Partial guarantees in year 1 (also in D-League)

Garf · Post #1 » by **Garf** » Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:20 am

Can a player be signed to a partially guaranteed 1-year contract using Bird Rights? A GM in my fantasy league intends to sign a guy to a 10m contract with mere 3m guaranteed till January 10, then trade him after December 15 for somebody with salary around those 10m and let the new team waive this guy cheaply soon after if they want to. (We don't implement buy-outs.)

Apologies if it has been asked before. The search function couldn't find anything.

Post #2 » by **Smitty731** » Sat Jul 16, 2016 9:04 pm

Garf wrote:Can a player be signed to a partially guaranteed 1-year contract using Bird Rights? A GM in my fantasy league intends to sign a guy to a 10m contract with mere 3m guaranteed till January 10, then trade him after December 15 for somebody with salary around those 10m and let the new team waive this guy cheaply soon after if they want to. (We don't implement buy-outs.)

Apologies if it has been asked before. The search function couldn't find anything.

In the real NBA, yes you could do this. But what they don't technically allow, but don't really enforce (witness Luke Ridnour trades last summer) is stacking salaries just for trade reasons.

Meaning you trade Player A for B who makes a little bit more than A. Then B for C who makes a little more than B and so on. But again, not really enforced.

Garf · Post #3 » by **Garf** » Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:39 pm

Many thanks!

DBoys · Post #4 » by **DBoys** » Sun Jul 17, 2016 2:26 am

The signing to such a contract would be legal.

But then being able to trade that player in the manner suggested, may not be allowed by rule. It just depends. There are multiple layers of trade restrictions in play here, and the real life manager who gave out this deal to make an artificial trade chip might get stuck with the player accidentally. If your league operates like real life, it's not a good idea imo.

Garf · Post #5 » by **Garf** » Mon Aug 1, 2016 5:53 am

Thanks for replying!

DBoys wrote:If your league operates like real life

It does.

DBoys wrote:There are multiple layers of trade restrictions in play here

Could you elaborate maybe?

DBoys · Post #6 » by **DBoys** » Mon Aug 1, 2016 6:06 pm

1 IN REAL LIFE, THE TRADE MAY BE DISALLOWED BY NO-TRADE RESTRICTION. By rule, this player will have no-trade control and can't be traded without his permission. (Of course, in real life players can reject such a trade, and often do. They signed that deal to keep playing where they are. In your league, who determines whether or not the player gave permission? Surely not the team who is asking for it. The competing owners?)
2 IN REAL LIFE, THE CONTRACT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE WAIVED AT NO COST, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS WRITTEN WITH A LIMITED GUARANTEE. As you already know, all contracts become fully guaranteed on Jan 10. But if the player was signed using Bird rights and got a raise of over 20%, he cannot be traded at all - even with his permission - until Jan 15. So at that point it's become a 10M expiring contract, with no added value, for a player perhaps worth minimum wage, and good luck finding a competing owner who wants to swallow that albatross.

Post #7 » by **165bows** » Mon Aug 1, 2016 9:27 pm

Smitty731 wrote:
Garf wrote:Can a player be signed to a partially guaranteed 1-year contract using Bird Rights? A GM in my fantasy league intends to sign a guy to a 10m contract with mere 3m guaranteed till January 10, then trade him after December 15 for somebody with salary around those 10m and let the new team waive this guy cheaply soon after if they want to. (We don't implement buy-outs.)

Apologies if it has been asked before. The search function couldn't find anything.

In the real NBA, yes you could do this. But what they don't technically allow, but don't really enforce (witness Luke Ridnour trades last summer) is stacking salaries just for trade reasons.

Meaning you trade Player A for B who makes a little bit more than A. Then B for C who makes a little more than B and so on. But again, not really enforced.

Smitty can you explain how the D-league rights go for this type of player? Say eg a guy like Ben Bentil, he signs this year for a partial guarantee. Are they allowed to protect a certain number of D-League players from being signed by other NBA clubs at this point or not? I believe I read at one point it was being discussed but wasn't sure what the current state of that was.

Post #8 » by **Smitty731** » Mon Aug 1, 2016 9:36 pm

165bows wrote:
Smitty731 wrote:
Garf wrote:Can a player be signed to a partially guaranteed 1-year contract using Bird Rights? A GM in my fantasy league intends to sign a guy to a 10m contract with mere 3m guaranteed till January 10, then trade him after December 15 for somebody with salary around those 10m and let the new team waive this guy cheaply soon after if they want to. (We don't implement buy-outs.)

Apologies if it has been asked before. The search function couldn't find anything.

In the real NBA, yes you could do this. But what they don't technically allow, but don't really enforce (witness Luke Ridnour trades last summer) is stacking salaries just for trade reasons.

Meaning you trade Player A for B who makes a little bit more than A. Then B for C who makes a little more than B and so on. But again, not really enforced.

