From: alanj@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: What the hell happend to the CAP! (Re: Magic signs $14.6M)
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:39:01 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct3.004616.4138@leland.Stanford.EDU>, terry@garfield.Stanford.EDU (Terry Wong) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.215944.3131@ennews.eas.asu.edu>, koehnema@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Harry Koehnemann) writes:
> |> In article <BvIEK0.K34@acsu.buffalo.edu> v085f2wd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Theodore J Kury) writes:
> |> >Someone has already pointed out that Magic never retired. A retired player
> |> >couldn't sit on the Laker bench. Magic was on the basketball version of the
> |> >injured reserve. He is simply healthy now. Free agents can't be given contract
> |> >extensions, just contracts.
> |> 
> |> OK, then you did they sign Threat (or whoever)?  If I recall, they used
> |> 1/2 of Magics salary to go get someone (I thought it was Threat).  How
> |> did they do this if he was only on IR?  Some Laker fan want to correct
> |> me here?
> |> 
> 
> They wanted to use half of Magic's salary, but because Magic could not
> make up his mind whether or not he would return for part of the season, they
> were never sure if that money was available.  Thus, they ended up not
> using it.
> 
> |> >One year contract extensions are exempt from the cap (this salary doesn't kick
> |> >in until 1994-95, remember).
> |> 
> |> Ahhhhh. This is simply a contract extension.  So, in 94-95 the Lakers
> |> will have absolutely no one on their roster, since they can't pay anyone,
> |> since they used up all their cap on Magic this year.  Makes perfect
> |> sense to me.  I now understand where that money came from, it just
> |> seems like a big price to pay.  Magic this year for no team in '94.
> |> 
> 
> Contract extensions and resignings of any kind are exempt from the cap.
> You are under a false impression on how the cap works.  About half the teams
>  in the NBA are currently well over the cap.
> For example, Boston last year had a team salary of 25 million, about 12
> million over the cap.  So in 94, the Lakers will have a team salary of
> about 29 million.  It doesn't matter.  The only thing this does is
> limit the moves they can make to sign free agents and draft choices.
> 
> |> >
> |> >"This thing" is a really big thank-you note.
> |> 
> |> "This thing" is either not legal under NBA rules, or incredibly stupid
> |> on Jerry's part.  I guess it's just a sign that the salary cap will
> |> *definitely* not be here for the 94-95 season, or at least Jerry better
> |> pray it's not.
> |> 
> 
> 
> Jerry Buss said this contract is to repay Magic for all the contributions
> he has made over his career to the Lakers.  This contract is perfectly legal
> by NBA rules, and many other teams are in similar positions, if not to
> the same degree.  Get this into your head.
> Even if the salary cap is in place in the
> 94-95 season, any team in the NBA could pay a limitless amount in
> salary to the players they already have under contract!  It could be $20
> million, $100 million, or a $1 billion if any GM was loony enough.
> 
> 				terry@garfield.Stanford.EDU


Do they offer a degree in understanding the salary cap at Stanford?? :-)  You
seem to have a good handle on it and I appreciate the explaination because it
has always been somewhat confusing to me.

Alan
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro