Cap & Lux Tax Figures

[Ralphb07]

There IS no James $5.4 mil.

Ralph, please take that as my response.

So James contract is not covered then? We're paying all his contract this season. I wasn't aware of that. I thought he wasn't going to be medically retired but he wouldn't be able to play and insurance would still cover his contract

Well with this being the case let's make a official we aren't landing a PF this year or next because with reports the salary cap being 50 mil next year screws us on Bosh.

[Three34]

James still has trade value, but it's only as an expiring. Barring something unforeseen happening, though, he won't be a contract covered by insurance, because the achilles injury is not a career ender.

[jax98]

So James contract is not covered then? We're paying all his contract this season. I wasn't aware of that. I thought he wasn't going to be medically retired but he wouldn't be able to play and insurance would still cover his contract

Well with this being the case let's make a official we aren't landing a PF this year or next because with reports the salary cap being 50 mil next year screws us on Bosh.

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/2261

JAMES’ INJURY NO SURE THING
I’ve seen plenty of speculation about the Bulls getting a financial break if Jerome James’ injury is ruled to be career-ending. In reality, that’s a long shot. The 7-foot center, acquired from New York for Larry Hughes last February, has a torn Achilles tendon, which is an injury that many NBA players have overcome. So it doesn’t seem all that likely the Bulls will be able to prove it’s a career-ender.

[Ralphb07]

So James contract is not covered then? We're paying all his contract this season. I wasn't aware of that. I thought he wasn't going to be medically retired but he wouldn't be able to play and insurance would still cover his contract

Well with this being the case let's make a official we aren't landing a PF this year or next because with reports the salary cap being 50 mil next year screws us on Bosh.

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/2261

JAMES’ INJURY NO SURE THING
I’ve seen plenty of speculation about the Bulls getting a financial break if Jerome James’ injury is ruled to be career-ending. In reality, that’s a long shot. The 7-foot center, acquired from New York for Larry Hughes last February, has a torn Achilles tendon, which is an injury that many NBA players have overcome. So it doesn’t seem all that likely the Bulls will be able to prove it’s a career-ender.

That is talking about it being a "career ending" injury which I am not saying. If a player can't play for a season doesn't insurance cover 80% of his contract?

So if James can't play this season and though it won't be ruled as career ending wouldn't insurance cover it?

If insurance will cover it though it doesn't deduct it from the salary it is still a savings because you're not having to pay it, doesn't matter what way you look at it, you're saving 80% of his contract which is saving money

Now if insurance won't cover 80% if he can't play because it's not career ending then I understand what you're saying

[Magilla_Gorilla]

Mort isn't allowed to say 'on paper' anymore.

[Ralphb07]

Mort isn't allowed to say 'on paper' anymore.

Don't say that because he might make me not use the underline option or font size anymore

[jax98]

That is talking about it being a "career ending" injury which I am not saying. If a player can't play for a season doesn't insurance cover 80% of his contract?

The team does get compensation, but I don't know the actual percentage. The big Jerome James idea was originally that those 80% would not count towards the cap, thus saving a team $5.4 million from their cap number.

But that's not the case anyway.

So if James can't play this season and though it won't be ruled as career ending wouldn't insurance cover it?

Read above.

If insurance will cover it though it doesn't deduct it from the salary it is still a savings because you're not having to pay it, doesn't matter what way you look at it, you're saving 80% of his contract which is saving money

True. But the savings could be doubled if they counted on the cap number, if you're deep into the luxury tax. The Jazz are over that threeshold, so this does not help them.

Now if insurance won't cover 80% if he can't play because it's not career ending then I understand what you're saying

I can boil my point down to this:

1. Jerome James and his contract will count at $6.6 million against whoever has him on the roster.

2. There was a short period of time where it was believed 80% of his contract could de deducted on paper, which would mean whoever had him, would only pay $1.2 million for him. Had this been the case, Jerome's contract would have been worth gold.

