Blazers Cap Update: A Quick Note on Exceptions
by Dave on Aug 2, 2009 11:16 PM PDT
Email
Print
Several people have been asking about the state of Portland's salary cap exceptions for this season and/or proposing their use in trade scenarios. This is the official post to clear up the issue.
The Blazers have no cap exceptions remaining this season. The way things worked out those exceptions counted dollar-for-dollar against Portland's cap this summer. In other words retaining a $5 million mid-level exception meant that the Blazers had $5 million less to use on free agents. Once a team's salary level goes below the level of the exceptions that team must choose between the cap space OR the exceptions. It cannot have both. The team must renounce the exceptions for the year in order to use the cap space that was held in surety against them.
The Blazers opted to use their cap space to sign Andre Miller. In order to clear that space they renounced their exceptions plus rights to a bunch of players they were never going to sign. Once those cap holds were dispensed with Portland offered Miller his deal.
Hope this clears things up. According to Storyteller's site Portland now stands at $56.7 million, approximately $1 million below the cap threshold. Another $2.6 million should become free once the summer holds representing Viktor Claver, Petteri Koponen, and Joel Freeland are taken off.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
84 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Using Storyteller's "exact" number for Miller's salary,
it’s now about $2.7M after signing two rookies for the minimum, and taking off the Euro holds at the start of the season. I put the detailed numbers in a post further down the page.
Sorry about posting this twice, it didn’t go where I intended the first time.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions
And if we sign our rookies
their salaries will eat into our cap space.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I have heard that after everything is said and done
we will have $2.3 Million to use to sign a FA or use in the proverbial lopsided trade
"My avatar picture is of the favorite vehicle I ever owned" -Me
by 92wastheyear on Aug 2, 2009 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Depends on how much we pay the rookies
and how many of them we keep.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I think they were quoting ....
….keeping them both and paying the min
"My avatar picture is of the favorite vehicle I ever owned" -Me
by 92wastheyear on Aug 2, 2009 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions
We have three rooks
It’s not impossible that we keep Mills, too. We’ll have roster spots available. Sign him, rehab him, and send him to Idaho, and see how it goes. If they think he was a real steal in the draft, it costs little to do that. He can’t go to Europe unless he’s healthy, so he doesn’t have that option. Dude really got zapped by an injury before he could show what he can do on a higher level.
It’s not impossible that one of the forwards gets more than the minimum.
Probably these decisions (rookie salaries, etc.) will be made after KP has decided what he is going to do about backup PF (if anything). Or maybe rookies will be given non-guaranteed contracts so they can be cut if needed to make another deal.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I don't think they have to sign Mills to keep his rights
I know I heard or read this from some Blazer related site or show. Please correct me if it is wrong. When would they have to renounce Mills’ rights, if they do?
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Yes, the Portland Trail Blazers can retain Patty Mills' draft rights if he goes ahead ...
and plays somewhere overseas. I believe that’s what’ll probably happen with Mills, too.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
Who overseas would sign him
if he is injured and can’t play?
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Well, Patty Mills should be back form his broken foot around December or ...
http://www.euroleague.net/news/i/55059/180/item
Anyhow, it’ll be interesting to see what happens with Mills. In any event, though, I bet it’s more likely that for this upcoming season he is either playing overseas or gets renounced over being on the Portland Trail Blazers payroll.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
It's a tricky one
because Europe isn’t an option. I wonder if there’s another league somewhere that starts in December/January….
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
They wouldn't. Unlike first round picks (Claver, Freeland, Koponen) unsigned second round picks don't count against the cap, neither in the offseason nor during the season.
To keep them, technically they get offered a fully unguaranteed minimum salary contract each year. Should a player think “hey I’ll take that” and the team doesn’t agree, it could waive him faster than he can board a plane to Portland.
To get as far under the cap as possible for the Millsap/MIller offers the Blazers renounced players that still counted against the cap with their free agent cap holds (from last year LaFrentz, not officially retired players like Schrempf, Dudley, Lenard, Schenscher? …). They might or might not have renounced their rights to fellow unsigned second round draft picks Sinanovic and Kammerichs, who are pretty worthless but not completely worthless in trades as a throw-in just to trade something. The Knicks and Rockets last year did a deal with such a throw-in (the Rockets got the rights to the old French center that Vince Carter dunked on in the Olympics for Patrick Ewing Jr. He will never play in the NBA).
