One thing no one is talking about re: Big Al

[One Brow]

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

Holy ****.

Right, that provisions limits the amount of increase that can be offered.

The point being, that a contact decrease limit based on average salary explains not only why Randolph and Nash would be able to sign the extensions they did, but also why Duncan could not sign an extension for the amount he accepted. Further, the use of average salary instead of first or last year appears all over the NBA contract, appearing in this one additional place would not be unexpected.

Of course, you could find a counter-example, which would be an extension signed for well below the average salary of the previous contract.

 

[GVC]

Further, the use of average salary instead of first or last year appears all over the NBA contract

Link?

 

[One Brow]

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, ...

I see the distinction. I also see the distinction between extending a current contract and signing a new contract, a distinction you try to eliminate entirely. You don't think the Jazz would jump at the chance to extend Jefferson at a price they felt he was worth?

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

Still waiting for you to point out the actual error. Please, go into all the detail you understand about how much of the CBA that an NBA contract is signed under gets written into the contract itself, and continues to apply even under a new CBA.

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

See, I would apply "willfully ignorant" to the person who takes only the data points he likes, throws out all the data he doesn't like, and says he has proved his case.

 

[One Brow]

Link?

The phrase "average salary" is used 27 separate times in the FAQ, in multiple sections. It's used to describe free agent holds, effects of signings on team salary, limitations on raises, etc. That doesn't qualify as "all over to you"?

 

[GVC]

I see the distinction. I also see the distinction between extending a current contract and signing a new contract, a distinction you try to eliminate entirely. You don't think the Jazz would jump at the chance to extend Jefferson at a price they felt he was worth?

1. I haven't eliminated that distinction, as you claim. The distinction there is that a player making substantially less than the max under his current contract may stand to make a lot more if he bypasses an extension and instead becomes a free agent.

2. You don't think there might be negative consequences to offering Al $9mm per season in an extension if that's all they're willing to give? In the real world, egos and relationships matter.

Still waiting for you to point out the actual error. Please, go into all the detail you understand about how much of the CBA that an NBA contract is signed under gets written into the contract itself, and continues to apply even under a new CBA.

The Randolph extension that Frank brought up was his 2011 extension, which fell under the 2005 CBA, not the 1998 CBA. That means the max allowable raise/decrease was 10.5%. Or do you think that players who sign extensions now can sign extensions with 10.5% raises (as per the 2005 CBA)? I assure you, this is not the case now nor was it the case in 2011 (Randolph was not able to sign an extension with max raises from the '98 CBA in 2011).

See, I would apply "willfully ignorant" to the person who takes only the data points he likes, throws out all the data he doesn't like, and says he has proved his case.

I've thrown out no relevant data.

 

[GVC]

The phrase "average salary" is used 27 separate times in the FAQ, in multiple sections. It's used to describe free agent holds, effects of signings on team salary, limitations on raises, etc. That doesn't qualify as "all over to you"?

I did the same search. In none of those places is it used for the purposes we're discussing except the one you've already raised, which doesn't apply to Nash or Randolph.

If it applied to other extensions (not just those to players with 10+years of service time on their current team with a reduction in salary), why would Coon specifically point out this condition? makes absolutely no sense.

 

[One Brow]

1. I haven't eliminated that distinction, as you claim.

State the difference it makes decrease in the salaries that can be offered, in your opinion. Or, did you think the players gave up the ability to accept a large extension while accepting the possibility of a large decrease?

The distinction there is that a player making substantially less than the max under his current contract may stand to make a lot more if he bypasses an extension and instead becomes a free agent.

Jefferson's making 15 million. You think he feels he'll get more than $16 next year?

2. You don't think there might be negative consequences to offering Al $9mm per season in an extension if that's all they're willing to give? In the real world, egos and relationships matter.

That's true of some players. Jefferson doesn't seem to be the type.

...that players who sign extensions now can sign extensions with 10.5% raises ...

1) Contracts can specify an unalterable decrease limits even while acknowledging, although I'm not claiming that happened here
2) Since both Nash and Randolph had no decrease in average salary, there is no 10.5% decrease in evidence to begin with.

I've thrown out no relevant data.

Of course not. You just threw out an outlier. Unethical researchers do that all the time.

There a simple way to win this argument. Find one extension since 1998 where the newly signed amount was well below the average salary (as opposed to final salary) of the contract before the extension. I'll make a signature bet on that one.

 

[One Brow]

If it applied to other extensions (not just those to players with 10+years of service time on their current team with a reduction in salary), why would Coon specifically point out this condition? makes absolutely no sense.

Because he is referring to a limitation on a raise. Coon does not pretend his FAQ is all-inclusive.

 

[franklin]

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:



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.

WTS?

I'm going to pretend Al can be decreased 7.5% per year based on the average salary of his current contract: $11.56, $10.62, $9.685, $8.748, average of $10mm per, great contract, easily tradable down the line.

 

[GVC]

There a simple way to win this argument. Find one extension since 1998 where the newly signed amount was well below the average salary (as opposed to final salary) of the contract before the extension. I'll make a signature bet on that one.

There may not be an example. I just read through the relevant sections of the 2005 CBA (the Players Association hasn't posted the new CBA yet), and the only mention of the average salary stipulation is the one Coon has listed (10 years with the same team, decrease in salary from second-to-last to last year) (Section 7(a)(3)). Why would a player sign for less in an extension than he can get in free agency (while retaining his option of fleeing for greener pastures if things turn sour)? Flexibility + Likely contract amount are valuable, even against the possibility of injury. The Nash contract is proof enough. He had a decrease of 21% in the first year of his contract, which can't be accounted for by any exception listed in the FAQ or 2005 CBA.

 

[GVC]

WTS?

