Note - options on Amir and Jerebko due Thursday

[BudweiserCeltic]

Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojVerticalNBA
The Boston Celtics will pick up the 2016-'17 option on forward Amir Johnson, league source tells @TheVertical.

[BudweiserCeltic]

What is going on with this?

If i was amir and jerebko i would prob not ask for options to be picked up for a bigger payday

Team options, they don't have a choice in the matter.

Just to clarify a couple of things before all this becomes moot:

1) They are not 'team options'.  Team options are not really used anymore (except on the ends of rookie contracts).   What is in effect here is that the final season of Amir & JJ's contracts are not guaranteed.   If the team does nothing past the vesting date (which apparently is today) then the final portion of the contracts become  guaranteed automatically if the player(s) is still on the roster.

2) If Danny decided he did NOT want to pay that final season, he has to waive the player(s), which may or may not terminate the contract.  Whether the contract gets terminated depends on whether another team picks the player up off of waivers.   In other words, if Danny puts the player on waivers, then if no one picks the player up, he is waived off the roster and any non-guaranteed portion of the contract disappears.  If, on the other hand, some other team picks the player off waivers, the player and contract go into THAT team's possession.   

3) Because there is a vesting date for the non-guaranteed portion, and because the waiver period during which other teams may consider picking up a waived player is 48 hours, to waive a player before the contract vests he has to be placed on waivers at least 48 hours prior to the vesting date, because the player is still technically 'on the roster' during those 48 hours.

So, this is an important point to the original comment up there:  It is not so simple as just saying, "Let them go and they can sign new contracts!"

If you put them on waivers, because they are both on what would be 1-year expiring contracts that are relatively dirt cheap in the current market, neither would clear waivers.  Both would almost certainly get scooped up by some other team (for example, the Nets).

We should have heard if they had been placed on waivers over he last 2 days and as far as I know, they were not.  It's not clear from the various language used in reports whether the actual vesting point was last night at midnight or tonight at midnight, but I suspect it is tonight since the press conference is tomorrow.  So it is too late to now put them on waivers.  So they are Celtics.

This is probably the main reason both JJ & AJ agreed to have the vesting date pushed back.  Because if Danny had been forced to waive them 6 days ago to make sure he had space for Durant, they would not make it through waivers to free agency.  They would get picked up and forced to play on a worse team.   So on the chance that Danny would NOT be able to complete the Durant deal, they agreed to have the date delayed.  That allowed Danny to wait on Durant without having to waive them and though we lost Durant, that seems to have paid off for both of them as they now will very likely continue to be Celtics for this coming year, barring a trade.   And for Danny, though he didn't get Durant, it is better to have AJ & JJ at this point than to have lost them and be forced to pay higher prices for some replacements.

Just a side note in this.

As I've mentioned before (and I think in this thread), the wording and terms of the contracts can vary from contract to contract according to people quite ingrained in the CBA. This contract could certainly have different wording to it, either waived by, waived on, or cleared waivers by. You're going by the assumption that it's cleared waivers by, and what appears in the FAQ is not this particular situation, just a similar one that COULD apply, but doesn't necessarily.

By all the looks of it, the agreement Johnson's and Jerebko's contract seems to allude that the date chosen was worded as "waived on" or "waived by" and not "cleared waivers by".

[mmmmm]

What is going on with this?

If i was amir and jerebko i would prob not ask for options to be picked up for a bigger payday

Team options, they don't have a choice in the matter.

Just to clarify a couple of things before all this becomes moot:

1) They are not 'team options'.  Team options are not really used anymore (except on the ends of rookie contracts).   What is in effect here is that the final season of Amir & JJ's contracts are not guaranteed.   If the team does nothing past the vesting date (which apparently is today) then the final portion of the contracts become  guaranteed automatically if the player(s) is still on the roster.

2) If Danny decided he did NOT want to pay that final season, he has to waive the player(s), which may or may not terminate the contract.  Whether the contract gets terminated depends on whether another team picks the player up off of waivers.   In other words, if Danny puts the player on waivers, then if no one picks the player up, he is waived off the roster and any non-guaranteed portion of the contract disappears.  If, on the other hand, some other team picks the player off waivers, the player and contract go into THAT team's possession.   

