One thing no one is talking about re: Big Al

[GVC]

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.

10.5% is the actual number, not 12.5% (or 11.5%). I'm not sure, and don't care to look up incentive restrictions, so I concede that's it's possible the 14% decrease may just be a 10.5% decrease and missing out on (likely?) incentives. The issue being discussed is still unclear.

 

[One Brow]

10.5% is the actual number, not 12.5% (or 11.5%). I'm not sure, and don't care to look up incentive restrictions, so I concede that's it's possible the 14% decrease may just be a 10.5% decrease and missing out on (likely?) incentives. The issue being discussed is still unclear.

In the first season of Randolph's contract, he earned 10,666,667. Second was 12,000,000. That's 12.5%.

With regarding incentives, "The determination of whether an incentive is likely or unlikely is based on whether the criterion was achieved in the previous season. For example, if a player had seven assists per game the previous season, then an incentive based on seven assists per game would be classified as likely to be achieved, but one based on eight assists per game would be classified as not likely."

If Randolph had as little as $500,000K in incentives, the drop fits under the same 12.5% required for his raises.

 

[GVC]

Look at the chart from #53 again, one brow. Take not of the line for "[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, sans-serif]Extensions(rookie scale contracts)". Here you see, just like in the case for veteran extensions, under "Maximum raise": "7.5% of the salary in the first year of the extension". Following your logic, a rookie can only receive up to 7.5% more in the first year of his extension than he received in the last year of his rookie contract. This, of course, is not true, as can be seen in #58. The player can receive up to the max, which is a hell of a lot more than 7.5% of his previous season salary.

Again, #53 only refers to raises in seasons subsequent to the first year of a new contract/extension. [/FONT]

 

[franklin]

Tim Duncan's deal suggests maximum salary declines. He waited until after the season to sign his new contract that dropped him down to $10mm from $21mm

Steve Nash's 2005 CBA extension he received in 2010 indicates no maximum salary declines. He agreed to a 21% pay cut.

 

[GVC]

In the first season of Randolph's contract, he earned 10,666,667. Second was 12,000,000. That's 12.5%.

With regarding incentives, "The determination of whether an incentive is likely or unlikely is based on whether the criterion was achieved in the previous season. For example, if a player had seven assists per game the previous season, then an incentive based on seven assists per game would be classified as likely to be achieved, but one based on eight assists per game would be classified as not likely."

If Randolph had as little as $500,000K in incentives, the drop fits under the same 12.5% required for his raises.

That contract wasn't signed under the 2005 CBA. His extension in 2011 was signed under the 2005 CBA (max raises = 10.5%). D'oh!

 

[GVC]

Tim Duncan's deal suggests maximum salary declines. He waited until after the season to sign his new contract that dropped him down to $10mm from $21mm

Steve Nash's 2005 CBA extension he received in 2010 indicates no maximum salary declines. He agreed to a 21% pay cut.

One Brow just refuses to even read what we're posting. Not a surprise.

The Steve Nash extension seals the deal.

Looks like there is no minimum in an extension, although offering an extension to Al well below what he's currently making or set to get in free agency would probably have had (or will have) some negative consequences.

 

[One Brow]

That contract wasn't signed under the 2005 CBA. His extension in 2011 was signed under the 2005 CBA (max raises = 10.5%). D'oh!

Exactly. His contract, which was being extended, was signed before the 10.5% limit. D'Oh!

 

[One Brow]

One Brow just refuses to even read what we're posting. Not a surprise.

GVC refuses to use reason or logic in processing facts. Not a surprise.

 

[GVC]

Exactly. His contract, which was being extended, was signed before the 10.5% limit. D'Oh!

Uh...Frank was talking about his 2011 extension (you even acknowledged that in your response...). Again, read first, then respond. Simple.

 

[GVC]

GVC refuses to use reason or logic in processing facts. Not a surprise.

Look at Steve Nash's 2009 extension. All facts point to you being wrong here. You've gone Salty Dawg on us. Oh well.

 

[One Brow]

Following your logic, a rookie can only receive up to 7.5% more in the first year of his extension than he received in the last year of his rookie contract.

Damn, I wish you would follow my logic. That would make this discussion easier. After all, the difference between rookie contracts and veteran contracts is well documented in the FAQ, and the extensions of a rookie contract are not at all like extending a veteran contract. Plus, there is a specific statement at the end of #53 that in general, decreases follow the same rules as increases.

 

[One Brow]

The Steve Nash extension seals the deal.

Sure, as long as you ignore the evidence of from Duncan's signing. Selectively choosing evidence makes positions ridiculously easy to prove.

