Lavine extension and renegotiation

[coldfish]

This part of the CBA is new to me and I don't think I understand it all.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q58
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q59

Teams can renegotiate a contract, which is news to me. The team has to be under the salary cap. The original deal had to be 4 years and you can't renegotiate until after 3 years.

The Bulls are in a unique position in that they can actually meet all of those requirements this summer with Lavine. I was unaware of this until today. This is not an "extension" situation where after this year his salary goes up. His salary this year can go up.

I'm trying to figure out his max. Assuming he doesn't make all NBA or win the MVP, I think its 30% of the cap or $32.6m. Taking a quick stab at it, the Bulls could use an additional $12.6m in capspace and lock up Lavine to a 5 year $190m contract. This would replace his 1 year $20m remaining.

Everyone with me? Am I wrong anywhere?

I have been saying that Lavine can walk on here quite regularly. I'll freely admit I didn't completely understand the rules as I have never seen a player in this position actually do this. This is all rather unique.

Personally, I would strongly consider making this offer to Zach. If he says no, the Bulls probably want to consider trading him as it will be a clear sign his head is elsewhere.

I'm not sure everyone realizes the Bulls can use a portion of their capspace to lock up Zach for 5 years. I certainly didn't.

[TheStig]

Yes, this is a thing. I believe this was done with Harden if I remember correct.

Do you really see JR doing this? He wouldn't do it for Pip in a title contending year.

[CobyWhite0]

Yes, this is a thing. I believe this was done with Harden if I remember correct.

Do you really see JR doing this? He wouldn't do it for Pip in a title contending year.

What year was that?

You have to have Cap Space to do this, when did the Bulls ever have Cap Space to do this with Pippen?

[Evil_Headband]

Can Zach get player options on any years of the extension/renegotiation?

[TheStig]

Yes, this is a thing. I believe this was done with Harden if I remember correct.

Do you really see JR doing this? He wouldn't do it for Pip in a title contending year.

What year was that?

You have to have Cap Space to do this, when did the Bulls ever have Cap Space to do this with Pippen?

I don't believe you needed cap space back then. This was in 97-98, led to Pip delaying his surgery and demanding a trade.

[CobyWhite0]

Yes, this is a thing. I believe this was done with Harden if I remember correct.

Do you really see JR doing this? He wouldn't do it for Pip in a title contending year.

What year was that?

You have to have Cap Space to do this, when did the Bulls ever have Cap Space to do this with Pippen?

I don't believe you needed cap space back then. This was in 97-98, led to Pip delaying his surgery and demanding a trade.

LMAO, it's the exact reason.

What you believe is irrelevant, do some research and you'll discover the facts.

[TheStig]

What year was that?

You have to have Cap Space to do this, when did the Bulls ever have Cap Space to do this with Pippen?

I don't believe you needed cap space back then. This was in 97-98, led to Pip delaying his surgery and demanding a trade.

LMAO, it's the exact reason.

What you believe is irrelevant, do some research and you'll discover the facts.

Well, I doubt Pippen would be sitting out and demanding trades if it weren't possible..........

[dice]

What year was that?

You have to have Cap Space to do this, when did the Bulls ever have Cap Space to do this with Pippen?

I don't believe you needed cap space back then. This was in 97-98, led to Pip delaying his surgery and demanding a trade.

LMAO, it's the exact reason.

What you believe is irrelevant, do some research and you'll discover the facts.

you can LYAO until you're down to the bone, but this clause in the CBA did not exist in the '90s

pippen wanted his crap contract torn up, but the salary cap was entirely irrelevant to that because of the bird exception

[CobyWhite0]

I don't believe you needed cap space back then. This was in 97-98, led to Pip delaying his surgery and demanding a trade.

LMAO, it's the exact reason.

What you believe is irrelevant, do some research and you'll discover the facts.

you can LYAO until you're down to the bone, but this clause in the CBA did not exist in the '90s

pippen wanted his crap contract torn up, but the salary cap was entirely irrelevant to that because of the bird exception

Oh yes it did. But think what you will, I have no problem with you being 100% incorrect.

[kulaz3000]

Personally, I would strongly consider making this offer to Zach. If he says no, the Bulls probably want to consider trading him as it will be a clear sign his head is elsewhere.

I agree with you in that the Bulls should offer this, however, I disagree that by Zach rejecting this, it would mean that it's a clear indicator that his head is elsewhere. If he declines, he could simply be wanting to see what his options are, and that's never a bad thing when you have that option available to you.