3) Because there is a vesting date for the non-guaranteed portion, and because the waiver period during which other teams may consider picking up a waived player is 48 hours, to waive a player before the contract vests he has to be placed on waivers at least 48 hours prior to the vesting date, because the player is still technically 'on the roster' during those 48 hours.

So, this is an important point to the original comment up there:  It is not so simple as just saying, "Let them go and they can sign new contracts!"

If you put them on waivers, because they are both on what would be 1-year expiring contracts that are relatively dirt cheap in the current market, neither would clear waivers.  Both would almost certainly get scooped up by some other team (for example, the Nets).

We should have heard if they had been placed on waivers over he last 2 days and as far as I know, they were not.  It's not clear from the various language used in reports whether the actual vesting point was last night at midnight or tonight at midnight, but I suspect it is tonight since the press conference is tomorrow.  So it is too late to now put them on waivers.  So they are Celtics.

This is probably the main reason both JJ & AJ agreed to have the vesting date pushed back.  Because if Danny had been forced to waive them 6 days ago to make sure he had space for Durant, they would not make it through waivers to free agency.  They would get picked up and forced to play on a worse team.   So on the chance that Danny would NOT be able to complete the Durant deal, they agreed to have the date delayed.  That allowed Danny to wait on Durant without having to waive them and though we lost Durant, that seems to have paid off for both of them as they now will very likely continue to be Celtics for this coming year, barring a trade.   And for Danny, though he didn't get Durant, it is better to have AJ & JJ at this point than to have lost them and be forced to pay higher prices for some replacements.

Just a side note in this.

As I've mentioned before (and I think in this thread), the wording and terms of the contracts can vary from contract to contract according to people quite ingrained in the CBA. This contract could certainly have different wording to it, either waived by, waived on, or cleared waivers by. You're going by the assumption that it's cleared waivers by, and what appears in the FAQ is not this particular situation, just a similar one that COULD apply, but doesn't necessarily.

By all the looks of it, the agreement Johnson's and Jerebko's contract seems to allude that the date chosen was worded as "waived on" or "waived by" and not "cleared waivers by".

I've made no assumptions at all about the wording in the contract and ultimately it is irrelevant how that is worded in the contract.  All NBA contracts are subject to the CBA and this is how it has to work for a contract with non-guaranteed portions with a vesting date. 

• However hte date is expressed there is always going to be some point in time where if the player is on the roster past that point in time, the non-guaranteed portion becomes guaranteed.
• Before a player can be removed from a roster, he must go through waivers.
• While on waivers a player may be claimed by another team (which then has to take on his contract).
  
• The waiver period is 48 hours.
• He is still on the roster during waivers (unless claimed) so to get him off the roster in time to NOT vest the contract, he must be put on waivers at least 48 hours prior to the aforementioned point in time.

The C's did not put AJ or JJ on waivers the last couple of days and they have now announced that they are, indeed, still Celtics.  So the deadline was probably midnight last night.

[BudweiserCeltic]

What is going on with this?

If i was amir and jerebko i would prob not ask for options to be picked up for a bigger payday

Team options, they don't have a choice in the matter.

Just to clarify a couple of things before all this becomes moot:

1) They are not 'team options'.  Team options are not really used anymore (except on the ends of rookie contracts).   What is in effect here is that the final season of Amir & JJ's contracts are not guaranteed.   If the team does nothing past the vesting date (which apparently is today) then the final portion of the contracts become  guaranteed automatically if the player(s) is still on the roster.

2) If Danny decided he did NOT want to pay that final season, he has to waive the player(s), which may or may not terminate the contract.  Whether the contract gets terminated depends on whether another team picks the player up off of waivers.   In other words, if Danny puts the player on waivers, then if no one picks the player up, he is waived off the roster and any non-guaranteed portion of the contract disappears.  If, on the other hand, some other team picks the player off waivers, the player and contract go into THAT team's possession.   

3) Because there is a vesting date for the non-guaranteed portion, and because the waiver period during which other teams may consider picking up a waived player is 48 hours, to waive a player before the contract vests he has to be placed on waivers at least 48 hours prior to the vesting date, because the player is still technically 'on the roster' during those 48 hours.