As for Mills, I think (hopefully for him) he had already signed a player contract for summer league. That would give him medical insurance for injuries sustained during training or games. Then at least that would be paid. I would rather doubt they really give him a roster spot this season, but it could happen.
"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw
I believe that a player must sign an actual rookie contract to have his salary ...
guaranteed in case of an injury. An example of that would be Jason Richards, who tore his knee while participating in the Miami Heat’s off-season training program in the summer of 2008 after he’d signed a non-guaranteed contract for that upcoming season.
Richards actually got lucky by hurting himself, though, since there was pretty much no way he’d’ve made the team over Chris Quinn.
For example, a fellow Heat training camp fodder from last season, David Padgett, earned only $35,000 from the team after being waived; that’s because he was only guaranteed that amount and didn’t get injured like Richards.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
The CBA allows
for a ‘summer contract’ to pay no actual salary, but allows for per diem and expenses during summer league and rookie camp. It also allows for disability insurance if the player is disabled during summer league and/or rookie camp.
I'm not feeling it with Patty Mills. At best, he'd be a so-so change-of-pace waterbug ...
like Tyronn Lue. Even if Mills hones his point guard skills — which isn’t a likely proposition, as he’s definitely a chucker at heart — he’ll still won’t be any better than a slightly smaller and thinner Carlos Arroyo. A player like that can play the point successfully in international ball, but will have trouble adjusting to the NBA game.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
Mills is unlikely to ever be more
than a change of pace backup, as you say.
But he might be very effective in that role some day.
The only reason you try to keep him is if you think he was really a first rounder who fell because of injury, and you think he’ll become a very effective backup someday. Then, it makes sense.
I don’t expect Mills to get a contract, but it’s possible.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
In that case, Jeff Pendergraph and Dante Cunningham will each count $457,588 against ...
the salary cap. Anyway, it does seem as if Pendergraph and Cunningham will ultimately sign two-year, minimum-level contracts (2009-2010: $457,588 & 2010-2011: $762,195) sometime this summer.
I originally expected that Pendergraph would receive more than the rookie minimum — which is what happened with DeJuan Blair, as the San Antonio Spurs dipped into its MLE to sign him — however, that’s not in the cards after the signing of Andre Miller.
That’s fine with me, though.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
Is that 120% of the minimum? That’s the typical value for high second round picks.
"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw
According to Storyteller's spreadsheet, DeJuan Blair's contract calls for annual ...
salaries of $850,000 in 2009-2010, $900,000 in 2010-2011, $950,000 in 2011-2012, and $1,000,000 in 2012-2013. To put it in some kind of comparison, Blair’s first-year salary is about the same as Ian Mahinmi’s third-year salary of $899,700. Mahinmi, by the way, was taken late in the first round with the 28th pick during his draft year.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
Just my best guess on Blair's contract
The information I’ve found says that he has 4 years and the contract starts at $850,000. So, for now, that’s my best guess….
Sign and trade before the trade deadline is likely.
Especially if Webster proves he’s healthy.
Look at the bright side, Blazers fans -- you dodged a bullet. He peaked statistically two years ago. He's allegedly 30 but could be closer to 32 or 33 for all we know. (Do you trust Turkish birth certificates? And isn't it weird that he played four years of pro ball in Turkey in the 1990s?)
- Bill Simmons of ESPN.com
Using Storyteller's "exact" number for Miller's salary,
it’s now $2.7M after signing two rookies for the minimum, and taking off the Euro holds at the start of the season. I put the detailed numbers in a post further down the page.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 1:34 AM PDT up reply actions
$3.6 million is like Easter.
Not as cool as Christmas, but heck, you get stuff.
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."
by GonzoFan on Aug 2, 2009 11:45 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
3.6 isn't all that bad
We could get something done with that. Personally I’m a fan of trading one of our rookies/SF and that cap money for a banger. As long as we are within 25% after outgoing player’s salaries +$3.6 mil it could add up to a decent amount.
I say trade Outlaw for Turiaf
I like Outlaw a lot but I’d love Turiaf more. That guy is a true back up PF
by hugetrailblazerfan on Aug 3, 2009 12:35 AM PDT reply actions
The Golden State Warriors need Ronny Turiaf and his shot blocking prowess behind Andris Biendris.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
Outlaw would flourish in Don Nelson's system and Turiaf in Nate's.
