With everyone wanting to trade Francis, could someone please clarify what his BYC status entails. I don't have enough understanding of the salary cap to decypher this.... http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm 72. What is "Base Year Compensation?" How does base year compensation affect trades? Why does it exist? Base year compensation (BYC) prevents another salary cap loophole. Without BYC, a team over the salary cap that wants to trade a player, but can't because of the assigned player exception (which says teams can receive no more than 115% of the salary they trade away), could just sign the player to a new contract that fits within the desired range, then do the trade. BYC says "if you re-sign a player and give him a big raise, then for a period of time his trade value will be lower than his actual salary." BYC defines the salary that's used to compare players for compliance under the assigned player exception (see question number 67 for more information about the assigned player exception). Usually, the salary used for comparison is the player's actual salary. But under either of the following circumstances, a different salary is used when comparing salaries for trading purposes: The team is over the salary cap, used theLarry Bird or Early Bird exception to re-sign the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20%. The team is over the salary cap, it extended the rookie scale contract of the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20%. If either of the above apply, then the player is considered a base year player. A player remains a base year player for two years (one year if the contract is signed on or after July 1, 2001). When trading a base year player, the salary used for comparison is defined as follows: Contract signed First year BYC Second year BYC Before July 1, 2001 Previous year's salary or 50% of first-year salary in new contract* 120% of the salary in the last year of the previous contract or 75% of the second-year salary in new contract* July 1, 2001 or later Previous year's salary or 50% of first-year salary in new contract* N/A *Whichever is greater Here is an example of a BYC calculation: A player earned $2 million in 99-00, after which he became a free agent. Prior to the start of the 00-01 season, he signs a new contract (re-signing with his previous team, which is over the salary cap) starting at $9 million. This player qualifies for BYC, so his trade value is the greater of his previous salary ($2 million) or 50% of his new salary ($4.5 million), or $4.5 million. So this player, who actually earns $9 million, is worth $4.5 million for trading purposes. When comparing salaries for trade, teams use their own player's BYC value and the other player's full salary, even if the other player is also BYC. Here is a simple example -- two $5 million players, both of whom are re-signed (by teams over the cap) for $10 million. Both players become base year players whose base year amount is $5 million (50% of the new salary). If the teams want to trade these players for each other they compare their player's base year amount to the other player's full salary. So each team can take back a maximum of 115% plus $100,000 of their player's $5 million base year amount, or $5.85 million. They compare $5.85 million to the other player's full $10 million. $10 million is way too high, so this trade can't be done, even though the players' actual salaries match exactly. If one of the teams in the above example was below the cap, the trade still couldn't be done. For the team under the cap, their player would NOT be BYC, so they would be comparing $10 million to $10 million. But since the other team is over the cap, their player is BYC, and they'd still be comparing $5.85 million to $10 million, which prevents the trade from working. (See question number 74 for more information about trading BYC players.) For Larry Bird or Early Bird players, the player's BYC begins on the date he signs his contract. For extended rookie scale contracts, the player's BYC begins on the July 1 preceding the first season of the extension. For example, if an extension of a rookie scale contract is signed on 10/30/99, his BYC begins on 7/1/00, because the first season of the extension is 00-01. If a team tries to trade an extended rookie between the date his extension is signed and the date it takes effect, his "trade value" for the receiving team is the average of the salaries in the last year of the scale contract and each year of the extension. This is called the "poison pill provision." A player's BYC goes away if the team falls below the salary cap, the player signs with a different team, or the player is traded. There was an interesting twist to base year compensation caused by the 1998 lockout. Since the start of the 98-99 season was delayed, contracts signed prior to the 98-99 season were signed in February 1999. The duration of BYC is specified in calendar years and not seasons, so for contracts signed in February 1999, the BYC amount changed in February 2000, which is in the middle of the 99-00 season. It then expired in February 2001, which was in the middle of the 00-01 season. So for these players, in addition to the mid-season change, BYC lasted into the third season of their contracts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73. How does a base year player's salary count against the team's salary cap? His actual salary is included in the team salary. BYC is used only when comparing salaries for trades. