Phenom's_Revenge wrote:In theory, letting RFAs sign an offer sheet is fine and good but if there is an opt out in the contract, then Ricky and Klay would have the power to pull a K Love on us. I'd rather pay Ricky a little more and be sure to secure him to the team.
yeah... the NBA has a lot of stupid rules. IMO, if a guy signs an offer sheet his current team should be able to match it with their own deal that contains the exact same amount of money or more.
TheGrey08 wrote:
yeah... the NBA has a lot of stupid rules. IMO, if a guy signs an offer sheet his current team should be able to match it with their own deal that contains the exact same amount of money or more.
They are able to do that.
Positive? If that's the case then why did Asik & Lin end up with the Rockets b/c of the 1 hugely bloated contract year? From what was reported during those times those bloated years were the reason the teams declined to match.
Correct, the teams declined to match. They could have signed them to the same deal, but decided the third year was more than they were willing to spend. The prior team only has to fit the first year of salary under their cap.
Poison pill contracts are pretty standard at least for Knicks players it seems. Lin and Fields were both poison pilled. Chicago wasn't going to pay Asik 10+ million to be a backup to Noah. You look at Houston and they aren't even going to pay the 3rd year that was bloated to begin with for both guys even though Lin cost them a first.
Teams can match but are bound by terms that the other team draws up. Teams like to make contracts as unpalatable as possible to stick it to a matching team.
If you lose love for nothing, you bottom out to 15 wins and pick top 3 next year.
If you lose love for veteran scraps, you sorta bottom out to 20-25 wins and pick in the 5-8 range next year.
If you lose love for young potential stars and picks, you bottom out next year to 15 wins, pick 1-3 next year, and have pieces in place for a meteoric return to prominence within 4-5 seasons.
Funny how the course prescribed by the national media, also known as "take what you can get and like it", is by far our worst option.
horatio81 wrote:If you lose love for nothing, you bottom out to 15 wins and pick top 3 next year.
If you lose love for veteran scraps, you sorta bottom out to 20-25 wins and pick in the 5-8 range next year.
If you lose love for young potential stars and picks, you bottom out next year to 15 wins, pick 1-3 next year, and have pieces in place for a meteoric return to prominence within 4-5 seasons.
Funny how the course prescribed by the national media, also known as "take what you can get and like it", is by far our worst option.
Keep sticking it to everyone, Flip.
Well thought out post you make some pretty good points I think we sorta forget about.
sjm34 wrote:Correct, the teams declined to match. They could have signed them to the same deal, but decided the third year was more than they were willing to spend. The prior team only has to fit the first year of salary under their cap.
Hmm maybe I didn't clearly stated that. I meant if a player signs an offersheet that the team should be able to restructure that deal as long as the overall financials & years were the same. IE: if a player signed a 3 yr 21 mill offer sheet with 5 mill 7 mill, 9 mill for salary the "matching" team should be able to agree with the player on a deal at 7/7/7 or some variation. This whole poison pill shit is weak.
Stephen A and Skip B were the main reasons I canceled my cable (among other things). No regrets.
Conversely, I hate the whole Twitter thing, but find myself checking for Love/Wiggins updates every half hour. I usually check this board first because you guys will post updates.
