RealGM

If the Suns and Channing Frye agree on an extension right now, what does it mean technically?

1) He opts out of the Player Option and then extends.
2) He opts in, but immediately replaces that 2014/15 salary with the new one.
3) Either is legal.

Thanks in advance!

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

See vet extensions

Player can 'invoke' option or not; has no bearing on the extension except ''A contract with an option can also be extended if the player opts-out, as long as the extension adds at least two new seasons onto the contract (excluding any new option year) and the salary in the first year of the extension is not less than the salary in the non-exercised option year.''

Thus 3, but with a caveat.

Thanks! Do you know if the two decisions could be made jointly, similarly to a Sign-and-Trade? Or should the player always opt in first, to be on the safe side?

Garf wrote:Thanks! Do you know if the two decisions could be made jointly, similarly to a Sign-and-Trade? Or should the player always opt in first, to be on the safe side?

It's probably the same sort of control either way but decided by a financial consideration, as the possible salary numbers won't be identical in the two choices. Raises would be calculated differently, leading to different limits and different contracts.

A player doesn't opt-in so much as he chooses not to invoke his option ('opt-out').

If the player's decision was contingent on an extension then realistically no team would go back on an agreement.

If talks were ongoing the the player has two choices. Invoke the option and force the team to make a suitable extension offer (gives the player leverage so long as he has a market in FA) or not invoke the option ('opt-in') and be willing to play under a one year deal if an extension can't be agreed upon.

Realistically players only ever accept these extensions if they don't want to play anywhere else (Duncan) or if the team is willing to pay a premium to keep the player off the market (as the Bucks attempted to do with Ellis).

ep1987 wrote:A player doesn't opt-in so much as he chooses not to invoke his option ('opt-out').

If the player's decision was contingent on an extension then realistically no team would go back on an agreement.

If talks were ongoing the the player has two choices. Invoke the option and force the team to make a suitable extension offer (gives the player leverage so long as he has a market in FA) or not invoke the option ('opt-in') and be willing to play under a one year deal if an extension can't be agreed upon.

Realistically players only ever accept these extensions if they don't want to play anywhere else (Duncan) or if the team is willing to pay a premium to keep the player off the market (as the Bucks attempted to do with Ellis).

Ummm this is all kinda backwards.

Frye has a player option, not an opt out opportunity. The "do nothing" default option is to become a free agent.

If he and Phoenix wanted to work on a longer deal for him, their choices are:
1 bypass free agency, decline the player option, and do an extension (in which case it would be an extension for 2 or 3 years), and Frye ends up with a 2-3 year commitment with the Suns
2 bypass free agency, accept the player option, and do an extension (in which case it would be the option year plus an extension for one or two years), and Frye ends up with a 2-3 year commitment with the Suns
3 decline the player option, don't do an extension, wait until free agency, and then sign a new deal, in which case it could be for as long as 5 years with the suns or 4 years with a different team

At 31, this is probably his last opportunity for a big payday, so I suspect he'll want to go into free agency and get the most he can.