[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I thought they were paying Fin the MLE. My apologies if they aren't.

Regardless, my logic is still sound (even if for a different amount). You weren't saving Fin's FULL contract by cutting him. You were saving his contract minus what a team like the Spurs (and, I hope, like your own team) would pay him.

I can't find any documentation of this, but I think you're wrong here. My recollection of the rule at the time was that you saved the full Luxury Tax amount PLUS you saved whatever the next team paid him off of his salary. The reason for this was so that a player did not double dip in salaries, and earn 50 mil from the Mavs and 15 mil from the Spurs.

Again, I'm not totally sure, and I'm looking for confirmation, but I think we're saving MORE based on what the Spurs paid him, not less.


Edit to add:

I found this in a Stein article explaining the CBA:

Another factor is the "set-off provision" that was restored to the amnesty clause in the final stages of collective bargaining. The set-off provision returns a percentage of what a player makes from his new team to the team paying off his terminated contract.

In the new deal, the union fought to specifically word the amnesty clause to say that the set-off provision doesn't apply. That would have enabled players such as Houston and Finley to double-dip by collecting the full balance of their old contracts in addition to the payments from their new deals. But the league wouldn't give in, insisting that a chunk of an amnesty player's new earnings go back to the original team.

So, it's the Luxury Savings PLUS a portion of what he's making now, not minus. So your estimates are way off.