[dice]

LMAO, it's the exact reason.

What you believe is irrelevant, do some research and you'll discover the facts.

you can LYAO until you're down to the bone, but this clause in the CBA did not exist in the '90s

pippen wanted his crap contract torn up, but the salary cap was entirely irrelevant to that because of the bird exception

Oh yes it did. But think what you will, I have no problem with you being 100% incorrect.

for starters, the bulls were WAY over the cap that season. so for you to say that pippen sat out the beginning of the season because he wanted a new contract due to the team being under the cap...completely asinine. secondly, there was not a maximum contract length of 4 seasons back then

but by all means, feel free to point us to the clause in the 1995 CBA that mirrors the current one. until then...ROFLcopter away

[kulaz3000]

you can LYAO until you're down to the bone, but this clause in the CBA did not exist in the '90s

pippen wanted his crap contract torn up, but the salary cap was entirely irrelevant to that because of the bird exception

Oh yes it did. But think what you will, I have no problem with you being 100% incorrect.

for starters, the bulls were WAY over the cap that season. so for you to say that pippen sat out the beginning of the season because he wanted a new contract due to the team being under the cap...completely asinine. secondly, there was not a maximum contract length of 4 seasons back then

but by all means, feel free to point us to the clause in the 1995 CBA that mirrors the current one. until then...ROFLcopter away

Take it down a notch. There is absolutely no need for the vitriol in your post.

You could have posted exactly what you posted, without "... completely asinine" and ".. ROFLcopter", and your point would have been made.

Show some respect.

[dice]

Oh yes it did. But think what you will, I have no problem with you being 100% incorrect.

for starters, the bulls were WAY over the cap that season. so for you to say that pippen sat out the beginning of the season because he wanted a new contract due to the team being under the cap...completely asinine. secondly, there was not a maximum contract length of 4 seasons back then

but by all means, feel free to point us to the clause in the 1995 CBA that mirrors the current one. until then...ROFLcopter away

Take it down a notch. There is absolutely no need for the vitriol in your post.

You could have posted exactly what you posted, without "... completely asinine" and ".. ROFLcopter", and your point would have been made.

Show some respect.

excuse me, but the other guy was massively disrespectful (in addition to being wrong) from the get-go. no response from you. you're seriously distinguishing 'ROFLcopter' from 'LMAO'? the former was a sarcastic direct response to the latter, pointing out the juvenile nature of its use! and am i not entitled to call an asinine statement asinine, particularly in response to the disrespect of "i have no problem with you being 100% incorrect"?

perfect example of the ref not seeing the first action and flagging the second. except that you saw both and for some reason chose to ignore the first

i did misread and mistakenly attribute something 'the stig' said to 'cobywhite0' though, so for that i apologize. i'd still love to know where in the 1995 CBA this clause existed, though

[TheStig]

Personally, I would strongly consider making this offer to Zach. If he says no, the Bulls probably want to consider trading him as it will be a clear sign his head is elsewhere.

I agree with you in that the Bulls should offer this, however, I disagree that by Zach rejecting this, it would mean that it's a clear indicator that his head is elsewhere. If he declines, he could simply be wanting to see what his options are, and that's never a bad thing when you have that option available to you.

Correct me if I'm wrong but would an extension have to be shorter than what he could sign in FA. I think Harden got 3 years (the year he was in and 2 added on) when this was added on.

I also don't think the Bulls should do this. They should use the cap space to improve the team.

[HomoSapien]

What year was that?

You have to have Cap Space to do this, when did the Bulls ever have Cap Space to do this with Pippen?

I don't believe you needed cap space back then. This was in 97-98, led to Pip delaying his surgery and demanding a trade.

LMAO, it's the exact reason.

What you believe is irrelevant, do some research and you'll discover the facts.

What's with the hostility? He wasn't rude to you, so please make an effort not to bring down the level of conversation with such a condescending response.

[kodo]

The numbers I've read are a renegotiation for $151 over 4 years.
Or let Zach go into FA and give him the 5 year max only we can give, $190 over 5.

I'd imagine we would prefer the $151/4. Less years and prevents him from going to FA. The per year amounts are almost identical.

[WindyCityBorn]

Personally, I would strongly consider making this offer to Zach. If he says no, the Bulls probably want to consider trading him as it will be a clear sign his head is elsewhere.

