What's new
By:

One thing no one is talking about re: Big Al

GVC said:
I think it's likely the minimum the Jazz can give in an extension is 7.5% less than he's making this season. The FAQ is poorly written/worded, and doesn't explicitly rule out the remaining years on a contract being amended. This downward amending doesn't really make sense though. If the 7.5% decrease is the rule, Al's salary next season could be no less than $13.875mm in an extension. Too much.

#59 also, indirectly, clears this up, stating that player salaries can't be amended downward in contract renegotiations.
Click to expand...

Are you mixing amending and extending or am I missing something? Player's Union has been efective in eliminating amendments from anything other than pay increases. Extensions don't fall under this though. #59 covers renegotiations only, and a extension is not a renegotiation.
 
franklin said:
Are you mixing amending and extending or am I missing something? Player's Union has been efective in eliminating amendments from anything other than pay increases. Extensions don't fall under this though. #59 covers renegotiations only, and a extension is not a renegotiation.
Click to expand...
In an extension, the remaining years are not amended, however the raise over the last remaining year is capped at 7.5%. It follows that the decrease would also be capped at 7.5%, although, again, that's not completely clear.
 
GVC said:
In an extension, the remaining years are not amended, however the raise over the last remaining year is capped at 7.5%. It follows that the decrease would also be capped at 7.5%, although, again, that's not completely clear.
Click to expand...

That's a reasonable conclusion too since the Jazz can't extend Millsap for up to the FA max of 25 or 30% of the cap. Seems like it would go both ways.

Let's see if Larry Coon answers on Friday.
 
franklin said:
That's a reasonable conclusion too since the Jazz can't extend Millsap for up to the FA max of 25 or 30% of the cap. Seems like it would go both ways.
Click to expand...
That it's called an "extension" also lends support to that conclusion.
 
GVC said:
Link? Again, I'm not seeing where this is explicitly stated in Larry Coon's FAQ. He lists a max (107.5% of the previous salary), but no min.
Click to expand...

How many times do I need to reference #53 in the FAQ for you, which specifically mentions decreases toward the end?
 
One Brow said:
How many times do I need to reference #53 in the FAQ for you, which specifically mentions decreases toward the end?
Click to expand...
You should probably start by reading #58 and our posts in this thread. #53 mentions max raises in subsequent seasons relative to the first year of the extension (that is, the first additional year). #53 says nothing about salary restrictions (either max or min) on the first year of the extension itself. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

#58 explicitly states the max that can be offered in the first year of the extension (107.5% of the last year of the existing contract OR the max, whichever is less), but does not state anything about the min that can be offered in the first year of the extension.

We all understand what the restrictions on raises are relative to the first year of the extension. Reading is fundamental.
 
Scorpjazz said:
The first sentence is false, so I stopped there. They offered KNOWING he would turn it down. They had NO intention of him signing that. They just wanted to be able to say later on when and if he left that they tried, to soothe the Sap lovers that might revolt.
Click to expand...

I agree that the offer was more symbolic than realistic, but that's only because the Jazz knew that was a number that was a no-brainer for them and a non-starter for Paul. I guarantee you if Paul was down, it would've happened.
 
P.S. I am loving that saying that Al is obviously overpaid is almost a defense at this point.
 
If they extend Jefferson, they have to pay him at least at his current salary. Whereas the idea of giving Millsap a raise is deserved, the Jazz probably know that Jefferson is not a $20m a year play. $10-$12m a year is probably more in the ballpark and market value, so you have to wait for Free Agency to do a whole new deal rather than an extension on a deal starting at $15m.
 
GVC said:
You should probably start by reading #58 and our posts in this thread. #53 mentions max raises in subsequent seasons relative to the first year of the extension (that is, the first additional year). #53 says nothing about salary restrictions (either max or min) on the first year of the extension itself. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

#58 explicitly states the max that can be offered in the first year of the extension (107.5% of the last year of the existing contract OR the max, whichever is less), but does not state anything about the min that can be offered in the first year of the extension.

We all understand what the restrictions on raises are relative to the first year of the extension. Reading is fundamental.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's very simple to understand. I agree reading is fundamental. Like, reading the table in #53, specifically the line about veteran extensions, where it says "7.5% of the salary in the first season of the extension". Of course, I'm not the type of person who reads "in the first season of the extension" and interprets that as "says nothing about salary restrictions (either max or min) on the first year of the extension". So maybe it's just too complex for me.

