The Grizzlies announced today that they have rescinded their qualifying offer to Hakim Warrick, making the incumbent forward an unrestricted free agent. It was a slightly unexpected and curiously timed move.
Trying to make sense of this decision requires wading into some pretty detailed material regarding league contract rules, so try to follow me.
There are essentially three types of free agency that apply to Warrick. By issuing the qualifying offer (a one-year contract offer I estimate at $2.7 million based on league rules, but which has been reported at $3 million) to Warrick earlier in the summer, the Grizzlies made him a restricted free agent. This meant that Warrick was free to negotiate with any team in the league but that the Grizzlies had the right to match any contract offer. Warrick could also negotiate any contract with the Grizzlies. Warrick could also sign the qualifying offer and play next season on a one-year deal for that amount. (This is what ended up happening with Stromile Swift at the end of his Grizzlies’ rookie contract.)
By pulling back the qualifying offer, the Grizzlies have made Warrick an unrestricted free agent. Warrick could still negotiate a contract with the Grizzlies, but now the Grizzlies no longer have rights to match offers from other teams and Warrick no longer has the one-year qualifying offer as an option. My understanding (I’m admittedly slightly uncertain about the first part) is also that the cap hold (the amount that counts against the team’s salary cap until an actual contract is signed) for Warrick increases from the qualifying offer to an amount equal to 300% of his salary last season (approximately $6.3 million).
The next step could be to renounce Warrick. In doing this, the team would lose Warrick’s Bird Rights (the ability to exceed the salary cap in signing him) but would remove the cap hold, thus maximizing the team’s available cap space. (It would seem intuitive that by renouncing a free agent a team would lose the option of using them in sign-and-trade scenarios, but apparently this is not the case.)
