CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Roy Hobbs on August 18, 2007, 11:08:40 PM
-
User "Icky" suggested that the site institute a salary cap page, where users could go as a sort of one stop shop for all questions and information related to the salary cap. This thread is the beginning of that. As more players are signed, more information is disclosed, or more questions present themselves, this will be updated. (And yes, this duplicates the front page post, but this should hopefully be kept up on a more permanent basis.)
Salaries:
====================================================================
| Player | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 | 2010-2011 | 2011-2012 |
| Kevin Garnett | $23,750,000 | $24,750,000 | $16,400,000 | $18,800,000 | $21,200,000 |
| Paul Pierce | $16,360,095 | $18,077,903 | $19,795,712 | $21,515,521 | n/a |
| Ray Allen | $16,000,000 | $17,388,430 | $18,776,860 | n/a | n/a |
| Kendrick Perkins | $4,480,912 | $4,078,880 | $4,250,000 | $4,390,208 | n/a |
| James Posey | $3,206,000 | $3,462,000 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Brian Scalabrine | $3,000,000 | $3,206,897 | $3,413,793 | n/a | n/a |
| Tony Allen | $1,888,141 | $2,744,299 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Eddie House | $1,500,000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Rajon Rondo | $1,372,320 | $1,646,784 | $2,623,326 | $3,780,214 | n/a |
| Scot Pollard* | $770,610* | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Dahntay Jones* | $770,610* | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Esteban Batista** | $770,610** | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Leon Powe | $687,456 | $797,581 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Gabe Pruitt | $650,000 | $711,517 | $729,005 | n/a | n/a |
| Glen Davis | $427,163 | $711,517 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Brandon Wallace | $427,163** | $711,517 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Jackie Manuel | $427,163** | ? | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Wally Szczerbiak | $775,000 | $775,000 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| | | | | |
| Totals: | $74,867,697 | $78,350,808 | $65,988,696 | $48,483,943 | $21,200,000 |
====================================================================
Team options are in red and qualifying offers are in green. Salaries shown in orange represent non-guaranteed / partially guaranteed deals, while trade kickers and other owed salary obligations are in purple. Player options are listed in blue. Total salary assumes all options and qualifying offers are picked up, but does not count the non-guaranteed deals of Brandon Wallace, Jackie Manuel, Esteban Batista, or Dahntay Jones.
* Scot Pollard's 2007-08 salary is $1,219,590. If Dahntay Jones makes the team, his salary is $826,046. The Celtics are responsible only for the first $770,610 of these salaries, as explained below.
** The contracts of Brandon Wallace / Jackie Manuel are only partially guaranteed. The contracts of Dahntay Jones and Esteban Batista are non-guaranteed.
Frequently asked questions:
1) How much is the salary cap for the 2007-2008 season? How much is the luxury tax? What is the difference between these two numbers?
The salary cap for this season is $55.63 million. The luxury tax is $67.865 million. A lot of people get these two numbers confused, so I'll do my best to explain. However, the absolute best place to have these questions explained in detail in on Larry Coon's NBA Salary Cap FAQ page (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm).
Essentially, the salary cap is a "soft" number which serves the purposes of limiting a team's ability to offer free agents from other teams contracts. A team can offer a free agent a starting salary below or equivalent to its amount of remaining cap room. For instance, if a team is $7 million below the salary cap, it can offer a free agent from another team a deal starting at $7 million per season. If a team is over the cap, the most it can offer is the mid-level exception (the "MLE"), explained in greater detail below. Obviously, we are far above the salary cap, and as such, for purposes of the Celtics discussion of the salary cap is purely academic.
More relevant is the luxury tax. Basically, for teams that exceed the luxury tax, they pay a dollar for dollar penalty on amounts above the tax. This money goes to the league, where it is divied up between the teams that stayed below the tax (again, this is overly simplistic, but you get the idea.) Right now, we're going to be roughly $4 million over the luxury tax, which means that Wyc and Company will be writing a check in that amount to the league at the end of the season. They also won't have the benefit of a rebate from the paying teams; last year, that rebate check was approximately $1.9 million per non-paying team.
2) What is an "exception"?
An exception is just that: an "exception" to the salary cap that allows a team to go over the salary cap to sign, or in some cases trade for, a free agent. For the Celtics, there are four relevant exceptions: the mid-level exception ("MLE"), the Bi-annual exception (also called the "LLE" or the "million dollar exception"), the minimum salary exception (also sometimes called the "veteran's minimum"), and the traded player exception.
The MLE: The MLE can be used to sign players to contracts for a maximum of five years, with 8% annual raises each year. This exception is available to teams above the salary cap, and can be used annually. For the 2007-08 season, the MLE can be used to give free agents contracts starting at $5.356 million. The MLE can be used in its entirety on one player, or can be split amongst several players.
The LLE: The LLE can be used to sign players to contracts for a maximum of two year, with up to an 8% annual raise in the second year. This exception is available to teams above the salary cap, but can only be used every other year. For the 2007-08 season, the LLE is set at $1.83 million; in 2008-09, the LLE will be $1.91 million. The LLE can be used in its entirety on one player, or can be split amongst multiple players.
The Minimum Salary Exception: This is an important one for the Celtics, for reasons that will be explained in greater detail below. This exception allows a team to sign a player to the allocated minimum salary, which varies subject to the signing player's service time. Contracts signed with the minimum can be up to two years in length.
The Traded Player Exception: In trades where the incoming and outgoing salary are not identical, a "trade exception" is created. The team sending out more salary in a trade gets the benefit of a "trade exception", which is in the amount of the difference in salaries between the incoming and outgoing amounts. In the Celtics case', they acquired a $1,080,480 exception in the Ray Allen deal. This exception has to be used within one year of the trade date. It can be used to take back a player making up to $100,000 more than the trade exception, meaning we can use the exception to trade for a maximum salary of $1,180,480. The trade exception can't be combined with players or other exceptions; I'm unclear if draft picks can be traded in conjunction with a player for a trade exception, although I believe they can.
3) What have we spent? How much do we have left?
So far, we have used only a portion of one of our exceptions. We used $1.5 million of the MLE to sign Eddie House. That means we have the following amounts left:
MLE: $3.856 million ($5.356 million - $1.5 million = $3.856 million)
LLE: $1.83 million
Minimum: This varies based upon a player's service time. For a rookie, the minimum salary for 2007-08 is $427,163. For a player with ten or more years worth of service time, the minimum is $1,219,590. The team can sign as many players as it wants to the minimum; such contracts can be guaranteed or non-guaranteed. Scot Pollard, Jackie Manuel, and Brandon Wallace were signed using this exception.
Trade exception: $1,180,480 can be acquired in trade, subject to the conditions above (ie, can't be combined with other players or exceptions.)
4) How many players do we have under contract? What is the maximum number of players we can have on our roster? Is there a minimum to the players we can have under contract?
Currently, we have 12 players under contract. We also have the draft rights to Gabe Pruitt and Glen Davis, who are expected to sign contracts.
Once the season starts, a team can have a maximum of 15 players under contract, and a minimum of 13 players. Rosters must be finalized on or before October 31, 2007.
5) What are non-guaranteed contracts? How do these effect the Celtics?
Most contracts in the NBA are fully guaranteed, meaning that regardless of whether a player is waived or is otherwise unable to perform, the team is on the hook for his entire contract (subject to some limitations). Some players have non-guaranteed or partially-guaranteed contracts, meaning that is a team cuts ties with a player before a certain specified date, they are only responsible for paying part of that player's contract.
Brandon Wallace and Jackie Manuel were both signed to non-guaranteed contracts. Wallace's calls for him to receive $100,000 guaranteed, and if he is still on the roster as of December 20, 2007, the remainder of his rookie minimum deal becomes guaranteed. Financial terms of Manuel's guarantee have not been disclosed.
