Monday, August 1, 2005 Ten nuggets in the new CBA By Marc Stein ESPN.com EDIT: Can't believe I forgot the link. Thanks, micah. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=2121672 Folks around the league have spent the weekend reviewing the new labor deal and its 450-plus pages of complicated math and lawyerly language. As we brace for the lifting of the moratorium on signings and trades Tuesday, what follows here is the first bundle of fine-print CBA details to blip onto the Stein Line radar. There will be more nuggets to share once the complete labor document starts to circulate, but here are 10 to pique the interest of amateur capologists everywhere: 1. Call this one the Gary Payton Rule: Players who are traded and then waived by their new team cannot sign back with the team that traded them for 30 days (20 days in the offseason). Payton, you'll recall, was dealt from Boston to Atlanta in the Antoine Walker trade-deadline swap in February, only to rejoin the Celtics three days later. Had this rule been in place last season, Payton still would have been eligible for the playoffs after Atlanta released him March 1, but he would have been forced to wait until March 31 to re-sign with Boston. 2. A trick that attracted even more attention last season -- after Alonzo Mourning and Jim Jackson refused to report to Toronto and New Orleans to eventually force their way to title contenders -- will be personally addressed by the commissioner from now on. The new rules empower David Stern to fine or suspend such players, and word is he plans to swing the hammer hard in hopes of dissuading future Zos from holding out after trades.1 Mourning was able to sign with Miami after the Raptors, who had acquired the veteran center from New Jersey in the Vince Carter trade, bought him out for an estimated $11 million. Had Stern possessed this option last season, Zo likely would have been forced to miss a handful of games through suspension upon joining the Heat. 3. Maximum salaries for next season are $12 million for players with zero-to-six years of service time (such as Michael Redd and Joe Johnson), $14.4 million for players with seven-to-nine years of service time (Ray Allen) and $16.8 million for players with 10 or more years of service time. So Redd's six-year deal to stay put in Milwaukee, based on 10.5 percent annual raises, is worth $90.9 million. Johnson's forthcoming contract in a Phoenix Suns' sign-and-trade with the Atlanta Hawks, based on 8 percent raises because the Hawks set the terms, is worth $69.6 million. And Allen's five-year deal to stay in Seattle, based on 10.5 percent raises, is worth $87.1 million. 4. Despite suggestions to the contrary, the league office will continue to institute a moratorium on signings and trades at the start of every July throughout the next six seasons of labor peace. By year five, though, the moratorium is expected to last no longer than a week. 5. Players with two years or less of big-league service can be sent down to the NBA Development League a maximum of three times per season. 6. Rookie contracts indeed provide only a two-year guarantee for first-round picks, with teams able to invoke two subsequent one-year options if they choose. Rookies, though, do not become unrestricted free agents after four seasons as some expected. If a rookie plays out the original two-year deal and the two option seasons, he would still be a restricted free agent after the fourth year. 7. Offer sheets to restricted free agents like Chicago's Eddy Curry, which formerly had to be at least three seasons long, can now be as short as two years. 8. The so-called Million Dollar Exception is now known as the Bi-Annual Exception, because teams above the cap can use it only every other season.2 It's now worth $1.672 million for the 2005-06 season and will go up slightly every year. Capped-out teams can still use the mid-level exception (worth an even $5 million in '05-06) every season. 9. NBA teams can now pay $500,000 when buying out a player from his overseas contract, up from $350,000. 10. Along with an increase to four random drug tests per season for all veterans, ramped-up punishments for steroid violations call for a 10-game suspension for the first offense, 25 games for strike two, one full season for strike three and then a lifetime ban for the fourth offense. NEXT UP: SOME "AMNESTY CLAUSE" FINE PRINT Allan Houston and Michael Finley haven't said much about their futures since their names surfaced as the most likely former All-Stars to be waived via the new "amnesty clause", the onetime opportunity between Tuesday and Aug. 15 for teams to release a player without paying luxury tax on the rest of his contract. The relative silence makes it tough to forecast exactly what they'll be looking for as free agents -- besides the chance to join a championship contender -- after their expected releases. Which makes it tougher still to gauge how the "spread provision" in both players' contracts will affect their choices. Houston and Finley, according to NBA front-office sources, both possess considerable spread