Please, go into how simple it is to take "in the first season of the extension" as meaning it "says nothing about salary restrictions (either max or min) on the first year of the extension". I can't wait for you to expound your genius on this.

Meanwhile, as I pointed out, at the end of #53, it reads "Typically a salary can decrease by the same amount it can increase.", so, barring an explicit reference to the contrary, this is confirmation that an extension can only decrease by 7.5%. Just about everyone here agrees Jefferson would be overpaid at that level.
 
Jeffrey32 said:
If they extend Jefferson, they have to pay him at least at his current salary. Whereas the idea of giving Millsap a raise is deserved, the Jazz probably know that Jefferson is not a $20m a year play. $10-$12m a year is probably more in the ballpark and market value, so you have to wait for Free Agency to do a whole new deal rather than an extension on a deal starting at $15m.
Click to expand...

Technically, 92.5% of his current salary.
 
One Brow said:
Yes, it's very simple to understand. I agree reading is fundamental. Like, reading the table in #53, specifically the line about veteran extensions, where it says "7.5% of the salary in the first season of the extension". Of course, I'm not the type of person who reads "in the first season of the extension" and interprets that as "says nothing about salary restrictions (either max or min) on the first year of the extension". So maybe it's just too complex for me.
Click to expand...
Apparently it is.

The 7.5% figure is referring to raises in subsequent seasons. That is, seasons after the first year of the extension. It does not refer to the raise from the last year of the existing contract to the first year of the extension. At least, not explicitly. This point of view is further supported by the clarification in #58, which explicitly states how much the first year of an extension can increase from the last year of an existing contract (7.5%). That is, if you make $10mm in the last season of an existing contract, the first year of an extension can be worth no more than $10.75mm. Raises in subsequent seasons are not based on 7.5% of the original contract (in any of the years), but rather on the first year of the extension, which is what #53 is about.

Your interpretation is likely correct, as I've stated, but it certainly isn't made clear in #53, and it is made even less clear by the explicit mention of the max in #58.
 
GVC said:
Apparently it is.

The 7.5% figure is referring to raises in subsequent seasons. That is, seasons after the first year of the extension.
Click to expand...

Got it. When they say, "in the first season of the extension", that means the exact same thing as "seasons after the first year". Just like when you say, "in the year 1990", you really mean "sometime in the next few years, during 1991 or later". Damn, that is simple. How could I have missed it? I wish I could speak English as well as you.

GVC said:
It does not refer to the raise from the last year of the existing contract to the first year of the extension. At least, not explicitly.
Click to expand...

Got it, "in the first season of the extension" is so terribly vague, you really can't tell what year it refers to.

GVC said:
This point of view is further supported by the clarification in #58,
Click to expand...

See, I'm the type of person who see the information in #53, the seemingly (to me) identical information in #58, and thinks that, as often happens in FAQs, including Larry Coon's, the same information is being presented twice. If the percentage in #53 were different than the one in #58, than even an ignoramus like myself would realize they are different things.
 
One Brow said:
Got it. When they say, "in the first season of the extension", that means the exact same thing as "seasons after the first year".
Click to expand...
That's exactly what it means. You're still reading it wrong. Raises are not compounded; the max raise you can receive year-over-year in a multi-year contract is based on a percentage of the salary in the first year of the contract. That is what the 7.5% is referring to.

If you sign a 4 year extension with a first year salary of $10mm, the year-by-year salary max's are as follows:

Year 1: $10mm
Year 2: $10.75mm
Year 3: $11.5mm
Year 4: $12.25mm

This is what #53 is referring to. Further, the Zach Randolph extension lends support to the notion that the first year salary in an extension can be worth less than 92.5% of the last year salary in the previous contract (the previous CBA allowed for 11.5% raises IIRC, which still doesn't cover the decrease seen in Randolph's extension).
 
GVC said:
hahahahahahahahahahaha
Click to expand...

D'OH! I saw Contract, but missed Salaries.

April 2011 was before the current contract, when 12.5% raises were allowed (as you can tell by the increases). If a part of the 2010-2011 salary was incentives, than the drop could easily fit inside the 12.5% limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top