CBA Extension question (Chris Paul)

[answerthink]

I am not confused in any way. I have tried to be very nice and very patient in explaining all of the various rules. You’ve repeatedly stated that I have been incorrect, and have subsequently not taken issue with any of my answers after my explanations. I would have hoped you could have thanked me for taking the time to provide them to you. I encourage you to re-read the string for confirmation of this.

The concept of “annual increases,” or raises, seems to be your last remaining issue. In the now expired CBA, the first year of an extension was not a year in which a raise was applied. The raises were only applied in subsequent years. I think you now agree with this. I think you would also agree that from a strictly literal interpretation of the tentative agreement, the language suggests the rules will stay the same. If you don’t agree, I would ask you to consider that the term “annual increases” has remained constant from the now expired CBA, to Section 5 of the tentative agreement, to the extension language in Section 13.

Your point number two from above is incorrect. The “max salary” limits have nothing to do with raises (or “annual increases”) in the expired CBA. They deal with the first season of the extended term only. Annual increases are handled as stated in Art VII, Sec 7(a)(3), which refers you back to Art VII, Sec 5 (c)(3), which is revised as stated in Section 5 of the tentative agreement.

As I have repeatedly stated, the rules of the new agreement could change. The tentative agreement provided on 11/26/11 – as written – does not suggest it. It is certainly possible, however, that in the league’s attempt to be concise in its drafting of the tentative agreement, it overlooked this point. Your revision for extend-and-trade transactions could certainly prove correct. Can we agree now (for the benefit of anyone else who may be reading this string)?

[DBoys]

You clearly are still confused. I've tried to steer you in the right direction, but you are so intent on being "right" that you can't see beyond your original assumptions to clarify your understanding.

While you want to compartmentalize the numbers into unique categories, the max salary limits referenced in Art VII, Sec 7(a)(3) were clearly designed to encompass and entertwine with intended limits and max limits on raises. It's not a coincidence that 110.5% has been chosen. And you've become so focused on the fact that the first year was possibly different in the old CBA that you can't see that the max salary reference in Art VII, Sec 7(a)(3), which refers you back to Art VII, Sec 5 (c)(3), was (a) a limiter on otherwise allowable salary increases (all old extensions otherwise allowing 10.5% max raises in all years), not an expander, and (b) generally an "exception" created to the otherwise permissible 10.5% increases for those with Bird rights.

The fact is, there isn't any exception for year one detailed here. While it's certainly possible they might add an even lower limiter for year one (and I'll look for one when the new doc emerges in public), I would guess that they decided the max of 4.5% is sufficient limiter for what can never be more than a two-year extension.

In other words, Art VII, Sec 7(a)(3), which refers you back to Art VII, Sec 5 (c)(3), has expired, and now has been superseded by Sections 5 and 13 of the tentative agreement. By assuming a two-tiered rule when they have simply reverted to a single-tiered one and mentioned nothing else, you have come to an erroneous conclusion due to your expectations, not their words. If you want to wait until we have the actual document itself to finish this discussion, that is certainly acceptable.

[answerthink]

Ugh, never mind. I hope that at least I was more helpful to everyone else...

[DBoys]

Helpful? Sure. Despite your clear and repetitive attempts at being condescending, your effort to figure out the numbers was quite commendable - even though you struggle to recognize and admit that you can ever be mistaken or confused on some of them. And as you suggest, yes we can forego further discussion until the CBA itself is released.

[answerthink]

I apologize if I, in any way, gave the impression of condescension. My attempt is always to help, and only to help. This is sometimes very difficult to communicate in the written form.

I very much agree with you that our final point of discussion is unclear as written in the tentative agreement. My original post stated my assumption (in the parentheses next to the Extension header). It is very possible that this assumption will ultimately prove incorrect. This is how it worked in the now expired CBA. It is very possible that in the league's attempt to be concise, it lost the clarification the full agreement will ultimately to contain, which may be different from how it used to work.

This discussion has actually made it clear that I should not post responses without the benefit of an executed CBA (as there is no way for me to ensure correct responses). To that end, I will provide contract details that assume the new CBA works as you suggest. If the first year of the extended term is limited to 4.5% in extend-and-trade scenarios, then my #2 and #4 would be revised as follows (and not subject to adjustment):

2. Extend-and-Trade This Season
$16,359,805 | $17,779,458 | $18,579,534

4. Extend-and-Trade Next Season
$16,359,805 | $17,779,458 | $18,579,534 | $19,379,609

Hopefully adding these alternate scenarios communicates my intentions to only be helpful. Hopefully I have helped you with your understanding of how the now expired CBA works. And hopefully we will receive copies of the new CBA shortly, so we can confirm how it will work going forward.