My suspicion is actually the opposite from yours, JSD -- I think that Detroit cut Smith because they didn't want to take on players like Bass and contracts like Wallace, and those were the only deals out there.
This doesn't make much sense. How is it better to have no player, and a contract worse than Wallace's (which is what they achieved by cutting Smith).
Good call DOS.,
Koz if you are using stretch to avoid tax due to expecting to max sign of Monroe. Smith stretch is better than Wallace stretch. This is because Smith had an extra year his stretch means less $ a year. Stretch rule is 2x years left +1 year. Longer the contract easier the stretch.
The math in this case is clearly for letting Bass expire and waiving Wallace with a stretch, simply because Smith makes a boatload of money:
Smith's stretch -- $28 million over 5 years = ~5.6 million dead cap.
Wallace's stretch -- $10.1 million over 3 years = ~3.3 million dead cap.
The only caveat is that you can only stretch contracts signed under the new CBA, and I'm not sure Wallace's is.
Also wanted to comment on the bold part: exactly the opposite is true, because in shorter contracts, the "relative weight" of the extra year is higher. At least provided you define "easier to stretch" as "providing the highest cap savings relative to the original per-annum amount".
Example: a $10 million per season contract stretches to $3.3 mil if it's a one-year deal ($10*1/3), and for $4 mil if it is a 2-year deal ($10*2/5). The longer the deal, the higher the stretch amount.