PDA

View Full Version : How Come Players Don't Do This Kind of Contracts?



JNA17
07-04-2014, 04:28 AM
We have seen poison pill contracts like Lin and Asik that one year make 4 or 5 mill one year, than the next year they will get paid $15 mill or more next season. Can't star players like Melo, Lebron, Wade or whoever also take on those type of contracts?

What I mean is can't those guys get contracts where the first year they make $5 mill or something, but then in the second year and so on, they make max money.

Is it not allowed, or do these players not want to do that kind of contract? I understand if it's the latter but it does sort of create that loophole of getting the players the team needs while the players get the most money possible. It would basically be getting less money per year or a lot less money the first year but max money per year.

Honest question. XD

Raps08-09 Champ
07-04-2014, 04:33 AM
If they opt out, they lose out on the money on the back loaded contracts. Teams probably don't want to pay a lot in 1 year either (doing that on a max contract would mean like paying $50 million the last year or something).

thenaj17
07-04-2014, 05:06 AM
Pretty sure the cap doesn't work like that

Lin and Asik are due to be paid $15m in their 3rd year but the cap count for Houston is the $25m split 3 ways evenly...so $8.3m

Only beneficial to take away restricted free agents really where the team doesn't want to match.

If Knicks/Bulls had matched the offers, they wouldn't get the benefit of cap being $8.3m each year, it sticks as $5m for year 1 & 2 and $15m for year 3, putting them in cap & tax problems. Don't have a clue why they both don't get $8.3m split, but that's the ridiculous new CBA for you

To summarise your question the cap count for the player is the average of the contract per year so max deal is a max deal however you decide to pay it and won't help you sign whoever you want to stay under the cap

JNA17
07-04-2014, 05:10 AM
To summarise your question the cap count for the player is the average of the contract per year so max deal is a max deal however you decide to pay it and won't help you sign whoever you want to stay under the cap

Oh I didn't know this. I always thought the cap only counted against the player's first year contracts.

Learn something new everyday. XD

scissors
07-04-2014, 08:48 AM
The poison pill provision is only for a player who is restricted but a team doesn't have Bird Rights to. Look it up.

bleedprple&gold
07-04-2014, 03:47 PM
Oh I didn't know this. I always thought the cap only counted against the player's first year contracts.

Learn something new everyday. XD

Yea but this is only true for poison pill contracts. For other contracts the cap hit is only based on the first year like you thought. The reason why you can't have like a $5 mil salary one year and then jump up to something like $20 mil is because there are limits on how big of a raise you can give from one year to the next on non-poison pill contracts. The poison pill contract operates under a different set of rules to give teams an easier chance to match for their own restricted free agents when they don't have the players bird rights and they can only use the mid-level exception to match, but for some reason there is no limit on the third year raise so teams can hike up the price in the third year to deter the original team from matching.

And like thenaj said the cap hit is different for the new team in that its spread out evenly over the contract for each year, whereas the original team doesn't get that benefit. That's to make it harder for the new team to offer a contract because for example in a 5-5-15 contract, they have to have 8.33 in cap space while the original team only needs to have 5 mil for the first year. The rules are all in place to try to keep teams from losing their free agents. It all started when Golden St couldn't match Washington's offer for Gilbert Arenas and the nba wanted to make sure that didn't happen again. Some of it doesn't really make sense (especially the no limit on the third year raise) and I could see the rules changing again in the next CBA because teams have found a way to exploit it.

JasonJohnHorn
07-04-2014, 04:38 PM
The poison pill provision is only for a player who is restricted but a team doesn't have Bird Rights to. Look it up.


If a player is 'restricted' then the team DOES have Bird rights. The point of the poison pill contract is to subvert the the team holding the rights. It structures the contract so that the team takes a huge hit on luxury tax if they keep the players.


http://www.denverstiffs.com/2012/7/6/3141613/explaining-the-nba-poison-pill-contracts-of-omer-asik-others

Here is a link that explains it pretty well.

bleedprple&gold
07-04-2014, 05:09 PM
The poison pill provision is only for a player who is restricted but a team doesn't have Bird Rights to. Look it up.


If a player is 'restricted' then the team DOES have Bird rights. The point of the poison pill contract is to subvert the the team holding the rights. It structures the contract so that the team takes a huge hit on luxury tax if they keep the players.


http://www.denverstiffs.com/2012/7/6/3141613/explaining-the-nba-poison-pill-contracts-of-omer-asik-others

Here is a link that explains it pretty well.

Restricted does not mean you have bird rights in fact the poison pill is used when a team doesn't have bird rights because it's a first or second year player and you have to have a player for 3 years to get full bird rights.

Kevj77
07-04-2014, 05:21 PM
It is called the Gilbert Arenas provision because he was a restricted free agent, but the Warriors didn't have his bird rights. Warriors didn't have cap space so all they could offer was the MLE and Washington's starting bid was significantly higher than the MLE giving the Warrior no chance of matching. This provision is only for restricted free agents that aren't bird rights players nobody else qualifies for poison pill contracts or whatever you want to call them.

scissors
07-04-2014, 06:17 PM
If a player is 'restricted' then the team DOES have Bird rights. The point of the poison pill contract is to subvert the the team holding the rights. It structures the contract so that the team takes a huge hit on luxury tax if they keep the players.


http://www.denverstiffs.com/2012/7/6/3141613/explaining-the-nba-poison-pill-contracts-of-omer-asik-others

Here is a link that explains it pretty well.