The non-guaranteed aspect of these deals is important because if the team finds itself wanting to add a free agent that would bring the team above the 15-player maximum roster, they can cut one of these two with a fairly minor financial penalty.
6) What are the benefits to signing a player to a minimum deal?
There are several advantages to signing a player to a minimum deal. First, there is no limit to the number of players a sign can sign to the minimum. Second, any player signed to the minimum doesn't count against the MLE, meaning the MLE can be allocated towards other players. Most importantly, though, the NBA actually subsidizes teams that sign players to the minimum. The team is only responsible for the first $770,610 of player salary; the league pays any amount over this threshold. Additionally, only $770,610 counts towards the luxury tax.
7) Why did we sign Eddie House with a portion of the MLE, rather than with the LLE?
The answer to this question isn't clear. I would speculate that the team had no intention of allocating the full MLE to a player this off-season, and thus didn't see it as a major detriment to use a portion of the MLE on House. By not using the LLE this season, they will have it available next year, when the free agent crop will be better. It could very well be that Danny is already targeting next year's free agent class, and wants to have as much money available as possible.
8) If Reggie Miller signs here, how much is he likely to sign for?
Reggie has said that if he comes back, his sole interest will be in winning a championship. Thus, it is likely that he would agree to a deal for the minimum salary.
9) Why haven't Glen Davis and Gabe Pruitt signed their rookie deals yet? Is this unusual? What's taking so long?
Here are the approximate dates on which Danny's previous second-rounders signed their rookie contracts:
July 18: Leon Powe
July 26: Orien Greene
July 28: Brandon Hunter
August 18: Ryan Gomes
August 27: Justin Reed
Thus, it's not all that unusual that Pruitt and Davis haven't signed yet. This has been a spectacularly busy off-season for the front office, between the Allen and KG trades and the free agent signings of House and Pollard (and the free agent pursuits of others.) There's no reason to expect that the rookies won't get signed; the team didn't sign Justin Reed -- in a less busy off-season -- until August 27. From all indications, Big Baby is participating in team activities. I haven't heard anything concerning Pruitt since summer league, but I have no reason to think he won't be with the team. Remember, this kid was drafted with the second pick in the second round. He's not going anywhere.
10) What if Big Baby or Pruitt don't sign?
So long as the team extends the player a qualifying tender -- which is essentially a one-year contract offer for the rookie minimum -- we will retain his rights. If the player signs a contract with a non-NBA team, we own his rights until one year after that contractual obligation ends. If the player doesn't sign a contract with another team, we retain his rights until the day of next year's draft, when the player can be drafted again by any team.
11) What's this I hear about the Celtics signing their second-rounders with the MLE?
Another potential holdup with the signing of Pruitt and Davis is that the team is determining how much of the MLE it will have left to sign them with. Danny Ainge has made a practice of signing second-rounders with a portion of the MLE. Why? Because the team wants to sign its rookies to three year contracts, and teams can not offer three year deals with either the LLE or the minimum salary exception.
Signing a player to a three year deal (usually one year guaranteed with two options) is important for two reasons. First, because it keeps the player on a rookie pay scale for three years, instead of the typical two. Right now, this team needs cheap young talent, as it has three well-paid superstars on the roster. Secondly, signing players to a three year deal means that the team acquires "Bird rights" in that player, meaning that the team can exceed the salary cap to sign that player without having to use the MLE or another exception. This is helpful in holding on to our free agents, in case Danny hits it big on one of his draft picks.
12) Assuming we sign Pruitt and Davis with the MLE, how much will we have left to spend?
Based upon contracts of former players drafted high in the second round, it is likely that Pruitt and Davis will each sign for deals somewhere around $650,000 - $700,000. Assuming they each sign for $700,000, that would leave us with $2.456 million to allocate towards additional free agents with the MLE.
13) Why is Wally Szczerbiak included in the above chart? Didn't we trade him to Seattle?
Wally's contract that is the gift that keeps on giving. At the time we traded for Wally Szczerbiak, his contract contained a trade kicker, which is essentially a one-time bonus paid to a player by a team acquiring him in a trade. While the team already paid this bonus in full, for cap purposes the trade kicker was divided up equally over the remaining years of Wally's contract. This obligation remains with Boston -- even though Wally was traded to Seattle -- for the remainder of Wally's original Boston contract. As such, we are carrying a hit from Wally's trade kicker for the next two seasons. The most recent information I have seen on this trade kicker is $775,000 for each of the next two seasons.
14) What is a buyout? Why do people keep talking about them?
At any time, a team and a player can agree to a buyout of that team's remaining salary obligation to that player. The Celtics did this with Vin Baker, and in recent years Chris Webber, Tim Thomas, Steve Francis, Derek Fisher, Troy Hudson, Adonal Foyle, and others have all agreed to buyouts. In a buyout situation, the team pays a player a reduced amount, and allows that player to become an unrestricted free agent (after they clear waivers). The team executing the buyout is responsible for the agreed upon sum, with the cap hit being divided out equally among the remaining years of the contract (ie, in Vin Baker's deal, he had three years on his deal, and he agreed to a $16 million buyout. Thus, the team carried a $5.33 million cap hit on its salary cap for three years.)
There is speculation that a number of players could be bought out of their contracts this season, including Sarunas Jasikevicius and Sam Cassell. If that happens, the players would in all likehihood become unrestricted free agents, allowing them the chance to negotiate with the Celtics. Again, this is entirely speculation, but it's the reason you here so much chatter about potential buyout situations.
-
I find it more useful to slot in draft picks that we own the rights to going forward, since like players, unless traded they will almost certainly result in cap hits.
-
I find it more useful to slot in draft picks that we own the rights to going forward, since like players, unless traded they will almost certainly result in cap hits.
I wanted to try to keep speculation to a minimum. While I estimated salaries for Manuel (although his will be accurate), Pruitt, and Davis, I didn't want to get into vague estimates of draft pick salaries yet. We have little idea where we'll be picking in '08 or '10, and I don't want people to rely too much on something that isn't accurate. While estimating draft picks is definitely a useful tool in speculating concerning future salary obligations, I posted this primarily for information purposes, and I want to keep confusion to a minimum.
For anybody who wants to know potential future salaries being added to the team, though, right now we have:
2008: Boston #1, Boston #2 or Portland #2 (owed to Seattle; whichever is lesser?)
2009: Boston #2
2010: Boston #1, Boston #2
2011: Boston #1, Boston #2
The same reason (speculation) is why I didn't estimate the increase in the luxury tax over the coming seasons. Between '05 and '06, the salary cap increased by 7.34% and the luxury tax increased by 6.03%. Between '06 and '07, the salary cap increased by 4.7% and the luxury tax increased by 3.74%. Going forward, I would estimate increases of approximately 5% and 3.5%, but that's speculation on my part.
-
Thanks for all the work Mr Hobbs. I'd also like to suggest the idea of a daily tidbit to do with the cap/contracts so we can learn something new every day and maybe discuss examples and scenarios when things are going slow. It seems to me that this stuff is getting harder to keep track of every day.
-
Hobbs,
Do you have a link for the Wally thing? Wouldn't his trade kicker have been exercised when he was traded from Minny to Boston? Just this is the first I have heard of that provision.
-B
-
Hobbs,
Do you have a link for the Wally thing? Wouldn't his trade kicker have been exercised when he was traded from Minny to Boston? Just this is the first I have heard of that provision.
-B
It was exercised / paid at the time. However, the cap hit is spread equally over the remaining years of the contract. That's the same thing that happened with KG, and is indeed one of the reasons why a contract extension was so important: to allow his trade kicker to be spread out, and keep our luxury tax down.
I've seen the Wally thing mentioned a few times. One place it's mentioned is here (http://www.storytellerscontracts.info/resources/07-08salaries.htm); although this site hasn't been updated since the KG trade, it's info for Wally seems accurate. See also questions #83 and #84 in Larry Coon's writeup (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#83).
