Should the NBA change the max extension rules

[Moranis]

With the extension talk of Irving, Draymond, and Klay all in the news recently it got me thinking about that part of the cba and I think they should change the extension rules.  Basically a player should be able to sign an extension for what that player could sign a free agent contract for.  For example Irving shouldn't be required to give up at least 80 million just to sign an extension this summer as opposed to waiting. It would also give the team far more certainty long term. The Celtics may handle this summer differently if Irving signs his 4 year max extension rather then waiting for free agency.

[saltlover]

They just changed them last year to allow for raises of up to 20 in year 1 from the prior contract.  I think it makes sense to evaluate the impacts of that change before worrying about hanging it again.

[droopdog7]

Does anyone know why the rules work the way they do?

[saltlover]

Does anyone know why the rules work the way they do?

Yes.  To prevent teams from signing a player to a below-market rate with a wink-wink deal to give an above-market extension a couple years later, enabling teams to effectively get around the salary cap.

[Moranis]

Does anyone know why the rules work the way they do?

Yes.  To prevent teams from signing a player to a below-market rate with a wink-wink deal to give an above-market extension a couple years later, enabling teams to effectively get around the salary cap.

that is easy to solve, you just limit the extension to what they could otherwise sign as.  If the team could only offer a player 20 million on the open market then that would be the most they could extend for.  That isn't the case with Irving, Klay, or Draymond though.

[saltlover]

Does anyone know why the rules work the way they do?

Yes.  To prevent teams from signing a player to a below-market rate with a wink-wink deal to give an above-market extension a couple years later, enabling teams to effectively get around the salary cap.

that is easy to solve, you just limit the extension to what they could otherwise sign as.  If the team could only offer a player 20 million on the open market then that would be the most they could extend for.  That isn't the case with Irving, Klay, or Draymond though.

I don’t quite understand your proposal.  How do you define what the player could sign in the open market as?

[Moranis]

Does anyone know why the rules work the way they do?

Yes.  To prevent teams from signing a player to a below-market rate with a wink-wink deal to give an above-market extension a couple years later, enabling teams to effectively get around the salary cap.

that is easy to solve, you just limit the extension to what they could otherwise sign as.  If the team could only offer a player 20 million on the open market then that would be the most they could extend for.  That isn't the case with Irving, Klay, or Draymond though.

I don’t quite understand your proposal.  How do you define what the player could sign in the open market as?

If said player was a free agent that season, what could his current team sign him for.  So if Baynes, for example, still had another year left, Boston wouldn't be able to sign him for more than like 6 million in an extension because that is what they would be limited to sign him for.  If Irving was a free agent this summer, Boston could sign him to the 30% max.  They should be able to sign him to the 30% max extension this summer (with it starting after his current deal of course).  It is just a silly rule that a team can't offer an extension that would equal what that same team could offer if the player didn't have a year left.

[saltlover]

Does anyone know why the rules work the way they do?

Yes.  To prevent teams from signing a player to a below-market rate with a wink-wink deal to give an above-market extension a couple years later, enabling teams to effectively get around the salary cap.

that is easy to solve, you just limit the extension to what they could otherwise sign as.  If the team could only offer a player 20 million on the open market then that would be the most they could extend for.  That isn't the case with Irving, Klay, or Draymond though.

I don’t quite understand your proposal.  How do you define what the player could sign in the open market as?

If said player was a free agent that season, what could his current team sign him for.  So if Baynes, for example, still had another year left, Boston wouldn't be able to sign him for more than like 6 million in an extension because that is what they would be limited to sign him for.  If Irving was a free agent this summer, Boston could sign him to the 30% max.  They should be able to sign him to the 30% max extension this summer (with it starting after his current deal of course).  It is just a silly rule that a team can't offer an extension that would equal what that same team could offer if the player didn't have a year left.

I think that’s exactly the rule that the NBA doesn’t want, so that you can’t sign someone to a 2-year $20 million deal and turn around and extend him to a 4-year $80 million dollar deal (which he’s be eligible for in free agency with Early Bird rights).  Or a 3-year, $30 million deal that leaves him eligible for up to the max.

[tonydelk]

With the extension talk of Irving, Draymond, and Klay all in the news recently it got me thinking about that part of the cba and I think they should change the extension rules.  Basically a player should be able to sign an extension for what that player could sign a free agent contract for.  For example Irving shouldn't be required to give up at least 80 million just to sign an extension this summer as opposed to waiting. It would also give the team far more certainty long term. The Celtics may handle this summer differently if Irving signs his 4 year max extension rather then waiting for free agency.

I absolutely agree.  They talk about not wanting super teams but they don't make it easy for the home team to resign their start players.  Giving the team that extra year to negotiate will allow more teams to keep good players.  You would think if Kyrie could sign his deal now he would consider it.  He's been injured and you get that security.  You never know what will happen the following year.  Look at IT.  If he could have done that he may still be a celtic.  Some players will absolutely turn it down but some players would take the deal now and the team knows how to proceed with their offseason a lot easier. 

[jambr380]

I understand why the CBA wants to be 'careful', but I don't understand why a player like Irving couldn't sign his max extension (or contract) now beginning in the 2019-20 season since he is already signed through next season.

All that should matter is if a player is eligible for a max (or a major increase in pay) when coming off of at least a 3 year deal when a team has his full Bird Rights. Why he can't sign that contract before the final year of his contract doesn't make much sense to me.

[Moranis]

Does anyone know why the rules work the way they do?

Yes.  To prevent teams from signing a player to a below-market rate with a wink-wink deal to give an above-market extension a couple years later, enabling teams to effectively get around the salary cap.

that is easy to solve, you just limit the extension to what they could otherwise sign as.  If the team could only offer a player 20 million on the open market then that would be the most they could extend for.  That isn't the case with Irving, Klay, or Draymond though.

I don’t quite understand your proposal.  How do you define what the player could sign in the open market as?

If said player was a free agent that season, what could his current team sign him for.  So if Baynes, for example, still had another year left, Boston wouldn't be able to sign him for more than like 6 million in an extension because that is what they would be limited to sign him for.  If Irving was a free agent this summer, Boston could sign him to the 30% max.  They should be able to sign him to the 30% max extension this summer (with it starting after his current deal of course).  It is just a silly rule that a team can't offer an extension that would equal what that same team could offer if the player didn't have a year left.

I think that’s exactly the rule that the NBA doesn’t want, so that you can’t sign someone to a 2-year $20 million deal and turn around and extend him to a 4-year $80 million dollar deal (which he’s be eligible for in free agency with Early Bird rights).  Or a 3-year, $30 million deal that leaves him eligible for up to the max.

But that doesn't make sense as the extension wouldn't kick in until he could otherwise sign the contract.  I'm not suggesting they alter in anyway the 2 year, 20 million, but if the team can sign the guy with Early Bird Rights (basically what James did in Cleveland), why should they be barred from doing that with an extension.  It is the exact contract they can offer when his contract expires.  It just doesn't make sense that you get that contract by finishing out the contract, but you have to wait until it is finished.  There is no real difference other then a lot of uncertainty for both the team and player.