Maybe Portland is waiting to see how Martell pulls up. If he’s a-okay, I think KP will make a move. Hopefully it will be for Turiaf. But who knows. The Blazers went for Hedo so anything can happen.
by hugetrailblazerfan on Aug 3, 2009 5:57 AM PDT up reply actions
The Golden State Warriors already have a glut of wing players and truly, truly need to keep ...
Ronny Turiaf as its backup centers. There’s no way around it, either. Without Andris Biendris and Turiaf manning the middle for 48 minutes per game, the Warriors would play matador defense in the post. For certain, Biendris’ rebounding prowess and Turiaf’s shot blocking abilities are much-needed assets in the Bay Area.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
It's not $3.6M. Dave's forgetting the rookie salaries.
Before we signed Miller we were supposedly $7.7M under the cap (that excluded holds for “retired” players that we would renounce when signing Miller). That is from New Salary Cap Numbers; Portland’s Cap Situation and assumes that we did not renounce Freeland or Koponen.
We signed Miller for a reported $21M for 3 years. It was also reported (not confirmed) that the last year was a $7M option. So I assumed that it was a straight $7M per year without any raises (which is a conservative guess when figuring the cap space). That would mean we are now $7.7M – $7M = $700K under the cap.
However, Storytellers site lists Miller as $6.73M for the first year (assumes yearly raises), which would put us about $962K under the cap. I don’t where Storyteller verified his number, but I’m not going to question it.
So if we are now $962K under the cap, and then we sign the two rookies for the minimum ($458K each) we would be about $50K under the cap. The Euro cap holds for Claver, Koponen, and Freeland add up to about $2.65M, and they go away at the start of the season. So that brings the total to about $2.7M under the cap at the start of the season.
The $2.7M will go down if we give the two rookies more than the $458K minimum, or we sign other players (Mills, or other FA’s to fill roster spots).
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 1:30 AM PDT reply actions
I was not attempting to forecast who else the Blazers would sign
I was simply stating what we know, which is that right now we have $1 million and with the people we know are staying overseas (because they are now contractually obligated elsewhere) an extra $2.6 million comes available. The Blazers have the option of signing Pendergraph and Cunningham. They yet have the option of doing other things as well. They’ll likely sign the second-rounders but until they do these numbers are accurate.
—Dave
Yep
But we do know we need to sign at least two more players, right? We only have 11 under contract right now, and I think the league requires 13?
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
That's correct, we must have a minimum of 13 players
at the start of the season when the cap holds come off. We currently have 11 players so we must sign two more. Dave is correct we don’t have to sign the two rookies, but we have to sign two more players. The rookies are the least expensive players we can sign, so as the roster stands today, and doing only what is required under the rules, we can’t be more than $2.7M under the cap at the start of the season, as I said above. That is my understanding of the CBA, but I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong.
Obviously, we can make additional roster changes this summer to get further under the cap if we want to, e.g. trade players for draft picks and replace them with less expensive players. But this is what I believe this situation is now.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 6:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Probably so
However, although the league requires teams to carry 13 players, there are no ‘cap holds’ during the regular season when a team fails to do so. My assumption is (and I’ll try to research this to find out for sure) that if a team failed to carry 13 players, they would be fined by the league. Meaning that it might be possible for Portland to only have 11 players, pay the fine, and have the little extra cap room. Again, don’t quote me on this – I need to find out if this is true. But that’s my sense, right now, of how it would work. I don’t remember any team not carrying the minimum, thus my uncertainty.
I suggested a week or so ago that IN THEORY the Blazers
could delay signing their rookies in order to get an extra $900K to offer Freeland (prior to his signing in Europe) a larger salary on the first day of the season, and then sign the rookies to minimum deals the next day. However, I commented that they may not be able to get away with that because it would be seen as a clear attempt to circumvent the salary cap, which is prohibited. I still think that is probably true, i.e. they couldn’t just pay a fine to get an extra $900k in cap space and any deal they attempted that way would be invalidated.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions
^^ Certainly if they tried this maneuver to circumvent the cap
one of the other teams would object and press the issue with the league.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I've been reasearching this
for the last day or so as well.
The timing issue is the sticky wicket. The 13-man requirement and the dropping of roster charges for empty spaces plus cap holds for unsigned draft picks appear to happen simultaneously, which is the problem.