Smitty can you explain how the D-league rights go for this type of player? Say eg a guy like Ben Bentil, he signs this year for a partial guarantee. Are they allowed to protect a certain number of D-League players from being signed by other NBA clubs at this point or not? I believe I read at one point it was being discussed but wasn't sure what the current state of that was.

If they bring Bentil to camp, which they will do, they have his rights to assign him to their D-League team. So, instead of Bentil camping with Boston and then going to Utah's D-League team, Boston can make sure he goes to Maine.

But you can't protect them/keep them from signing with another NBA team. They are free agents as much as anyone else.

D-League reformation is expected to be a big part of the next CBA. Both sides have things they want to change and things they want to implement. The biggest challenge right now seems to be getting 30 D-League franchises up and running. Believe it or not, there are a couple of hold out NBA teams on creating a D-League team. Chris Reichert wrote a good piece on it a couple of months ago:

http://upsidemotor.com/2016/05/31/nba-adam-silver-d-league-affiliate/

DBoys · Post #9 » by **DBoys** » Mon Aug 1, 2016 9:52 pm

"Believe it or not, there are a couple of hold out NBA teams on creating a D-League team."

It may be more than just a few. Last i looked, which was back in 2015, the entire D-League consisted of each DL team affiliated with a specific NBA team, except there was one D-League team that had about a dozen (?) (I don't remember the exact number, but it was a lot) affiliated NBA teams sending them players (if they wish). Obviously, those are teams who see the DL as an afterthought and something that is sparsely used, if at all.

Zaccai · Post #10 » by **Zaccai** » Mon Aug 1, 2016 10:40 pm

I do not that the D-League would be part of increase salary of next year of the NBA.

Post #11 » by **Smitty731** » Mon Aug 1, 2016 11:20 pm

DBoys wrote:"Believe it or not, there are a couple of hold out NBA teams on creating a D-League team."

It may be more than just a few. Last i looked, which was back in 2015, the entire D-League consisted of each DL team affiliated with a specific NBA team, except there was one D-League team that had about a dozen (?) (I don't remember the exact number, but it was a lot) affiliated NBA teams sending them players (if they wish). Obviously, those are teams who see the DL as an afterthought and something that is sparsely used, if at all.

Right now most teams are working towards their own club. There are a few who are entirely unaffiliated. They can still send players down, but have to reach an agreement with another club to use their D-League squad.

It seems like Portland is the biggest holdout of the whole bunch.

DBoys · Post #12 » by **DBoys** » Tue Aug 2, 2016 12:37 am

The number of teams without their own D-League affiliate is much larger than 1. I just looked it up.

Last year there were TWELVE teams all affiliated with one club, and 19 franchises in total. If you didn't choose to fund your own team, you were part of the "group" team in the event you wanted to send someone to the D-League.

This season there are only 22 franchises, so it would appear that there will still be 9 or 10 who have no D-League team to call their own. IOW Portland is far from the lone holdout. The following official DL site lists teams and affiliates if anyone wants to figure out all the NBA teams without their own DL affiliate.
http://dleague.nba.com/expansion/

Post #13 » by **Smitty731** » Tue Aug 2, 2016 12:43 am

DBoys wrote:The number of teams without their own D-League affiliate is much larger than 1. I just looked it up.

Last year there were TWELVE teams all affiliated with one club, and 19 franchises in total. If you didn't choose to fund your own team, you were part of the "group" team in the event you wanted to send someone to the D-League.

This season there are only 22 franchises, so it would appear that there will still be 9 or 10 who have no D-League team to call their own. IOW Portland is far from the lone holdout. The following official DL site lists teams and affiliates if anyone wants to figure out all the NBA teams without their own DL affiliate.
http://dleague.nba.com/expansion/

Sorry I was talking about current state going in to this year.. That was my fault. The teams without an affiliate are:

Atlanta
Denver
LA Clippers
Milwaukee
Minnesota
New Orleans
Portland
Washington

Those teams will be working with another club to send players down if they want. The Hawks and Clippers both took advantage of this several times last year. The Hawks worked with the Spurs and the Clippers worked with a few different teams.

All but Portland have made some progress towards their own club. Several hope to launch for the 2017-2018 season. Portland seems to have little to no interest in creating a D-League club.

Post #14 » by **Smitty731** » Tue Aug 2, 2016 12:45 am

DBoys wrote:The number of teams without their own D-League affiliate is much larger than 1. I just looked it up.

Last year there were TWELVE teams all affiliated with one club, and 19 franchises in total. If you didn't choose to fund your own team, you were part of the "group" team in the event you wanted to send someone to the D-League.