-
Unreal, Roy, and anybody else who helped with that. Thanks for all the work.
-
Posey is set to make 3 million a year in a multiyear deal, and we still need a pg. Our funds seem to be getting a little bit tight.
-
http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/boston.htm
Tony Allen:
We can give him a qualifying offer next season. But if we don't extend him this season, does that mean he is a restricted free agent after this season? Would he be in the same situation as Mickael Pietrus this year?
Rajon Rondo:
There is a team option for the next two years. Does that mean that if we decide we want to keep him but he doesn't agree, he will stay anyway? Must the desire of re-signing be mutual?
Brandon Wallace/Jackie Manuel:
I assume if we keep Manuel, he will have the next year as a team option just like Wallace. Again, must both players agree to stay next season in order to use this option? And does Manuel even have a second-year option?
James Posey:
The second year is the player's option.
(1) Does that mean that he will be a free agent after this season? And if yes, is he restricted or not? We wouldn't benefit in that case, because it's like signing him to a one year contract, and asking him next year if he wants to sign again.
(2) Or is it a two year contract in which he can opt out after this season? That would mean that if he stays, we would have the full MLE again next season, the contrary to (1).
-
Tony - I think he will be a RFA.
Rondo - I think the team option would be an offer. Rajon doesn't have to take it if he thinks he can make more money on the open market (or if he doesn't like it here, he, he).
Manuel - He's not even guaranteed for this season, never mind next year. He could be cut after training camp (or sooner if there's another FA signing or a trade)
Not sure about Posey yet.
-
A good place to start is here (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm).
The current CBA treats restricted free agency as follows:
here are two types of free agency: restricted and unrestricted. An unrestricted free agent is free to sign with any other team, and there's nothing the player's original team can do to prevent it. Restricted free agency gives the player's original team the right to keep the player by matching an offer sheet the player signs with another team. One example is from August 2002, when Minnesota signed Ricky Davis to an offer sheet, but Cleveland matched the offer and retained him.
Restricted free agency exists only on a limited basis. It is allowed following the fourth year of rookie "scale" contracts for first-round draft picks (see question number 41). It is also allowed for all veteran free agents who have been in the league three or fewer seasons. However, a first round draft pick becomes an unrestricted free agent following his second or third season if his team does not exercise its option to extend the player's rookie scale contract for the next season. All other free agency is limited to unrestricted free agency.
To answer your questions:
1) If we don't extend Tony Allen, he is a restricted free agent this summer. He then has three options: he can resign with us, he can take our qualifying offer and enter unrestricted free agency the next summer, or he can sign an offer sheet with another team, which we have the option of matching.
2) As with all team options, if we exercise the option, the player has to play for us or nobody.
3) There has been no reports of Manuel's deal including an option. Wallace's deal is a team option, meaning whether he comes back next season is up to the Celtics.
4) Posey has two options next season: he can either enter unrestricted free agency, or he can come back and play for us at an agreed upon price for a second season. If he declines his player option, we can resign him, although we don't have his Bird rights.
There's a contracts FAQ at the top of the Celtics Talk forum; I'll incorporate some of these type of questions to it eventually.
-
Rondo - I think the team option would be an offer. Rajon doesn't have to take it if he thinks he can make more money on the open market (or if he doesn't like it here, he, he).
That is incorrect. Players have no say in team options, just as teams have no say in player options. There is such a thing as a mutual option, where either team can decline.
-
But Roy, if Posey chooses the player's option, does that mean it will become a two year contract and it's still the MLE from last year? Or will we have to use next year's MLE on him and Tony Allen (if he declines the qualifying offer)?
-
Rondo - I think the team option would be an offer. Rajon doesn't have to take it if he thinks he can make more money on the open market (or if he doesn't like it here, he, he).
That is incorrect. Players have no say in team options, just as teams have no say in player options. There is such a thing as a mutual option, where either team can decline.
So that means we will use the team option for the next two years on Rondo in order to let him play for cheap, and he will have no say?
-
But Roy, if Posey chooses the player's option, does that mean it will become a two year contract and it's still the MLE from last year? Or will we have to use next year's MLE on him and Tony Allen (if he declines the qualifying offer)?
If Posey picks up his option, it doesn't count against next season's MLE or any other exception; it's a valid contract signed under this year's MLE. As for Tony Allen, we wouldn't have to use the MLE on him. If we sign him to an extension, the extension would be using his Bird rights. If he signs his qualifying offer, that doesn't count against the MLE, either. If we match another teams offer sheet, that once again doesn't count against our MLE.
-
But Roy, if Posey chooses the player's option, does that mean it will become a two year contract and it's still the MLE from last year? Or will we have to use next year's MLE on him and Tony Allen (if he declines the qualifying offer)?
If Posey picks up his option, it doesn't count against next season's MLE or any other exception; it's a valid contract signed under this year's MLE. As for Tony Allen, we wouldn't have to use the MLE on him. If we sign him to an extension, the extension would be using his Bird rights. If he signs his qualifying offer, that doesn't count against the MLE, either. If we match another teams offer sheet, that once again doesn't count against our MLE.
That takes a load off my mind! So please excuse me for this question, but if Posey chooses to stay and Tony takes the qualifying offer or we match any other offer, we would still have the full MLE? So then there's nothing to worry about.
-
Right. We would have to use part of the MLE or another exception (LLE, veteran's minimum) if we wanted to bring House or Pollard back (since their contracts don't have reported options), but we won't need one should Posey exercise his option. If Posey opts out of his contract, though, we'd have to commit the MLE to resigning him.
-
Rondo - I think the team option would be an offer. Rajon doesn't have to take it if he thinks he can make more money on the open market (or if he doesn't like it here, he, he).
That is incorrect. Players have no say in team options, just as teams have no say in player options. There is such a thing as a mutual option, where either team can decline.
So that means we will use the team option for the next two years on Rondo in order to let him play for cheap, and he will have no say?
Guess so. It's a contract like any other. He must play. If Rondo has a good season, picking up the option will be a no-brainer. Thanks for clarifying, Roy.
-
Thank you very much, Roy. That clearly deserves a TP!
-
If Tony Allen accepts the qualifying offer instead of an extension, is he a unrestricted free agent after 08-09?
-
I know the Celts used up thier MLE with Pollard, House and Posey.But if they wanted to get a let's say Gary Payton would the Veteran Min apply?
-
I know the Celts used up thier MLE with Pollard, House and Posey.But if they wanted to get a let's say Gary Payton would the Veteran Min apply?
if they use the veteran minimum, the league pays for a small part, and it doesn't cut into the mle or lle. so yes we could sign someone else with the vet min. but please no gary payton.
-
I think the General Public has a very flawed view of the "veteran minimum" It isnt like the MLE or the LLE. Its not an exception. Its not something that we use and cant use again. Its just the minimum your allowed to pay a player based on how many years he's been in the league.
-
I know it doesn't count against the cap. I'm wondering how many years a player has to be in the league before they can sign for the vet min? Is it after their rookie deal?
-
I think the General Public has a very flawed view of the "veteran minimum" It isnt like the MLE or the LLE. Its not an exception. Its not something that we use and cant use again. Its just the minimum your allowed to pay a player based on how many years he's been in the league.
It is an exception... a salary cap exception.
-
Payton wouldn't be worth the veteran minimum. Or the NBA rookie minimum for that matter.
-
For anybody who has similar questions, please check the FAQ at the top of the Celtics Talk forum. This is explained there.
-
It really is an exception and also the name for a minimum salary. When a team is over the salary cap they have three exceptions to add to their team:
The MLE - 5.3m I think this season. Can be split as many as ways as the team wants.
The LLE - Bi-annual 1.8m exception
The veterans minimum - a team over the salary cap can add as many players as they want at the minimum salary for that players level of experience. It does count against the cap. It does not come out of the MLE or LLE, it is completely seperate.