So, this is an important point to the original comment up there:  It is not so simple as just saying, "Let them go and they can sign new contracts!"

If you put them on waivers, because they are both on what would be 1-year expiring contracts that are relatively dirt cheap in the current market, neither would clear waivers.  Both would almost certainly get scooped up by some other team (for example, the Nets).

We should have heard if they had been placed on waivers over he last 2 days and as far as I know, they were not.  It's not clear from the various language used in reports whether the actual vesting point was last night at midnight or tonight at midnight, but I suspect it is tonight since the press conference is tomorrow.  So it is too late to now put them on waivers.  So they are Celtics.

This is probably the main reason both JJ & AJ agreed to have the vesting date pushed back.  Because if Danny had been forced to waive them 6 days ago to make sure he had space for Durant, they would not make it through waivers to free agency.  They would get picked up and forced to play on a worse team.   So on the chance that Danny would NOT be able to complete the Durant deal, they agreed to have the date delayed.  That allowed Danny to wait on Durant without having to waive them and though we lost Durant, that seems to have paid off for both of them as they now will very likely continue to be Celtics for this coming year, barring a trade.   And for Danny, though he didn't get Durant, it is better to have AJ & JJ at this point than to have lost them and be forced to pay higher prices for some replacements.

Just a side note in this.

As I've mentioned before (and I think in this thread), the wording and terms of the contracts can vary from contract to contract according to people quite ingrained in the CBA. This contract could certainly have different wording to it, either waived by, waived on, or cleared waivers by. You're going by the assumption that it's cleared waivers by, and what appears in the FAQ is not this particular situation, just a similar one that COULD apply, but doesn't necessarily.

By all the looks of it, the agreement Johnson's and Jerebko's contract seems to allude that the date chosen was worded as "waived on" or "waived by" and not "cleared waivers by".

I've made no assumptions at all about the wording in the contract and ultimately it is irrelevant how that is worded in the contract.  All NBA contracts are subject to the CBA and this is how it has to work for a contract with non-guaranteed portions with a vesting date. 

• However hte date is expressed there is always going to be some point in time where if the player is on the roster past that point in time, the non-guaranteed portion becomes guaranteed.
• Before a player can be removed from a roster, he must go through waivers.
• While on waivers a player may be claimed by another team (which then has to take on his contract).
  
• The waiver period is 48 hours.
• He is still on the roster during waivers (unless claimed) so to get him off the roster in time to NOT vest the contract, he must be put on waivers at least 48 hours prior to the aforementioned point in time.

The C's did not put AJ or JJ on waivers the last couple of days and they have now announced that they are, indeed, still Celtics.  So the deadline was probably midnight last night.

Is there something in the CBA that prevents how to word what the date means on a contract of when it becomes guaranteed?

At least in Larry Coon's CBA FAQ doesn't say anything on that regard, and for now I'll side with someone that has better access on how contracts are actually structured and worded.

I default to what the CBA FAQ says, if you're using another source (like the actual CBA) let me know to check it out myself.

[nickagneta]

What is going on with this?

If i was amir and jerebko i would prob not ask for options to be picked up for a bigger payday

Team options, they don't have a choice in the matter.

Just to clarify a couple of things before all this becomes moot:

1) They are not 'team options'.  Team options are not really used anymore (except on the ends of rookie contracts).   What is in effect here is that the final season of Amir & JJ's contracts are not guaranteed.   If the team does nothing past the vesting date (which apparently is today) then the final portion of the contracts become  guaranteed automatically if the player(s) is still on the roster.

2) If Danny decided he did NOT want to pay that final season, he has to waive the player(s), which may or may not terminate the contract.  Whether the contract gets terminated depends on whether another team picks the player up off of waivers.   In other words, if Danny puts the player on waivers, then if no one picks the player up, he is waived off the roster and any non-guaranteed portion of the contract disappears.  If, on the other hand, some other team picks the player off waivers, the player and contract go into THAT team's possession.   

3) Because there is a vesting date for the non-guaranteed portion, and because the waiver period during which other teams may consider picking up a waived player is 48 hours, to waive a player before the contract vests he has to be placed on waivers at least 48 hours prior to the vesting date, because the player is still technically 'on the roster' during those 48 hours.