This season there are only 22 franchises, so it would appear that there will still be 9 or 10 who have no D-League team to call their own. IOW Portland is far from the lone holdout. The following official DL site lists teams and affiliates if anyone wants to figure out all the NBA teams without their own DL affiliate.
http://dleague.nba.com/expansion/

Also the 12 affiliates was actually two seasons ago IIRC. Last year all the teams were single affiliations. I believe that was after the Grizzlies took over sole affiliation with Iowa last season. Or it may have been the Pacers with Fort Wayne. It was one of the two.

DBoys · Post #15 » by **DBoys** » Tue Aug 2, 2016 1:05 am

Okay. Thanks. It was 2014-15 when there were 17 teams with a single NBA affiliate, and the final team (Ft Wayne) had 13 teams associated. Last year there were 19 teams with a single NBA affiliate, and this one there will be 22.

NEW YORK, September 15, 2014 – The National Basketball Association and the NBA Development League, the official minor league of the NBA, today announced the full list of affiliations between NBA and NBA D-League teams for the 2014-15 season, including an all-time high 17 single-affiliation partnerships. The Detroit Pistons (Grand Rapids Drive), Memphis Grizzlies (Iowa Energy), New York Knicks (Westchester Knicks), Orlando Magic (Erie BayHawks), Phoenix Suns (Bakersfield Jam) and Utah Jazz (Idaho Stampede) all entered into single affiliation relationships with their NBA D-League affiliate during the offseason. Additionally, the NBA D-League has implemented a new flexible assignment system which will enable the 13 independent NBA teams to continue to assign players to the NBA D-League for development or rehabilitation.

For the 10th consecutive season, each singly-affiliated NBA team will have one NBA D-League team to which it may assign its players. The Fort Wayne Mad Ants, the lone independent NBA D-League Team, will be affiliated with the remaining 13 NBA teams. To accommodate assignments to Fort Wayne, a flexible assignment system will be utilized when an independent NBA team assigns a player at a time when the Mad Ants already have either the maximum of four NBA players on assignment or two assigned players at the position of the NBA player who is being assigned. In either event, the NBA D-League will identify to the assigning NBA team any singly-affiliated NBA D-League team that is willing to accept the assigned player, and the independent NBA team assigning the player will choose a team from among those teams to assign the player. If no singly-affiliated NBA D-League team is willing to accept the assigned player, he will be assigned to one of the non-NBA-owned single affiliate teams pursuant to a lottery.

Since 2014-15 the NBA teams without a tie now have their players assigned by designation/lottery to one of the other teams, when they want to send one to the DL.

Upon receipt of an assignment from an independent NBA team, the NBA D-League will identify any NBA D-League team willing to accept the assigned player. The assigning independent NBA team will then choose the destination for assignment between those teams. If no NBA D-League team is willing to accept the assigned player, he will be assigned to one of the hybrid affiliate teams pursuant to a lottery.

Garf · Post #16 » by **Garf** » Fri Sep 2, 2016 10:26 am

DBoys wrote:(Of course, in real life players can reject such a trade, and often do. They signed that deal to keep playing where they are. In your league, who determines whether or not the player gave permission? Surely not the team who is asking for it. The competing owners?)

Sorry for the delay, been offline for a month.

We do use the No-Trade Clause just like the NBA. (And it is scarce just like in the NBA, because the conditions are quite rigorous as you surely know.) To answer your question: we have a parallel game where different agents compete to represent every single free agent. Once a given agency represents the FA, all 30 teams are allowed to start their negotiations with the agency. In this case, no other franchise offered as much as what the guaranteed part is, so he resigned. That's probably as close as you can arrive to simulating the player's actual permission?

Oh, and thanks to opening my eyes to that Jan 10 - Jan 15 overlap not being coincidental. Never thought about it this way.

PS
Interesting discussion, guys! I edited the subject to make people aware you covered the D-League too. I must say I'm surprised to hear which teams repeatedly hold out. Wasn't the Portland owner the richest of them all? Couldn't the Clippers at least share an LA-based team with the Lakers? I'd guess if Memphis can afford an affiliate, anybody can.

Also, Stampede is the coolest team name evah!!!

DBoys · Post #17 » by **DBoys** » Fri Sep 2, 2016 4:49 pm

"That's probably as close as you can arrive to simulating the player's actual permission?"

Umm, how does that setup mirror anything to do with a PLAYER giving permission to be traded to team X? I'm not suggesting the player might decline the contract. Instead, there is a later decision looming on the horizon, months after the contract has already been inked. At that crossroads, the interests of the "team" that signed him and the player himself may be entirely opposite. In real life, the "permission to trade"is not a part of the contract itself, when it is signed, and players who have have willingly signed contracts with no-trade control do block trades when the team tries to trade them.

Assuming this player has gotten a raise of more than 20%, the whole plan to create an artifical trade-advantaged piece is screwed anyhow. By the time he's eligible to be traded you will be asking the other team to accept a horrendous contract, a minimum salary player making $10M guaranteed, not a vanishing deal.