"A rookie is eligible for the Rose Rule if he makes an All-NBA team the year proceeding the extension"

[Alonzo_Morning]

Apparently, a GM is able to specify which All-NBA team, as Griffin did with Zion recently (1st team only)

To me, this seems like a manipulation of the rule

Is it that, or is the rule just written/reported on with a lack of detail/specificity?

It's causing a lot of confusion for a lot of different people I've come across on various forums. Because it reads like any of the three all-NBA teams would satisfy the rule as written (see Larry Coon CBA faq)

[giberish]

Just because a player is eligible for a Rose rule (30%) extension doesn't mean that the team has to give it.

Zion missing an entire season in part due to big weight gain after a (supposedly) minor injury obviously made NO nervous and lost Zion some negotiating position. Zion agreed to this slight reduction in exchange for getting the long-term big money contract signed a year early (important for Zion as even with his talent another year spent mostly off the court could significantly reduce what he would get signed for next summer as an RFA if he hadn't agreed to the extension).

[Alonzo_Morning]

Just because a player is eligible for a Rose rule (30%) extension doesn't mean that the team has to give it.

Zion missing an entire season in part due to big weight gain after a (supposedly) minor injury obviously made NO nervous and lost Zion some negotiating position. Zion agreed to this slight reduction in exchange for getting the long-term big money contract signed a year early (important for Zion as even with his talent another year spent mostly off the court could significantly reduce what he would get signed for next summer as an RFA if he hadn't agreed to the extension).

But he did agree to a Rose Rule extension, and I'm debating on the wording of how that rule can be applied

Zion agreed that if he makes All-NBA 1st team, he'll get the 30%

The rule says 'make an All-NBA team'

That implies 1st, 2nd or 3rd team

I'm wondering how a GM can just say "no, not any of the three all-NBA teams, just all-NBA 1st team"

ie. 2nd and or 3rd team isn't good enough, which contradicts the rule as it is worded

[giberish]

Just because a player is eligible for a Rose rule (30%) extension doesn't mean that the team has to give it.

Zion missing an entire season in part due to big weight gain after a (supposedly) minor injury obviously made NO nervous and lost Zion some negotiating position. Zion agreed to this slight reduction in exchange for getting the long-term big money contract signed a year early (important for Zion as even with his talent another year spent mostly off the court could significantly reduce what he would get signed for next summer as an RFA if he hadn't agreed to the extension).

But he did agree to a Rose Rule extension, and I'm debating on the wording of how that rule can be applied

Zion agreed that if he makes All-NBA 1st team, he'll get the 30%

The rule says 'make an All-NBA team'

That implies 1st, 2nd or 3rd team

I'm wondering how a GM can just say "no, not any of the three all-NBA teams, just all-NBA 1st team"

ie. 2nd and or 3rd team isn't good enough, which contradicts the rule as it is worded

If Zion makes 1st team, he'll get the 30% Rose rule extension.

If Zino makes 2nd or 3rd team, Zion would have eligible for the 30% Rose rule extension, but he'll only get a 25% extension due to signing a contract of his own accord that gave up that potential money. It wasn't a unilateral decision by the GM, it was a negotiated deal between the GM and the player/agent.

Zion agreed to this concession in order to get the large guaranteed money extension after a year that he didn't play at all.

Zion could have declined to sign such an extension, but if he had another injured year (especially if he also struggled to stay in shape as part of the injuries) then he's probably not getting anywhere near as much next summer.

[DBoys]

Giberish is right on point. It's not an "all or nothing" rule, but rather giving a higher LIMIT to what can be offered. And then what is actually on the contract, offered and agreed to, will flow from negotiation.

Larry Coon puts it this way [emphasis added]: "... the exact percentage of the cap can be based on how the player meets the 5th Year, 30% Max criteria. For example, a rookie scale extension can specify that the player will receive 27% of the cap if he meets the criteria by being named to the All NBA Second Team, 28% if he meets the criteria by being named to the All NBA First Team, or 30% if he meets the criteria by being named Most Valuable Player." The criteria, the amount, all the details, those are just as negotiable as the details and numbers in any other contract.

About the negotiation, we have to keep in mind that Zion is a star player when healthy, but he has yet to prove he can stay healthy. Feet problems can be a big deal with big men, because of the pounding the feet take when all that weight lands on them over and over. While you may think he gave up something in the way the all-NBA trigger is worded, the Pels gave a lot in guaranteeing him almost 200M whether he stays healthy (and in shape) or whether he bloats up to a million pounds and becomes the next Oliver Miller. It remains to be seen who got the better end of this deal.

[Alonzo_Morning]

Yeah I'm in the wrong. I probably skimmed the top, now I read deeper I see it makes perfect sense

That's on me. I'll be better