PDA

View Full Version : Why teams don't front-load contracts



Run&Gun
07-04-2012, 02:02 PM
I keep on looking at the contracts that all these NBA players get and wonder why more teams don't Front load their contracts for players like Nick Collison's contract. It makes perfect sense because players get more money sooner, and it gives the team a lot more flexibility later and won't be so bad when they get older.

I think especially in rebuilding teams this would be perfect, because they won't be able to usually sign big FA names, and I think signing multiple borderline players does not=good team aka Detroit, Suns. Much better to just sign two guys and see where your needs, and if you give them more money up front you'll be able to sign players the year after.

Is there something in the CBA that doesn't allow you to front-load contracts, or are players just more scared about not having more money down the road?

IndyRealist
07-04-2012, 02:10 PM
I'm guessing because most players want raises. When their next contract comes up, they want to be negotiated from an inflated position instead of a reduced one.

RipCity32
07-04-2012, 02:24 PM
Some do dont they?

CB29
07-04-2012, 02:26 PM
Depends on the teams i think and the city especially. Some places may have a pretty high tax rates (Canada) so players would want as even a contract as possible. Not sure about US tax rates though but i'm sure that it plays into it.

StarvingKnick22
07-04-2012, 02:30 PM
Its because if they had all that money now, they would have gone bankrupt, and have little of it left, but if they get it later, they have money for the long run

Lisound15
07-04-2012, 02:38 PM
It really doesn't make sense though. The value of money today is almost always worth more than it is tommorow. Guess these kids don't pay much attention in their college classes nowadays...

justinnum1
07-04-2012, 02:39 PM
some do, i think it was chicago who front loaded a contract for jj reddick and magic matched it

Bramaca
07-04-2012, 02:43 PM
It happens very rarely but it is something I think more teams should do. The Bulls did it with a few contracts (Ben Wallace and Hinrich), other then that I haven't really seen much of it. Definetely something teams should do with vets.

yanksrock
07-04-2012, 02:57 PM
Good point.

yanksrock
07-04-2012, 02:59 PM
If a restricted FA signs a offer from another team, does the original team have to match the exact offer or can it be the same amount of money?

Example: if Houston offers Lin a back-loaded contract, can the Knicks match and front-load it?

Badluck33
07-04-2012, 03:09 PM
If a team has a target player that they want to extend in current year they can front load it if they have the cap space. teams with cap space and a full roster will do that.

Its hard that you find those two together and thats why it doesn't happen more often.

Back loaded are more frequent because as years progress, teams know how much money will be on books in the future.

IndyRealist
07-04-2012, 03:18 PM
If a restricted FA signs a offer from another team, does the original team have to match the exact offer or can it be the same amount of money?

Example: if Houston offers Lin a back-loaded contract, can the Knicks match and front-load it?

It has to be the exact same contract, with the same terms.

yanksrock
07-04-2012, 03:19 PM
It has to be the exact same contract, with the same terms.

You sure?

That sux.

Thanx!

davids22
07-04-2012, 03:25 PM
It's because the players won't let them. Think of it from a job standpoint.

Let's say you bust your *** off at your job. You want a raise for doing so, correct? If your Boss told you "Hey I'm going to reduce your pay by a couple thousand dollars as the years go on because it helps the company in the long run", you'd promptly tell him to **** off, no? Players want to see the increased incentive to put the work in year in and out.

NSJ
07-04-2012, 03:30 PM
It's because the players won't let them. Think of it from a job standpoint.

Let's say you bust your *** off at your job. You want a raise for doing so, correct? If your Boss told you "Hey I'm going to reduce your pay by a couple thousand dollars as the years go on because it helps the company in the long run", you'd promptly tell him to **** off, no? Players want to see the increased incentive to put the work in year in and out.

I agree, the front offices also don't want to give guys most of their money in the beginning because it also gives them less incentive to work towards earning the money might be getting in the future. Especially with team and player options at the end of contracts. If there's a team option on your last year of the contract and it is worth 10-15 mil than you're going to work hard to make sure that team picks up your option.

Linkels
07-04-2012, 03:30 PM
It's because the players won't let them. Think of it from a job standpoint.

Let's say you bust your *** off at your job. You want a raise for doing so, correct? If your Boss told you "Hey I'm going to reduce your pay by a couple thousand dollars as the years go on because it helps the company in the long run", you'd promptly tell him to **** off, no? Players want to see the increased incentive to put the work in year in and out.

Your sig is hilarious.

JasonJohnHorn
07-04-2012, 03:36 PM
It's about cap space. You have to have the cap space to front load the contract. With Collison, the Thunder had a guy who was a max deal kind of guy, so they front loaded it by giving him a max contract for the first season, and smaller anual salaries the following seasons. The problem is, with a player like D-Will for example, you can't offer him more than the max, therefore you can't front load the contract, because he is already getting the max. And teams that have the space are more likely to use that space to sign a big name or sign two players, rather than front loading a contract. So it only really makes sense for teams to do it with their own free agents, when they have the cap-space, and when they are signing a player who isn't a max-contract type of player. And this doesn't happen often.

Badluck33
07-04-2012, 03:49 PM
It's because the players won't let them. Think of it from a job standpoint.

Let's say you bust your *** off at your job. You want a raise for doing so, correct? If your Boss told you "Hey I'm going to reduce your pay by a couple thousand dollars as the years go on because it helps the company in the long run", you'd promptly tell him to **** off, no? Players want to see the increased incentive to put the work in year in and out.

wrong.

2 most important parts of the deal is years and total $. How it is spread out isn't really as important because its guaranteed money. NFL maybe different tho because those contracts are NOT guaranteed.

Players probably don't care how its spread out. The money is guaranteed. If a GM tells me he wants to front load my contract to give the team flexibility to sign another big player in 2 years, I say YES...