One thing no one is talking about re: Big Al

[franklin]

I didn't find any suspiscion of bonuses in Nash's old contract but the 20% bonus + 10.5% drop are pretty close. Could be a rounding error as listed values are less than the 8% max raises that Phoenix was able to offer, but not by much. There was also a partial guarantee in the 6th year but I found nothing indicating it wasn't exercised and that this might somehow affect his next contract.

Duncan couldn't extend between March 1 and June 30, and with his age it's understandable he wanted to see how things played out that season before re-upping. I don't think him waiting until post-July 1 says anything.

 

[GVC]

Found a perfect example (examples are hard to come by because veteran extensions are actually pretty rare). It's actually the contract that Frank posted some info about in another thread; that of Nick Collison.

Collison signed a 4-year contract/extension (not sure which, but it's irrelevant) covering 07/08-10/11 worth a total of $25.1mm (if basketball reference and shamsports are to be believed...their respective numbers differ slightly, but not by enough to make a difference). The annual cap hits for that contract at the time it was signed were as follows:

07/08: $5.75mm
08/09: $6.35mm
09/10: $6.25mm
10/11: $6.75mm

Average Salary: $6.275

In November of 2010, Collison signed a 4-year extension worth $17.55mm. The contract contained a signing bonus that was paid out in the 2010/11 season (serving as a restructuring of his previous contract). The cap hits in the 4 years of his extension (and restructured 2010/11 salary/cap hit) are as follows:

10/11: $13.25mm
11/12: $3.272997mm
12/13: $2.929332mm
13/14: $2.585668mm
14/15: $2.242003mm

Even if you apply the bonus to the 4 years of the extension evenly over the 4 years (which is how bonuses are distributed when they can't be paid up front, as in this case), Collison's extension would have paid him $4.902997mm in 11/12, which is 27% less than $6.75mm (his pre-renegotiation 10/11 salary) and 22% less than $6.275mm (his pre-renegotiation average salary).

Are you willing to admit that you should consider alternate readings of #53?

 

[GVC]

UP to you to look or not.

So...I claim that alternate readings of #53 are possible. You follow with a series of response that amount to "I'M NOT LISTENING, NO, WRONG, #53, #53, #53, D'OH, D'OH, I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!" Frank and I provide more information, you repeatedly state it's not sufficient, while adding nothing (short of suggesting there might be other provisions in the CBA not mentioned by Larry Coon...while not actually checking if this is the case). I've now found an example; you're still a child.

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

I stated where it could be found (NBA players' association website), and cited the relevant section of the CBA (7(a)(3)). Jesus.

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.

Once again, wrong. Frank's posted extension was based on your invention of extensions being based on the average salary in the previous contract. You're clearly wrong about that. You're also likely wrong about the minimum that can be offered in the first year of a contract extension.

Good job. Next time, consider for once in your life that you might be wrong before taking a condescending tone like you're some sort of genius martyr surrounded by morons.

 

[One Brow]

1. I have no clue what you were trying to state. I've read back through several times and can't find anything.

You said you were going to pretend it could happen that Jefferson could be offered a decreasing contract. The truth is it really could, if Jefferson were willing to sign it. I used Millsap as an example of a contract that decreased.

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.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. 40% of the final year also explains all the examples we've been seeing. That's a good find.

 

[One Brow]

Are you willing to admit that you should consider alternate readings of #53?

I always consider alternate readings.

Collison fits the criteria I asked for, and franklin found language that indicates the minimum is a 40% drop from the final year of the contract. I accept I was wrong to say it was likely 7.5%. I accept the drop of 40% from the final year of the contract is the minimum that can be offered.

Do you accept that there is a limit on how far salary can be dropped, or are you still holding out that there is possibly no limit?

In Jefferson's case, 15,000,000 * 60% would be 9,000,000. If the Jazz felt Jefferson were worth 8,000,000/year, they would not offer him an extension even while rating him as an above-average player.

 

[GVC]

I always consider alternate readings...Do you accept that there is a limit on how far salary can be dropped, or are you still holding out that there is possibly no limit?

You should probably go back and read this thread. Unbelievable.

 

[One Brow]

Once again, wrong. Frank's posted extension was based on your invention of extensions being based on the average salary in the previous contract. You're clearly wrong about that. You're also likely wrong about the minimum that can be offered in the first year of a contract extension.

When you say "wrong", you're supposed to follow that with something I disagreed with. I said the *only* difference in out take on franklin's scenario was that you thought the first year could be lower. You just called that wrong, and then said the difference in our take on franklin's scenario is that I was wrong about how low the first year could be. I understand it's easy to get caught up when you're in an argument, but you should think these things out a little more.

Good job. Next time, consider for once in your life that you might be wrong before taking a condescending tone like you're some sort of genius martyr surrounded by morons.

I always think I might be wrong. In fact, I offered specific criteria that would prove me wrong. People don't do that when they assume they can't be wrong.

Perhaps you should stop projecting your own internals problems on to me. I'm not the one who started calling people wrong, followed by repeating exactly what they had just said.

 

[One Brow]

You should probably go back and read this thread. Unbelievable.