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74. Whenever I read about prospective trades involving base year players, they always say a third team must get involved. Why? Can't a base year player be traded in a two-team trade? There's no specific rule that prohibits trading base year players in a two-team deal. But the way the numbers work, it's not always possible unless one of the teams dumps additional salary onto a third team. As an example, let's say Player A plays for Washington. He earned $3 million last season and re-signed as a free agent for $10 million. That makes him a base year player whose BYC value is $5 million (see question number 72 ). Player B plays for Seattle and also earns $10 million, but is not a base year player. Both Seattle and Washington are over the salary cap. Now suppose Seattle and Washington want to trade Player A and Player B for each other. Seattle can take back 115% plus $100,000 of Player B's $10 million salary, or $11.6 million. Player A's $10 million salary easily fits within that limit. But Washington can only take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of Player A's $5 million BYC value, or $5.85 million. Player B's $10 million salary is too high by $4.15 million. This means, if the two teams want to complete this trade, that Washington must rid themselves of an additional $3.61 million in salary (I'll show why this is the correct amount a little later). Let's say that Player C plays for Washington, is not a base year player, and earns exactly $3.61 million. What happens if they want to trade Player A plus Player C for Player B? Player A plus Player C total $13.61 million, which is greater than Seattle's $11.6 million maximum. So Washington can't give the additional $3.61 million to Seattle. This is where a third team must get involved. This team must be far enough under the cap, or has a trade exception (see question number 68 ) to absorb the additional $3.61 million in salary. Let's say Chicago (a team way under the salary cap) gets involved. Here is an example three-team trade: Washington sends Seattle Player A Seattle sends Washington Player B Washington sends Chicago Player C Chicago sends Washington a future second round draft pick Here's how the numbers work: Washington trades $5 million BYC plus $3.61 million salary, or $8.61 million. They can receive 115% plus $100,000 of $8.61 million, or exactly $10 million, in return (this is why $3.61 million was correct above). Washington receives Player B's $10 million salary, along with a draft pick that has zero trade value (see question number 70 ) for a total of $10 million. The numbers exactly match. Seattle trades $10 million in salary, and recives $10 million in salary, so they're fine. Chicago trades $0 and receives $3.61 million, but since they're more than $3.61 million under the salary cap, they can absorb the increase. So the numbers work for all teams involved. However, not all trades involving base year players require a third team. Let's say Player D plays for Washington. He earned $8 million last season and re-signed as a free agent for $10 million, so his BYC amount is $8 million (see question number 72 ). Washington can take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of $8 million in trade, or $9.3 million. Player E plays for Seattle, is not a base year player, and earns $9 million. So Seattle can take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of $9 million, or $10.45 million. Player D and Player E can be traded for each other directly, even though Player D is a base year player. Player E's $9 million salary is less than Washington's $9.3 million maximum, and Player D's $10 million salary is less than Seattle's $10.45 million maximum. The teams have even more flexibility if one or both have a trade exception (see question number 68 ) or disabled player exception (see question number 17 ). So a trade involving a base year player doesn't necessarily require a third team. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In plain English.... If a team re-signs or extends a player to a contract larger than 120% of the last season of their previous contract, that player plays one season as a BYC player (used to be 2, now it's 1). This is true for the following circumstances: "The team is over the salary cap, used the Larry Bird or Early Bird exception to re-sign the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20%." The Rockets were over the cap, and Francis's Rookie contract was maxed (Full Bird Rights)...so BYC. Therefore, in a trade for Francis, Francis's outgoing value is 1/2 of his actual current salary. In round numbers... contract = $10m BYC value = $5m IOW, under most circumstances, Francis can not be traded to an over the cap team because they are receiving $10m and must get rid of $10m +/- 15% to make room for Francis. And the Rockets (because they are over the cap) can not take in $10m while shipping out $5m (the BYC value). There are 2 ways around this: 1) Have the trade partner send a $5m contract to a third party team willing to take on salary for some future picks... or 2) Use a portion of the ~$7m trade exception acquired in the Rice/Amaechi trade. NOTE: The TE can only be used for the BYC value only NOT the assiged player exeption value (+/- 115% or ~ $5.85m). It is not possible to use BOTH exceptions - the TE and the APE - to aquire one player. Hopefully, that's a little easier to understand.
It is this part I am less sure of what it means. Could we trade for a 11 million guy for SF and the exception, or like only two 6 million dollar guys (1 with the TE and one with SF BYC salary, or what?
I meant that the extension (5 years onward) of Francis's Rookie contract was maxed, not the Rookie contract itself...the rookie amounts are pre-determined amounts in the CBA. Sorry for the confusion.
Desert Scar - It's a little tricky but bear in mind that there are two exceptions available for this trade - the TE and the +/- 115% APE - and they can not both be used (combined) to acquire a single player. Given a BYC value of $5m, the TE can be used for a single player equal to or less than $12m ($5m BYC value + $7m TE). What can not be done is to use Francis's APE value of $5.85m ($5m BYC * 115%) and combine it with the TE to obtain a single player worth $12.85m. Let me know if you follow this so far because it gets trickier if we start adding additional players. Just keep reminding yourself...APE and TE both available but can not be combined.