So, this is an important point to the original comment up there:  It is not so simple as just saying, "Let them go and they can sign new contracts!"

If you put them on waivers, because they are both on what would be 1-year expiring contracts that are relatively dirt cheap in the current market, neither would clear waivers.  Both would almost certainly get scooped up by some other team (for example, the Nets).

We should have heard if they had been placed on waivers over he last 2 days and as far as I know, they were not.  It's not clear from the various language used in reports whether the actual vesting point was last night at midnight or tonight at midnight, but I suspect it is tonight since the press conference is tomorrow.  So it is too late to now put them on waivers.  So they are Celtics.

This is probably the main reason both JJ & AJ agreed to have the vesting date pushed back.  Because if Danny had been forced to waive them 6 days ago to make sure he had space for Durant, they would not make it through waivers to free agency.  They would get picked up and forced to play on a worse team.   So on the chance that Danny would NOT be able to complete the Durant deal, they agreed to have the date delayed.  That allowed Danny to wait on Durant without having to waive them and though we lost Durant, that seems to have paid off for both of them as they now will very likely continue to be Celtics for this coming year, barring a trade.   And for Danny, though he didn't get Durant, it is better to have AJ & JJ at this point than to have lost them and be forced to pay higher prices for some replacements.

Just a side note in this.

As I've mentioned before (and I think in this thread), the wording and terms of the contracts can vary from contract to contract according to people quite ingrained in the CBA. This contract could certainly have different wording to it, either waived by, waived on, or cleared waivers by. You're going by the assumption that it's cleared waivers by, and what appears in the FAQ is not this particular situation, just a similar one that COULD apply, but doesn't necessarily.

By all the looks of it, the agreement Johnson's and Jerebko's contract seems to allude that the date chosen was worded as "waived on" or "waived by" and not "cleared waivers by".

I've made no assumptions at all about the wording in the contract and ultimately it is irrelevant how that is worded in the contract.  All NBA contracts are subject to the CBA and this is how it has to work for a contract with non-guaranteed portions with a vesting date. 

• However hte date is expressed there is always going to be some point in time where if the player is on the roster past that point in time, the non-guaranteed portion becomes guaranteed.
• Before a player can be removed from a roster, he must go through waivers.
• While on waivers a player may be claimed by another team (which then has to take on his contract).
  
• The waiver period is 48 hours.
• He is still on the roster during waivers (unless claimed) so to get him off the roster in time to NOT vest the contract, he must be put on waivers at least 48 hours prior to the aforementioned point in time.

The C's did not put AJ or JJ on waivers the last couple of days and they have now announced that they are, indeed, still Celtics.  So the deadline was probably midnight last night.

Is there something in the CBA that prevents how to word what the date means on a contract of when it becomes guaranteed?

At least in Larry Coon's CBA FAQ doesn't say anything on that regard, and for now I'll side with someone that has better access on how contracts are actually structured and worded.

I default to what the CBA FAQ says, if you're using another source (like the actual CBA) let me know to check it out myself.

I was under the impression that contracts were standardized to the effect that any wording in it would be the same as any other contract like it regardless of contingencies. All player option contract were worded like every other players option contract. Every 15% trade kicker contract was worded like every other 15% trade kicker contract. Every non-guaranteed year contract was worded like every other non-guaranteed contract. Every rookie contract was worded........ and so on.

[BudweiserCeltic]

What is going on with this?

If i was amir and jerebko i would prob not ask for options to be picked up for a bigger payday

Team options, they don't have a choice in the matter.

Just to clarify a couple of things before all this becomes moot:

1) They are not 'team options'.  Team options are not really used anymore (except on the ends of rookie contracts).   What is in effect here is that the final season of Amir & JJ's contracts are not guaranteed.   If the team does nothing past the vesting date (which apparently is today) then the final portion of the contracts become  guaranteed automatically if the player(s) is still on the roster.

2) If Danny decided he did NOT want to pay that final season, he has to waive the player(s), which may or may not terminate the contract.  Whether the contract gets terminated depends on whether another team picks the player up off of waivers.   In other words, if Danny puts the player on waivers, then if no one picks the player up, he is waived off the roster and any non-guaranteed portion of the contract disappears.  If, on the other hand, some other team picks the player off waivers, the player and contract go into THAT team's possession.   