I'm going to pretend Al can be decreased 7.5% per year based on the average salary of his current contract: $11.56, $10.62, $9.685, $8.748, average of $10mm per, great contract, easily tradable down the line.

One Brow's writing his own rules into the CBA. Brilliant.

 

[GVC]

It's also worth noting that neither Coon (in #58) nor the 2005 CBA itself uses the word "raise" or any derivative thereof in specifying the max allowable salary in the first year of an extension.

 

[franklin]

The NBA's CBA101 only addresses salary increases just as Larry Coon does. From 2010, covering 2005 era:

K. Veteran Extensions
Extensions are amendments that add seasons to the existing term of the contract.
(1) An extension may provide for a salary in the first season of the extension of up to 110.5% of the salary in the last year of
the original contract. Salary may increase or decrease in subsequent seasons by up to 10.5% of the salary in the last year of
the original term of the contract.

https://www.nba.com/.element/mp3/2.0/sect/podcastmp3/PDF/CBA101.pdf

Using their example, (1) is better termed a renegotiation of the remaining season of a four year contract than an actual extension. The second sentence specifies terms under the actual extension years, with a player friendly provision that accounts for any possible higher sum in the renegotiated 4th year of the previous contract. Their example spells this out too:

Example of renegotiation and extension:
Team under the Salary Cap by $2.0 million seeks to renegotiate and extend its player. Player has three years left
on his original six-year contract:
Year 4 $6.0 million
Year 5 $6.5 million
Year 6 $7.0 million
Maximum permissible renegotiation of existing term of contract:
Year 4 $8.0 million ($6.0 million + $2.0 million)
Year 5 $8.71 million ($6.5 million + $2.0 million + $210,000 (10.5% of $2.0 million))
Year 6 $9.42 million ($7.0 million + $2.21 million + $210,000 (10.5% of $2.0 million))

ibid

The way I am currently reading this is [if the Jazz had cap room] that Al could have his $15mm renegotiated to $15mm with 7.5% (current CBA rate) raises or decreases.

 

[GVC]

I've posted this question in the CBA forum on realgm. Hopefully Mr.Coon or one of the experts on realgm helps us out here.

 

[GVC]

K. Veteran Extensions
Extensions are amendments that add seasons to the existing term of the contract.
(1) An extension may provide for a salary in the first season of the extension of up to 110.5% of the salary in the last year of
the original contract. Salary may increase or decrease in subsequent seasons by up to 10.5% of the salary in the last year of
the original term of the contract.

This reads a little different than Larry Coon's FAQ. The FAQ states that raises are relative to the first year of the extension (by my reading of #53, at least), not the last year of the original term. Since the Players' Association hasn't posted the new CBA, I can't tell if the rule has changed, Larry has it wrong or something else.

 

[franklin]

The main sticking point for me is teams with cap room could renegotiate Jefferson to $15,000,000.01 and then extend for up to 40% less the following year. Makes no sense then that a straight up extension couldn't cut that much as well. Cap room, it rocks eh?

 

[GVC]

Also, #92 (about extend-and-trades) uses language that supports my reading of #53:

The salary in the first season of the extension can have a 4.5% raise over the last season of the existing contract, and subsequent raises are limited to 4.5% of the salary in the first season of the extension.

Why make that distinction otherwise?

 

[One Brow]

WTS?

I'm going to pretend Al can be decreased 7.5% per year based on the average salary of his current contract: $11.56, $10.62, $9.685, $8.748, average of $10mm per, great contract, easily tradable down the line.

Millsap is finishing a contract that went downward, IIRC.

The way I am currently reading this is [if the Jazz had cap room] that Al could have his $15mm renegotiated to $15mm with 7.5% (current CBA rate) raises or decreases.

How is that different from an extension?

The main sticking point for me is teams with cap room could renegotiate Jefferson to $15,000,000.01 and then extend for up to 40% less the following year. Makes no sense then that a straight up extension couldn't cut that much as well. Cap room, it rocks eh?

You mean, in one season as opposed to four? Did you see an example of that?

 

[One Brow]

There may not be an example.

UP to you to look or not.

I just read through the relevant sections of the 2005 CBA (the Players Association hasn't posted the new CBA yet),

Why not link to or quote the section on veteran extensions?

One Brow's writing his own rules into the CBA. Brilliant.

The *only* difference concerning franklins post, between you and I, is that you are claiming the decrease could be even larger in the first year of the contract. Not so brilliant that you failed to realize that.

 

[franklin]

Millsap is finishing a contract that went downward, IIRC.
How is that different from an extension?
You mean, in one season as opposed to four? Did you see an example of that?

1. I have no clue what you were trying to state. I've read back through several times and can't find anything.
2. I was trying to mentally walk through the actual process as it is described by both the NBA website and CBAFAQ. First actual extension year = 7.5% raise or decline. First year as expressed in the CBA terminology (final season of existing contract) can include a raise to the existing salary, hence "renegotiated". Long story short, I am now reading it like GVC originally did before I questioned and as you are.
3. Question 59:

A renegotiated contract can be extended simultaneously (see question number 58). If a player's contract is extended and renegotiated simultaneously in this manner, his salary may not decrease by more than 40% from the last season before the extension (after it is renegotiated) to the first season of the extension. For example, if the salary in the last season of a contract is renegotiated to $10 million and the contract is simultaneously extended, the salary in the first season of the extension cannot be less than $6 million.

In other words, a renegotiated contract [if the Jazz had cap room] could include a raise up to 25% of the cap and then a 40% decline. Or, his $8+mm goes to $14.5 immediately and then down to as much as $8.7mm next year.

Looking at it this way, Jazz should have amnestied Al Jefferson and made Sap happy by giving him another $6.5mm up front and a longish extension on a reasonable contract that averages about ten, ten point five.