I agree with you in that the Bulls should offer this, however, I disagree that by Zach rejecting this, it would mean that it's a clear indicator that his head is elsewhere. If he declines, he could simply be wanting to see what his options are, and that's never a bad thing when you have that option available to you.

Correct me if I'm wrong but would an extension have to be shorter than what he could sign in FA. I think Harden got 3 years (the year he was in and 2 added on) when this was added on.

I also don't think the Bulls should do this. They should use the cap space to improve the team.

Yeah that is my issue with this. They can use that money to add more talent to the team. Get all the talent we can BEFORE he signs a new deal. But if he wants the deal this Summer you obviously do it.

[coldfish]

Personally, I would strongly consider making this offer to Zach. If he says no, the Bulls probably want to consider trading him as it will be a clear sign his head is elsewhere.

I agree with you in that the Bulls should offer this, however, I disagree that by Zach rejecting this, it would mean that it's a clear indicator that his head is elsewhere. If he declines, he could simply be wanting to see what his options are, and that's never a bad thing when you have that option available to you.

Correct me if I'm wrong but would an extension have to be shorter than what he could sign in FA. I think Harden got 3 years (the year he was in and 2 added on) when this was added on.

I also don't think the Bulls should do this. They should use the cap space to improve the team.

I believe that the contract is restricted to 5 years, regardless of when you sign it. If he signs a max deal this summer, it would end in 2026. If he signs it a year from now, it would end in 2027.

I think that people looking for improvements via free agency are going to be sorely disappointed. I wouldn't be surprised if the team keeps Sato and Young and uses $12m to lock up Zach then extends Lauri. I suspect the team is going to use the rest of this year to see if that team can work or not.

[WindyCityBorn]

I agree with you in that the Bulls should offer this, however, I disagree that by Zach rejecting this, it would mean that it's a clear indicator that his head is elsewhere. If he declines, he could simply be wanting to see what his options are, and that's never a bad thing when you have that option available to you.

Correct me if I'm wrong but would an extension have to be shorter than what he could sign in FA. I think Harden got 3 years (the year he was in and 2 added on) when this was added on.

I also don't think the Bulls should do this. They should use the cap space to improve the team.

I believe that the contract is restricted to 5 years, regardless of when you sign it. If he signs a max deal this summer, it would end in 2026. If he signs it a year from now, it would end in 2027.

I think that people looking for improvements via free agency are going to be sorely disappointed. I wouldn't be surprised if the team keeps Sato and Young and uses $12m to lock up Zach then extends Lauri. I suspect the team is going to use the rest of this year to see if that team can work or not.

Might be good to sneak into the playoffs next season and get swept unless Williams explodes in his second season. Is that considered working? We still need a starting PG and center. Thad and Sato are great backups to play 24 minutes a night. By trade or free agency this team needs external help.

[coldfish]

Correct me if I'm wrong but would an extension have to be shorter than what he could sign in FA. I think Harden got 3 years (the year he was in and 2 added on) when this was added on.

I also don't think the Bulls should do this. They should use the cap space to improve the team.

I believe that the contract is restricted to 5 years, regardless of when you sign it. If he signs a max deal this summer, it would end in 2026. If he signs it a year from now, it would end in 2027.

I think that people looking for improvements via free agency are going to be sorely disappointed. I wouldn't be surprised if the team keeps Sato and Young and uses $12m to lock up Zach then extends Lauri. I suspect the team is going to use the rest of this year to see if that team can work or not.

Might be good to sneak into the playoffs next season and get swept unless Williams explodes in his second season. Is that considered working? We still need a starting PG and center. Thad and Sato are great backups to play 24 minutes a night. By trade or free agency this team needs external help.

If you look around the league, most teams give big money to 2 to 3 players. Everyone else is a MLE type vet or less or on their rookie deal. The Bulls aren't some super high spending team that is going to pay 5 players $20m per year or more.

If Lauri + Lavine + vets can't make the playoffs and do well, the Bulls should seriously consider moving on from one or both of them. I strongly suspect what is going on right now is an extended try out for that.

There are a lot of fans here that have decided that Lauri + Lavine doesn't work. That's fair and they very well may be proven right. A lot of them haven't got the corollary that it means roster changes and not just additions.

Last note: The fact that Coby, Wendell, Valentine and Hutch look like near non contributors is a big part of Chicago's problem. A team needs a steady stream of youth to fill in the cracks. Its going to take years to really undo the damage from the bad drafting. If those 4 were replaced with Cam Johnson, SGA, Devonte Graham and Pascal Siakam we would be thinking long term contention.