3) Because there is a vesting date for the non-guaranteed portion, and because the waiver period during which other teams may consider picking up a waived player is 48 hours, to waive a player before the contract vests he has to be placed on waivers at least 48 hours prior to the vesting date, because the player is still technically 'on the roster' during those 48 hours.

So, this is an important point to the original comment up there:  It is not so simple as just saying, "Let them go and they can sign new contracts!"

If you put them on waivers, because they are both on what would be 1-year expiring contracts that are relatively dirt cheap in the current market, neither would clear waivers.  Both would almost certainly get scooped up by some other team (for example, the Nets).

We should have heard if they had been placed on waivers over he last 2 days and as far as I know, they were not.  It's not clear from the various language used in reports whether the actual vesting point was last night at midnight or tonight at midnight, but I suspect it is tonight since the press conference is tomorrow.  So it is too late to now put them on waivers.  So they are Celtics.

This is probably the main reason both JJ & AJ agreed to have the vesting date pushed back.  Because if Danny had been forced to waive them 6 days ago to make sure he had space for Durant, they would not make it through waivers to free agency.  They would get picked up and forced to play on a worse team.   So on the chance that Danny would NOT be able to complete the Durant deal, they agreed to have the date delayed.  That allowed Danny to wait on Durant without having to waive them and though we lost Durant, that seems to have paid off for both of them as they now will very likely continue to be Celtics for this coming year, barring a trade.   And for Danny, though he didn't get Durant, it is better to have AJ & JJ at this point than to have lost them and be forced to pay higher prices for some replacements.

Just a side note in this.

As I've mentioned before (and I think in this thread), the wording and terms of the contracts can vary from contract to contract according to people quite ingrained in the CBA. This contract could certainly have different wording to it, either waived by, waived on, or cleared waivers by. You're going by the assumption that it's cleared waivers by, and what appears in the FAQ is not this particular situation, just a similar one that COULD apply, but doesn't necessarily.

By all the looks of it, the agreement Johnson's and Jerebko's contract seems to allude that the date chosen was worded as "waived on" or "waived by" and not "cleared waivers by".

I've made no assumptions at all about the wording in the contract and ultimately it is irrelevant how that is worded in the contract.  All NBA contracts are subject to the CBA and this is how it has to work for a contract with non-guaranteed portions with a vesting date. 

• However hte date is expressed there is always going to be some point in time where if the player is on the roster past that point in time, the non-guaranteed portion becomes guaranteed.
• Before a player can be removed from a roster, he must go through waivers.
• While on waivers a player may be claimed by another team (which then has to take on his contract).
  
• The waiver period is 48 hours.
• He is still on the roster during waivers (unless claimed) so to get him off the roster in time to NOT vest the contract, he must be put on waivers at least 48 hours prior to the aforementioned point in time.

The C's did not put AJ or JJ on waivers the last couple of days and they have now announced that they are, indeed, still Celtics.  So the deadline was probably midnight last night.

Is there something in the CBA that prevents how to word what the date means on a contract of when it becomes guaranteed?

At least in Larry Coon's CBA FAQ doesn't say anything on that regard, and for now I'll side with someone that has better access on how contracts are actually structured and worded.

I default to what the CBA FAQ says, if you're using another source (like the actual CBA) let me know to check it out myself.

I was under the impression that contracts were standardized to the effect that any wording in it would be the same as any other contract like it regardless of contingencies. All player option contract were worded like every other players option contract. Every 15% trade kicker contract was worded like every other 15% trade kicker contract. Every non-guaranteed year contract was worded like every other non-guaranteed contract. Every rookie contract was worded........ and so on.

Just in case, source is Eric Pincus who I hold in high regard for CBA and contract issues, and he says "Most contract language says 'waived by' not cleared by".

So, make own interpretations on it if you guys prefer or discuss it further with other more informed CBA Gurus. I just know that I haven't seen anywhere that I have actual access to that forces us into the interpretation that's been made in this thread by some (which convinced me at one point).

[nickagneta]

Google "nbpa uniform player contract". About four sites down is a copy of the CBA and Article II discusses a uniform player contract and the exact meaning of every term to be used and how each contract is set up.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Google "nbpa uniform player contract". About four sites down is a copy of the CBA and Article II discusses a uniform player contract and the exact meaning of every term to be used and how each contract is set up.