You are wrong. It is to protect the team so they can keep the player. It just happens that they take a hit in order to do it. They do not have bird rights in poison pill. It was put in place after the warriors couldn't match a max on Gilbert Arenas cause they had no cap room and no bird rights and lost him to Washington.

smith&wesson
07-04-2014, 06:33 PM
We have seen poison pill contracts like Lin and Asik that one year make 4 or 5 mill one year, than the next year they will get paid $15 mill or more next season. Can't star players like Melo, Lebron, Wade or whoever also take on those type of contracts?

What I mean is can't those guys get contracts where the first year they make $5 mill or something, but then in the second year and so on, they make max money.

Is it not allowed, or do these players not want to do that kind of contract? I understand if it's the latter but it does sort of create that loophole of getting the players the team needs while the players get the most money possible. It would basically be getting less money per year or a lot less money the first year but max money per year.

Honest question. XD

theres 2 deals on the table. which one would you take?

1st year = 5 million, 2nd year = 10 million, 3rd year 15 million

or

1st year = 15 million, 2nd year = 15 million 3rd year = 15 million.

hmmmmm tough one lol

JasonJohnHorn
07-04-2014, 08:06 PM
Restricted does not mean you have bird rights in fact the poison pill is used when a team doesn't have bird rights because it's a first or second year player and you have to have a player for 3 years to get full bird rights.

Unless they are on a rookie contract, in which case you retain the rights to match any offer.

Three years or more applies to vets.

Check out the Early Bird Exception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_salary_cap#Early_Bird_exception
And rules for Restricted free agents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_salary_cap#Restricted_free_agent

There is no point to the 'restricted' option if you aren't allowed to go over the cap to sign the player.

JasonJohnHorn
07-04-2014, 08:09 PM
You are wrong. It is to protect the team so they can keep the player. It just happens that they take a hit in order to do it. They do not have bird rights in poison pill. It was put in place after the warriors couldn't match a max on Gilbert Arenas cause they had no cap room and no bird rights and lost him to Washington.


It was put in place AFTER the Gilbert Areans situations so that teams could match, which means they DO have the Bird rights.


And if this is to help them retain the players, then why has it three times been used for the opposite effect? If that is the purpose of the rule, then it obviously isn't working.

Kevj77
07-04-2014, 09:15 PM
It was put in place AFTER the Gilbert Areans situations so that teams could match, which means they DO have the Bird rights.


And if this is to help them retain the players, then why has it three times been used for the opposite effect? If that is the purpose of the rule, then it obviously isn't working.It can only be used on restricted free agents without bird rights. It usually applies to successful second round picks who only signed two year rookie contracts. It hurts teams because the team making the offer and the team matching calculate it differently for their cap. The team that makes the offer gets to average out the deal over the length of the contract for cap purposes, but if the original team matches they have to take the cap numbers exactly how they are structured. It has been used after the new CBA with a progressively increasing luxury tax as a poison pill. That is not how it was intended to be used, but how it is being used now.

The teams using it aren't using it as intended they are using it as a poison pill, but the fact remains it can only be used on players that are restricted free agents without full bird rights.

NBA_Starter
07-04-2014, 10:29 PM
I don't think you can do that.

Pablonovi
07-04-2014, 10:45 PM
The discussion in this thread just shows me that the new CBA is a lot more complicated to understand than most think. We DO have people insisting that they are correct about OPPOSING interpretations.

I claim No grasp of the CBA rules. I don't think I'll be studying them hard enough to have a good grasp; so I don't think I'll even try at all. I wonder if it's really necessary that the rules be so complicated that the average fan doesn't have a clue about what and what isn't possible under the new CBA?

I do enjoy the discussions though.

IndyRealist
07-04-2014, 11:19 PM
"when a player was an Early Bird or Non-Bird free agent...and the team didn't have enough cap room to match a sufficiently large offer. For example, Gilbert Arenas was Golden State's second round draft pick in 2001, and became an Early Bird free agent in 2003. Golden State could only match an offer sheet (or sign Arenas directly) for up to the amount of the Early Bird exception, which was about $4.9 million at the time. Washington signed Arenas to an offer sheet with a starting salary of about $8.5 million, which Golden State was powerless to match."

Do not forget, the Gilbert Arenas provision was designed to help teams KEEP their free agents. It only applies to players who have played a 2yr contract and then become free agents.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q45

scissors
07-04-2014, 11:26 PM
It was put in place AFTER the Gilbert Areans situations so that teams could match, which means they DO have the Bird rights.


And if this is to help them retain the players, then why has it three times been used for the opposite effect? If that is the purpose of the rule, then it obviously isn't working.

I don't think you know what Bird rights are. The problem you are bringing up is why this provision was implemented. With the rule the team at least has the option to match - before the rule they were completely powerless. Gilbert Arenas would have never left Golden State if the rule had been in place earlier.

bleedprple&gold
07-05-2014, 03:35 AM
You are wrong. It is to protect the team so they can keep the player. It just happens that they take a hit in order to do it. They do not have bird rights in poison pill. It was put in place after the warriors couldn't match a max on Gilbert Arenas cause they had no cap room and no bird rights and lost him to Washington.


It was put in place AFTER the Gilbert Areans situations so that teams could match, which means they DO have the Bird rights.


And if this is to help them retain the players, then why has it three times been used for the opposite effect? If that is the purpose of the rule, then it obviously isn't working.

Poison pill is not a legitimate rule put in by the cba. The intention was to help teams keep their free agents but teams have found a loophole and its basically backfired. I guarantee the next cba will change then rules and eliminate poison pills from ever happening again.