-
So your telling me you cant sign anyone if you dont use one of those 3 exceptions? No. The minimum is just the minimum and you can sign anyone willing to take it. It is not an exception.
-
So your telling me you cant sign anyone if you dont use one of those 3 exceptions? No. The minimum is just the minimum and you can sign anyone willing to take it. It is not an exception.
IF you are over the salary cap there is only three ways to sign someone. They are the three ways.
If you are under the cap, you can do whatever you want. The veterans minimum is a minimum contract for any veteran. But for teams over the salary cap, it is an exception which allows them to sign further players and take on further salary.
Two definitions - minimum allowable contract for years served - and exception for teams over the cap to continue signing players.
-
My point is that it is not an exception. You can sign as many players as you want to the minimum.
-
My point is that it is not an exception. You can sign as many players as you want to the minimum.
You aren't allowed to sign players when you are over the Cap without an exception. Anyways semantics, we are both saying the same thing.
-
If Tony Allen doesn't sign an extension before the start of the season, he is able to accept the qualifying offer. But must the team first approve of the offer, or does the player only decide? I know Perk signed an extension on Sep 11, 2006, and I hope Tony Allen does so, too. Because I really don't want to give him up to unrestricted free agency, in case he takes the qualiying offer.
-
If Tony Allen doesn't sign an extension before the start of the season, he is able to accept the qualifying offer. But must the team first approve of the offer, or does the player only decide? I know Perk signed an extension on Sep 11, 2006, and I hope Tony Allen does so, too. Because I really don't want to give him up to unrestricted free agency, in case he takes the qualiying offer.
A team can decline a qualifying offer, yes. In that case, the player becomes an unrestricted free agent. Additionally, a team can rescind a qualifying offer it has made to a player, although it cannot do so after July 23 without the player's approval.
-
After we got Posey, how much of our MLE was left (ignore that we signed Pruitt). For that matter, for how much did we sign Posey? I'm having trouble finding a good source, though I've read 3.5 mil. for this year.
-
After we got Posey, how much of our MLE was left (ignore that we signed Pruitt). For that matter, for how much did we sign Posey? I'm having trouble finding a good source, though I've read 3.5 mil. for this year.
We're still waiting on official numbers; once I get them, I'll post them. The contract in its first year will likely be in the $3.2 - $3.5 million range.
We've pretty much used up the entirety of our MLE. While their may be a few dollars left, it's unlikely enough to be able to sign anybody, except *perhaps* one of the rookies. We still have the bi-annual exception ($1.8 million) and the minimum salary exception to offer to any free agent.
-
good thread! very informative
-
Roy, you should probably change Pruitt's salary according to Hoopsworld (link) (http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_23178.shtml) or The Boston Globe (link) (http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/2007/08/celtics_update.html).
-
As for #7 not using the LLE I'm pretty sure you're right. The reason they didn't want to use the entire MLE is they need a portion of it to add an option on the 3rd year of a rookie contract, hence the reason Pruitt got 3 years and Davis got 2(the rest of the MLE was used to get Pruit so I don't think there was enough available to add an option 3rd year for Davis). Of course such matters are well out of my realm of expertise so I could be completely wrong.
--Fin
-
at least you guys arent as bad as my knicks with the salary cap
-
If Tony Allen doesn't sign an extension before the start of the season, he is able to accept the qualifying offer. But must the team first approve of the offer, or does the player only decide? I know Perk signed an extension on Sep 11, 2006, and I hope Tony Allen does so, too. Because I really don't want to give him up to unrestricted free agency, in case he takes the qualiying offer.
i think this is the reason the celtics probably will be conservative with tonys recovery and playing time unless ray allen gets injured they wont want hin playing so well he is to expensive to resign
-
;)posted a reply to wrong thing...oops
-
If Tony Allen doesn't sign an extension before the start of the season, he is able to accept the qualifying offer. But must the team first approve of the offer, or does the player only decide? I know Perk signed an extension on Sep 11, 2006, and I hope Tony Allen does so, too. Because I really don't want to give him up to unrestricted free agency, in case he takes the qualiying offer.
i think this is the reason the celtics probably will be conservative with tonys recovery and playing time unless ray allen gets injured they wont want hin playing so well he is to expensive to resign
If you look at the free agent class coming up this summer, I think you'll see why I'm really not worried about Tony commanding too much money, and I'm pretty sure Danny feels the same way. It's sick, absolutely sick.
Given that, I think the only reason they'll be conservative with Tony's recovery is so he can contribute in the spring, when it matters.
-
Just a general question which I couldn't find in the sources I've read. When a player gets bought-out, the team is still charged for x ammount of the salary throughout the length of the contract. So my question is, can the team still trade that contract to another team?
-
Just a general question which I couldn't find in the sources I've read. When a player gets bought-out, the team is still charged for x ammount of the salary throughout the length of the contract. So my question is, can the team still trade that contract to another team?
No they can't trade the contract.
-
very helpful
-
Rondo - I think the team option would be an offer. Rajon doesn't have to take it if he thinks he can make more money on the open market (or if he doesn't like it here, he, he).
That is incorrect. Players have no say in team options, just as teams have no say in player options. There is such a thing as a mutual option, where either team can decline.
Roy,
Since most of the contract talks per this thread occurred prior to the start of this season, I wanted to confirm with you what you think Powe's status is for next year. I know this has been discussed before but that was months ago and Powe has certainly reached a new level of interest with not only the Celtics but other teams around the league. Since Powe is not under contract after this season, is his situation similar to Gilbert Arenas's situation with the Warriors several years ago? Since the Celtics will probably want to sign Rondo with I imagine a MLE, what does that leave for somebody like Powe or some of the other players the Celtics may want to re-sign?
-
Roy,
Since most of the contract talks per this thread occurred prior to the start of this season, I wanted to confirm with you what you think Powe's status is for next year. I know this has been discussed before but that was months ago and Powe has certainly reached a new level of interest with not only the Celtics but other teams around the league. Since Powe is not under contract after this season, is his situation similar to Gilbert Arenas's situation with the Warriors several years ago? Since the Celtics will probably want to sign Rondo with I imagine a MLE, what does that leave for somebody like Powe or some of the other players the Celtics may want to re-sign?
While I believe only part of Powe's contract is guaranteed for next season, the team will almost certainly pick up his option, which is for the minimum salary. It's pretty much a no-brainer. Once Powe plays his third season here without changing teams, we get his "Bird rights", which means we can resign him for any amount, without having to use the MLE, etc.
The same is true of Rondo; we can go over the cap to sign him because we'll have his Bird rights. On the other hand, we *won't* have Bird rights to House, or Posey if he opts out of his contract. We'd have to sign them with the MLE, or another exception.
-
Roy,
Since most of the contract talks per this thread occurred prior to the start of this season, I wanted to confirm with you what you think Powe's status is for next year. I know this has been discussed before but that was months ago and Powe has certainly reached a new level of interest with not only the Celtics but other teams around the league. Since Powe is not under contract after this season, is his situation similar to Gilbert Arenas's situation with the Warriors several years ago? Since the Celtics will probably want to sign Rondo with I imagine a MLE, what does that leave for somebody like Powe or some of the other players the Celtics may want to re-sign?
While I believe only part of Powe's contract is guaranteed for next season, the team will almost certainly pick up his option, which is for the minimum salary. It's pretty much a no-brainer. Once Powe plays his third season here without changing teams, we get his "Bird rights", which means we can resign him for any amount, without having to use the MLE, etc.
The same is true of Rondo; we can go over the cap to sign him because we'll have his Bird rights. On the other hand, we *won't* have Bird rights to House, or Posey if he opts out of his contract. We'd have to sign them with the MLE, or another exception.
