RealGM

Not sure how many people venture into this forum, but this seemed like the appropriate place to ask.

I was reading up on the Poison Pill battle between Seattle Seahawks and Minnesota Vikings in the mid 2000s and it seems ingenious to me that you should utilise the poison pill in such a manner.

Now, what my question is, is why can't (or haven't) NBA teams used what the Seahawks and Vikings did in order to mess with teams from matching (and re-signing) their RFAs?

At the present time, poison pill contracts only seem to refer to the Houston Rockets poison pilling Lin's and Asik's contracts to prevent New York and Chicago respectively from matching their contracts because they would've incurred a huge 15 million cap hit in year 3 of those contracts. But that seems too narrow an interpretation on the poison pill contract, especially in comparison to the Seahawks/Vikings debacle.

Now I've read http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm and it doesn't answer my question.

Example. Let's say the LA Lakers really wanted to sign Eric Bledsoe, but knowing Phoenix Suns would very likely match even a max offer sheet, could LA insert a clause that read that if Eric Bledsoe plays more than 10 games in Phoenix, Phoenix has to send LA back their 2015 first (as Phoenix owns LA's 2015 first)

tl;dr, why can't teams insert punishment clauses to make it much tougher for teams to re-sign their RFAs?

You got it all wrong on the Asik and Lin situation. Maybe, read http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q44 again.

As far as bonus go, maybe reread http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q72

At the present time, poison pill contracts only seem to refer to the Houston Rockets poison pilling Lin's and Asik's contracts to prevent New York and Chicago respectively from matching their contracts because they would've incurred a huge 15 million cap hit in year 3 of those contracts.

That's actually not what poison pill is at all. See - http://www.shamsports.com/2013/07/omer- ... tract.html

tl;dr, why can't teams insert punishment clauses to make it much tougher for teams to re-sign their RFAs? -

Well, why should they? Why should a team with a restricted free agent be punished for that?

Aki wrote:Not sure how many people venture into this forum, but this seemed like the appropriate place to ask.

I was reading up on the Poison Pill battle between Seattle Seahawks and Minnesota Vikings in the mid 2000s and it seems ingenious to me that you should utilise the poison pill in such a manner.

Now, what my question is, is why can't (or haven't) NBA teams used what the Seahawks and Vikings did in order to mess with teams from matching (and re-signing) their RFAs?

1 Simple answer: Different leagues, different rules.
2 To be more specific, the restricted free agent rules in the NBA only allow require the old team to match bonuses in an offer that will have the same cap charge no matter which team ends up with the player.
3 As has already been said, the so-called "poison pill" deal that we saw with Lin and Asik exists not because of bonus clauses written into a deal, but rather because of special accounting rules on a few specific NBA contracts that create different cap costs for the new team and the old team, in making an offer and matching that offer.
4 Parallel situations to Lin-Asik (ie, creating that poison pill) will be rare. You can't do it with any player you want - it's only possible for a free agent with two-or-less years of NBA service. And because it takes a huge contract jump to be effective, you have to have a free agent who wasn't good enough to be a first round draft pick, has only been in the NBA a year or two, and now can command huge money from a suitor. Rare.
5 Houston would love to be out from under both Asik and Lin contracts, from what is being rumored. So even when it's doable, it brings plenty of potential financial downside risk for the offering team.