Re: Sore points, Jackie - how about deep lacerations and no points?

[CeltsSteve@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 10/3/02 4:37:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Eggcentric@AOL.com writes:


> < Best said it was ''nip and tuck'' between Boston and Miami, but in the end 
> he took the $1.4 million and a chance to play for Pat Riley, instead of the 
> veteran minimum (a little less 
> than $900,000), which was all the handcuffed Wallace could offer. > - 
> MacMullan
> 
> A mere $500,000 difference ... a difference which could have been addressed 
> by signing another $349,458 min player like Wolkowyski instead of Walter at 
> $762,435.



No it's not a "mere $500,000 difference that could have been addressed by 
signing another $349,458 player like Wolkowyski instead of Walter at 
$762,435". And you know that full well but instead you're being your usual, 
deliberately misleading self because you'd prefer to wax poetic in a negative 
context so as to try to build a false case against the front office.

The difference is closer to $800,000 because Best at the NBA minimum for his 
number of years ("a little less than $900,000" quoting Jackie Mac) still 
would only count against the cap the amount paid to a 4th year player 
($637,435 this year) just like McCarty's salary only counts against the cap 
the same as a 4th year player ($637,435). So instead of a $1.4M cap hit, the 
full amount of which would be counted toward the luxury tax, had the C's been 
able to sign him for "a little less than $900,000" at the league minimum 
based upon his number of years in the league, he would have only counted 
$637,435 against the cap and luxury tax. Hence, the almost $800,000 
difference and not a mere $500K as you suggest.  

So if you factor the approximately $800,000 difference for Best plus the 
extra $100,000 they save in the difference between McCarty's actual salary 
and his "official" salary; that's almost $1M and which would have added a 
buffer against the tax kicking in or not. Too bad Best chose to play for a 
lottery team in Miami for a measly $500K difference ($1.4M instead of the 
almost $900K that the C's offered). He might have made that up in playoff 
revenue and endorsements closer to his native Springfield, However, he didn't 
and life goes on.

And for the record, I'm strongly of the opinion that McCarty at the league 
minimum was a wise signing and an excellent move. To bring back somebody that 
already knows the system, the team personnel, and coaching staff; is somewhat 
of a crowd fav; not to mention the fact that he helps maintain consistency 
and an established team chemistry. Plus, defensively he showed well in spurts 
in the playoffs last year.


Quoting from Larry Coon's FAQ website:

"One interesting thing about minimum-salary contracts is that for certain 
players, the league actually pays part of their salary.  This happens with 
players who have been in the NBA for five or more seasons and are playing 
under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract at the minimum salary.  
In these cases, the team pays the player at the minimum salary level for a 
four-year veteran, and the league pays the remainder.  For example, in 99-00 
the minimum salary for a four-year veteran is $510,000, so a ten-year 
veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,000,000, would be paid $510,000 by his 
team and $490,000 by the league.  Only the four-year minimum counts against 
the team salary, not the player's full salary.  The reason for doing this is 
so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are 
more expensive." 

CeltsSteve