is there any reason Hump won't be bought out?

[Fafnir]

Yes because if he won't give up a good deal of money it doesn't make much sense for the C's to buy him out.

Better to have his rights in a potential sign and trade if you aren't getting decent savings.

[CelticG1]

Because Hump won't want to take any less salary than he is owed for this year. A buy out needs to be agreed to by the player. I'm not sure if it makes sense for the owners to pay 95% of his salary for him to play for someone else.

I can think of one reason: Hump doesn't want to leave.

On both these points, isn't it conceivable that Hump would take a buyout because:

(a) he'd get to play out the season with more minutes, or on a contender, or both?
(b) his next contract could be significantly better if he is a valuable contributor to a team's deep playoff run - so even with the buyout, he could benefit financially?

I tjink your points are juat enormous "if" statements even if he wanta to be bought out. Maybe he would sign with a contender but id be shocked if he somehow ended up getting more minutes and improved his stoxk at the same time. Who knows if he could even get accimated with the team in time.

Anyway how often does this scenario really happen where a player gets bought out and somehow raises his stock going and playing with a different team for a few months? I can really only think of garbage players.

[Sully7]

Why not just sit him and use him only to spell Sully and KO…remember Sully's back can't be 100% especially given the way he plays and his weight..KO is a rook who is going to hit the wall.

[cletus1985]

Still have bass, sully and KO at PF.  Plus two draft picks who could potentially play PF.

He will command at least 6 mil a year IMO, not worth it when we are looking to clear salary for 2015.

I fully expect him to be bought out within a month.

Between the possibility of Sullinger getting traded, and the chance to sign-and-trade Humphries there are enough reasons to keep him. He isn't going anywhere.

This. Plus if a team underperforms bad enough this season they might look to blow it up and Danny may be able to get a star and make us contenders next season. Say Memphis wants to start over and we want Gasol, they're going to want someone like Sully on a cheap deal that is young, obviously picks, and then you need salary filler on expiring deals like Bass and Bogans.

If you make that deal the only PF left is Olynk and it makes sense to resign Hump at that point.

But this is just the way I think, I have no idea what Danny has planned or what info he has that none of us know. My personal opinion is Hump is here for the rest of the season unless he requests a buyout or some locker room issues come up.

Also I think having veteran players to play the rookies in practice is underrated by many fans, veterans can teach these guys a lot of tricks that will save them embarrassment in games and add a level to their games. There's a reason teams like the Cavs, Jazz, and Magic....etc..etc... have a lot of embarrassing losses and its not just a lack of talent, its a lack of knowledge because they're almost devoid of veterans too teach them beforehand.

[saltlover]

Reasons to buy him out:

1) You want to clear playing time for younger players.
2) He's been a good soldier, and you want to let him find a spot on a contending team.  Down the road this improves your reputation with other players.

Reasons to not buy him out:

1) You want the opportunity to resign him next year, especially if you trade Bass over the summer.
2) It's possible you could obtain some future value for him in a sign-and-trade.
3) You want your team to continue to play its hardest to create good habits for future years, and cutting Hump would not be consistent with that position.

Reasons that don't matter:
1) Money -- C's ownership could save a trivial amount of money buying him out (by their standards) -- at most a couple hundred thousand.

FYI -- Hump will get paid what the Celtics owe him.  Negotiations in a buyout are regarding how much of any contract Hump signs for the rest of the season count against what the Celtics owe him.  Per the CBA, the Celtics could release him today, and owe him the rest of his contract.  If he signs elsewhere, for say $1 million, half of that new contract would count against what the C's owe, and so their obligation to Hump would be reduced by $500k.  Hump comes out okay in this scenario, because he makes $500k more than his original contract with the C's called for.  That 50% is the default set by the CBA.  If Hump asks for his release, the C's could negotiate, and try to have more of his new contract "set-off" his original deal.  Perhaps they agree that 75% of his new contract counts against what the C's owe.  Now the C's would owe $750k less to Hump, but Hump would still make $250k more than he would if he didn't sign elsewhere.  So it's not a money decision.

2) Roster spots -- we already have one open.  The D-league only has so much to offer.

[green147]

Despite the fact that he plays hard and his teammates seem to like him, if the C's buy him out he will likely go to the Heat and significantly help them in the playoffs. That reason alone is enough to keep him around in my book.

[Fafnir]

FYI -- Hump will get paid what the Celtics owe him.  Negotiations in a buyout are regarding how much of any contract Hump signs for the rest of the season count against what the Celtics owe him.  Per the CBA, the Celtics could release him today, and owe him the rest of his contract.  If he signs elsewhere, for say $1 million, half of that new contract would count against what the C's owe, and so their obligation to Hump would be reduced by $500k.  Hump comes out okay in this scenario, because he makes $500k more than his original contract with the C's called for.  That 50% is the default set by the CBA.  If Hump asks for his release, the C's could negotiate, and try to have more of his new contract "set-off" his original deal.  Perhaps they agree that 75% of his new contract counts against what the C's owe.  Now the C's would owe $750k less to Hump, but Hump would still make $250k more than he would if he didn't sign elsewhere.  So it's not a money decision.

This is false. Negotiations on buyouts are not limited to offsets of any other contracts.

Buyouts do not have to be for the nominal amount of the contract. Players can and have given up significant amounts of money to play for a contender.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6167769

Mike Bibby gave up all of the money for an entire year to go to the Heat for example.

Marbury also languished for a long time while negotiating a buyout before joining the C's. It was because the Knicks wanted him to give up more than just offsets to get out of his contract. There are a ton of other examples.