The scenario I’m trying to envision is the Blazers holding off until the first tick of the regular season, using the full space on their 11-man roster and cap to make a trade, then filling the gaps with minimum signings using the minimum player exception, which is always in effect (unlike the other exceptions). Technically the trade and subsequent signings would be the fix for the problem the NBA was asking the team to address.
Like you guys I’m thinking the league would want to count the summer cap space against them, making the Blazers once again loophole pioneers getting smacked down by the league office. If, however, there’s no legal language in the CBA spelling that out as the penalty the league might have to settle for closing the loophole after the fact.
—Dave
Presumably, you have to get 13 to start the season
But perhaps you could do this — #13 is some stiff who gets a payday. He’s signed to a non-guaranteed contract the day before the regular season. You then make an offer to someone else, and simultaneously with his signing, you cut your #13.
I would expect that to be permitted.
But if you tried to re-sign that same guy the next day, I suspect the league would disapprove.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
That guy
and his agent would be pretty cheesed as well. You’d get grief for doing that to somebody…signing the contract in bad faith.
—Dave
why not two 10-day contracts?
Would that do the trick?
No 10-day contracts until January 10th or close around that date each year
"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw
Not if it's some guy who is retired
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I think this would be pretty cut and dried.
The CBA says a team must have 13 players (although they are allowed to fall under for brief periods during the season, I think the clear intention is that they must start the season with 13). Therefore, purposely breaking that CBA rule to gain cap space is clearly a case of trying to circumvent the cap limit, and intentionally circumventing the cap limit through a loophole is expressly prohibited by the CBA.
It’s actually immaterial that in our case there are other cap holds coming off at the start of the season. The mere fact that you would violate the 13 player rule to fully preserve any existing cap space you might already have at the start of a season would be an obvious circumvention of the cap limit as soon as you used the space you had saved.
It’s easier to find things in Larry Coon’s FAQ than it is to find them in the CBA, so here is what the FAQ says about using loopholes to get around the cap:
“The CBA has a general prohibition on circumvention which states that the rules exist to preserve the benefit derived by the teams and players, and that nobody shall do anything to defeat or circumvent the intent of the agreement. The league can use this prohibition to disallow a trade that they feel circumvents the CBA, even though that trade is not specifically prohibited by the agreement.”
If you tried to do this it would be pretty obvious to 29 other teams what you tried to do.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Here's what the CBA says
http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles/article-XXIX.php
Section 1. Active Roster Size.
Each Team agrees to have twelve (12) players on its Active List and to have a minimum of eight (8) players on the bench for all Regular Season games. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Team may from time to time as appropriate, but for no more than two (2) consecutive weeks at a time during the Regular Season, have eleven (11) players on its Active List.
Section 2. Inactive Roster Size.
Each Team agrees to have one (1) player on its Inactive List for all Regular Season games. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Team may from time to time as appropriate, but for no more than two (2) consecutive weeks at any time during the Regular Season, have no players on its Inactive List.
Sounds to me as though Portland could get away with 11 active players and none on the IL for 2 weeks. Yes, it would be subject to review for potential ‘circumvention’. Perhaps this is what Jason Quick was referring to when he spoke about the team checking with the league about the cap holds dropping off – not whether or not the cap room would be generated (it would) but checking to see if they could go with only 11 players for the first two weeks of the season.
Probably the league (and the players union) wanted to put those limits in so e.g. a team like the Clippers can’t go without replacing injured players. Which they did try in the past. Also the Warriors and Knicks last year came close to the limit to active players (why D’Antoni asked Marbury once to be active). Since we have no injuries that keep players from being active, the league would likely review it if trying to free cap space to sign another player is “appropriate”. But it might be possible.
"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw
Like I said
This might be what the team has asked the league to rule on.
For Jason to write that the team wants to know if the cap holds will come off on October 27th is ridiculous – of course they will come off. The CBA says so.
But what if what the team is really asking the league to rule on now is whether or not the team can operate for a short period of time with both ‘exceptions’ (11 on the active list, 0 on the inactive list) which could happen when the cap holds are removed? That makes a lot more sense to me.
Anyway, just a theory on what Jason’s source with the team might have been saying to him about the Blazers asking for clarification from the league.
I would be surprised if the league would allow that
What wouldn’t be surprising would be if the league were to allow one of them.
In other words, we could sign one rookie, which would take us to 12, and wait until the holds come off to get our new guy, since he would be #13.