We'll I'll need an actual section (specific paragraph I mean) that address this particular scenario. Not going to waste my time reading through that trying to find a needle in a haystack lol. Read a few paragraphs and already my head is hurting.

[mmmmm]

I don't understand why you are hung up on how the date is expressed.

The only thing that matters is that there is a date, after which if the player is still on the roster (i.e., he has not been terminated) then the non-guaranteed portion of the compensation that is conditional becomes vested.

There is a specified procedure for termination that all contracts conform to, and that includes first requesting waivers.  Until the player gets through waivers, his contract is not terminated.  So the important point is that he has to be put on waivers before that vesting date, if you are trying to get out of paying him the non-guaranteed money.

Here, I dug it up.  Section 16.f of

http://static.basket-infos.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Contrat-NBA1.pdf

(f) If the Team proposes to terminate this Contract in accordance with subparagraph (a) of this paragraph 16, it must first comply with the following waiver procedure:
(i) The Team shall request the NBA Commissioner to request waivers from all other clubs. Such waiver request may not be withdrawn.
(ii) Upon receipt of the waiver request, any other team may claim assignment of this Contract at such waiver price as may be fixed by the League, the priority of claims to be determined in accordance with the NBA Constitution and By- Laws.
(iii) If this Contract is so claimed, the Team agrees that it shall, upon the assignment of this Contract to the claiming team, notify the Player of such assignment as provided in paragraph 10(c) hereof, and the Player agrees he shall report to the assignee team as provided in said paragraph 10(c).
(iv) If the Contract is not claimed prior to the expiration of the waiver period, it shall terminate and the Team shall promptly deliver written notice of termination to the Player.
A-10
(v) The NBA shall promptly notify the Players Association of the disposition of any waiver request.
(vi) To the extent not inconsistent with the foregoing provisions of this subparagraph (f), the waiver procedures set forth in the NBA Constitution and By-Laws, a copy of which, as in effect on the date of this Contract, is attached hereto, shall govern.
(g) Upon any termination of this Contract by the Player, all obligations of the Team to pay Compensation shall cease on the date of termination, except the obligation of the Team to pay the Player’s Compensation to said date.

[A Future of Stevens]

Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojVerticalNBA
The Boston Celtics will pick up the 2016-'17 option on forward Amir Johnson, league source tells @TheVertical.

Does this mean we didn't pick up the option on jerebko?

[saltlover]

Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojVerticalNBA
The Boston Celtics will pick up the 2016-'17 option on forward Amir Johnson, league source tells @TheVertical.

Does this mean we didn't pick up the option on jerebko?

Reporters are sloppy sometimes.  Jerebko would have to be released, not have his option "picked up".  If you haven't heard that Jerebko has been released (I haven't), it means his contract is now guaranteed.

[mmmmm]

Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojVerticalNBA
The Boston Celtics will pick up the 2016-'17 option on forward Amir Johnson, league source tells @TheVertical.

Does this mean we didn't pick up the option on jerebko?

Reporters are sloppy sometimes.  Jerebko would have to be released, not have his option "picked up".  If you haven't heard that Jerebko has been released (I haven't), it means his contract is now guaranteed.

Ange confirmed late yesterday that both Amir and Jonas are still Celtics.

They did not put either through waivers.   Both are now guaranteed for next season.

Unless a trade happens, they will be Celtics for another year.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I don't understand why you are hung up on how the date is expressed.

The only thing that matters is that there is a date, after which if the player is still on the roster (i.e., he has not been terminated) then the non-guaranteed portion of the compensation that is conditional becomes vested.

There is a specified procedure for termination that all contracts conform to, and that includes first requesting waivers.  Until the player gets through waivers, his contract is not terminated.  So the important point is that he has to be put on waivers before that vesting date, if you are trying to get out of paying him the non-guaranteed money.

