RealGM

BTW, just chiming in -- off the top of my head, an RFA can't be renounced. If he's an RFA (as opposed to a UFA) then that means he has an outstanding Q-Offer, which they'd have to withdraw first. But once they do, he's no longer an RFA, he's a UFA.

Larry, the CBA explicitly says the QO can expire (as early as Oct 2), but the team would still have RFA rights thereafter. It is that situation we are discussing. So on Oct 2 or thereafter, they could renounce but there would NOT be a QO in play. Would the ROFR rights vanish, or would they remain? So far, I see nothing in the CBA to say they'd lose their ROFR in that circumstance.

FGump wrote:Larry, the CBA explicitly says the QO can expire (as early as Oct 2), but the team would still have RFA rights thereafter.

Ah, mea culpa -- just looked it up, and you're right: "If a Qualifying Offer is neither withdrawn nor accepted and the deadline for accepting it passes, the Team’s Right of First Refusal shall continue, subject to Section 5(a) below."

It is that situation we are discussing. So on Oct 2 or thereafter, they could renounce but there would NOT be a QO in play. Would the ROFR rights vanish, or would they remain? So far, I see nothing in the CBA to say they'd lose their ROFR in that circumstance.

Seems pretty clear per the sentence I quoted above -- when the deadline passes, ROFR continues. I thought ROFR couldn't exist absent an outstanding Q-offer, but clearly it can (the section 5(a) refers to reasserting rights the following season).

here's what doesn't make sense though. If they can only re-sign him with cap room or the minimum salary exception, then how are they allowed to make him a QO the following year (which they must do if they want to keep him restricted)? Because what if he accepts the QO? Under the rules of renouncement that would not be legal.

the way we left it now, I would assume that if an NBA team made an offer to childress at some point after europe, the hawks would only be able to match if they had the cap room to do so, since that's all they're allowed to do after they renounce him.

But if they renounce him and keep restricted rights, AND the whole June 30th thing is off the table, how are they even allowed to make him a QO the next year if the renouncement is lasting and re-sets the bird clock

bgwizarfan wrote:here's what doesn't make sense though. If they can only re-sign him with cap room or the minimum salary exception, then how are they allowed to make him a QO the following year (which they must do if they want to keep him restricted)? Because what if he accepts the QO? Under the rules of renouncement that would not be legal.

the way we left it now, I would assume that if an NBA team made an offer to childress at some point after europe, the hawks would only be able to match if they had the cap room to do so, since that's all they're allowed to do after they renounce him.

But if they renounce him and keep restricted rights, AND the whole June 30th thing is off the table, how are they even allowed to make him a QO the next year if the renouncement is lasting and re-sets the bird clock

All these what-if's are pretty much moot because, as we discussed, the Hawks have no reason to renounce him.

As to how a team would make a future QO to a theoretical renounced player X with a ROFR...
... is there a cap exception for the amount of a QO? If not, then they would have to have cap room.

fgump- the what ifs are moot for this offseason- its the ramifications in future seasons that are applicable.

killbuckner wrote:fgump- the what ifs are moot for this offseason- its the ramifications in future seasons that are applicable.

Exactly. Might the Hawks, for example, not give him a QO next June in order to try to get under the cap for the summer of 2009? Depending on what happens with Josh Smith and whether or not they plan on trying to re-sign Bibby, this could be an option for them.

The Hawks can of course just walk away from him at any time, but that's not germane to this discussion. If they don't give him a QO next summer, obviously he's a UFA and gone to someone else.

yeah, but gump, when you renounce someone, you can't use a cap exception to re-sign them anyway...it just has to be cap room or the minimum salary right? so even if the QO fit within the MLE, for instance, it shouldn't matter...

"Room" by CBA definition includes a team's applicable cap exceptions if any. It doesn't state otherwise in this instance, does it?

According to ESPN the Hawks can retain his rights as a RFA if they make the qualifying offer every year and the QO counts against the cap. If they dont make the QO he becomes an unrestricted fa.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3501488

ranger001 wrote:According to ESPN the Hawks can retain his rights as a RFA if they make the qualifying offer every year and the QO counts against the cap. If they dont make the QO he becomes an unrestricted fa.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3501488

That article is wrong.
His cap hold is not going to be the QO amount because his free agent amount is larger than his QO.
His free agent amount is 300% of his prior salary, since he is coming off the fourth year of his rookie scale contract at a prior salary below the average salary.
His QO is only $4,844,355
But his cap hold will be $10.894347 mil

2 dollars says that Childress re-signs with Atlanta next summer and pisses on all of your chips.

GrandAdmiralDan wrote:That article is wrong.
His cap hold is not going to be the QO amount because his free agent amount is larger than his QO.
His free agent amount is 300% of his prior salary, since he is coming off the fourth year of his rookie scale contract at a prior salary below the average salary.
His QO is only $4,844,355
But his cap hold will be $10.894347 mil

I see, q30 in the faq explains the 300%. That is interesting, it means if the Hawks dont waive Childress they only have around 10m to sign Smith and round out the roster without going into the luxury tax, they only have 8 players under contract.

I can see them waiving Childress and him coming back to the USA next year as an unrestricted free agent. I bet his agent was fully aware of this, very smart move on their part. This shafts the Hawks even more than just taking the QO.

The $10 million cap hold doesn't affect tax or payroll calculations. They aren't actually paying him $10 million. It's just that keeping his Bird rights cuts that amount out of any potential cap room.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#14
According to Q14 it does though, unless I am reading it wrong.
14. Exactly what is included when computing total team salaries?

When determining team salaries (for example, to determine whether a team is over the salary cap), the following are included:
A percentage of the previous salary of unrenounced free agents (see question number 30).

Yes there's a caphold, as this thread has outlined. But if teams paid tax on capholds, Dallas would have paid about $19 million in tax in 2007 for the privilege of having Keith Van Horn not play for them.

ranger001 wrote:http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#14
According to Q14 it does though, unless I am reading it wrong.
14. Exactly what is included when computing total team salaries?

When determining team salaries (for example, to determine whether a team is over the salary cap), the following are included:
A percentage of the previous salary of unrenounced free agents (see question number 30).

Team salary for determining whether or not a team is under the salary cap is different than the team salary used to compute luxury tax. When computing whether team is under the salary cap, the cap holds of all unrenounced free agents (both restricted and unrestricted) and unsigned 1st round draft picks are included. When computing team salary for luxury tax purposes, only the contracts of the players on the team (including those who were waived) on the final day of the regular season are included in team salaries.

So I take it the same exact thing applies to Nenad Krstic? The Nets will get to keep RFA rights as long as they offer a QO to him every year he's playing overseas?

I might have missed it in this thread but does the QO count towards the luxury tax?

(*There's a report out now stating that Krstic is going to sign a two year contract with some Russian team, with the second year being a player option)