I am not a 'capologist' nor am I a close follower of such things, but I do pride myself on being a slightly more educated fan than normal when it comes to the Rockets. So my question to anyone out there is this. What exactly does "Poison Pill" mean when it comes to the NBA? As I understand it currently, it means backloading a contract with something in the last year or two that will be very distasteful for teams over the cap or running up against the luxury tax. My question is, why should this matter for the immediate future? If you have a total sum of money, say $25 to offer a guy for three years, why do you want it at the back rather than evenly distributed so as to make the barrier higher for the team to accommodate that contract on their payroll this VERY NEXT year? As I remember, there was a trend in the early 2000's of teams FRONTloading a contract so that other teams would be dissuaded from matching those deals due to the immediate cap hit. Kirk Hinrich was a notable example. Why the poison pill now? What's changed? And, if we do sign a restricted FA to a "Poison Pill" contract, stealing him away from his old team, doesn't that mean that we instead are the ones poisoning ourselves? I don't like the sound of this one bit.
Backloaded so the former team has a hard time matching. If the Bulls match the Asik deal, the last year of the deal will hit the cap for close to 15M. The team offering the deal, it's averaged out for our cap, which is 8M per
from what ive read when we sign the restricted player to the offer sheet his cap hit is equal to the average yearly salary... but if the team matches it the cap hit equals the actual yearly salaries.. thus a poison pill for the team matching..
My understanding is the contract is paid out evenly if the team utilizing the poison pill gets him, so we wouldn't have that issue. I could be wrong, but if Lin was offered $30 mil over 4 years, for Houston it would be $7.5 mil per year. Again, I could be wrong, but that is why you use it.
You are close, but not quite. In terms of actual pay, the Rockets would still pay 5, 5, 10, 10. However, for salary cap purposes, the payout is counted as 7.5 per year, meaning that Lin's salary wouldn't be too much of a cap killer in years 3 and 4. However, should the Knicks match, the accounting is different. Lin's contract cap would be listed as 5, 5, 10, 10. The 10 mil in year 3 is significant because the new luxury tax rules of the new CBA kicks in, and they are absolutely devastating for tax payers. And the Knicks will most certainly be a luxury tax payer, with so much money already tied to Anthony, Stoudemire, and Chandler.
Chicago is NOT going to match Asik and make room for his $15m in 2 years. It's a brilliant move by Morey, over-aggressive even.
So it hits the Offering team harder at the outset but the Controlling team more at the back-end? Interesting. The Controlling team can run the risk for a couple of years and hope the back-end jump is justifiable and affordable... or nearly face ruination.
Wouldn't front-loaded contracts be more effective? If the Bulls match Asik, his cap hit is only around 5 million each of the first 2 years. That's not bad. But it also gives them 2 years to either: a) Adjust their payroll so when the third year comes around that contract wouldn't have such a huge hit on the salary cap. b) Trade him as a 15 million expiring contract. (Also a solid Center. He'd be a movable piece.) I really don't see what's so "poison" about the poison pill strategy.
i am not expert either. i give you what i believe is correct. you might need to verify it before taking it. due to lin's free agent type, the first two years of contract should not be over 5 and 5.2 mil. after first 2 year, you can have whatever you want. the rule is to help the current team to keep their own FAs so you have to backload the offer sheet to prevent the current team from match.
If we ultimately end up with whatever player using the "poison pill" like Asik, is his contract, even though it's hitting our caps at an average throughout the years, a $15m expiring? Then, that would make sense.
It is due to a change in the new CBA regarding the Gilbert Arenas provision. In the past teams were limited to being able to offer these non first round picks a fairly low amount and it made it easy for the players current team to match. The new CBA keeps the same restrictions on years one and two of the offer but not on the final two years.additionally the new rules allow the offering team to count the deal more favorably than the players current team can. The combination for these rules can make it painful for teams over the tax threshold to match. If its a star them you match but for lesser players its a tough choice.
Showing ignorance about how the NBA works. "Poison pill" makes no difference in the case of top players-- they are worth more than the max salary allowed so they are an automatic match for their own teams. They only make sense when applied to players who are not entirely proven and you'd be somewhat nervous to pay.
It only works for non first round picks without bird rights so you only have a small number of players that it applies to. Under the right conditions it would work for any applicable player. Say you had a team that was in the perenially over the cap class. They are paying tax at a 3-1 rate I believe. Do they match a deal that pays a player $15m in year three? That would cost them $60m in actual dollars if they are still over the tax threshold by year 3. That's enough money that it would be an issue for any team.
In the nfl, the vikes poison pilled seattle for hutchinson because he was the best guard in football. Seattle then did the same for nate burleson who was a 3rd maybe 2nd wr on a decent team. He was even top 30 at his position. My point is, if the bulls really want to keep him they could with no problems. They could match and trade him later. We just saw joe johnson get traded, so don't give me that bs on how hard it will be to trade him. They probably let him walk and just sign a guy like robin lopez or trade for dalembert or sign camby.
