PDA

View Full Version : question regarding the CBA...?



croz24
05-08-2008, 04:57 AM
say the pacers have a free agent worthy of a max contract...is an opposing team capable of offering that player more money than the team from which the player came from? and if so how...

another way to phrase this, the pacers offer that player (their player) a MAX contract, can the other team match that offer in value or even surpass that offer?

Will Galen
05-08-2008, 07:55 AM
say the pacers have a free agent worthy of a max contract...is an opposing team capable of offering that player more money than the team from which the player came from? and if so how...

another way to phrase this, the pacers offer that player (their player) a MAX contract, can the other team match that offer in value or even surpass that offer?

No, if the player has Bird rights, (3 years with same team) we can offer 6 years vs the other teams 5 years, plus we can offer 10 1/2% raises whereas the other team can just go 8%.

croz24
05-08-2008, 02:33 PM
thanks. am pretty embarrassed i had to ask that but a certain pacers digest member on here insists vehemently that the opposing team can offer more financially.

NuffSaid
05-08-2008, 02:50 PM
thanks. am pretty embarrassed i had to ask that but a certain pacers digest member on here insists vehemently that the opposing team can offer more financially.
For more complete details on NBA Salary Cap issues and exceptions thereto, review this Q & A segment (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#19) here beginning with question #19.

Also, here is a link to the current NBA CBA (http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles.php). (See Article XI)

Will Galen
05-08-2008, 04:46 PM
thanks. am pretty embarrassed i had to ask that but a certain pacers digest member on here insists vehemently that the opposing team can offer more financially.

Another team can never offer more than the team with a players rights. Of course if the team with the players rights makes a low offer it goes without saying that another team could top it. However, the cba favors the team with the players rights retaining that player if they want to.

BillS
05-08-2008, 04:56 PM
Another team can never offer more than the team with a players rights. Of course if the team with the players rights makes a low offer it goes without saying that another team could top it. However, the cba favors the team with the players rights retaining that player if they want to.

That's why some deals come down to length rather than amount, especially as a player reaches the end of his career (see <i>Jackson, Mark</i>).

croz24
05-08-2008, 05:01 PM
the current team can also offer the maximum 6yrs while the opposing team only 5 max yrs...what's your opinion on this thedoddage?

Doddage
05-09-2008, 02:08 AM
Another team essentially can offer more money than the original team, and here's how: Team B (the other team) has a substantial amount of money under the cap that they plan on using towards a contract for the player of interest. This amount turns out to be one which would put Team A (original team) cumbersomely over the salary cap, which is of course allowed per the Bird exception, BUT Team A decides that its more than they want to spend. So, Team A can then sign-and-trade the player over to Team B. It was even in that link that you sent...

So yes, aside from the technical aspect, another team can offer more money to a free agent. It's just up to the team for which the player has Bird rights whether they want to keep their player and sign them to the larger contract (because of the 10.5% yearly increase), which in turn depends on how the team feels about the importance of their cap situation in relation to the player.

So croz, next time, make sure you know the condition under which my point was made. I could easily make a post gauging PD's thoughts on whether Shaq and Wilt were overrated.

Naptown_Seth
05-09-2008, 12:19 PM
So it's a semantics debate - CAN vs WOULD.


another team might offer more money to a free agent
Maybe this is why you guys had a disagreement.

croz24
05-09-2008, 12:30 PM
not really, thedoddage just likes to change his tune...i've stated from the getgo that the current team CAN ALWAYS, under the bird rights, offer more financially...now he's bringing up sign and trades and using the 'would they argument'. whatever. this thread can get deleted now...

Speed
05-09-2008, 12:36 PM
pound of flesh? Jeez!

Doddage
05-09-2008, 04:30 PM
How am I "changing my tune"? I even used that link that you sent and quoted it to you as proof that another team wouldn't want to match and offer the higher contract. I NEVER said that the original team COULDN'T offer more money, all I said was that the other team could offer more, which is true if Team A doesn't want to match. You failed to take that bit of information into consideration. Why would I have referred you to the CBA if I didn't know the original team could offer more? Think.

croz24
05-09-2008, 04:39 PM
you save the conversations so i suggest you reread what exactly you wrote...the current team CAN ALWAYS offer more financially under the bird rights. there's no ifs ands or buts about it. you stated that was false. how is it false?

Will Galen
05-09-2008, 04:45 PM
:lurk:

Doddage
05-09-2008, 04:58 PM
When did I ever say that they can't always offer more? I have the convo here, as you said, and there's nowhere that I say such thing so it's clear that you're making that up. The point that I made the entire time was that another team can offer more. Is that wrong under the condition that I stated?

croz24
05-09-2008, 11:01 PM
lol w/e man...we can go back and forth with this for days. i was clear with my assertions the other night which you stated were false. when in fact they were true. i made it clear that if a team wants to keep their player, there is no way financially their deal can be surpassed. you disagreed...naptown's right. this is about semantics and always seems to be with you. let's just forget about it and move on...

Doddage
05-10-2008, 01:52 AM
Nothing was ever said about your "assertions" and actually, the disagreement came from your end after I said the other team can offer more. Semantics or not, you should have known what I was talking about if you knew the CBA. Anyway, suffice to say there's no point in continuing this since nothing's going to be accomplished.

count55
05-10-2008, 10:32 PM
Stupidest argument I've ever seen.