 

[GVC]

Damn, I wish you would follow my logic. That would make this discussion easier. After all, the difference between rookie contracts and veteran contracts is well documented in the FAQ, and the extensions of a rookie contract are not at all like extending a veteran contract. Plus, there is a specific statement at the end of #53 that in general, decreases follow the same rules as increases.

Again, the raises are relative to the first year of the extension, not the last year of the existing contract. There doesn't seem to be a lower bound on the first year salary in an extension (relative to the last year salary of the existing contract). Steve Nash's 21% reduction is a perfect example of this (Zach Randolph's 2011 extension is also relevant).

 

[GVC]

Sure, as long as you ignore the evidence of from Duncan's signing. Selectively choosing evidence makes positions ridiculously easy to prove.

That some players sign extensions that don't decrease by more than 7.5% OR wait to sign new contracts has absolutely no bearing on the discussion (as there are many reasons why a player might wait to sign/extend). Steve Nash signing an extension that takes his salary from $13mm to $10mm does. How was Steve Nash able to sign an extension for so little if you're right?

 

[GVC]

Damn, I wish you would follow my logic. That would make this discussion easier. After all, the difference between rookie contracts and veteran contracts is well documented in the FAQ, and the extensions of a rookie contract are not at all like extending a veteran contract. Plus, there is a specific statement at the end of #53 that in general, decreases follow the same rules as increases.

You've missed my point (again), and I can only conclude that you're trolling me at this point. The language used in the chart itself is the same for rookie and veteran extensions without footnotes. Why would Coon do that? Occam says it's because it's referring to max raises relative to the first year of the extension (not the last year of the existing contract). That there's further clarification in other parts the FAQ makes this even clearer. That Steve Nash (and Zach Randolph) signed extensions that reduced their salary by more than 10.5%, even more so.

 

[One Brow]

Look at Steve Nash's 2009 extension. All facts point to you being wrong here. You've gone Salty Dawg on us. Oh well.

Again, how much of the contract details do you know? The only limit I saw on incentives was for unlikely bonuses, and that was for a full 15%. How much of that accounted for Nash's salary?

For that matter, we've been focusing on the last year of the contract. From #58 of the FAQ:

4 If the player has played with his current team for 10 or more seasons and there was a decrease in salary from the second-to-last to the last season before the extension, then the salary in the first year of an extension can be 107.5% of the contract's average salary (back to when the contract was signed or most recently extended), if this is higher than 107.5% of the salary in the last season before the extension.

If we are discussing average salary over the life of the contract instead of last year salary (again, using the statement from #53 that increases are treated the same as decreases), neither Nash nor Randolph comes close to a 7.5% decrease, much less exceeding it.

 

[GVC]

Neither player had played with their respective team for 10 or more seasons or had a decrease in salary from their second-to-last to last year...

Holy ****.

 

[One Brow]

Again, the raises are relative to the first year of the extension, not the last year of the existing contract.

Except #58 says that, for veterans, they *are* relative to either the last year of the contract of the average of the contract per year.

There doesn't seem to be a lower bound on the first year salary in an extension (relative to the last year salary of the existing contract). Steve Nash's 21% reduction is a perfect example of this (Zach Randolph's 2011 extension is also relevant).

That this did not fit the one lower bound you considered does not mean there was no lower bound. Both contracts are well over the lower bound based on average salary.

That some players sign extensions that don't decrease by more than 7.5% OR wait to sign new contracts has absolutely no bearing on the discussion ...

Right, evidence you don't like has no bearing on the discussion. Only evidence you like counts. What would be more natural?

You've missed my point (again), and I can only conclude that you're trolling me at this point.

You've confused missing a point with discounting it, and while I'm laughing, I'm not trolling.

 

[GVC]

Again, #58 is not talking about raises within the extension, rather the max that can be offered in the first year of an extension. There is a distinction to be made. You do not see one, but given the contract extensions given to Nash and Randolph, this distinction seems reasonable if not likely.

And, again, the average salary stipulation only applies in certain circumstances. Nash and Randolph don't fit here.

Duncan waiting to sign for less is not necessarily evidence that he couldn't have extended for less than 92.5% of his final year salary. There are other reasonable explanations why he would have waited. Nash is direct evidence that a 92.5% lower bound (or 89.5% lower bound) does not exist.

Still waiting for you to acknowledge/address your 2011 Randolph extension goof.

I really hope Larry Coon answers Frank's question tomorrow.

 

[GVC]

You've confused missing a point with discounting it

So you're not a moron, just willfully ignorant. Even worse.