provisions in their contracts that would result in drawn-out payment schedules from the Knicks and Mavericks after being let go. In Finley's case, specifically, sources say the $51-plus million he's owed by Dallas over the next three seasons would be paid in annual increments of less than $5 million if he's waived by the Aug. 15 amnesty deadline. Houston's contract apparently includes a similar spread provision.3 Translation? Signing with a new team for a minimum contract in the sub-$2 million area, as Phoenix hopes to do with Finley, might not be so comfortable for either player. The fact that Finley wouldn't be able to collect his $51-plus million from the Mavs as originally scheduled over the next three seasons gives hope to a team like the Denver Nuggets, who are prepared to offer Finley their full $5 million mid-level exception. Another factor is the "set-off provision" that was restored to the amnesty clause in the final stages of collective bargaining. The set-off provision returns a percentage of what a player makes from his new team to the team paying off his terminated contract. In the new deal, the union fought to specifically word the amnesty clause to say that the set-off provision doesn't apply. That would have enabled players such as Houston and Finley to double-dip by collecting the full balance of their old contracts in addition to the payments from their new deals. But the league wouldn't give in, insisting that a chunk of an amnesty player's new earnings go back to the original team.4 This means that money probably will matter to amnesty players who possess a long-term payout provision in their contract. The assumption that Finley can earn up to $21 million next season -- a full $16 million from the Mavs and $5 million from a team like Denver offering the full mid-level -- is a fallacy. To go back to the Suns, who drafted him in 1995, Finley might be looking at a pay cut of Karl Malone-to-the-Lakers proportions, even though he would eventually receive every cent Dallas owes him. LINE ITEMS ... Finley is the obvious candidate to address the shooting void in Phoenix created by Johnson's imminent departure, but the Suns figure to rekindle their interest in Payton as well. Reason being: Johnson not only backed up Steve Nash but enabled Nash to play off the ball on occasion to take advantage of his deft shooting touch. Payton, like Johnson, could spell Nash or play alongside him, too, but the Suns don't have roster room for both Payton and Finley. ... It's not yet clear if Doug Christie will be released by the Orlando Magic via the amnesty clause or whether he'll be able to negotiate a buyout of the one year (at $8.2 million) left on his contract. What is clear, according to NBA front-office sources, is that the Christies (mandatory reference to wife Jackie) plan and hope to be in Dallas next season if Doug can extricate himself from the Magic. It remains to be seen how much Christie can still contribute after ongoing foot problems, but he's remembered in Big D for his dogged defense on Nash in more than one Sacramento-Dallas series. ... The Mavericks, meanwhile, say they have no interest in Cavaliers forward Drew Gooden, no matter how many times Gooden is mentioned as an alleged Dallas trade target. ... Needing a big man to balance a roster full of players 6-8 and under, and unsure (like the Bulls) about making a rich offer to Curry because of the Chicago center's recent heart ailment, Atlanta is closing in on Milwaukee restricted free agent Zaza Pachulia with what sources say is a four-year offer. ... Sacramento's Darius Songaila is another restricted free agent, but Washington remains hopeful of landing the Lithuanian banger via sign-and-trade, with guard Steve Blake potentially heading to the Kings. ... Flip Saunders' guaranteed base to coach the Detroit Pistons is an even $20 million over four seasons, but incentives -- if he hits them all -- could take the contract past the $26 million mark. ... The memo Commissioner Stern promised during the NBA Finals that will require teams and their personnel people to stay out of high school gyms is said to be forthcoming, but the memo isn't out yet because such a directive wouldn't be part of the collective-bargaining agreement. 1 I like this rule. It really sucks that players like Mourning and Jackson can screw over the team they get traded to. I mean, you still get paid. Deal with it. I think this rule should also apply to draft picks like our very own Francis who refuse to play for the team that drafted them. As much as I liked Francis, I never rationalized to myself that it was okay just because the Rockets benefited. 2 Is this the same as the LLE that we keep referring to? If so, using it this year means we'd have one less exception to use next year. 3 Wow, this really does kind of screw over guys like Houston and Finley. I won't blame them for signing for the highest bidder. 4 This too I feel is unnecessary. Those teams are already getting a break saving LT dollars and getting to pay less by paying later. They don't deserve the set-off provision on top of that.
