Re Stuckey waiver

[DBoys]

Re Stuckey waiver

In case anyone is wondering how there is a "guarantee date" on an option, with a guarantee date, as being reported by Real GM -- there isn't.

It's simply bad reporting of the facts, by a reporter who apparently doesn't understand the rules.

[Smitty731]

Yeah. I've seen the actual deal (same as Miles and Ellis) and it is written that the contract was fully non-guaranteed until the player exercised his Player Option, at which point it became fully guaranteed.

It is like the sloppy reporting where Partial/Non-guaranteed contracts are called Team Options. Which is only going to get more confusing under the new CBA, where Team Options could be the preferred way to go, since only guaranteed money counts in trades under the new agreement.

[DBoys]

Yeah. I've seen the actual deal (same as Miles and Ellis) and it is written that the contract was fully non-guaranteed until the player exercised his Player Option, at which point it became fully guaranteed.

It is like the sloppy reporting where Partial/Non-guaranteed contracts are called Team Options. Which is only going to get more confusing under the new CBA, where Team Options could be the preferred way to go, since only guaranteed money counts in trades under the new agreement.

Actually, this isn't any of that at all. It isn't even a Partial/Non-guaranteed year being called a Team Option. And that's why the "reporting" is no frustrating when it's so muddled.

Stuckey's is a normal guaranteed 2-year contract with a simple Player Option for an extra (3rd) year. As such, there is no such thing as a date for the option to be "guaranteed" - it is either exercised, or it's not, and if exercised is fully guaranteed.

In this case, Indy has apparently decided to waive Stuckey before the season ends, to ensure he gets no chance to exercise his option. But there is no actual deadline, and they could waive him at any time after the season ends as well, with the same result, provided he had not decided to exercise his Player Option.

[Smitty731]

Yeah. I've seen the actual deal (same as Miles and Ellis) and it is written that the contract was fully non-guaranteed until the player exercised his Player Option, at which point it became fully guaranteed.

It is like the sloppy reporting where Partial/Non-guaranteed contracts are called Team Options. Which is only going to get more confusing under the new CBA, where Team Options could be the preferred way to go, since only guaranteed money counts in trades under the new agreement.

Actually, this isn't any of that at all. It isn't even a Partial/Non-guaranteed year being called a Team Option. And that's why the "reporting" is no frustrating when it's so muddled.

Stuckey's is a normal guaranteed 2-year contract with a simple Player Option for an extra (3rd) year. As such, there is no such thing as a date for the option to be "guaranteed" - it is either exercised, or it's not, and if exercised is fully guaranteed.

In this case, Indy has apparently decided to waive Stuckey before the season ends, to ensure he gets no chance to exercise his option. But there is no actual deadline, and they could waive him at any time after the season ends as well, with the same result, provided he had not decided to exercise his Player Option.

I've seen the deal and the way it was worded, in layman's terms, is fully non-guaranteed until the point when/if Stuckey exercised Player Option or one day after the team's last game. The part where there is some confusion, that no one seems to know that I've talked to, is that the last game of the regular season or last game period? Obviously it doesn't matter now for Stuckey, but could come in to play for Miles, although his wording is a bit different.

No matter what, it is an interesting way to write a contract and give the team a little wiggle room, which Indiana obviously used here.

[DBoys]

Smitty, I believe you (and apparently others) misconstrued what you you saw, when you say it was "fully non-guaranteed until ... one day after the team's last game." That asserts a date when the nature of the option would have changed, and I don't believe any such date existed.

Look, this is almost certainly VERY STANDARD language, specified almost word for word in the CBA, rather than something where there are potentially a lot of moving parts determined by Indy or an agent or both.

I'd wager it was a standard NBA contract with the standard wording of a XII-2-(a)-(B) deal, with wording lifted straight from the CBA (as the CBA specifies). What would have happened after Indy's last game is that Stuckey at that point, or thereafter, could have exercised his option.

But I'd wager the nature of the option itself would have never changed, and that if he had been waived on June 15 for example, without having yet exercised his player option, that at that point the option would have fully voided. Because that's how the CBA is worded on such a deal.

In addition, the reporting by Shams and Lowe that asserts a specific date as a "guarantee date" is made up BS. And Stuckey's ability to exercise his option wouldn't have started until Indy's season, including playoffs, was over, so who knows when that date would have been. And to the extent that they are telling Indy fans that the Pacers had a deadline to waive Stuckey, on such-and-such a date, it's just not so.

The rush to waive Stuckey now was instead because he's done for the year, and they wanted to use his roster slot on Lance as they make a chase for the playoffs. If they had felt Stuckey could help them in the playoffs, I doubt he would have been waived until after they ended.

[DBoys]

Also I can't imagine that the wording is any different on the deal for Miles, or Ellis either, but rather each and all contain standard wording of a XII-2-(a)-(B) deal, with wording lifted straight from the CBA (as the CBA specifies). And that would mean the only difference would be what Indy might choose to do in regards to the same sort of circumstances and choices.

In Miles case, the difference wouldn't be in the contractual wording, but I suspect there would be a huge difference in the fact that they would much prefer him to exercise his option and accept another year on a cheap contract.