Roy,
Thanks for your response. I did a little more googling on Arenas and found this:
When he does look, he won't like what he sees. Arenas and the Warriors are caught in a loophole. The NBA has been careful to design its contract rules to limit player movement. Teams have the right to sign their own players to any contract up to the league maximum, even if the team is over the salary cap, thanks to the "Larry Bird exception."
Problem is, these rules only go into effect when a player has been with a team three straight years. Arenas is a unique case, because he was a second-round pick and did not get the guaranteed three-year contract first-round picks get. He has no Bird rights, which means, essentially, the Warriors have no significant advantages over other teams when it comes to keeping him.
Arenas is a restricted free agent, so Golden State can match any offer he gets, but because the Warriors are over the salary cap, and because Bird rights are nut involved, they must use a salary-cap exception as their matching offer. The biggest exception they will have is the midlevel exception, which should be about $4.3 million. If a team offers more than the midlevel exception, the Warriors can't match.
That's why Arenas' breakout year is bad for Golden State. Ask any general manager about the upcoming free agent market, and Arenas is the first name that comes up. One general manager estimates Arenas will get a contract starting in the $8 million a year range, a big jump from the $500,000 he's getting this season. Big names such as Jason Kidd and Gary Payton will be on the market, but they are heading into the downside of their careers. Arenas is 21, and for a team with cap space, he could be a building block for the next decade.
****************************************************************************************
Did Ainge do something (per the CBA) to prevent Powe from becoming a free agent, restricted or otherwise? Going into this season, Powe was definitely not on the Celtics radar as somebody they wanted to keep and because of this, I don't think his contract was guaranteed. If Powe turned out like most second rounders do, the Celtics would have just cut him. Since Powe didn't reach the statistical incentives to guarantee his 2008-9 contract, why would the Celtics hold any special leverage over him? If Powe's case is similar to Arenas's, then it appears the Celtics don't have any Bird rights on Powe. Perhaps, it may boil down to the type of contract Powe had signed i.e. the first year being guaranteed which might have kicked in some sort of first right for the Celtics to retain Powe over first 3 years.
-
Roy,
Since most of the contract talks per this thread occurred prior to the start of this season, I wanted to confirm with you what you think Powe's status is for next year. I know this has been discussed before but that was months ago and Powe has certainly reached a new level of interest with not only the Celtics but other teams around the league. Since Powe is not under contract after this season, is his situation similar to Gilbert Arenas's situation with the Warriors several years ago? Since the Celtics will probably want to sign Rondo with I imagine a MLE, what does that leave for somebody like Powe or some of the other players the Celtics may want to re-sign?
While I believe only part of Powe's contract is guaranteed for next season, the team will almost certainly pick up his option, which is for the minimum salary. It's pretty much a no-brainer. Once Powe plays his third season here without changing teams, we get his "Bird rights", which means we can resign him for any amount, without having to use the MLE, etc.
The same is true of Rondo; we can go over the cap to sign him because we'll have his Bird rights. On the other hand, we *won't* have Bird rights to House, or Posey if he opts out of his contract. We'd have to sign them with the MLE, or another exception.
Roy,
Thanks for your response. I did a little more googling on Arenas and found this:
When he does look, he won't like what he sees. Arenas and the Warriors are caught in a loophole. The NBA has been careful to design its contract rules to limit player movement. Teams have the right to sign their own players to any contract up to the league maximum, even if the team is over the salary cap, thanks to the "Larry Bird exception."
Problem is, these rules only go into effect when a player has been with a team three straight years. Arenas is a unique case, because he was a second-round pick and did not get the guaranteed three-year contract first-round picks get. He has no Bird rights, which means, essentially, the Warriors have no significant advantages over other teams when it comes to keeping him.
Arenas is a restricted free agent, so Golden State can match any offer he gets, but because the Warriors are over the salary cap, and because Bird rights are nut involved, they must use a salary-cap exception as their matching offer. The biggest exception they will have is the midlevel exception, which should be about $4.3 million. If a team offers more than the midlevel exception, the Warriors can't match.
That's why Arenas' breakout year is bad for Golden State. Ask any general manager about the upcoming free agent market, and Arenas is the first name that comes up. One general manager estimates Arenas will get a contract starting in the $8 million a year range, a big jump from the $500,000 he's getting this season. Big names such as Jason Kidd and Gary Payton will be on the market, but they are heading into the downside of their careers. Arenas is 21, and for a team with cap space, he could be a building block for the next decade.
****************************************************************************************
Did Ainge do something (per the CBA) to prevent Powe from becoming a free agent, restricted or otherwise? Going into this season, Powe was definitely not on the Celtics radar as somebody they wanted to keep and because of this, I don't think his contract was guaranteed. If Powe turned out like most second rounders do, the Celtics would have just cut him. Since Powe didn't reach the statistical incentives to guarantee his 2008-9 contract, why would the Celtics hold any special leverage over him? If Powe's case is similar to Arenas's, then it appears the Celtics don't have any Bird rights on Powe. Perhaps, it may boil down to the type of contract Powe had signed i.e. the first year being guaranteed which might have kicked in some sort of first right for the Celtics to retain Powe over first 3 years.
Powe's situation is nothing like Arena's. First off, they closed the loophole (mostly) that allowed Arenas to go to the Wizards. But more importantly, Arenas was on a 2 year rookie contract with Golden State, which meant they did not have full Bird Rights on him, only Early Bird rights (which mean they can sign him up to the leave average...which is the same as the MLE... without having to use the MLE).
Powe on the other hand signed a 3 year contract. Ainge purposely used part of his MLE to sign Powe to a 3 year deal, rather than the standard 2 year second round pick deal, so that he would in fact have full Bird Rights on him. The fact that the team has options on him for the 2nd and 3rd year is irrevalent. If the team picks up the options (which they will, and have every right to do), then he will have met the requirement to be a full Bird Rights player, and the C's can sign him for as much as they want after next year, when (I believe) he will be a restricted FA.
-
Roy,
Since most of the contract talks per this thread occurred prior to the start of this season, I wanted to confirm with you what you think Powe's status is for next year. I know this has been discussed before but that was months ago and Powe has certainly reached a new level of interest with not only the Celtics but other teams around the league. Since Powe is not under contract after this season, is his situation similar to Gilbert Arenas's situation with the Warriors several years ago? Since the Celtics will probably want to sign Rondo with I imagine a MLE, what does that leave for somebody like Powe or some of the other players the Celtics may want to re-sign?
While I believe only part of Powe's contract is guaranteed for next season, the team will almost certainly pick up his option, which is for the minimum salary. It's pretty much a no-brainer. Once Powe plays his third season here without changing teams, we get his "Bird rights", which means we can resign him for any amount, without having to use the MLE, etc.
The same is true of Rondo; we can go over the cap to sign him because we'll have his Bird rights. On the other hand, we *won't* have Bird rights to House, or Posey if he opts out of his contract. We'd have to sign them with the MLE, or another exception.
Roy,
Thanks for your response. I did a little more googling on Arenas and found this:
When he does look, he won't like what he sees. Arenas and the Warriors are caught in a loophole. The NBA has been careful to design its contract rules to limit player movement. Teams have the right to sign their own players to any contract up to the league maximum, even if the team is over the salary cap, thanks to the "Larry Bird exception."
Problem is, these rules only go into effect when a player has been with a team three straight years. Arenas is a unique case, because he was a second-round pick and did not get the guaranteed three-year contract first-round picks get. He has no Bird rights, which means, essentially, the Warriors have no significant advantages over other teams when it comes to keeping him.
Arenas is a restricted free agent, so Golden State can match any offer he gets, but because the Warriors are over the salary cap, and because Bird rights are nut involved, they must use a salary-cap exception as their matching offer. The biggest exception they will have is the midlevel exception, which should be about $4.3 million. If a team offers more than the midlevel exception, the Warriors can't match.