That way, you would only take one minimum salary for rookies out of the cap space, instead of two, but the reason you are doing this is to have enough room to sign your #13 — and he might even be on your roster by the time you play your first game.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
You may have it!
I have asked in two previous postings what the heck Quick was talking about since the removal of the cap holds was automatic. Why then were they “waiting for league approval” as he said they were? If that is the reason, and they were already petitioning the league for a way to save $900K more under the cap, you would have to wonder if they already have a deal pre-wired? But I still this is circumventing the point of the cap and the league wouldn’t approve.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Another possible explanation for Quick's comment
In a previous thread I suggested another less conniving explanation for why Quick said the Blazers were seeking league approval relative to the Euro cap holds. If they already had a trade worked out to use the Euro cap space they could have petitioned the league to approve the trade now, effective the first day of season, to ensure the other team didn’t back out between now and then. There is language in the CBA prohibiting verbal deals that result in a team going over the cap, because under the CBA verbal deals count as team salary even before they are executed. So they would need league approval just to agree to a deal now that wouldn’t be effective until the cap hold comes off. I wasn’t thinking previously that the rookie salaries were involved, but of course they could be too.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Intersting idea
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
BFS1970 -
FYI, I got the details of Miller’s contract from Marc Stein’s report last week:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&page=Chatter-090730
Thanks. I hadn't seen that reported.
That article also raises the issue of Roy’s contract.
I suspect that Roy initially asked for 5 years guaranteed (security for his knees) with a 3 year ETO (player opt-out), and in response the Blazers countered with a straight 4 year deal just to get him away from the ETO, with the expectation of getting an eventual compromise of a 5 year contract with no ETO. The latter gives Roy more security for his knees than a 4 year deal, and is better financially for the Blazers than a 4 year deal since the following contract should be at a higher salary.
Otherwise, if the reports are true and complete, and there is no ETO involved, the positions appear backwards from conventional wisdom with Roy wanting the longer 5 year deal and the Blazers wanting a shorter 4 year deal. The only logic I can see for that is if both sides are worried about his knees.
Any thoughts?
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Minimizing risk
This is the weirdest economic climate we’ve ever seen in the league. Nobody knows what the financial picture will look like in the future. Nobody knows what the next CBA will be. The only thing one can guess for sure is that player salaries are going down…perhaps drastically if the owners have their way. Nobody on the owners’ side wants to be making commitments of any longer term than they have to. The players want to get all the years under this system that they can. Tomorrow’s stars are probably going to be living leaner.
—Dave
Possibly so.
I agree the average salaries will be coming down. But it’s tough to predict that will produce a lower salary for Brandon Roy 4-5 years from now when his contract is up for negotiation again, and he is then a 7-time All-Star, 2-time NBA MVP, and 2-time NBA Finals MVP. I’m willing to bet some team will find the money to give that guy a bigger contract than he gets this time. And if that is true, it is in his best interest to have a 4 year deal rather than a 5 year deal.
On the other hand, it is possible the next CBA could limit his future maximum salary at a lower rate than it does now, but he will have 4-5 more years in the league and thus be at a higher level in the maximum salary table. Nevertheless, that could happen and thus make a longer contract benefit him. I guess anything can happen in this weird economic climate as you say.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Doubtful
It’s more likely that the owners will pressure for the average and minimum salaries to go down, less guaranteed years, more variable salary in bonuses that might be tied into league revenue to get the players union to agree, etc. But star salaries (real stars) are bound to continue to increase. Though many exceptions could get eliminated to make the cap “harder”, which could be a reason why teams want to have the flexibility instead of spending all money on 2 or 3 players. In that way giving Roy a shorter deal might make sense.
By the way, the league committee that starts negotiations this week is comprised of Sarver (Phoenix), Bennett (OKC) and Gilbert (Cavs). Oh brother.
"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw
The earliest a five-year contract can have an early termination option is after the fourth season.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q50
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
I believe the way it is done is to sign a 5 year extension
to the rookie contract, which then gets treated as a 6 year contract. The 4th year ETO is then the 3rd year after the final option year of the rookie contract. The only catch is that the extension must be signed by Oct 31.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Nope, it's treated as a five-year contract extension.
For example, Carmelo Anthony signed a five-year, maximum-level contract extension with the Denver Nuggets in 2006.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2517602.
Within Anthony’s contract, he has an ETO after the fourth season of the actual extension.
