Lurker, are you sure the "kicker" applies to . . .

[Guest_Randy]

Finley -- it's not like he is getting his annual salary -- it is being spread out over 12 years (instead of what, 3 more years?).  

San Antonio and Phoenix are the other two teams, but going to either of the Mavericks' Western Conference rivals will require Finley to make a financial sacrifice. The Spurs are limited to offering a starting salary of just over $2.5 million, and Phoenix can't pitch anything more than the veteran minimum of $1.1 million for the 2005-06 campaign.


The Mavericks tried for weeks to trade Finley to an Eastern Conference team before waiving him in hopes of keeping the swingman away from the Spurs or Suns. Reports persist that Mavericks owner Mark Cuban was prepared to offer Finley a restructured payment schedule on the nearly $52 million left on Finley's contract to help persuade him to go East, but NBA front-office sources told ESPN.com that no such deal was struck.


The presence of San Antonio and Phoenix on Finley's list of finalists indeed suggests no such arrangement exists. A "spread provision" in Finley's Dallas contract stipulates that, upon being waived, his remaining salary will be paid in annual installments of less than $5 million.

I can't see how this provision would apply to Finley given this different financial arrangement and the fact that his salary is automatically reduced from over $10 mill a year to $5 mill a year instantly.  If this actually applies to him, than he is basically going to play ANYWHERE for FREE because he is only going to make $5 mill a year this year -- I can't see that being the case.

[Lurker]

Just because he negotiated a shitty deal with Cuban doesn't give him preferential treatment.  The CBA allowed the one time amnesty but it was designed also so that players couldn't "double dip".  Any salary he earns from another team offsets what the Mavs owe him.  Otherwise why not sign a 1 year deal with the Hawks for max money?

[Joe Vancil]

Given that situation, if I'm Finley, you know what I'm going to do?

I'm going to sign a MINIMUM contract with the team I go to.  That gives my new team the most salary cap flexibility, and I'm still getting the same amount of money.  And best of all, Dallas, who is now an enemy team that I'm going to have to beat just by virtue of me changing teams, is disadvantaged by getting the minimum financial offset from my new team.  And *EVERY* team can sign players for the minimum.

 

[Guest_Randy]

Just because he negotiated a shitty deal with Cuban doesn't give him preferential treatment.  The CBA allowed the one time amnesty but it was designed also so that players couldn't "double dip".  Any salary he earns from another team offsets what the Mavs owe him.  Otherwise why not sign a 1 year deal with the Hawks for max money?

Well, there ARE exceptions to this -- DA already has some loophole with Portland (which is why he didn't mind signing for the small exemption).  

However, you aren't talking about Finley's SALARY anymore -- you are talking about his PAYMENT schedule.  This would totally suck for Finley, IMO, and my question is do you know for sure that any salary he makes this year would be subtracted from his current salary or his scheduled payments?  What I see in the CBA bargaining mentions salary not payment schedules.  It would be easy, IMO, to subtract whatever he makes from what his salary WOULD have been this year -- not what his payment schedule is (although whatever amount he makes should be subtracted from the payment schedule as well).  

There are obviously exceptions to this -- and I haven't seen the "rules" to see how it works.  Have you read them all or are you just surmising this to be the case?

[SPURSX3]

Finley -- it's not like he is getting his annual salary -- it is being spread out over 12 years (instead of what, 3 more years?).  

San Antonio and Phoenix are the other two teams, but going to either of the Mavericks' Western Conference rivals will require Finley to make a financial sacrifice. The Spurs are limited to offering a starting salary of just over $2.5 million, and Phoenix can't pitch anything more than the veteran minimum of $1.1 million for the 2005-06 campaign.


The Mavericks tried for weeks to trade Finley to an Eastern Conference team before waiving him in hopes of keeping the swingman away from the Spurs or Suns. Reports persist that Mavericks owner Mark Cuban was prepared to offer Finley a restructured payment schedule on the nearly $52 million left on Finley's contract to help persuade him to go East, but NBA front-office sources told ESPN.com that no such deal was struck.


The presence of San Antonio and Phoenix on Finley's list of finalists indeed suggests no such arrangement exists. A "spread provision" in Finley's Dallas contract stipulates that, upon being waived, his remaining salary will be paid in annual installments of less than $5 million.

I can't see how this provision would apply to Finley given this different financial arrangement and the fact that his salary is automatically reduced from over $10 mill a year to $5 mill a year instantly.  If this actually applies to him, than he is basically going to play ANYWHERE for FREE because he is only going to make $5 mill a year this year -- I can't see that being the case.

I was just thinking about this, but Cuban basically is taking MORE money from Finley in the long run - 12 years is more tax coming out of each years pay.  It's like Lotto winners not willing to take payments over 20 years payoffs so they take the lump sum.  Isnt that a factor as well?  

secondly, I was just think about this, does Florida have a state tax?  Not sure the tax structure in Florida, but if anybody knows, please let me know.  I think if there is a state tax may influence Finley as well.

[Guest_Randy]

I don't feel sorry for Finley -- the guy had a larger contract than he deserved -- however, the CBA "double dip" rule is a wonderful thing but it has to deal with "scheduled payments."  The double dip rule is to keep players from making MORE than they were scheduled to make for the previous team -- however, this isn't the case with Finley -- because of the structured payments, you are stating (if you apply this rule to him) that he can't make more than $5 mill a year (less than half of what he was previously making).  IMO, the structured payments negate the rule -- go back to what the rule was intended to do -- Finley can't make more than he was going to make with the Mavs this year (no matter what he signs for).  However, you aren't going to allow Finley to make as MUCH as he made last year (the purpose of the rule wasn't to keep players from making as much as they were going to make but keep them from making more) if you apply this rule to his structured payments.

IMO, this is what should happen in Finley's case:

1)  He's allowed to make as MUCH as his salary would have been this year if he played for the Mavs.

2)  Any money that he makes during what would have been his present contract is subtracted from his structured payments (i.e. take what he makes this year, subtract it from what is left on his contract next year and payments are therefore averaged out -- the same follows the next year).

Cuban still ends up paying Finley less than he was already owed but in this way it doesn't penalize Finley for being an amnesty player!

[Skandery]

I was just thinking about this, but Cuban basically is taking MORE money from Finley in the long run - 12 years is more tax coming out of each years pay. It's like Lotto winners not willing to take payments over 20 years payoffs so they take the lump sum. Isnt that a factor as well?

If this works anything like a benefits payout or lotto winning, than the government is going to take the same amount of money whether you make the money in installments or one lump sum.  So I don't think the government cares if Finley gets 51 mill tomorrow or across the next 12 years.  

But I hadn't heard of this whole amnesty players signing with new teams are going to have the sum of the new contract subtracted from the old contract.  I was lead to believe the new contract was in addition to the old contract.  Lurker can you post the link where you saw this?  

 

[Reality]

What Skandery said.