Atlanta(2)- DeShawn Stevenson, Mike Scott
Boston(2)- Shavlik Randolph, DJ White
Brooklyn- Kris Joseph
Charlotte(2)- Jeff Adrien, Jeffery Taylor
Cleveland(4)- Varajao, Alonzo Gee, Chris Quinn, Kevin Jones
Denver- Wilson Chandler
GSW- Draymond Green
Houston(3)- Chandler Parsons, James Anderson, Tim Ohlbrecht
LAC- DaJuan Summers
Memphis(2)- Kosta Koufos, Donte Green
Milwaukee(2)- Ersan Ilyasova, Ishmael Smith
Minny- Mickael Gelabale
NOLA- Robin lopez
OKC(2)- Hasheem Thabeet, Daniel Orton
Orlando(2)- Jameer Nelson, Doron Lamb
Phx- P J tucker
Portland- Aleksandar Pavlovic
Utah- Kevin Murphy
TKFU's point is that a non guaranteed last year is better than a 'team option' because it enables the team to add the contract in a trade. The team that acquires the non guaranteed contract, can simply let the expiry date pass and they'll be free of the contract. He's right about that.
What he's wrong about IMO is that Colangelo idiotically didn't think about it.
Attitude Is A Choice.
Whatever you do, do it the best you can
Which is exactly what I've been saying.
Last edited by tkfu; Thu Jul 4th, 2013 at 04:47 AM.
- JL3's valuable enough to the Raptors to get his option picked up
- JL3's worthless enough to potential trading partners that, if he were traded, he'd be waived
- Despite the fact that the Raptors think he's worth keeping around, they consider his trade value (to the team that's going to waive him) to be higher than the value of picking up his final year
I have to concede that it's not impossible to imagine a situation like that, but I'd say it's extremely rare. It's probably the reason why Jodie Meeks and Mario Chalmers negotiated team options rather than unguaranteed years; they would rather play for contenders, so they make it a little harder to get traded. But I very much doubt that's what happened with JL3.
Whatever you do, do it the best you can
I think the logic of the thread follows something like this...
1) Non-guaranteed deals, are better for management, and the same for players in comparison to team options.
2) Therefore, management should always offer an unguaranteed deal as opposed to a team option.
3) Other teams in league are doing it this way
4) BC didn't and therefore he's an ass-clown.
One of there's a number of reasons why something that is so obvious to TKFU is not obvious to me (and I'm guessing others)
1) I didn't know there was a difference between non-guaranteed deals and team options, so I need more explanation before I can agree with you that non-guaranteed deals affect players in he same manner that team options do.
2) If you can convince me point 1, then point 2 is a given.
3) According to hoopshype.com Amir Johnson has a team option for next year. Where can we find information that accurately tells us whether it's a team option or a non-guaranteed contract???
4) If all the above is true it doesn't make coangelo out to be a great GM, but honestly, even if JLIII had an un-guaranteed deal that COULD have been used in a trade, odds are it wouldn't have, and the 1.5 mil is pretty easy to make up in other ways.
So if you can convince me that un-guaranteed deals are the way to go. I'm willing to agree that Coangelo made the wrong call, however, going over the top about how bad that makes him look, distracts from what I think is the interesting part of the post which is about the difference of team options vs. guaranteed deals.
"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon
The best info going on team salaries and player contracts is at shamsports.com.
And, coincidentally, the day after I started this thread Mark Deeks just put up a post talking about this exact issue, and featuring our own beloved Doug Smith mistakenly calling an unguaranteed deal a team option.
Thanks for posting the link, it helped me learn more about the difference between the two. However, I do think your being a bit hard on Coangelo, it's not like being able to include JLIII's salary as part of the trade was the difference between trading for leborn and trading for steve Novak.
If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
tkfu, why you haven't managed to make it into one of the 30 NBA front offices, I don't know, because clearly you're smarter than most GMs. Is it too late to apply for the Raptors' position? Masai seems to be quite the incompetent idiot as well:
"The Raptors will hold a team option on the second year of the deal."
Man, it will suck when we have the opportunity to add Stone in a pre-June 30th deal but can't due to Masai's idiocy. What was he thinking??
Just throwing this out there (from the shamsports article you quoted, tkfu):
I mean... I agree that the real life ramifications were probably not that significant for a player like JL3 or a contract as small as JL3's, but there is at least one scenario in which team options are better.The downside to doing it this way is that players have to be waived for the savings to take effect, which means they get renounced in the process. In contrast, if a team declines a player's team option, they would still have Bird rights on that player in order to re-sign them, and they could also still extend a qualifying offer (if applicable). By being waived as an unguaranteed contracts instead, those benefits are lost. But that minor inconvenience is more than offset by the benefits to such a team-friendly mechanism, which is why its usage is becoming increasingly prevalent in the NBA.
Lowry's contract this season calls for a $6.21 million salary this season, of which only $1 million is guaranteed if he is waived before July 15th. This, then, is not a team option. But referring to it as an option gives rise to speculation that is may be "declined" in order to instead tie Lowry down to a longer deal. (I know such speculation to have arisen because I've seen friends of mine give it.) This, as we've seen above, is not possible precisely because it is not an option - to obtain the savings on the contract means waiving Lowry, which means losing Lowry. It is true that if it had been a team option, the Raptors could have declined it in order to try and tie him up for the long term, but it is also true that if it was an option, it would have been decided by now.
"The terms of the deal were not immediately disclosed, but it is believed to be a two-year deal in which the second year is unguaranteed."
Given that reporters often mistakenly report unguaranteed years as team options, that Stone wasn't in any kind of position to demand a team option instead of an unguaranteed year and wouldn't have any reason to do so anyway, and that nobody actually gives them out anymore, I think it's pretty safe to assume it's not actually a team option.
Last edited by tkfu; Fri Jul 5th, 2013 at 04:16 AM.
SO yes, TKFU & Ujiri 1, Quixotic & BC 0.
I don't really like being an ass, but you were first, and were wrong, so in the grand scheme of things my overall karma isn't going to suffer too much.
I made this post elsewhere but it relates to this thread.
I've been thinking about this because I very much agreed.... and it just hit me.
In any transaction you have to look at it from the perspective of both parties.
What you notice with non-guaranteed deals, for the most part, is if the option is not picked up by the team there is guaranteed money involved. It might be as little as $500k or as much as $6M (Turkoglu comes to mind - and by the way I just made up those numbers it can really be anything). That guaranteed money does go against the cap.
But why wouldn't the team just make it no guaranteed money?
As we just witnessed the first 10 days of July are crazy. If a player is not available at that time they are significantly going to lower their options/opportunities come mid-July if a team decides to drop them.
So while I definitely agree a non-guaranteed deal with no money guaranteed is in the best interests of the Raptors, or any franchise for that matter, it is not in the best interest of the player and that is why you often see team options versus non-guaranteed deals.
"Championships are what we live for, now lets go win them."Tim Leiweke
Basketball has clear winners every night --except at the draft, which is all homework, politics and chance.
the shamsports article linked above.
Let's wait until we've gotten the real scoop from some some reliable sources--this distinction is definitely of the CBA-nerd variety, so it's not wise to trust mainstream sources.
But what you see a lot more often are deals where the guarantee date is June 30th. That means the team has to make a decision before free agency starts, at the same time they would on a team option deal (because, like you said, the player wouldn't want to miss out on early free agency wheeling and dealing). The only difference is that the non-guaranteed version of the deal allows a trade to be made between the end of the season and the start of free agency--for example on draft day.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)