reply actions