Boston Celtics NOT signing Javale McGee

[HartfordWhalers]

Sure, that's what they want ideally, but I don't think that's what's causing the deal to fall apart. Boston doesn't want McGee to get fat and lazy on a long-term deal, and JaVale doesn't want to be stuck next season if he explodes. So while neither side gets to have their cake and eat it too, they both can be sure that the other side isn't going to take advantage of them.

A simple 1 year deal does the same thing is my point. Giving both sides an out results in a state where the second year is extremely unlikely to be enacted as contracted. So, cut to the chase and do a straight traditional version that has all the same benefits.

There are slight differences. The contract would be tradeable during the draft potentially. There could be a little bit guaranteed. I do agree that for a deal this small, there's not much reason for a mutual option. But for larger, MLE sized deals, there could be, especially since you're talking about teams that may get no cap space from releasing the player.

Okay, I think this hits at the issue.

Teams cannot trade a player with a player option.
Teams without cap space can resign a 1 year contract for more money than they could in a 2 year deal for the second year. (Non - Bird rights allow 120% roughly speaking)

Taking the extreme case of Lebron... He cannot be traded draft night because he has an option to end his contract making it a trade for nothing. If he opts out, even though Cleveland wouldn't have cap space, they could sign him to a new 1 year deal for more money than his current built in raise.

Basically, a simpler 1 year deal does the same stuff.

[Chinook]

A simple 1 year deal does the same thing is my point. Giving both sides an out results in a state where the second year is extremely unlikely to be enacted as contracted. So, cut to the chase and do a straight traditional version that has all the same benefits.

There are slight differences. The contract would be tradeable during the draft potentially. There could be a little bit guaranteed. I do agree that for a deal this small, there's not much reason for a mutual option. But for larger, MLE sized deals, there could be, especially since you're talking about teams that may get no cap space from releasing the player.

Okay, I think this hits at the issue.

Teams cannot trade a player with a player option.
Teams without cap space can resign a 1 year contract for more money than they could in a 2 year deal for the second year. (Non - Bird rights allow 120% roughly speaking)

Taking the extreme case of Lebron... He cannot be traded draft night because he has an option to end his contract making it a trade for nothing. If he opts out, even though Cleveland wouldn't have cap space, they could sign him to a new 1 year deal for more money than his current built in raise.

Basically, a simpler 1 year deal does the same stuff.

Yes, teams can trade players with PO if the player picks up their option. You can also have option deadline that happens before the draft. So there is definitely a scenario in which a mutual option can allow for a player to get traded while also getting a bit of cash if waived.

Anyway you're looking at it from one angle (and only on a 1 + 1 contract). Take KJ McDaniels for instance. He could sign a 1 + 1 deal in the off-season. His team gets NB (or EB in Houston's case) rights and RFA-Arenas status if he opts out. He gets UFA status is they cut him. Not quite the same thing as a simple one- or two-year deal.

[HartfordWhalers]

There are slight differences. The contract would be tradeable during the draft potentially. There could be a little bit guaranteed. I do agree that for a deal this small, there's not much reason for a mutual option. But for larger, MLE sized deals, there could be, especially since you're talking about teams that may get no cap space from releasing the player.

Okay, I think this hits at the issue.

Teams cannot trade a player with a player option.
Teams without cap space can resign a 1 year contract for more money than they could in a 2 year deal for the second year. (Non - Bird rights allow 120% roughly speaking)

Taking the extreme case of Lebron... He cannot be traded draft night because he has an option to end his contract making it a trade for nothing. If he opts out, even though Cleveland wouldn't have cap space, they could sign him to a new 1 year deal for more money than his current built in raise.

Basically, a simpler 1 year deal does the same stuff.

Yes, teams can trade players with PO if the player picks up their option. You can also have option deadline that happens before the draft. So there is definitely a scenario in which a mutual option can allow for a player to get traded while also getting a bit of cash if waived.

Anyway you're looking at it from one angle (and only on a 1 + 1 contract). Take KJ McDaniels for instance. He could sign a 1 + 1 deal in the off-season. His team gets NB (or EB in Houston's case) rights and RFA-Arenas status if he opts out. He gets UFA status is they cut him. Not quite the same thing as a simple one- or two-year deal.

But if the player is opting in, its cause they cannot get that much elsewhere. So, you can have the ability to trade a player, when the player is not worth his contract -- and only if the player decides to consent and make themselves tradable. Thats not exactly much of a thing to gain.

[Chinook]

Okay, I think this hits at the issue.

Teams cannot trade a player with a player option.
Teams without cap space can resign a 1 year contract for more money than they could in a 2 year deal for the second year. (Non - Bird rights allow 120% roughly speaking)

Taking the extreme case of Lebron... He cannot be traded draft night because he has an option to end his contract making it a trade for nothing. If he opts out, even though Cleveland wouldn't have cap space, they could sign him to a new 1 year deal for more money than his current built in raise.

Basically, a simpler 1 year deal does the same stuff.

Yes, teams can trade players with PO if the player picks up their option. You can also have option deadline that happens before the draft. So there is definitely a scenario in which a mutual option can allow for a player to get traded while also getting a bit of cash if waived.

Anyway you're looking at it from one angle (and only on a 1 + 1 contract). Take KJ McDaniels for instance. He could sign a 1 + 1 deal in the off-season. His team gets NB (or EB in Houston's case) rights and RFA-Arenas status if he opts out. He gets UFA status is they cut him. Not quite the same thing as a simple one- or two-year deal.

But if the player is opting in, its cause they cannot get that much elsewhere. So, you can have the ability to trade a player, when the player is not worth his contract -- and only if the layer decides to consent and make themselves tradable. Thats not exactly much of a thing to gain.

In McDaniel's case, he couldn't get any more elsewhere in 2016, since he'd be an Arenas RFA. Him opting into that year means he loses a chance at an Asik- or Lin-type deal. But he'd have no salary restrictions after that. The team would either have to cut him or keep him. In a one-year deal scenario, the team has all of the control. In this one, the power is more evenly disbursed. KJ can't just walk away and the team can't low-ball him for another year. Plus, if he opts in (which might be like accepting the QO in a 1 + 1 scenario), he'd still be tradeable, since the trading team would get EB rights, and KJ wouldn't get a de-facto no-trade clause like Monroe currently has.

[Knosh]

If you want to have a player option on a non guaranteed deal the season before the option year has to be non guaranteed as well. I think in most cases that would be a bigger deal than the mutual option on the last year.

[HartfordWhalers]

If you want to have a player option on a non guaranteed deal the season before the option year has to be non guaranteed as well.

Good point.