Here, I dug it up.  Section 16.f of

http://static.basket-infos.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Contrat-NBA1.pdf

(f) If the Team proposes to terminate this Contract in accordance with subparagraph (a) of this paragraph 16, it must first comply with the following waiver procedure:
(i) The Team shall request the NBA Commissioner to request waivers from all other clubs. Such waiver request may not be withdrawn.
(ii) Upon receipt of the waiver request, any other team may claim assignment of this Contract at such waiver price as may be fixed by the League, the priority of claims to be determined in accordance with the NBA Constitution and By- Laws.
(iii) If this Contract is so claimed, the Team agrees that it shall, upon the assignment of this Contract to the claiming team, notify the Player of such assignment as provided in paragraph 10(c) hereof, and the Player agrees he shall report to the assignee team as provided in said paragraph 10(c).
(iv) If the Contract is not claimed prior to the expiration of the waiver period, it shall terminate and the Team shall promptly deliver written notice of termination to the Player.
A-10
(v) The NBA shall promptly notify the Players Association of the disposition of any waiver request.
(vi) To the extent not inconsistent with the foregoing provisions of this subparagraph (f), the waiver procedures set forth in the NBA Constitution and By-Laws, a copy of which, as in effect on the date of this Contract, is attached hereto, shall govern.
(g) Upon any termination of this Contract by the Player, all obligations of the Team to pay Compensation shall cease on the date of termination, except the obligation of the Team to pay the Player’s Compensation to said date.

I'm hung up on it because nothing addresses the specific scenario. All we have are assumptions based on somewhat similar situations but not really identical. Even through what you posted, which I had read prior to this, doesn't necessarily addresses the situation. I'm hung up on it because people who are quite adept at the CBA AND have access to how contracts are written say most contracts are worded in such a way that contradicts what it means of when a non-guaranteed contract becomes guaranteed (which at the same time I recognize might be at odds with what is said above). I get hung up on it because the CBA rules don't go into specifics on what AMENDMENTS can be included to the standard contracts and the nature of them, the specifics of them, and how they affect AND challenge the understanding of the paragraph above.

And I'm not really hung up on this per se. I'm just not ready to swear by as a definite something that is by it nature quite vague and unclear at the moment. With that in mind I simply lean into what local reporters say in part (since they had to get the "need to make decision by" from somewhere, sometimes likely from front office personnel) & from what seemingly quite a few CBA Gurus (though I lean on Pincus for this) I completely trust seem to say and insinuate.

Even if their interpretation is false, I also question if the date propagated IS the actual date of when the guaranteed contract is. Without seeing the specific contract, we don't know what date is mentioned in the contract. For all we know the contract could say July 10, but for simplicity the date that is leaked to the media is that of July 7 so that it's easy to digest the "by when a decision needs to be made". But again, this is even if I allow myself to side with your interpretation. And understand, I'm not dismissing it, I'm just not ready to blindly take it as definite when there are other experts of the CBA that seem to disagree with this assessment, particularly with non guarantees that have target dates instead of defaulting to January 10 (furthermore, dates that occur prior to the season starting and during free-agency period).

Anyways, all I've been trying to say is that let yourselves be open to the possibility that we don't have access to everything that may go on in a contract and for the possibility that there may be ways to make terms on a contract that challenges our previous understanding of what is declared in the CBA.

[loco_91]

I think you decline them, resign them on one year deals if you need to do so.  I can't imagine there will be a huge market out there for Amir Johnson and Jonas Jerebko.   Both might end up signing somewhere for less money than they'd make under current contracts. 

I don't think there is any metric that would suggest Amir was worth $12 mil last year and Jonas $8mil or whatever it was.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/amir-johnson/


Well, here's one such metric. By my eye test, Amir was our third best player last year. $12m/1yr is a bargain. Also, Jonas's contract is $5m, which is also easily worth it.

[kozlodoev]

I think you decline them, resign them on one year deals if you need to do so.  I can't imagine there will be a huge market out there for Amir Johnson and Jonas Jerebko.   Both might end up signing somewhere for less money than they'd make under current contracts. 

I don't think there is any metric that would suggest Amir was worth $12 mil last year and Jonas $8mil or whatever it was.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/amir-johnson/


Well, here's one such metric. By my eye test, Amir was our third best player last year. $12m/1yr is a bargain. Also, Jonas's contract is $5m, which is also easily worth it.

You have an interesting eye test. I thought that Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, and Turner were all better than Amir.