One thing no one is talking about re: Big Al

[GVC]

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.

It was not a misstatement. While the end result is a difference in opinion about the lower bound, the way one gets there represented another point of departure (whether that bound was relative to the last year of the existing contract or the average salary). That point of departure was a difference in opinion (you seem to think opinion is relevant when it's clearly contrary to fact) relating to franklin's post (his whole post was about writing extension based on the average salary).

 

[GVC]

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

That's what happens when you dismiss outright any evidence contrary to the first conclusion you make until you've been backed into a corner. If you were more open-minded and less dismissive and condescending from the start, this discussion would have been a lot less toxic.

 

[GVC]

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.

I only posted where it could be found, along with the relevant section (I accidentally didn't list the article (VII), just the section within the article):

https://www.nbpa.org/sites/nbpa.org/files/ARTICLE VII.pdf

Section 7 starts at the bottom of page 175.

 

[GVC]

I think it's also worth quoting from #58 again (emphasis is mine):

The salary in the first year of a veteran extension may be any amount up to 107.5% of the player's previous salary[SUP]4[/SUP], but no more than the player's maximum salary in that season (i.e., the maximum salary the player can receive if he were to sign a new contract that year as a free agent -- see question numbers 16 and 17).

 

[One Brow]

It was not a misstatement. While the end result is a difference in opinion about the lower bound, the way one gets there

"The way one gets there ..." was not a separate disagreement, it was the only disagreement. It's not like we were disagreeing about the arithmetic. At this point, you seem to be running more on emotion than anything else. I couldn't have been right about that one point, because I was wrong on a different point, or something. Life is more complex than that.

 

[One Brow]

That's what happens when you dismiss outright any evidence contrary to the first conclusion you make until you've been backed into a corner. If you were more open-minded and less dismissive and condescending from the start, this discussion would have been a lot less toxic.

Any lack of open-mindedness and condescension came from you (in the sense that you read them into posts), not I. I do love how you think I was "backed into a corner". I gave a clear criteria for proving my position wrong, you met the criteria, I acknowledged my error. That's a cooperative process, not a unilateral one.

 

[GVC]

"The way one gets there ..." was not a separate disagreement, it was the only disagreement. It's not like we were disagreeing about the arithmetic. At this point, you seem to be running more on emotion than anything else. I couldn't have been right about that one point, because I was wrong on a different point, or something. Life is more complex than that.

Pretty telling that when you've been shown to be wrong about the major issues, you focus on the minutia.

The way one gets there is another disagreement. You're ignoring why I mockingly replied to frank's hypothetical extension: It was point out your invented average salary provision. Our difference in opinion about frank's post was both about whether there is a lower bound on the extension AND whether there is a provision that allows for new salary (either the max OR min first year salary) to be based on the average salary in the previous contract.

Now I'm just simple and emotional, but I'm not going to get caught up in this distraction from the key points. You're just looking for a consolation prize in defeat.

 

[One Brow]

I only posted where it could be found, along with the relevant section (I accidentally didn't list the article (VII), just the section within the article):

https://www.nbpa.org/sites/nbpa.org/files/ARTICLE VII.pdf

Section 7 starts at the bottom of page 175.

I'm not sure what you mean by "where it could be found", but thank you for the link.

In reading the contract, I didn't see any mention of a limitation for veteran extensions. I agree there is likely no minimum, based upon my ability to understand the contract.

 

[GVC]

In the end, Mr.McGibblets was right, and our posts were of little consequence (except to get a better understanding of extensions after renegotiations...which was actually a contribution from franklin).

 

[franklin]

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.

Link?

Ignored. Runaround given.

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.

Ignored. Error repeated:

2) Since both Nash and Randolph had no decrease in average salary, there is no 10.5% decrease in evidence to begin with.

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.

Again, disregarded and error repeated:

Millsap is finishing a contract that went downward, IIRC.

That had nothing to do with average salary...

Millsap is finishing a contract that went downward, IIRC.

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.

I specifically said I was going to pretend his contract could be decreased based on average salary, (instead of the final year maximum).



So let me get this straight: you are demanding we interpret "Typically a salary can decrease by the same amount it can increase." as a set in stone clause, while demanding we interpret "final year" as "average". Uhhhh???

 

[GVC]

In the end, Mr.McGibblets was right, and our posts were of little consequence (except to get a better understanding of extensions after renegotiations...which was actually a contribution from franklin).

Quoting my own post...

That is to say, a contract extension is an extension of the term of the contract, not necessarily the salary in the contract. That there is an upper bound on the first year salary is strange, however, as extensions are only available on contracts that will give the team the player's Bird rights when he hits free agency (at which point, he'll be eligible to receive the max salary). Under this interpretation, #53, #58, etc. make the most sense.

