Back-ending future contracts

[youngtea]

Shouldn't all teams over teh cap currently restructure all their contracts to be back-end? Wouldn't it make more sense for the team, while not changing much for the players?

[DBoys]

The rules do not allow that.

[giberish]

Shouldn't all teams over teh cap currently restructure all their contracts to be back-end? Wouldn't it make more sense for the team, while not changing much for the players?

???

As noted, it's against the CBA.

Also, if a team was over the cap but under the tax they'd want to push a bit of extra salary into the current year to free up cap space or reduce expected cap bills going forward.

[youngtea]

Shouldn't all teams over teh cap currently restructure all their contracts to be back-end? Wouldn't it make more sense for the team, while not changing much for the players?

???

As noted, it's against the CBA.

Also, if a team was over the cap but under the tax they'd want to push a bit of extra salary into the current year to free up cap space or reduce expected cap bills going forward.

I see, but they do restructuring in the MLB and other leagues regularly. It makes sense for both parties it should be allowed.

[andyhop]

MLB doesn't have a salary cap and the NFL doesn't have fully guaranteed contracts so you aren't comparing similar situations

[DBoys]

I see, but they do restructuring in the MLB and other leagues regularly. It makes sense for both parties it should be allowed.

Tell it to the NBA and NBPA the next time they negotiate a deal. With all due respect, they think other leagues are doing it wrong, not the other way around. And their CBA rules are whatever the NBA and NBPA agree they are.

[Owly]

Shouldn't all teams over teh cap currently restructure all their contracts to be back-end? Wouldn't it make more sense for the team, while not changing much for the players?

???

As noted, it's against the CBA.

Also, if a team was over the cap but under the tax they'd want to push a bit of extra salary into the current year to free up cap space or reduce expected cap bills going forward.

I see, but they do restructuring in the MLB and other leagues regularly. It makes sense for both parties it should be allowed.

Others have already alluded to this but the NBA has had deals allowed to be restructured in the past, but given the league wants (more) parity it doesn't want individual players and teams to be able to move money around so that they can contrive to create "stacked" teams that wouldn't be possible with everyone being paid market value.


As far as what "makes sense" for teams and players it depends on their circumstances. Players should want their money sooner rather than later if the absolute sum is the same (because inflation eats into the value of the money the further away you get it), whilst for teams, a player whose contract is coming down is a valuable trade chip (because salary matching occurs based on present salaries, but if you're giving up a player who's salary is going to be lower, you should expect, in a fair trade, to get a better player). So there are obviously some circumstances where front-loading contracts makes more sense.

[DBoys]

"the NBA has had deals allowed to be restructured in the past"

They have? Please elaborate. If you are talking about the recent past, then you are mistaken. Guarantees can be altered by later agreement, but not financial terms for an ongoing deal that would reduce a player's pay.

"as far as what "makes sense" for teams and players it depends on their circumstances."

Again, it must be noted that "what makes sense" to the parties are restricted by the limits of the CBA. Prior to signing a contract, each party has to a free agent deal has lots of latitude to decide "what makes sense" to them. But once a deal has ALREADY been signed (as is being discussed here), the choices are very limited and in some areas entirely non-existent.

[Owly]

"the NBA has had deals allowed to be restructured in the past"

They have? Please elaborate. If you are talking about the recent past, then you are mistaken. Guarantees can be altered by later agreement, but not financial terms for an ongoing deal that would reduce a player's pay.

"as far as what "makes sense" for teams and players it depends on their circumstances."

Again, it must be noted that "what makes sense" to the parties are restricted by the limits of the CBA. Prior to signing a contract, each party has to a free agent deal has lots of latitude to decide "what makes sense" to them. But once a deal has ALREADY been signed (as is being discussed here), the choices are very limited and in some areas entirely non-existent.

That would depend on definitions of recent.

cf: http://articles.philly.com/1992-07-02/sports/26025480_1_tim-perry-and-center-suns-owner-jerry-colangelo-salary-cap
for instance.

I think it would be circa 95-96, otoh, that things changed.

To the second part, I'm unsure what your point is. We're all aware a contract is a contract (though there are never "no options" - players and teams can negotiate buyouts etc). As has been made clear restructuring enables teams to contrive low salaries (during a team's competitive window) to further evade an already soft cap. Are you advocating for this? Because it has been clearly explain why the league has a problem with this, and prior to that by others that the league is happy enough deciding/negotiating it's own CBA. I'm not sure what else you might be arguing.

