Player options

[cod23]

Some of the player options I've seen are usually in the final season of a player's contract. I've seen most of them, but I get a better understanding of why a few player contracts are not in the final season of a player's contract.

For example, Jamal Crawford of the Golden State Warriors has a player option set for the 2009-10 season. It wasn't in the final year of his contract. Why?

Another example can also be Eddy Curry of the New York Knicks has a 2 year player option set for the last two seasons in his contract. I usually see player options only set for the final year of a player's contract. Why does his contract have a 2 year player option instead of a 1 year player option?

I got all of these information from Hoopshype.com.

[LarryCoon]

There are two separate entities, Options and ETOs, that have slightly different rules. See my FAQ for a full explanation:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q50

[Three34]

The website you're using for salaries doesn't differentiate between PO's and ETO's. To us fans, they're basically the same thing, but as you have spotted, they aren't, due to a few largely unimportant technical differences.

[cod23]

The website you're using for salaries doesn't differentiate between PO's and ETO's. To us fans, they're basically the same thing, but as you have spotted, they aren't, due to a few largely unimportant technical differences.

Player options, under CBA rules, shoould always be held by the player. Player options can be contained in any kind of contract. I've seen 2 player options contained in Eddy Curry's contract. It is quite rare while I am not sure how the contract fits under CBA rules. I may or may not understand why, but I am not sure if his contract really contains 1 or 2 ETO's in it.

[FGump]

Cod23, if you are asking people here to try to sort out weird or confusing information from various websites that are sloppy and try to figure why they say what they do, you can't get any help here. Because, who can say why they aren't sticklers for details?

But the rules are the rules.

So
1. L Coon was right. "There are two separate entities, Options and ETOs, that have slightly different rules. See my FAQ for a full explanation"
2. L Coons is a great site to get more explanation on how things really are, which will explain the facts rather than subject you to inaccurate details elsewhere.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q50
3. If you want more than that, read the CBA itself. It's online and has the actual rules that LC explains.
4. Sham was right. "The website you're using for salaries doesn't differentiate between PO's and ETO's. To us fans, they're basically the same thing, but as you have spotted, they aren't, due to a few largely unimportant technical differences."
5. Sham's website is aimed at offering exactly-right contract details. http://www.shamsports.com and you should bookmark and use that site in the future rather than whatever was confusing you.
6. The page for Curry's details if that's all you need is here >> http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages ... knicks.jsp

[Dunkenstein]

I've seen 2 player options contained in Eddy Curry's contract. It is quite rare while I am not sure how the contract fits under CBA rules. I may or may not understand why, but I am not sure if his contract really contains 1 or 2 ETO's in it.

A player's contract, if it is long enough, may contain one ETO and one PO (in the last year of the contract only). In Curry's case, the first option is an ETO, while the second is a PO.

[Twinkie defense]

When a player option is coming up, can that player's agent preemptively talk to other teams - essentially negotiate the general parameters of a contract - before deciding whether or not to opt out? I can see how this would be incredibly useful in deciding whether or not to opt out, but since, until the player actually does opt out he is still property of his original team, this would seem to be tampering.

[Dunkenstein]

When a player option is coming up, can that player's agent preemptively talk to other teams - essentially negotiate the general parameters of a contract - before deciding whether or not to opt out? I can see how this would be incredibly useful in deciding whether or not to opt out, but since, until the player actually does opt out he is still property of his original team, this would seem to be tampering.

Legally it's tampering. But it's done all the time. You just don't want it put out on TV or in the newspapers.