 

[One Brow]

Pretty telling that when you've been shown to be wrong about the major issues, you focus on the minutia.

So, when I publicly acknowledge I was wrong, and then continue to discuss what we still disagree upon, you think that reveals something? What, pray tell? Is there a more appropriate behavior, in your eyes? Should I have instead, after saying I was wrong, go on to say "I can no longer disagree with GVC in this thread about any other issue, because he was correct about this one issue?" Would that have been more or less "telling"?

The way one gets there is another disagreement.

Regarding franklin's scenario, and my statement regarding how we disagreed, another disagreement from what, precisely? How did we disagree, besides in the existence of and method of determining whether there was a minimum salary?

You're ignoring why I mockingly replied to frank's hypothetical extension: It was point out your invented average salary provision.

That was part of our disagreement over the the notion of a minimum extension. Why do you think it is a separate disagreement?

Our difference in opinion about frank's post was both about whether there is a lower bound on the extension AND whether there is a provision that allows for new salary (either the max OR min first year salary) to be based on the average salary in the previous contract.

Since "whether there is a provision that allows for new salary (either the max OR min first year salary) to be based on the average salary in the previous contract" is a subset of "whether there is a lower bound on the extension" you are treating the subset of a disagreement as a separate disagreement, from what I can tell.

Now I'm just simple and emotional, but I'm not going to get caught up in this distraction from the key points. You're just looking for a consolation prize in defeat.

What defeat? When did this become a contest? Would you say the use of that word was "telling"? Is it because you see this as a contest that you refuse to acknowledge you made an inaccurate observation?

 

[One Brow]

Ignored. Runaround given.

I need to give a link to support arithmetic?

Ignored. Error repeated:

Error acknowledged prior to your posting this comment, although possibly not before you wrote it. (#108 in this thread)

Again, disregarded and error repeated:

Error acknowledged prior to your posting this comment, although possibly not before you wrote it.

That had nothing to do with average salary...

Right. Even without my error on average salary, your scenario seems to be a completely legal contract under the CBA, if you can get Jefferson to sign it.

So let me get this straight: you are demanding we interpret "Typically a salary can decrease by the same amount it can increase." as a set in stone clause, while demanding we interpret "final year" as "average". Uhhhh???

Error acknowledged prior to your posting this comment, although possibly not before you wrote it.

 

[GVC]

It is a separate disagreement, as the average salary provision (for players with 10+ years on the same team and a contract that has a reduction for the next-to-last to last year salary) is written in to allow for a higher (not lower) salary in the first year of an extension. That is, your invented provision would not only affect the lower bound, but also the upper bound. Yes, we were discussing lower bounds, and your invented provision was a way for you to give yourself extra wiggle room in that regard, so I agree that in that sense the disagreement was only about whether a lower bound existed (which at this point seems highly unlikely).

 

[One Brow]

Quoting my own post...

That is to say, a contract extension is an extension of the term of the contract, not necessarily the salary in the contract. That there is an upper bound on the first year salary is strange, however, as extensions are only available on contracts that will give the team the player's Bird rights when he hits free agency (at which point, he'll be eligible to receive the max salary). Under this interpretation, #53, #58, etc. make the most sense.

That seems to be an accurate analysis.

 

[One Brow]

That is, your invented provision would not only affect the lower bound, but also the upper bound.

Interesting hypothetical. In what way would my erroneous analysis have changed the maximal value that could be offered?

 

[franklin]

Interesting hypothetical. In what way would my erroneous analysis have changed the maximal value that could be offered?

lol

 

[GVC]

Interesting hypothetical. In what way would my erroneous analysis have changed the maximal value that could be offered?

In the way that the actual provision does change the maximal value that can be offered. That is, if you have a contract that has a decreasing salary, the upper bound is not 107.5% of the final year of the contract, but rather 107.5% of the average salary of the contract in an extension (applied to more players than those allowed under the actual provision). To be fair, since that provision is explicitly stated by Larry Coon, it doesn't make sense that the non-existent provision would work the same way. That that provision doesn't actually exist is still a point of departure that shouldn't be ignored IMO, but "wrong" was a bit strong, sure.

I suppose had I quoted McGibblet's and your posts from early in the thread, where you both expressed a difference of interpretation (conflation of "extension" and "new contract"), this ******** could have been avoided. I had read #53, obviously, as my response to your first post to me made clear. Had I been less insulting (in my defense, I thought it was reasonable to take offense to you accusing me of not reading #53), perhaps you would have actually considered alternate readings of #53 instead of getting emotional and defensive. Next time.

 

[One Brow]

Deleted, apologies to GVC.

Your real trump card was, of course, the actual CBA. That ended the discussion quickly.