3. Had number 2 been accurate, teams would have been able to make killer savings if they were over the tax barrier. Removing $5.4 million from the actual cap number instead of removing it from 'behind the scenes' is definitely preferable.

[jax98]

Mort isn't allowed to say 'on paper' anymore.

On... PAPER!

Now what ya' gonna do about it?

[Ralphb07]

Morten any little saving matters. IMO Utah knows they are going to pay the LT if they want Milsap so they are just trying to get any savings

My James, Tyrus, Nelson and Linton for Boozer and Miles saves them 4 mil off the bat in salaries. So whatever there at right now take off 4 mil which helps.

Now even though James contract is against the cap they sent out more salary in the deal and they will get some relief on his contract

Maybe you're not understanding me. I'm not saying James contract is better then getting non guarantee contract like Stackhouse or a team that has a large TE. What I'm saying is if they can't get that and it's purely a trade of saving 25% of whatever salary sent out, that the Bulls deal with James is pretty good because of whatever money saved on his contract even though it counts against the cap helps

[jax98]

Morten any little saving matters. IMO Utah knows they are going to pay the LT if they want Milsap so they are just trying to get any savings

Well yes. But they obviously want the best one they can get.

My James, Tyrus, Nelson and Linton for Boozer and Miles saves them 4 mil off the bat in salaries. So whatever there at right now take off 4 mil which helps.

Yeah sure. But if they can get $6-7 million in savings (or even $9 million in the trade I made earlier) then that is preferable. Is it realistic? Probably not. But they'll likely get better savings than dealing with us. Which has been my point all along.

Now even though James contract is against the cap they sent out more salary in the deal and they will get some relief on his contract

I know this. My point is quite simply that if the saving counted on the cap, it'd be two-fold. They would save money from a luxury tax as well. If the savings didn't count towards the cap, they would still be in luxury tax. This should be understandable.

Maybe you're not understanding me. I'm not saying James contract is better then getting non guarantee contract like Stackhouse or a team that has a large TE. What I'm saying is if they can't get that and it's purely a trade of saving 25% of whatever salary sent out, that the Bulls deal with James is pretty good because of whatever money saved on his contract even though it counts against the cap helps

As I presented earlier, the Jazz could easily send out enough salary and get a better saving than we could have provided. Had JJ's contract been able to be taken off the cap, we would have had a killer deal ready.

This is all a moot point as James won't be covered in any way.

[nomorezorro]

From Larry Coon via BuffaloBull on another thread:

Players' maximum salaries are never less than 105% of their previous salary. For example, a ten-year veteran who earned $20 million in 2006-07 has a maximum salary of $22.1 million in 2007-08, even though that is above the league-wide maximum. A free agent does not need to remain with the same team in order to receive 105% of his previous salary, although the team that signs him is subject to the same salary cap restrictions as with any other free agent.

So no. There is no reason for the 2010 free agents to sign 3 year deals this off season.

but isn't there a reason for them to opt-in? their options are greater than 105% of their 2009-10 salaries and 105% of their 2010-11 is greater than 105% of their 2009-10 salaries

e: i'm not very good w/ the cap so i am well aware there's a good chance i'm mistaken

[anrichardson]

The Bulls will have 11 players under contract for next season, including their two 2009 draft picks, forwards James Johnson and Taj Gibson.They also gave Aaron Gray a qualifying offer to keep him a restricted free agent.

http://www.southtownstar.com/sports/165 ... ls.article

I don't know if this has been discussed or not sorry.

[dice]

It sounds as if the Bulls will have a convenient excuse of a bad economy should the free agents they most likely pursue (Stoudemire, Bosh, Johnson and Wade) stay with their own teams

pretty good excuse

the big question i'd like clarified in this thread:

bosh, lebron, and dwade will be opting out of the final years of 4 yr/$63 mil deals, amare will opt out of final year of 5 yr/$73 mil. assuming a $52 mil cap for '10-'11 and no restructuring of CBA, what will their respective teams be able to offer vs. what the bulls would be able to offer?