My problem is that every time I think I am starting to understand the CBA then a loop hole pops up or someone explains it in a way that I have not considered. You, Alliot, Nike and HP when he was still around have been the most consistantly accurate when talking about the CBA so I respect you as a credible source. Certainly Boozer could have signed a 1 year deal and then another 1 year deal with a team option but I never heard anything about that. That having been said, USA Today reports Boozers origanal contract as a 2 year deal. We all know that there was a team option involved for the 04-05 season. http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?lname=B&player=39 I know different sources have been wrong before I just thought that the question was worth asking.
crash - I'm always flattered to be mentioned with aelliott, NIKE & HP. And there are times when CBA issues get so complex they require a "double team." So if both Coon and USA Today are correct (they did get Gadzuric right), then any time a team option is possible it is not considered part of the max length at the time the contract is signed. IOW, it is considered a 2 year contract at the time of the signing and the TOpt is ignored. That is the only way I can justify them both. Unless we can find a situation where this applies to players options as well, I don't see how this impacts Spanoulis. IOW, he is only guaranteed yr 3 if the Rox pick up the option. If they pick up the option, it means he's played well. If he's played well, he'd be better of using Early Bird or MLE than the 3rd year of a minimum based contract. It appears to me that if a player improves, he's better off not having a TOpt in year 3 since the team and not the player clearly are the beneficiaries. Hopefully, we agree on this much.
With out question. If I am a player I never want a team option if I can avoid it. If I am a team I always want it.
Yep, the British measure distances in miles, weight in stones, and gas in litres. That is one messed up place. DD
http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/The_First_Flip_Murray-90078-51.html I was looking for old info on Spanoulis when I came upon this thread. I'm still interested in the three-year contract idea for second-rounders. This article supports the idea that Flip Murray did get something like that. If anyone can confirm what is and is not allowable under the existing CBA, I'd certainly like to know.
Yeah you can sign second-rounders to 3 year contracts. You can also sign them to 2 year deals with a 3rd year option. That will work out for you unless the player alludes that he'll sign for below market value if you don't pick up his option, only to have him stab you in the back.
It seems Milwaukee was a forerunner in this. They also did it with Dan Gadzuric (who's a free agent this year). The actual CBA text regarding the minimum salary is very explicit on the 2 year limit, so it's definitely not a misinterpretation. Really odd. I searched the CBA for anything pertaining to 2nd round picks but not there. Even though the deals weren't reported as option. This site lists them both as having options taken. So, guaranteed three years is not possible, but a 3rd year option (either player or team) is possible under current CBA rules.
thanks for the assessment, guys. I hope we can convince Vassilis to take a third-year team option as well as provide us with a nickname himself (like Boki did).
With what we have seen with guys like Mobley, Boozer, Arenas, Rashard Lewis...players taken in the 2nd round and flourishing with some of them leaving their original team, why wouldnt a team "automatically" do a 3 year deal with a TEAM OPTION for the 3rd year? That way the team protects itself if the player blows up and becomes great and if he stinks it up they decline the 3rd year.
Second rounders are just happy to get a two year deal and get soem playing time to hopefully get another after that. It shouldn't be a problem to get a team option on the third year.
If you have a team option on the 3rd year, that means you have to guarantee the second year. I think most teams have preferred to guarantee the 1st year and have a team option on the second year. It is much more likely that the second rounder will suck and you'll want to be rid of him than that he'll be great and you want to get his bird rights before he's an FA.
JV, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The thing is, the only real risk to the team for doing a guaranteed second-year is filling the roster space (contract's peanuts). I'm kind of risk-averse, so to me, I'd much rather give my second-rounders two guaranteed years if they had any inkling of the p-word. Frankly, if you don't think they might be worthy of a roster spot in a year, why draft them? I'd rather trade my second-round pick than use it on someone I thought had zero chance of sticking around after a year.
I think Zizanio means "weed" Ñ HIGHLY unlikely in a Mo Taylor sort of way. Maybe because he's tall, I dunno. I'll ask my wife when I get home Ñ she should know the nuance of the name.
Well, if the team didn't care about the money, they could guarantee 2 years with a 3rd at TO, and just cut the guy after the first year to free the roster spot if he didn't pan out. That seems to cover all the bases, but of course it's not my money.
oh yeah. In that case, I don't see why more two-years deals with team options aren't given out. I guess most GMs usually aren't too excited about their second-rounders. Makes sense.
I'm sure at this point, it's standard procedure. That wasn't the case when Gilbert Arenas signed his deal, but starting with the year Boozer was drafted until now, I'm sure all GMs are protecting themselves by giving them the option to lock a 2nd rounder for a crucial third year.