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/nuggets.jsp
As it stands, Brandon Roy wants a deal similar to that of Anthony’s from 2006.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
This is what I read according to Coon's Salary FAQ:
51. … Except for extensions of rookie scale contracts (which must be signed by October 31) …
So by Oct 31 as I said before.
Rookie scale contracts may be extended for up to five seasons beyond the player’s last option season, bringing the total contract length to six seasons. …
That is the situation that Roy and LMA are now in. They are going into their last option season as it says above. Note that with a 5 year extension the total contract length is then considered 6 years, which makes them elgible for an ETO at the end of the 4th year of that contract, with is really the end of the 3rd year of the extended years following the final option year.
I don’t see how to read it any other way. Do you?
The salary in the first year of an extension to a rookie scale contract may be any amount up to the player’s maximum.
And that permits the maximum salary for a player coming off his rookie contract starting the year after the last option year.
It seems really clear to me, but maybe I’m reading it wrong and you can find something that explains it differently. It wouldn’t be the first time I fooled by the wording in Coon’s Salary Cap FAQ.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
The following is according to Larry Coon.
“Player Early Termination Options (ETOs) give the player the right to terminate the contract early. An ETO can’t occur prior to the end of the fourth season of the contract (which implies that the contract must be for at least five seasons).”
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q50
It’s as clear as day.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
Yes it is and so is the part I quoted before.
In your quote Coon says “at least 5 years”. Now in my quote below he says the 5 year extension is really a 6-year contract.
Rookie scale contracts may be extended for up to five seasons beyond the player’s last option season, bringing the total contract length to six seasons. …
According to Coon the 5 year extension is treated like a “total contract” length of 6 years. Therefore, the 4th year of “the total contract” is the 3rd year of the extension years, not the 4th. Why would he say the total contract length is 6 years in this case and then ignore that fact in the part you quoted?
AK, I suspect you are correct, but it doesn’t jive with what Coon says above. This wouldn’t be the first time that reading Coon literally led me to a wrong conclusion. Nevertheless, I can’t see any other way to read what I just quoted.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Storyteller - I suspect AK is right, can you explain why Coon calls it a 6-year
total contract length, and then why the 4th year of the 6-year total contract length isn’t just the 3rd year of the 5-year extension? Help!
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I'd also like Storyteller's take on this issue.
If anybody can solve this quandry, it’s definitely him.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
OK Here is what the 2005 CBA says:
Article XII, Section 2(b):
If a Team and player enter into an Extension of a Rookie Scale Contract, the Contract may simultaneously be amended to provide for an ETO, provided that such ETO is exercisable only once and takes effect no earlier than the end of the fourth Season of the extended term of the Contract.
So that agrees with what you are saying, but I have no idea what Coon is talking about with his “bringing the total contract length to six seasons” and then saying "An ETO can’t occur prior to the end of the fourth season of the contract (which implies that the contract must be for at least five seasons)." He should have just said the ETO can’t occur “prior to the end of the fourth season of the contract or the end of the fourth season of the extended term of the contract”, and skipped the stuff about six total seasons.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions
So thanks AK for bringing this to my attention.
This is second time I’ve been burned by reading Coon’s explanation of the CBA. In general he has done a really great job, but some things like this are better understood by reading the CBA directly.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Always best to go to the direct source
Which is why I was glad when the NBPA put the actual CBA up on their site several years ago. Interpreting a document and interpreting an interpretation of a document can, as you point out, sometimes lead you to different results.
As to why the FAQ includes the section about 6 years, the only thing I can think of is that ‘cap’ on how many years in advance a player can have a contract. I remember Larry getting questions on the RealGM CBA board a couple of years ago about “why can’t extensions be 6 years in length if contracts can be 6 years?” Perhaps his language is meant to emphasize the length of the extension in order to reinforce the point. I’m sure he gets more questions about length of contracts than about when ETOs are available. Remember that he’s trying to educate the masses.
Finally, it would appear that the CBA focuses on availability of ETOs based not on the length of time under contract but based on how many years are actually being signed for. In Roy’s case, is it a 5 year extension or an addition bringing a contract to 6 years total? The CBA seems to view it as the former, meaning no ETO after the 3rd year of the extension.
^^ The rookie extension can be any amount up to the maximum so the player
doesn’t lose any money by signing an extension.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Right, the contract extension can be a five-year, maximum-level deal that starts after ...
the completion of Roy’s rookie deal. Regardless of whether or not Roy signs an extension this summer, he’ll earn $3,910,816 in the last year of his rookie contract this season.