[DBoys]

"I'm unsure what your point is ...restructuring enables teams to contrive low salaries (during a team's competitive window) ..."

My point is, the idea of restructuring a player's contract (as Barkley did almost 25 years ago) is NOT permitted in the NBA. There have been 4 new CBA's created since Barkley did so, and somewhere in there the practice was outlawed by rule. So the idea that teams "should" do such a thing are calling for them to do something impossible.

[Owly]

"I'm unsure what your point is ...restructuring enables teams to contrive low salaries (during a team's competitive window) ..."

My point is, the idea of restructuring a player's contract (as Barkley did almost 25 years ago) is NOT permitted in the NBA. There have been 4 new CBA's created since Barkley did so, and somewhere in there the practice was outlawed by rule. So the idea that teams "should" do such a thing are calling for them to do something impossible.

But no one has suggested that they should. Quoting me is baffling.

OP asked whether a restructing with back-loading shouldn't be allowed, and suggested that it made more sense for a team and no difference for a player. I responded why the league wouldn't be okay with that and that back-loading in general doesn't make more sense "as a rule" and that it is wholly contextual (citing examples of the benefits of front loading for teams and players).

No one said that teams should do something impossible, nor have I come close to saying any such thing so saying such a thing in a supposed response makes no sense.

[DBoys]

OP was saying that teams should be restructuring (he was not proposing a rule change), and that is what I first responded to. If you missed his meaning, so be it. You asked my point, and I said again that restructuring is not allowed, by rule. ~shrug~

And as some have continued to insist that it needs to become allowable somehow, I have noted that if both NBA and NBPA thought that, they'd do it. But instead, their negotiated choice says to us they do NOT agree that it's helpful, from which we can ascertain that either neither side wants it, or that if one side wants it, they apparently don't see it as desirable enough to give up what it takes to get the rule changed.

[Owly]

OP was saying that teams should be restructuring (he was not proposing a rule change), and that is what I first responded to. If you missed his meaning, so be it. You asked my point, and I said again that restructuring is not allowed, by rule. ~shrug~

And as some have continued to insist that it needs to become allowable somehow, I have noted that if both NBA and NBPA thought that, they'd do it. But instead, their negotiated choice says to us they do NOT agree that it's helpful, from which we can ascertain that either neither side wants it, or that if one side wants it, they apparently don't see it as desirable enough to give up what it takes to get the rule changed.

I was incorrect in my summary of the thread so far in mistating that OP had opined that teams should be able to restructure deals, rather my post was in response to (and clearly quoting from) youngtea who said that, whilst OP merely queried why teams didn't back end deals. That said ...

You quoted my post

"the NBA has had deals allowed to be restructured in the past"

They have? Please elaborate. If you are talking about the recent past, then you are mistaken. Guarantees can be altered by later agreement, but not financial terms for an ongoing deal that would reduce a player's pay.

"as far as what "makes sense" for teams and players it depends on their circumstances."

Again, it must be noted that "what makes sense" to the parties are restricted by the limits of the CBA. Prior to signing a contract, each party has to a free agent deal has lots of latitude to decide "what makes sense" to them. But once a deal has ALREADY been signed (as is being discussed here), the choices are very limited and in some areas entirely non-existent.

Again, why address these comments to me. It makes no sense. You appear based on the emphasis of snipped quotes to be under some misaprehension that it was in some way implied that restructuring deals was possible in the present NBA, which it in no way was.

Hence my opening

Others have already alluded to this but the NBA has had deals allowed to be restructured in the past, but given the league wants (more) parity it doesn't want individual players and teams to be able to move money around so that they can contrive to create "stacked" teams that wouldn't be possible with everyone being paid market value.

This implicitly refers to you, states that whilst players have been able to restructure deals "in the past" it isn't possible because the league wants specific things and doesn't want the negative effects of restructuring deals. It's difficult to take that statement on why the league won't allow restructuring and think, "I need to explain that restructuring can't be done". One could put the phrase "This is no longer allowed, and this is the case because ...", after the first sentence, but it doesn't need it because (1) that's already been said in the thread twice by that point (yourself and gibberish) and (2) anyone who reads on can tell that what follows is an explanation of why it's not allowed now.

[Smitty731]

It seems like this is starting to get personal and away from the subject at hand. If we can't keep it on topic and away from personal, I'll lock the thread. It is on thin ice as it is.