You should learn the difference between "consider" and "accept". Unfortunately, your behavior is all too believable.

 

[GVC]

franklin found language that indicates the minimum is a 40% drop from the final year of the contract

That's specifically for a renegotiation followed by an extension. Collison's deal fits this criteria, actually (not including the bonus). This limits how much you can frontload an extension through an upward renegotiation of the final year of an existing contract.

 

[One Brow]

I've now found an example; you're still a child.

Just to be clear: I made no posts between the example you found for Collison, and this post. So, when you made this claim, you had no reason at all to think it would be accurate. Especially since, as soon as I read your post on Collison, I admitted to being wrong, who's really being the child, there?

 

[GVC]

When you say "wrong", you're supposed to follow that with something I disagreed with. I said the *only* difference in out take on franklin's scenario was that you thought the first year could be lower.

Which was not an accurate statement, as there was a key difference you omitted (the one I mentioned).

 

[One Brow]

That's specifically for a renegotiation followed by an extension. Collison's deal fits this criteria, actually (not including the bonus). This limits how much you can frontload an extension through an upward renegotiation of the final year of an existing contract.

So, are you now claiming that if there is no renegotiation, the drop can be lower than 40%? Do you have evidence for that?

 

[One Brow]

Which was not an accurate statement, as there was a key difference you omitted (the one I mentioned).

Let's see: I stated the difference was because you thought the minimum starting salary was lower than I did, and you (redundantly) fired back that I was wrong about the minimum starting salary being based on the average of the previous contract and that I was wrong about what the minimum starting salary would be. What's this "key difference" I'm missing?

 

[GVC]

So, are you now claiming that if there is no renegotiation, the drop can be lower than 40%? Do you have evidence for that?

I don't think there's strong evidence against it, but that's mostly based on our different readings of #53, and Coon's wording and omissions in #58 and #92. Steve Nash's contract still stands as a good example, along with the availability of a $1 upward renegotiation (when there is available cap space) followed by a 40% decrease in salary in the first year of an extension. A giant implausible loop hole from where I sit. I think we likely get better answers from outside sources today.

 

[GVC]

Let's see: I stated the difference was because you thought the minimum starting salary was lower than I did, and you (redundantly) fired back that I was wrong about the minimum starting salary being based on the average of the previous contract and that I was wrong about what the minimum starting salary would be. What's this "key difference" I'm missing?

Franklin used your "average salary" invention to propose a hypothetical extension. I posted my "writing his own rules" post, followed by you minimizing your invented average salary provision by stating the *only difference* was a lower possible salary. That was the difference from the start. I recognized that, however speculating about what might be in the CBA, without ever actually checked if anything like that was in the CBA, and explained it away by stating that Coon's FAQ isn't all inclusive, represents another point of departure; one that you tried to sweep under the rug. It's a tactic you used repeatedly in this thread.

 

[GVC]

You should learn the difference between "consider" and "accept". Unfortunately, your behavior is all too believable.

I'm not going to re-post all of your early posts in this one, but after mentioning #53 a couple times, and McGibblets and I addressing it, you seemed to completely ignore that #53 could be read another way (and continued to insist the same throughout the thread), and that dropped this on me:

How many times do I need to reference #53 in the FAQ for you...?

You only had to mention it once. We had read it, and addressed it. You either chose not to read our posts or dismissed them entirely, and then chose to be a condescending jackass. I explicitly and repeatedly stated that a 7.5% decrease lower bound was possible or likely early in the thread. It certainly seemed that you've been, at least implicitly, stating that that was the only possible conclusion that could be reached. You did no leg work, didn't back up any of your statements, but expected everyone else to do so. meh.

 

[green]

Everyone is talking about this or that about Al, but we are really getting away from the main point here:

Al sucks.

 

[One Brow]

Franklin used your "average salary" invention to propose a hypothetical extension. I posted my "writing his own rules" post, followed by you minimizing your invented average salary provision by stating the *only difference* was a lower possible salary. That was the difference from the start. I recognized that, however speculating about what might be in the CBA, without ever actually checked if anything like that was in the CBA, and explained it away by stating that Coon's FAQ isn't all inclusive, represents another point of departure; one that you tried to sweep under the rug. It's a tactic you used repeatedly in this thread.

So, when I said the only disagreement we had over franklin's salary scenario was whether the starting salary was the minimum that could be offered, and you said I was wrong about that, you actually agreed that this really was the only difference of opinion we had on that scenario, and you really meant I was wrong about something else (I'm not clear on what, precisely, something something to with not being as devoted to the FAQ as you would like). That's understandable, we all get caught up in an argument sometimes and confuse issues. Thanks for acknowledging your misstatement.

 

[One Brow]

I don't think there's strong evidence against it, ...

At one point you were mentioning you had read through the relevant section of actual 2005 CBA. You never did quote it or link to it.

 

[One Brow]

It certainly seemed that you've been, at least implicitly, stating that that was the only possible conclusion that could be reached.

It was the only conclusion I saw based on evidence at the time. franklin found better evidence.l

You did no leg work, didn't back up any of your statements, but expected everyone else to do so. meh.

I stated what evidence would be needed to convince me. I had no expectation of convincing you of anything.