That's why Arenas' breakout year is bad for Golden State. Ask any general manager about the upcoming free agent market, and Arenas is the first name that comes up. One general manager estimates Arenas will get a contract starting in the $8 million a year range, a big jump from the $500,000 he's getting this season. Big names such as Jason Kidd and Gary Payton will be on the market, but they are heading into the downside of their careers. Arenas is 21, and for a team with cap space, he could be a building block for the next decade.
****************************************************************************************
Did Ainge do something (per the CBA) to prevent Powe from becoming a free agent, restricted or otherwise? Going into this season, Powe was definitely not on the Celtics radar as somebody they wanted to keep and because of this, I don't think his contract was guaranteed. If Powe turned out like most second rounders do, the Celtics would have just cut him. Since Powe didn't reach the statistical incentives to guarantee his 2008-9 contract, why would the Celtics hold any special leverage over him? If Powe's case is similar to Arenas's, then it appears the Celtics don't have any Bird rights on Powe. Perhaps, it may boil down to the type of contract Powe had signed i.e. the first year being guaranteed which might have kicked in some sort of first right for the Celtics to retain Powe over first 3 years.
Powe's situation is nothing like Arena's. First off, they closed the loophole (mostly) that allowed Arenas to go to the Wizards. But more importantly, Arenas was on a 2 year rookie contract with Golden State, which meant they did not have full Bird Rights on him, only Early Bird rights (which mean they can sign him up to the leave average...which is the same as the MLE... without having to use the MLE).
Powe on the other hand signed a 3 year contract. Ainge purposely used part of his MLE to sign Powe to a 3 year deal, rather than the standard 2 year second round pick deal, so that he would in fact have full Bird Rights on him. The fact that the team has options on him for the 2nd and 3rd year is irrevalent. If the team picks up the options (which they will, and have every right to do), then he will have met the requirement to be a full Bird Rights player, and the C's can sign him for as much as they want after next year, when (I believe) he will be a restricted FA.
Chris,
Does the fact that Powe signing a 3 year contract with the first year being guaranteed, I believe, and the 2nd and 3rd years not being guaranteed (incentive laden) still give the Celtics bird rights to Powe? The loophole that was closed regarding the Arenas Clause really doesn't apply to Powe. Powe isn't going to get Arenas type money on the free market and the Arenas Clause limits what teams can offer free agents like Arenas was several years ago. If the Arenas Clause was in effect when Arenas was a free agent with the Warriors, I think the most the Wizards could have offered Arenas was the MLE max at the time or about 5MM instead of the 8 or 9MM Arenas ended up getting. Powe isn't going to command this kind of money. I guess the question regarding Powe is whether the type of contract tendered Powe back in 2006 qualifies as the type of contract i.e. guaranteed 3 year contracts that are given 1st rounders, which would allow the Celtics to retain Bird rights to Powe. Or, is Powe a free agent this year?
-
Does the fact that Powe signing a 3 year contract with the first year being guaranteed, I believe, and the 2nd and 3rd years not being guaranteed (incentive laden) still give the Celtics bird rights to Powe?
Yes. So long as a player doesn't change teams via waiver or free agency, he vests with Bird rights after three years. The reason Danny signed Powe to the contract he did was specifically so we'd retain his Bird rights if we wanted to.
Or, is Powe a free agent this year?
Powe only become a free agent if the Celtics decline to pick up his option. They won't do that.
-
Does the fact that Powe signing a 3 year contract with the first year being guaranteed, I believe, and the 2nd and 3rd years not being guaranteed (incentive laden) still give the Celtics bird rights to Powe?
Yes. So long as a player doesn't change teams via waiver or free agency, he vests with Bird rights after three years. The reason Danny signed Powe to the contract he did was specifically so we'd retain his Bird rights if we wanted to.
Or, is Powe a free agent this year?
Powe only become a free agent if the Celtics decline to pick up his option. They won't do that.
Exactly. Bird rights have nothing to do with a contract being guaranteed, they have to do with an uninterupted tenure with a team.
Powe is going to be on the Celtics next season, unless they trade him. There is no need to worry about it.
-
Does the fact that Powe signing a 3 year contract with the first year being guaranteed, I believe, and the 2nd and 3rd years not being guaranteed (incentive laden) still give the Celtics bird rights to Powe?
Yes. So long as a player doesn't change teams via waiver or free agency, he vests with Bird rights after three years. The reason Danny signed Powe to the contract he did was specifically so we'd retain his Bird rights if we wanted to.
Or, is Powe a free agent this year?
Powe only become a free agent if the Celtics decline to pick up his option. They won't do that.
Thanks Roy.
-
Does the fact that Powe signing a 3 year contract with the first year being guaranteed, I believe, and the 2nd and 3rd years not being guaranteed (incentive laden) still give the Celtics bird rights to Powe?
Yes. So long as a player doesn't change teams via waiver or free agency, he vests with Bird rights after three years. The reason Danny signed Powe to the contract he did was specifically so we'd retain his Bird rights if we wanted to.
Or, is Powe a free agent this year?
Powe only become a free agent if the Celtics decline to pick up his option. They won't do that.
Exactly. Bird rights have nothing to do with a contract being guaranteed, they have to do with an uninterupted tenure with a team.
Powe is going to be on the Celtics next season, unless they trade him. There is no need to worry about it.
And thank you, Chris, for the clarification.
-
Powe will be back as long as the Celts want him. The real question for Boston is what to do with #30. I don't think they are that anxious to have a 3-year contract on their roster right now -- so I would not be surprised if they stuff away an unavailable Euro Spurs style.
Also, the Celts will have the veterans minimum and mid-levels, which are especially important now since they are contenders -- veterans could be banging down the door looking for a chance to get a ring.
-
Roy, you mentioned in the other thread that teams under the cap were able to backload their contracts. I've tried reading around but wasn't able to find the information I was looking for.
Let's say you're WAY under the salary cap. Let's say you give one player a MAX type of contract for 5 years. And let's say you give some other guy a 6 year long contract.
Can you explain what the restrictions are on raises from year to year (if any) in both of these cases? I'm having a hard time finding the figure I'm looking for. I'm leaning towards 10.5% of something, but I think I'm reading the wrong thing, and that Coon's CBA write up doesn't seem to address this properly.
Thanks.
-
Roy, you mentioned in the other thread that teams under the cap were able to backload their contracts. I've tried reading around but wasn't able to find the information I was looking for.
Let's say you're WAY under the salary cap. Let's say you give one player a MAX type of contract for 5 years. And let's say you give some other guy a 6 year long contract.
Can you explain what the restrictions are on raises from year to year (if any) in both of these cases? I'm having a hard time finding the figure I'm looking for. I'm leaning towards 10.5% of something, but I think I'm reading the wrong thing, and that Coon's CBA write up doesn't seem to address this properly.
Thanks.
I think I had a brain spasm when I was talking about back-loading contracts. The maximum raise you can give a player *playing on the same contract* is a 10.5% raise. This also applies when you extend a contract. In this case, it's a maximum 10.5% annual raise over the previous year's deal, rather than a raise capped at 10.5% of the first year salary.
Note that the 10.5% raise applies only to resigning your own free agents. If you're signing a free agent off of another team, the most you can offer is 8% annual raises (which is one of the reasons some teams work out sign-and-trades).
If you want to really torture yourself, you can find the actual CBA here: http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles.php
-
By the way, I'll be updating this within the next week or so. I'm waiting for the salary cap / MLE / luxury tax to be calculated.
-
Thanks for this thread. I had forgotten that Danny had Rondo tied up for so long and so reasonably. Adding in the Perk deal and I really think he's got the salary situation under control. Most interesting will be seeing whether he trades Ray before next year--or squeezes a third year out of the 'Big 3'.
-
Roy, you mentioned in the other thread that teams under the cap were able to backload their contracts. I've tried reading around but wasn't able to find the information I was looking for.
Let's say you're WAY under the salary cap. Let's say you give one player a MAX type of contract for 5 years. And let's say you give some other guy a 6 year long contract.
