Fw: Re: The Atkins mystery unravelled?

[Kim <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually that was fairly dumb of me, placing too much emphasis on how the answer in the salary cap FAQ was worded vs common sense. The correct answer is that he could spend the money regardless, it's simply a matter of whether he uses cap room if we were below the cap or a cap exemption if we're over it to do it. Same result. And still the same bit about plenty of other ways to get over the cap if that's all he wanted. Sorry Mark, but I don't think that's anything to do with it. 
Kim

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Kim <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Feb 19, 2004 7:56 PM
To: Mark Piotrowski <markp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Celtics <celtics@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: The Atkins mystery unravelled?

Nope. You can use the exception even if you are over the cap, but are not required to be over the cap. http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#17
Besides, there's plenty of time and other ways to get us over the cap for next year if that's all that he was after.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Piotrowski <markp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Feb 19, 2004 7:14 PM
To: Celtics <celtics@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: The Atkins mystery unravelled?

Maybe Ainge isn't as clueless as it looks...

I was just about to write that the biggest problem with adding Atkins 
would be that it precludes us from using the Mid Level Exception b/c it 
puts us over the cap.  But then i remembered (a) only teams OVER the 
cap can actually use the exception and (b) that Wyc, not ThanksDad, is 
the owner now.

I'm just reaching here -- but did Ainge *NEED* to get someone 
relatively cheap but signed for next year (like Atkins) so we'd be over 
the cap so he could go out and use the MLE?  This all assumes Baker 
comes off the cap (a big, big assumption to be sure).
<snip>