I am glad stern is going to hammer down on all players trying to force a trade or who fail to report. It would have gotten out of control. Let Mcgrady and Jim Jackson be the last of 'em. Fine 'em until they shut up.
That's just not fair to Finley and Houston. It backs them into a corner. If they have built their life on the assumption of the contract, then they just got hammered up the arse. I don't like it. Understandable, but Houston and Finley could not have been prepared for that beating. What the nba should have done is incrementally harden the policy over three years to give players a chance to plan.
Come on, McGrady is totally different a case from Jim Jackson/Zo. Those two didn't report to the team, but McGrady forced the trade because he said he would opt out of his contract, which is legal in any aspects.
aside from the fact they've been hammering their respective teams up the ass by not being close to worth their contracts, it appears the spread provision was in their contracts. since they signed those contracts, presumably they agreed to it and knew that it was a possibility and could have been prepared all along. they took all that money with conditions on it, and apparently this was one of those conditions. also, it's not as if they don't get the money, they just get less right now (which does decrease the NPV of the contract, but not how much they get). i also like that the old clubs get part of the new contract (even if it benefits cuban). it's ridiculous to get waived for being massively overpaid and then go get another contract. i don't fault them for wanting another big contract on top of the old one, but i would be completely in favor of them not being allowed to make more than they are currently making (i.e. all of their new contract is subtracted from how much their current team pays them). if anything, it's not fair to all the other players in the league who don't get waived and get to have 2 contracts paying them.
Interesting stuff. Yes #2 is the same as the LLE. The LLE worked the same way- if you used it one year you could not the next. I don't feel sorry for some guy making mega millions and now getting it on a more protracted payment plan (Finley & Houston). There are companies out there that will turn those payments into instant cash! Any bank would probably do it as well. Besides, they signed the contract knowing it had those provisions. I think Finley is definitely going to Denver now. They are holding their MLE for him. Although I don't like the idea of players double dipping and getting two contracts, I like even less that the rich teams, Dallas & New York, get to reduce their payments on these ridiculous contracts they offered in the first place.
I somehow missed that the spread provisions were embedded in their contracts (and not the amnesty clause). That actually changes everything to me. In that case, I don't really have a problem with the set-off provision. Finley and Houston are still going to get all they were entitled to get.
Actually, I think if it wasn't for the spread provisions in Houston's and Finley's contracts, it wouldn't have been fair to other players that Houston and Finley can't double-dip. If they got their old salary in the regular fashion, they could sign for cheap, undermining the value of other players on the market, which would suck. Then again, Finley might just remove another MLE from the market that someone else would have gotten. So, it pretty much sucks both ways. I hate the amnesty.
So, instead of Finley collecting his $50 million from Dallas in 3 years, he collects it in 10? $5M x 10 payments is that the right way of thinking here?
I would think the league would have to include some inflation protection or interest or the players wouldn't have gone for it. The exact same amount over 10 years is a lot different than over a couple years. Unless of course the 2nd line speaks to this. Are the contracts normally written like this (payment can be spread for 10 years) if the players are cut or retire. There is a counter here. It sounds like they don't fully double dip. It sounds like a portion of their new contract goes to the old team. So they player might not fight as hard for the biggest contract knowing he won't get all of it AND the team that cut him burden gets reduced. I see the fact it is only a partial double dip with the original waving team getting a slice of it back about cancelling out the effect of the forced 5 mil max distributed payments. I don't see a guy like Finley just going for the max contract (Denver) if he really wants to go some where else. If he like Denver close enough to other alternatives it will make the difference, but not if it is a distant 2nd or 3rd choice.
