Finestrg wrote:Seth over at P&T saying Balkman will be bought out in order to pursue a FA...Why Balkman? Don't get me wrong--I don't think he can play & want him gone but if we buy him out, don't we still hold his salary on the books for the next couple of years?? I don't want that..Buy out Azu, Mason (we have Brewer now--no need in the world to keep either of these guys anymore) or Shelden Williams instead and carry over Balkman to see if we can trade him during the off-season or next year so we can permanently remove that salary..

Item #63: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

I was interested in this too. It looks like whatever we buy him out for gets evenly distributed across the three years, as far as cap, so we can potentially reduce what we will owe, but probably not by a lot. One idea would be to offer him a buyout for maybe about 2/3 of what he's owed, but then give it to him in a lump sum (which is more valuable) right upfront. Then, he can hopefully sign with another team and a veteran's minimum, thus netting him more than he's making now, which may be an attractive option to Balk. This would probably save us about $500k for the Chris Paul offseason. Whether or not this is even worth exploring, who knows? We'll probably wind up negating most of that difference with the cap hold, anyway.

I think either way we're in the low $44 million range for the 2012 offseason. If the CBA doesn't change much, this may be enough room to nab Paul still and fill the rest of the roster up with veteran minimums and possibly enough to sign Landry Fields for another year if he'll take below-market value for one year. We'll see.

Solace wrote:

Finestrg wrote:Seth over at P&T saying Balkman will be bought out in order to pursue a FA...Why Balkman? Don't get me wrong--I don't think he can play & want him gone but if we buy him out, don't we still hold his salary on the books for the next couple of years?? I don't want that..Buy out Azu, Mason (we have Brewer now--no need in the world to keep either of these guys anymore) or Shelden Williams instead and carry over Balkman to see if we can trade him during the off-season or next year so we can permanently remove that salary..

Item #63: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

I was interested in this too. It looks like whatever we buy him out for gets evenly distributed across the three years, as far as cap, so we can potentially reduce what we will owe, but probably not by a lot. One idea would be to offer him a buyout for maybe about 2/3 of what he's owed, but then give it to him in a lump sum (which is more valuable) right upfront. Then, he can hopefully sign with another team and a veteran's minimum, thus netting him more than he's making now, which may be an attractive option to Balk. This would probably save us about $500k for the Chris Paul offseason. Whether or not this is even worth exploring, who knows? We'll probably wind up negating most of that difference with the cap hold, anyway.

I think either way we're in the low $44 million range for the 2012 offseason. If the CBA doesn't change much, this may be enough room to nab Paul still and fill the rest of the roster up with veteran minimums and possibly enough to sign Landry Fields for another year if he'll take below-market value for one year. We'll see.

Nice job Solace..Thanks for the clarification.

As for right now, I still think I'd rather buy out or waive Azu, Mason or Shelden Williams first before we consider buying out Balkman...I understand the terms you posted but I'd rather hold him for now and see if I can move the entire contract later..What you're talking about is definitely a nice fallback plan though..Nice to know we can at least conserve a little bit of cap room if need be.

JohnWallace44 wrote:I don't see why he would take anything less than the full amount.

Its odd to me that we would take a hit like that to cut Balkman and then turn around and sign Jeffries... very similar players.

I'm against signing Jefferies, but I can see why they would cut Balkman and get Jefferies. Jefferies = little skill, consistent effort and good attitude. Balkman = little skill, inconsistent effort and disinterested attitude.