Yet, if for whatever reason Roy doesn’t sign a contract extension by 10/31/2009, then he’ll head into the 2010 off-season as a restricted free-agent — since the Portland Trail Blazers will surely tender him a one-year, $5,217,029 qualifying offer — and the team would have the right to first refusal on any offer sheet he may sign with another ballclub. I assume both sides will hash things out before then, though.
Oh, and regarding my previous post, here’s a non-broken link of the five-year, maximum-level contract extension that Carmelo Anthony signed with the Denver Nuggets during the summer of 2006.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2517602
As is noted by both Sham and Storyteller’s salary websites, Anthony has an ETO that can be exercised by him after the fourth season of the actual contract extension. Anyhow, five-year contracts — regardless of whether such deals are an extension or new — can include an ETO after the fourth season at the earliest.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
If Roy doesn't sign an extension by Oct 31
he can still negotiate a contract and re-sign with the Blazers as a restricted free agent next summer, and the Blazers can offer him a 6-year maximum salary deal if they want to, while other teams can only offer 5 year deals. Or they can match some other offer he gets.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, that is correct.
Also, the Portland Trail Blazers can offer 10.5% annual raises and other teams can only offer 8% annual raises.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
I hadn't seen this either.
Anyone have an inkling what “conditionally guaranteed” might mean with respect to Miller’s third year. I feel like I read “team option” in earlier stories but I may have just been hoping…
Petteri's team in Italy is reportedly trying to lowball him after acquiring a young Italian national team PG, and might waive him and a US player if they can't negotiate a new contract
Then the Blazers might have to waive him too if they want to keep that cap hold off during the season until he has found something new. The cap space will remain a bit in flux.
BTW in their last test match yesterday the result was as follows:
Finland 102 (Teemu Rannikko 24, Petteri Koponen 21, Hanno Mottola 19) vs. New Zealand 91 (Kirk Penney 32, Alex Pledger 14, Lindsay Tait 11).
"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw
roster
I would think it is a certainty that the Blazers will sign Pendergraph and Cunningham.
Thanks for the clarifying post, Dave
Understanding the salary cap is very easy – there’s only one rule: Player transactions (trades, FA signings, rookie signings, etc.) are only allowed if the team is below the salary cap at the end of the transaction.
There are, however, a number of exceptions to that rule – and understanding the myriad of exceptions and their implications is indeed a very complex matter. So confusion on these issues is understandable.
I’ve used this analogy before but I’ll post it again. The salary cap is like the speed limit on the Interstate. The basic rule is simple – you cannot exceed 65 miles an hour. However, there are exceptions to that rule. One exception is that a police vehicle that has its lights flashing and siren blaring can exceed the speed limit.
Now imagine a policeman driving down the Interstate with his lights flashing and siren blaring. He’s travelling at 50 MPH. He passes a highway patrolman who is using his radar gun. Should the policeman think to himself, “It’s a good thing I’ve got my lights and siren on or else I’d be in trouble”? Of course not. He’s not breaking the rule, so he doesn’t need an exception to that rule.
That’s how the salary cap works. You only need exceptions to the rule when you are breaking the rule.
Where the analogy falls short, however, is in terms of accrued exceptions such as trade exceptions or the MLE. The Collective Bargaining Agreement says that not only do teams under the cap not need exceptions, but it also states that any exceptions that a team has accrued before going under the cap are lost once the team is under the cap. Once a team goes back over the cap, it can start to collect new exceptions, but (except for the case of renouncing exceptions to make an offer to a RFA that is eventually matched by the player’s previous team) can never re-gain the exceptions that were lost when they went under the cap.
Roy and LA
Does this mean if the Blazers want to have that cap room they wont sign Roy and LA tell after the start of the sesson ? to keep the cap space ?
by HomeoftheBlazers on Aug 3, 2009 8:46 PM PDT reply actions
No. Signing them now doesn't affect the cap space until next summer.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 3, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, to be precise
Getting them to sign extensions now does affect the team salary figure next summer. If they sign an extension, then their cap hit is the extension amount. If they don’t, then they count against the cap in the amount of their individual cap holds as FA with full Bird rights.
You’re correct, though, in saying that signing them to extensions today probably does not affect whether or not the Blazers will be under the cap or not next summer.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