Can you explain what the restrictions are on raises from year to year (if any) in both of these cases? I'm having a hard time finding the figure I'm looking for. I'm leaning towards 10.5% of something, but I think I'm reading the wrong thing, and that Coon's CBA write up doesn't seem to address this properly.
Thanks.
I think I had a brain spasm when I was talking about back-loading contracts. The maximum raise you can give a player *playing on the same contract* is a 10.5% raise. This also applies when you extend a contract. In this case, it's a maximum 10.5% annual raise over the previous year's deal, rather than a raise capped at 10.5% of the first year salary.
Note that the 10.5% raise applies only to resigning your own free agents. If you're signing a free agent off of another team, the most you can offer is 8% annual raises (which is one of the reasons some teams work out sign-and-trades).
If you want to really torture yourself, you can find the actual CBA here: http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles.php
Thanks. I was trying to wrap my head around Garnett's extension and how he was capable of lowering next year's salary to 16 million. From what I'm reading around, it's supposed to be impossible. But then I remember that his contract is one of those wierd ones that was made before the current CBA, that has some sort of trade kickers, etc. so I really don't know how that actually affected or made it possible for Garnett to sign as low as he did.
-
Roy, you mentioned in the other thread that teams under the cap were able to backload their contracts. I've tried reading around but wasn't able to find the information I was looking for.
Let's say you're WAY under the salary cap. Let's say you give one player a MAX type of contract for 5 years. And let's say you give some other guy a 6 year long contract.
Can you explain what the restrictions are on raises from year to year (if any) in both of these cases? I'm having a hard time finding the figure I'm looking for. I'm leaning towards 10.5% of something, but I think I'm reading the wrong thing, and that Coon's CBA write up doesn't seem to address this properly.
Thanks.
I think I had a brain spasm when I was talking about back-loading contracts. The maximum raise you can give a player *playing on the same contract* is a 10.5% raise. This also applies when you extend a contract. In this case, it's a maximum 10.5% annual raise over the previous year's deal, rather than a raise capped at 10.5% of the first year salary.
Note that the 10.5% raise applies only to resigning your own free agents. If you're signing a free agent off of another team, the most you can offer is 8% annual raises (which is one of the reasons some teams work out sign-and-trades).
If you want to really torture yourself, you can find the actual CBA here: http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles.php
Thanks. I was trying to wrap my head around Garnett's extension and how he was capable of lowering next year's salary to 16 million. From what I'm reading around, it's supposed to be impossible. But then I remember that his contract is one of those wierd ones that was made before the current CBA, that has some sort of trade kickers, etc. so I really don't know how that actually affected or made it possible for Garnett to sign as low as he did.
I *think* -- don't quote me on this -- that you're allowed to negotiate a decrease in salary into your contract. I haven't researched that particular issue, but from what I've read, restrictions are only placed on raises, not decreases.
-
Roy, you mentioned in the other thread that teams under the cap were able to backload their contracts. I've tried reading around but wasn't able to find the information I was looking for.
Let's say you're WAY under the salary cap. Let's say you give one player a MAX type of contract for 5 years. And let's say you give some other guy a 6 year long contract.
Can you explain what the restrictions are on raises from year to year (if any) in both of these cases? I'm having a hard time finding the figure I'm looking for. I'm leaning towards 10.5% of something, but I think I'm reading the wrong thing, and that Coon's CBA write up doesn't seem to address this properly.
Thanks.
I think I had a brain spasm when I was talking about back-loading contracts. The maximum raise you can give a player *playing on the same contract* is a 10.5% raise. This also applies when you extend a contract. In this case, it's a maximum 10.5% annual raise over the previous year's deal, rather than a raise capped at 10.5% of the first year salary.
Note that the 10.5% raise applies only to resigning your own free agents. If you're signing a free agent off of another team, the most you can offer is 8% annual raises (which is one of the reasons some teams work out sign-and-trades).
If you want to really torture yourself, you can find the actual CBA here: http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles.php
Thanks. I was trying to wrap my head around Garnett's extension and how he was capable of lowering next year's salary to 16 million. From what I'm reading around, it's supposed to be impossible. But then I remember that his contract is one of those wierd ones that was made before the current CBA, that has some sort of trade kickers, etc. so I really don't know how that actually affected or made it possible for Garnett to sign as low as he did.
I *think* -- don't quote me on this -- that you're allowed to negotiate a decrease in salary into your contract. I haven't researched that particular issue, but from what I've read, restrictions are only placed on raises, not decreases.
Nope, the NBA doesn't allow to renegotiate salary decreases. That's why teams get screwed so much. You're only allowed to renegotiate increases, if under the cap. You can get decreases in contract extensions, but only by the 10.5% of the last year of the previous/current contract. So the numbers still don't make much sense.
That's my understanding of the situation.
-
Nope, the NBA doesn't allow to renegotiate salary decreases. That's why teams get screwed so much. You're only allowed to renegotiate increases, if under the cap. You can get decreases in contract extensions, but only by the 10.5% of the last year of the previous/current contract. So the numbers still don't make much sense.
That's my understanding of the situation.
I don't think so. Lots of players have salary decreases. Chicago signed Hinrich and Ben Wallace to deals that decrease over time. Camby's deal decreases. I'm sure there are others. It's fairly good management to frontload contracts when you can.
You can't *renegotiate* an existing contract downward. However, you can sign a deal where your annual salary decreases from year to year, either on a new contract, or on an extension of an old one.
-
Nope, the NBA doesn't allow to renegotiate salary decreases. That's why teams get screwed so much. You're only allowed to renegotiate increases, if under the cap. You can get decreases in contract extensions, but only by the 10.5% of the last year of the previous/current contract. So the numbers still don't make much sense.
That's my understanding of the situation.
I don't think so. Lots of players have salary decreases. Chicago signed Hinrich and Ben Wallace to deals that decrease over time. Camby's deal decreases. I'm sure there are others. It's fairly good management to frontload contracts when you can.
You're right Hobbs -- a salary can increase or decrease by the same max 10.5%.
Our own Elrod Enchillada (who's been a guest on CelticsStuffLive) posted 2 terrific articles discussing "frontloading" contracts over at RealGM. Essential reading in my opinion:
This is a general introduction
http://celtics.realgm.com/articles/352/20080131/frontloading_an_alternative_approach_to_nba_contracts/
This is his application of the practice "past the KG era"
http://celtics.realgm.com/articles/353/20080131/frontloading_the_cs_past_the_garnett_era/
And you're right to point out that it's good management -- when applicable, which Elrod goes into -- to frontload contracts. Let's hope Ainge has either read them or skipped them since he knows/understands and agrees with them!
-
Nope, the NBA doesn't allow to renegotiate salary decreases. That's why teams get screwed so much. You're only allowed to renegotiate increases, if under the cap. You can get decreases in contract extensions, but only by the 10.5% of the last year of the previous/current contract. So the numbers still don't make much sense.
That's my understanding of the situation.
I don't think so. Lots of players have salary decreases. Chicago signed Hinrich and Ben Wallace to deals that decrease over time. Camby's deal decreases. I'm sure there are others. It's fairly good management to frontload contracts when you can.
You can't *renegotiate* an existing contract downward. However, you can sign a deal where your annual salary decreases from year to year, either on a new contract, or on an extension of an old one.
Ok, I think I got a clear view of what occured with Garnett now.... let me know if I'm on the right track.
He got an extension. The first year of that extension is apparently irrelevant to the previous salary. But through the extension, the salary can be raised or decreased per year based on 10.5% of the last year of the original contact.
So for Garnett, he can decrease his salary by 2.6m per year, but that doesn't prevent them from starting off the extension at more than that 10.5%.
How does my explanation look at the moment?
-
Nope, the NBA doesn't allow to renegotiate salary decreases. That's why teams get screwed so much. You're only allowed to renegotiate increases, if under the cap. You can get decreases in contract extensions, but only by the 10.5% of the last year of the previous/current contract. So the numbers still don't make much sense.