[BballTim]

Despite the fact that he plays hard and his teammates seem to like him, if the C's buy him out he will likely go to the Heat and significantly help them in the playoffs. That reason alone is enough to keep him around in my book.

  To be honest Danny doesn't think like that. First of all he doesn't really care who wins when we're bad, Secondly, he won't do anything that would screw Humphries if he can help it because the bad rep he'd get with players and agents would hurt in any future negotiations.

[slamtheking]

no real point to waiving him.  they'd save a minimal amount of money and they have the pleasure of watching him sign elsewhere when they couldn't trade him.  call me vindictive but no way I give away something of value that no one was willing to make a minimum payment on.

he's a solid player and we can use him the rest of the year as such and as a good role model for the younger players on how to handle themselves in the league/game. 

Plus, IF bass is moved this offseason, Hump could be resigned for a lot less than he's making now (if he chooses to return which I don't think he will-->showed he's still got skills any contender could use next year)

[saltlover]

FYI -- Hump will get paid what the Celtics owe him.  Negotiations in a buyout are regarding how much of any contract Hump signs for the rest of the season count against what the Celtics owe him.  Per the CBA, the Celtics could release him today, and owe him the rest of his contract.  If he signs elsewhere, for say $1 million, half of that new contract would count against what the C's owe, and so their obligation to Hump would be reduced by $500k.  Hump comes out okay in this scenario, because he makes $500k more than his original contract with the C's called for.  That 50% is the default set by the CBA.  If Hump asks for his release, the C's could negotiate, and try to have more of his new contract "set-off" his original deal.  Perhaps they agree that 75% of his new contract counts against what the C's owe.  Now the C's would owe $750k less to Hump, but Hump would still make $250k more than he would if he didn't sign elsewhere.  So it's not a money decision.

This is false. Negotiations on buyouts are not limited to offsets of any other contracts.

Buyouts do not have to be for the nominal amount of the contract. Players can and have given up significant amounts of money to play for a contender.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6167769

Mike Bibby gave up all of the money for an entire year to go to the Heat for example.

Marbury also languished for a long time while negotiating a buyout before joining the C's. It was because the Knicks wanted him to give up more than just offsets to get out of his contract. There are a ton of other examples.

I believe that changed with the new CBA.  Bibby is from the old CBA.

from Larry Coon:

66. What is a contract buyout?

Sometimes players and teams decide to divorce each other. They do this by mutually agreeing that:

The team will waive the player
If the player clears waivers, the player's guaranteed salary will be reduced or eliminated (see question number 63)
In contracts signed or extended under the previous CBA, the payment schedule for the remaining salary may be shortened or lengthened (see question number 64)
Optionally the team's set-off rights (see question number 65) may be waived

The way I read that, since Hump is under the new CBA, which restricts contracts being renegotiated for a lower value, he will be paid all his salary.

[Fafnir]

That section of the FAQ hasn't changed from the old CBA. The exact text of what you quote is in the old version:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap05.htm

Nothing has changed other than deleting the old example of Dino Radja. The player by agreeing to the buyout and gaining his free agency can give up money as part of the buyout.

The paragraph afterwards explains how John Starks went to the arbitrator and got a ruling that allowed him to sever his relationship with the Bulls and move on to another team.

[saltlover]

That section of the FAQ hasn't changed from the old CBA. The exact text of what you quote is in the old version:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap05.htm

Nothing has changed other than deleting the old example of Dino Radja. The player by agreeing to the buyout and gaining his free agency can give up money as part of the buyout.

The paragraph afterwards explains how John Starks went to the arbitrator and got a ruling that allowed him to sever his relationship with the Bulls and move on to another team.

It's actually a little different, specifically in the "guarantee" section:

If the player clears waivers, the compensation protection for lack of skill (see question number 94) will be reduced or eliminated;

You may be right.  I find that section the most unclear.  But I'm an economist, not a lawyer, so it's not my expertise.

[Fafnir]

The example of John Starks remains:

But there's a twist, which needed an arbitrator's ruling to resolve. As detailed in question number 63, on January 10 all contracts become guaranteed for the remainder of that season. Although compensation protection ensures the player is paid after he is waived, the compensation protection does not kick-in if the player is waived after January 10, because the player does not lose any salary. Even though the team and player can mutually agree to reduce or eliminate the player's compensation protection, he is still owed his full salary if waived after January 10.

This was challenged by John Starks during the 1999-2000 season. Starks had been traded to the Bulls, and wanted to sever ties with the team after January 10. The arbitrator ruled that in the last season of a player's contract a team and player can choose to eliminate the protection that kicks-in on January 10. Starks and the Bulls were therefore free to walk away from each other with no money owed

Prior to the John Starks ruling you would be right, but a team and a player can eliminate the protection of their full salary. This hasn't changed with the new CBA.

Buyouts can still reduce the money owed based on negotiation with the player.

[More Banners]

Frankly, between Hump and Bass, I'd rather keep Hump around and move Bass.  SO I hang on to Hump for now, in hopes that I can make room for him in the rotation/salary cap by moving Bass.

I'm imagining a big rotation of KLove, Sully, and Hump, plus, maybe, CIverson coming over.  We would own the boards.

[rondohondo]

Frankly, between Hump and Bass, I'd rather keep Hump around and move Bass.  SO I hang on to Hump for now, in hopes that I can make room for him in the rotation/salary cap by moving Bass.

I'm imagining a big rotation of KLove, Sully, and Hump, plus, maybe, CIverson coming over.  We would own the boards.

bass is better and more versatile than hump