Seems you don't understand it There are no stipulations for this base contract rule to change as part of the CBA. And it's an overriding rule that cant be changed, since it is to do with rookie scale contracts. End of story! I know it sux, but that's life - hopefully we can lock Hamilton up for a few years starting at $2.1m, and with team options (or non-guaranteed if cut by certain date each year or something). The only bad thing about it is that a team with cap space can offer him $2.2m per and we can't match, however I think it's unlikely a bench guy gets offered that kind of contract.
So says someone who comes to a basketball board and decided to spend time posting an insult over twitter numbers. Good for you. But I am pretty sure people come here to read and talk about basketball topics. If you have something to say about Jordan Hamilton or the CBA, say it. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the argument belongs in a different forum.
Hey, guys. Give Carl a break. He's right about this. Yes, the Jordan Hill situation with the Lakers is exactly what this situation is. For those who think this situation isn't just, I am inclined to agree. It would be nice if a team that traded for such a player (and did not decline the option themselves) should at least be able to re-sign that player with the MLE. But them's the rules.
Interesting. If you made the same thread about Garcia after last year I would have believed you too assuming it was after the playoffs and same situation.
Yeah I understand that CBA is very strict on this matter but what I meant with "understanding" is the motive behind this rule in the first place. If it's there to prevent teams getting out of the rookie scale contract earlier I don't know why the team trading for the contract is the one getting screwed over. IMO it would be logical (and fair) to only prevent the original team from circumventing that rule as the player will be an unrestricted FA anyway after the original team declines the option. You are creating some kind of a loop hole anyway and to me that would be the most obvious way to handle these situations. Yeah, the new CBA has probably hit the middle-of-the-pack free agents the hardest. While a few years ago it would be a given that some teams would offer him a bigger contract than the $2.2M, nowadays it's not nearly as certain.
If, in this case, Hamilton were to resign with the Rox for 1-year does the player retain Bird/early-Bird/time as he signs contract for 4th season? Thanks (in advance) for the knowledge.
Could see Hamilton signing for a shorter contract (maybe with player option / opt out clause) with the assurance of a bigger deal immediately after.
If Hamilton plays well, the best offer HOU can likely make is a 2 yr deal starting at $2.1M with the 2nd yr as a player option. After the first year, HOU is free from the salary restriction and is allowed to use the Bird Right to sign him to a full value deal. I don't know what an assurance for future $ is worth anything. These under the table deals are pretty risky, just ask Kevin McHale and Joe Smith. Still, another team can beat that offer with either a longer contract at a higher salary or a similarly structured deal starting at substantially more. Even under the new CBA, teams still frequently throw $3M or $4M or more per year on what they view as decent backup players. Some examples: Alonzo Gee, Matt Barnes, Earl Clark, Gerald Green, Mike Dunleavy, Corey Brewer, Chase Budinger. So, if Hamilton manages to keep his job as, say, a 20-25 mpg bench wing player for a 50+ win team! and especially if he has some good playoff games, I imagine he'd get some nice financial offers (and perhaps an potential starter job).
Then Morey will find another guy just like him, then when he hits FA we'll have this topic again of whether or not Morey will overpay for guys he can routinely find for cheap.
Damn, I thought we could finally get rid of Parsons with Hamilton on board. Parsons, Lin and Asik should all have been traded at the deadline. Morey is really stuffing up.
will Hamilton really have better contracts offers than what we will be willing to give him ? he was buried on the bench in Denver, and there was not a lot of demand for him otherwise Nuggets would have take something else than brooks imo. but hey it's been 3 games, 1 blowout, 1 w/o Parsons, so his stats r kind of inflated, i like how he played so far but i dont think it's sustainable (i hope i'm wrong)
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ggNymSJ52Fw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So the Rockets can't do a poison pill contract offer (though less dramatic) like they did with Lin and Asik? You say they are limited to a less-than-mediocre two year offer limit? If so.... UGH.
My take on his contract. He has a couple of options this summer if he continues to prove his worth in the league - he could cash in now, and just get payed the most amount of possibility which most likely is most likely going to be with a bad team, this strategy was used by Gary Neal leaving a successful spurs franchise getting more than what he would if he stayed and added playing time, however say if Neal didn't get traded and he just played for a bad team that could of been his last contract over the vet min -'he could sign here, a successful team, a team which gives him exposure and a chance to win, it's unlikely winning is his no.1 priority coming off a rookie contract however playing for a strong contender getting a reputation as a glue guy could make him more money on his 3rd contract compared to the first option. - or I guess morey could wave his magic wand and convince him to sign for 1 year and convincing him we are getting a 3rd star as a coy to sign him. Who knows I guess
