View Full Version : Dampier update

07-28-2004, 09:52 AM

"A league source yesterday indicated that Golden State agreed to send restricted free agent Erick Dampier to the Knicks two weeks ago, but the deal was called off by Warriors vice president of basketball operations Chris Mullin before anything was finalized. It now seems the capable big man will be forced to sign with Atlanta, which can trade him after 60 days. Memphis and Indiana have both contacted the Hawks about working something out along those lines."

Atlanta reportedly offered Dampier a six-year deal for nearly $50 million. If I'm the Pacers, I'm not sure I'd even trade Croshere and Pollard for that contract!

07-28-2004, 10:24 AM
Vescey had in his column a few days ago that the Hawks and Memphis supposedly have a deal worked out, if Dampier signs with the Hawks

07-28-2004, 11:03 AM
Hope so.

07-28-2004, 11:50 AM
I've been looking at the CBA and I think I've worked out a salary structure which would give Dampier 6 years and around 50 mil and still give the Pacers some financial flexibility.

Since Mullin likes Cro it's not inconceivable that Dampier could be had for Croshere, Freddy and a future first.

Using that trade, GS could sign him to a deal that pays him approximately the following:

Year 1: 10.5 million
Year 2: 9.2 million
Year 3: 7.9 million
Year 4: 6.6 million
Year 5: 7.1 million
Year 6: 8.4 million

Which adds up to 49.6 million - slightly less than reported but, since it's front loaded it's actually worth a lot more.

This also has the following impact on the Pacers payroll compared to retaining Freddy and Cro:

Year 1: + 0.7 million (A reasonable hit)

Year 2: - 2.0 million (Meaning 2 mil extra to put towards re-signing Tinsley.)

Year 3 : - 4.7 million (This is assuming we re-signed Freddy for 3 million (12.5% increase per year) which I think is a pretty low figure. This is also probably about the time I'd expect him to to be more of a bench player than a starter)

Year 4: - 1.8 million (Again assuming Cro or another solid backup is signed for 5 million with 12.5% increases.)

Year 5: - 2.9 million (Assuming Artest stays with us this long, I'd expect him to opt out of his contract so this allows more money to sign him)

Year 6: By this point Dampier could well be totally useless but having an expiring 8.4 million contract is a good asset to have. If we're lucky we might even be able to pull off something similar to what Detroit did this year.

All this is moot if Dampier was just playing for a contract this year, but if not and we can get 2 solid years from him as a starter and another two as a backup then the only point at which Dampier could be a real liability is in year 5. Still, if the Pacers management believed Dampier would play hard, then I think it takes us a step closer to the championship and it could be a worthwhile risk to take. Losing Freddy is tough but sending him to GS would be better for him as well, and I think it would be worth it to get another shot blocker in our front court.

07-28-2004, 12:10 PM
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure, but I don't think NBA contracts can be structured that way, with percentage DEcreases.

07-28-2004, 12:44 PM
They can increase or decrease year on year by up to 12.5% or 10% depending on whether it's a Bird contract or a regular signing.

Will Galen
07-28-2004, 02:05 PM
They can increase or decrease year on year by up to 12.5% or 10% depending on whether it's a Bird contract or a regular signing.

I agree with Blanket. I would like to see a link to that information with the exact CBA reference.


07-28-2004, 02:31 PM

Question 44:

"44. How about for the other players? Is there a limit to the length of a contract or the raise a player can receive?

Yes. When the Larry Bird exception is used, a player can sign for a maximum of seven years with a maximum increase or decrease of 12.5% per year. For contracts signed using the Early Bird exception, it's a maximum of six years with 12.5% increases or decreases. For most other contracts, the limit is six years with a maximum 10% increase or decrease each year. A few exceptions have a shorter maximum length. See question number 17 for more information.

Also, if the same contract covers the 2000-01 season and any later season, then the salary in any season after 2000-01 can't be less than the 2000-01 salary.

Incidentally, raises take effect July 1 of each year."

It's from a CBA FAQ rather than the CBA itself but it seems accurate. Besides, I'm sure I heard something about Jason Terry getting a front loaded contract last year.

07-28-2004, 02:45 PM
The Nuggets were also trying to arrange K-Mart's contract to be heavily front-loaded, in order to discourage NJ from matching.

07-28-2004, 02:50 PM
Hmmm... thanks for the link. I wasn't aware this was possible -- probably because there are few, if any, players out there who have agreed to contracts that decrease in pay! But it's interesting to know it's an option.

As for the recent trend of frontloading contract offers to restricted free agents, my understanding was that this means signing bonuses, but the term of the contract would still follow the regular percentage increases (as opposed to decreases). Can anyone confirm or refute this?

07-28-2004, 02:59 PM
I think KMart got a big signing bonus - 1.5 mil or so - but I think that's just because his was a max contract. There's info on signing bonuses and incentives as well on that link I gave you.