Here's a helpful hypothetical between Seattle and Houston... Part 1) Francis at BYC $5m + $2m of TE for Rashard Lewis @ $7m Part 2) Cuttino Mobely for Jerome James (+/- 115% APE) Part 3) Rockets future picks for + $1.4m of TE for Luke Ridour Observe that the TE and the APE were used, but never combined!
While everything said here is technically correct ... it is also very confusing .... Basically, a) When teams over the cap want to trade, they use the Assigned Player Exception. You can trade player(s) with another team if the salary is within 115% of the other + 100K. b) In other trades, the salary needs to be within 100K. If we would ignore the 115% and the 100K (which are not huge amounts anyhow), it will be pretty easy to understand. 1) The original golden rule simply says you can only trade players (1 for 1, or 1 for many, or many or many) if the salary are the same. Next come the exceptions but they are not really that hard. 2) Teams can make non-simulataneous trades (trades happen at a different time) That team is given a Traded Player exception to be used later on. i.e. The Rockets has ~7mil exception for trading Rice. 3) Base year players like Steve Francis. The salary used for comparison is 50% of the real salary, or the previous year salary. This rule was put in to prevent such thing as the Rockets giving Mooch a maximum contract (~10, 11 mil) and then trade him for a maximum contract player. (By doing so, they would have gone around the golden rule 1). 4) There are other exceptions but keep within the spririt of rule 1 will make them easy to understand. To answer the question if we can trade Steve, yes we can. He earns $10 mil in his 1st yr of this new contract so we can only use $5 mil in trade + the $7 mil trade exception, we can trade him for player(s) up to $12 mil in salary. (We don't have to use all of the $7 mil).
Really? Which part? .... Don't say all of it because all of it explains basically everything there is to know.
First IMO, you are basically using the "legalese" already imbedded in Coon. Further, the thread starters' original question was about defining BYC and how that impacts a trade of Francis. Your explain starts with the assigned player exception and works backwards to Francis and BYC. I guess in some respects you are intending to "piggy back" on what I had written(?). Effective communications is an elusive (but worthwhile) goal. Please feel free to critique me as well.
Dude! I was just looking at J.James' contract. If we pulled something like that out of the hat, we could then move Cato for other pieces. One of the sport pages was speculating today what Seattle is going to do. They were linking a Flip Murry/J. James package to power forwards - Atlanta for SAR, Indy for Harrington, or Wash for Kwame. I would think they would see landing SF as something of a coup. I still think Ray Allen's superior brains would be better with Yao, though. Rashard is a pretty good fit too, but we'd need a brainy player to make the ball move correctly.
pasox2 - I was trying to be somewhat realistic, but my real emphasis was a quick demo of the Trade Exception and the assigned player exception (it took less than 2 minutes). The reason I never touched Ray Allen in all of this is that his contract of $13.5m exceeds the $12m clip level for Francis and the TE. But I agree, Jerome James at $4.6m is a steal.
Crystal, thanks. Only losing the APE means means the 7 million TE does provide a lot of flexibility. I don't think there are many players whose contract are over 12 mil that I would consider trading Francis for anyway. Up to 12 million gets you the best of the youngish players with max contracts (J. Oneal, Brand, Pierce) except for T-Mac and Kobe as far as I can tell. One more question, could T-Mac & Lue be traded for Mobley, Francis and whatever needed from the trade exemption to match the salaries, hypothetically.
DS - An astute observation on your part. All of the Rookie Scale contracts created by the current CBA are similar to Steve's in value. More veteran players (like Kidd, SAR, Ray Allen) are getting about the sames raises but on a higher base salary (the old CBA). DS - Speaking strictly hypothetically, trying to be somewhat realistic and not involving, a 3rd team...here's the best I can do.... Part 1) Mobley + Cato for McGrady with the APE. Part 2) Francis @ $5m BYC + $2.4m TE for Juwan Howard @ $4.9m + Lue @ $1.5m. I'm not sure either team would do it, but a rotation of Francis, Mobley, Giricek, Gooden, Cato, Strickland, and Garrity is pretty potent in the EC. Seems like the Rox are getting a little screwed. There's plenty of TE left, perhaps Giricek, Steven Hunter, Reece Gaines or DeClerq sweetens it for us? Perhaps Mark Jackson at the vet minimum to show Gaines the ropes? 1) Mark Jackson / Lue / (Reece Gaines) 2) T-Mac / Pike 3) JJax / Boki 4) Taylor / Howard / Ford 5) Yao / Meech OK, I'm sure I'll get slammed. But it's as reasonable as many I've seen! Although, I personally don't like that many changes at game 25. And I'm not big on Tyronn Lue. The Magic are winning now with Strickland!
