04/24/24
June 23, 2005
Allan Houston. CBA casualty?: Apparently there is a clause in the new NBA CBA which allows a team to cut one player from its roster without paying the luxury tax for that players salary, ever. Unless Houston retires, in which case he doesn't count against the cap and the Knicks are free to cut someone else without incurring the luxury tax. Funny this turns up amongst rumors of a Q. Richardson/ Kurt Thomas trade.
forgive me, 2nd link is a Lupica column.
posted by lilnemo to basketball at 12:35 PM - 4 comments
I threw a related link the CBA thread; you'll be shocked to find out Celtics fans see a conspiracy here. The important point is, all this does is make the salary not count against the luxury tax. It still affects the salary cap and the $$$ still go out the door (I think).
posted by yerfatma at 01:34 PM on June 23, 2005
But the luxury tax portion is important, since it is a dollar for dollar tax for a player slated to earn 40 Million over the next 2 seasons who will almost certainly not be playing because of the microfracture surgery which "seems" to have ended his career. Its obvious Isiah has been looking to fill Houston's long vacant roster spot. But the additional cap hit of signing an adequate replacement makes/made it difficult to do. So the Knicks negotiate a buyout, which could conceivably amount to less than the amount of the agreed upon contract (especially if Houston's knee is still pliable, in which case he might conceivably try and catch on somewhere else a la Zo), save on the luxury tax and use the difference remaining from the buyout to pay for new Knick Q.
posted by lilnemo at 02:03 PM on June 23, 2005
Is this one-time-only "amnesty clause" really a gift to the Knicks, or a lot of other teams stuck with a similar multimillion dollar dog? Michael Finley's being discussed in similar terms.
posted by Ufez Jones at 05:50 PM on June 24, 2005
If I understand this crazy capology stuff right, Houston only would suffer the loss of a chance to come back to the Knicks. He'd still get all of his money regardless of whether the Knicks had to pay luxury tax on his contract. Is this one-time-only "amnesty clause" really a gift to the Knicks, or a lot of other teams stuck with a similar multimillion dollar dog?