That's my understanding of the situation.
I don't think so. Lots of players have salary decreases. Chicago signed Hinrich and Ben Wallace to deals that decrease over time. Camby's deal decreases. I'm sure there are others. It's fairly good management to frontload contracts when you can.
You can't *renegotiate* an existing contract downward. However, you can sign a deal where your annual salary decreases from year to year, either on a new contract, or on an extension of an old one.
Ok, I think I got a clear view of what occured with Garnett now.... let me know if I'm on the right track.
He got an extension. The first year of that extension is apparently irrelevant to the previous salary. But through the extension, the salary can be raised or decreased per year based on 10.5% of the last year of the original contact.
So for Garnett, he can decrease his salary by 2.6m per year, but that doesn't prevent them from starting off the extension at more than that 10.5%.
How does my explanation look at the moment?
Sounds right to me. I'm actually going to have to read the CBA cover to cover one of these days, so that I don't rely on Larry Coon as much as I do. His FAQ is incredible, but it doesn't answer every question.
-
Budweiser + Hobbs -- actually the reason KGs contract drops next season has nothing to do with frontloading, sorry I didn't read the original post closely enough.
KGs extansion starts at a lower annual salary b/c just like min salaries per year of service are spelled out in the CBA, so too are maximum salaries.
KGs current deal - which was to end after next season - was signed under the old CBA. Contracts like his that last past the old CBA remain in effect obviously, but extensions to them, like the one KG agreed to when he got traded here are governed by the max salaries spelled out in the new CBA.
-
Budweiser + Hobbs -- actually the reason KGs contract drops next season has nothing to do with frontloading, sorry I didn't read the original post closely enough.
KGs extansion starts at a lower annual salary b/c just like min salaries per year of service are spelled out in the CBA, so too are maximum salaries.
KGs current deal - which was to end after next season - was signed under the old CBA. Contracts like his that last past the old CBA remain in effect obviously, but extensions to them, like the one KG agreed to when he got traded here are governed by the max salaries spelled out in the new CBA.
KG isn't an example of front-loading, because he signed an extension that is subject to raises.
However, the reason he took a pay cut isn't due to salary limitations in the CBA. Due to his service time, he was able to sign a contract extension for significantly more than the $16.4 million starting salary he chose to accept.
-
Budweiser + Hobbs -- actually the reason KGs contract drops next season has nothing to do with frontloading, sorry I didn't read the original post closely enough.
KGs extansion starts at a lower annual salary b/c just like min salaries per year of service are spelled out in the CBA, so too are maximum salaries.
KGs current deal - which was to end after next season - was signed under the old CBA. Contracts like his that last past the old CBA remain in effect obviously, but extensions to them, like the one KG agreed to when he got traded here are governed by the max salaries spelled out in the new CBA.
KG isn't an example of front-loading, because he signed an extension that is subject to raises.
However, the reason he took a pay cut isn't due to salary limitations in the CBA. Due to his service time, he was able to sign a contract extension for significantly more than the $16.4 million starting salary he chose to accept.
Sorry for all the off-point posts yesterday.
Hmm... could have sworn I'd read that KG's extension was lower b/c of the CBA, but can't find that amount now in Larry Coon's FAQ.
So KG voluntarily lowered his salary to ~$17M to start the extension? Interesting.
-
Budweiser + Hobbs -- actually the reason KGs contract drops next season has nothing to do with frontloading, sorry I didn't read the original post closely enough.
KGs extansion starts at a lower annual salary b/c just like min salaries per year of service are spelled out in the CBA, so too are maximum salaries.
KGs current deal - which was to end after next season - was signed under the old CBA. Contracts like his that last past the old CBA remain in effect obviously, but extensions to them, like the one KG agreed to when he got traded here are governed by the max salaries spelled out in the new CBA.
KG isn't an example of front-loading, because he signed an extension that is subject to raises.
However, the reason he took a pay cut isn't due to salary limitations in the CBA. Due to his service time, he was able to sign a contract extension for significantly more than the $16.4 million starting salary he chose to accept.
Sorry for all the off-point posts yesterday.
Hmm... could have sworn I'd read that KG's extension was lower b/c of the CBA, but can't find that amount now in Larry Coon's FAQ.
So KG voluntarily lowered his salary to ~$17M to start the extension? Interesting.
From what I understand, salary wise... I think he's still owed a trade kicker, so he should be making more than what the salary says he is. I wouldn't know for sure. So, in order to facillitate the trade, he lowers the salary so the trade kicker doesn't kill the deal, so instead of making the most he could through salary and on top of that get the trade kicker, he chose a lower salary to soften the blow.
That's my take on it, if I'm wrong please let me know.
-
Hobbs thanks for helping steer us all through these tricky waters.
I've looked around in this thread and on the net, but haven't seen anything recent about my questions below.
I know we have our MLE and that's our best tool for signing free agents, but did we keep our bi-annual exception (and is it 1.8 Mil ? ) and do we have an LLE ( if so, how much is it? ) ?
Thanks for the info.
-
Hobbs thanks for helping steer us all through these tricky waters.
I've looked around in this thread and on the net, but haven't seen anything recent about my questions below.
I know we have our MLE and that's our best tool for signing free agents, but did we keep our bi-annual exception (and is it 1.8 Mil ? ) and do we have an LLE ( if so, how much is it? ) ?
Thanks for the info.
The "LLE" and the "bi-annual exception" are one and the same. We didn't use it last season, meaning we have access to it this year. It's valued at $1.91 million this year.
-
Roy,
Can you speculate what the hold up could be on Giddens' contract? Bartelstein said there were complicated problems, but isn't the salary fixed? Could you be so kind as to post your answer in the Giddens not in camp thread? There were a lot of questions and speculation on what the hold up is so that the C's can get Giddens in camp!
Thanks
-
No, the salary isn't fixed. It's a range, I doubt the scale has been done, but a 30th pick should be around $800,000. The team can offer him a contract in as little as 80% of that figure and as much as 120% of that figure.
Then you also need to consider contract length, team options, etc.
This is not an automatic thing. Negotiations need to happen.
-
KG didn't lower his salary for next year since he never had a salary for that year to begin with. All that happened was three years were added to the end of his contract. The pay for those three years could have been anything as long as they were for at least the NBA minimum and the increases were not more than allowed under the CBA.
-
do the celts have a mle and lle cap?? meaning like 5.8 and 1.5 million = approx 7.3 mill??
that means could we sign posey to 5.0 million, 800 k to a free agent and 1.5 to house??
-
do the celts have a mle and lle cap?? meaning like 5.8 and 1.5 million = approx 7.3 mill??
that means could we sign posey to 5.0 million, 800 k to a free agent and 1.5 to house??
They're called exceptions, and yes we do have them all. You can't combine them to offer them to one player, and only the MLE can be split.
-
do the celts have a mle and lle cap?? meaning like 5.8 and 1.5 million = approx 7.3 mill??
that means could we sign posey to 5.0 million, 800 k to a free agent and 1.5 to house??
They're called exceptions, and yes we do have them all. You can't combine them to offer them to one player, and only the MLE can be split.
To add to that, the LLE / bi-annual exception is actually $1.91 million, and technically, it *can* be split (although I don't know why you'd ever want to).
-
do the celts have a mle and lle cap?? meaning like 5.8 and 1.5 million = approx 7.3 mill??
that means could we sign posey to 5.0 million, 800 k to a free agent and 1.5 to house??
They're called exceptions, and yes we do have them all. You can't combine them to offer them to one player, and only the MLE can be split.
To add to that, the LLE / bi-annual exception is actually $1.91 million, and technically, it *can* be split (although I don't know why you'd ever want to).
Ah, that's true... but yeah, it doesn't make sense to split it when you can simply just offer the vet. min.