what's the apron issue? But if Dwight wants Houston (hypathetically), he doesn't need to comply with the Lakers for an SnT correct? I mean the Lakers are technically at his mercy whether they get something back in return.
Refer to my earlier post (bottom of last page). Also, the apron is an arbitrarily set line that is $4M above the luxury tax line. The luxury tax line, this year, is approximately $70M. A team that has $74M+ in salaries CANNOT receive a free agent player in a SnT, or rather, they cannot receive the signed and traded player back (if accepting the player will put them over the apron, same rule applies). Note, however, that this does not mean they cannot accept ANY player back in a SnT. The Nets are WELL above the apron.
Thanks for the explanation. Let's say that the 2 players verbally agree with Houston that they will come here to play. It's just a verbal agreement. Is there a chance this "verbal deal" could fall through for Houston? Meaning Houston does all the "prepping" hinging on the verbal agreement they made with Cp3 and DH and then it just doesn't work out. is that possible?
Yes and no. Yes in that I assume plenty of these things fall through at times. If no consideration given, I doubt there is a valid contract in place. That being said, depends on what sort of 'prepwork' is being done. If we're doing a SnT, this is seen as a 'simultaneous action' essentially. You can't like do just half of it and then reneg haha. If they verbally agree and say LAL believes them and agrees to a SnT, we would do it all in one fell swoop. It isn't like we give our players to LAL first, then ask Dwight to sign w/ us if it is a SnT. It is all viewed by the league as one transaction. If we're just moving players to clear cap space to sign a player outright, after we get a verbal confirmation from them, I imagine we could get royally screwed if that player wanted to be a huge dick.
I see. So since Houston already has the cap space to sign one of DH or CP3 outright right now, the SnT with LAL is really the only thing that needs to happen. Correct?
If we waive these non-guaranteed or team option contracts: Garcia, Brooks, Delfino, Ohlbrect, Anderson, we'll have about $16.1m cap room. Howard max = 20.5 Paul max = 18.7 These players are on the chopping block T-Rob 3.5 White 1.7 T-Jones 1.5 D-Mo 1.4 Lin 8.3 Asik 8.3 Have fun.
Yes, it's possible, but only from one side and very rarely. Verbal agreements are not just saying you'll come play for a team. Verbal agreements usually contain actual contract terms like salary and player options and other things. Basically, the agents and the GM work out the details in negotiations prior to reaching a verbal commitment to terms. If a team and a player comes to a verbal agreement, then it's as good as a done deal, usually. But there is a slight chance of it falling through if the player reneges. A team will NEVER renege on a verbal agreement. Otherwise, they lose their credibility with all future free agents. Future free agents wouldn't trust their words or offers if the team is perceived to be one that reneges on agreements. Why bother wasting free agency time and visits or committing verbally to a team and taking yourself off the market if you know the team can renege at any time? So if a team makes an verbal offer and the player accepts, the team better be damn sure that they can honor their end of it with sufficient cap space or whatnot. Verbal agreements have been amended in the past when it came to actually signing time, but only with the player's consent and usually in the player's favor (such as the Knicks changing one of their agreements into a sign and trade that preserved the same terms, or Morey hiking up Lin's contract after the Knicks told the media that they would match the leaked verbal agreement terms the Rockets offered). No team would dare backtrack on a verbal agreement. Players, on the other hand, have in the past in extremely rare cases reneged on a verbal agreement and signed with a different team. The difference is that when a player reneges, he burns his bridge with that team and still has 29 other teams. He hurts his credibility and stock a bit. But since he's reneging on one team in favor of another team, it means he already has a taker. If a team ever dared renege, they would kill their credibility with EVERY future free agent and his representation. Players and their agents would avoid doing business with the team. They would consider it a waste of time, since even if they reached a big dollar verbal agreement, the team would still be expected to renege at any time. That team would be at the bottom of every free agent's list. No matter how much money they offered, the players wouldn't commit since they won't know if the team will actually carry through. So it wouldn't be worth their time or the opportunity cost of taking themselves off the market for that untrustworthy verbal promise. The only chance teams have of getting out a verbal commitment is if there's a failed physical or something. So, in answer to your question, yes verbal agreements can still fall through. But only if the player changes his mind and reneges between the verbal agreement and the actual signing, as has happened in the past. Teams will never renege unless they want to destroy their organization, no matter how bad or onerous the verbal agreement is in hindsight prior to signing (see Toronto with Landry Fields after the Lakers stole Nash). Verbal agreements are as good as done deals. Since the team won't renege, and players very extremely rarely do.
I agree with your comments about teams reneging, but are you sure about players reneging? If it is 'as good as a done deal' and contain actual contract terms, then uh...the player is on the hook for damages if they reneg. I have yet to see a player be sued for breaching the contract (as the verbal one IS effectively a contract then), even in those rare cases?
Oh and not only that, but they'd be on the hook for damages. If these deals are that detailed, then it is a contract for all intents and purposes. You can't just "reneg" all willy nilly. Well okay, you CAN but the breacher has to pay remedies.
There's the Carlos Boozer/Cavs/Jazz kerfuffle. His agent even resigned in protest of Boozer's reneging.
Sure. I'm not arguing that players reneg on verbal 'agreements'...I'm just saying these agreements cannot be that detailed to the point where it is just a contract. Once it is a promise for a promise (accepted of course), you've got a bilateral agreement, regardless of whether it is an oral or written contract. If it is just Boozer saying, "Hey you guys don't pick me up and I will re-sign" might not be enough (though technically could be). If it were a lot more detailed, why wouldn't the Cavs just sue Boozer for money, making him signing w/ Utah either prohibitively expensive, or actually get injunctive relief? I guess damages might be hard to peg down in this scenario...
We know that these verbal agreements do include things like salary size and player options, because player options was one of the sticking points in the Dragic case. All these things are hammered out before a verbal agreement is reached. They don't wait for the actual signing to hammer out terms. Players and agents weigh competing offers and terms from the teams and pick the set they like best. The actual signing is when things are finalized into writing in legalese. But the relevant terms on things like how much money, how many years, options, signing bonus, etc, are reached before a verbal commitment, while the player still can back out and choose another team's offer if he doesn't get what he wants and prefers a competing team's terms.
Oh no I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by a verbal agreement then. All of the above are just negotiations. Of course you have to hammer out details before signing (though most likely it would be written somewhere). You don't sign THEN work out details -- that is absurd and probably not even an enforceable contract. Like you said though, those are just competing offers and negotiations. There is no verbal agreement yet. That is just negotiations. You don't have a contract until you actually have an acceptance.
No. They all have guaranteed salaries that count against the cap even when they are waived. We have to trade them to get them off our books. all the answers to your questions can be found here: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm
Chris Broussard @Chris_Broussard 7m Sources: CP3 & D12 hope to team up next season. Have been texting back & forth to figure it out. Story up soon on http://espn.com Expand
