re: haywood

[David A Wickerham <aw623@bfn.org>]

Kkevin, as I understand it, Rookies have a 3 year guaranteed contract, and
Haywood is slotted in at the 20t spot.  Lets assume that is worth about $1
million plus rookie increases over the next 3 years.  The Magic didn't
want to lock themselves in, because they wanted to use that room over the
next three years for Antonio Davis.  Essentially, they would be renouncing
Haywood, thus making him an unrestricted free agent.  We (or anyone) could
sign him to any size contract for any length of time.  Incidentally, theat
is how we got Greg Minor who was non-tendered by Indiana.


If the Celtic brain trust doesn't want him, the question is probably moot,
but if the C's really wanted him, Why wouldn't they offer him the max they
will have under the cap this year (Maybe a couple of million), and then
have a second year salary that drops to the minimum with a 3rd year option
for the team.  If teams structured their contracts this way, players
should like it because they get their money up front, and teams would like
it because the "out years" would be more cap friendly.

****dave




On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, kevin lok wrote:

> this doesn't sound right. Orlando cleared about 2mil of capspace by
> trading Doleac. Haywood has yet to be signed, so it counts for 0
> against the cap. So my reasoning is cutting an unsigned Haywood does
> not help getting Orlando further under the cap to sign Davis.
> 
> tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> kevin
> 
> ======original message==========
> 
> I have heard rumors that Orlando may forsake the rights to Brendan
> Haywood in order to free up every bit of available cap room to make a
> legitimate offer to Antonio Davis.
> 
> ===========================
> 
> 
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
	  Dave Wickerham
	  aw623@freenet.buffalo.edu
	  Saratoga Springs, NY