CBA Suggestion: Exception to allow Teams to Replace Players who Leave via Free Agency

[2LeTTeRS]

Way too many times; we've seen teams in the same precarious position -- not wanting to hand over the big bucks requested by a role player; but unable to replace him if he leaves due to being capped out (i.e. Otto Porter, Tristan Thompson, J. R. Smith, etc.). With all the changes that we've seen I would love to see Adam Silver and the players union discuss this; as there simply has to be a mechanism that allows teams some modicum of flexibility while still allowing the player the opportunity to receive his true value on the free market.

My suggestion you ask? Allow a team an exception worth 50% of the starting salary received by the departing free agent. This gives team an additional avenue instead of the 2 that are referenced above. That would allow a team like Washington to replace Otto Porter with a decent vet (i.e. Rudy Gay or Johnathon Simmons) while still remaining fiscally responsible.

Two questions for you guys: 1) Could you see this happening? and 2) Should it?

[heatwillbeback]

I like it. Would keep players from holding teams hostage like some do.

I also think the players may go for it since it's more money available to them collectively.

[MGB8]

I like it.

I also like the idea of compensatory picks being given out in the next draft, in between the 1st and 2nd rounds (so valuable), ordered on the salary that the departing FA gets (the bigger the salary, the higher the compensatory pick, same salary, flip a coin). Maybe not for every free agent, but non-renounced ones?

[BdeRegt]

I don't like this idea. The idea behind the Bird exception is to allow teams to keep players that they draft and have grown with the team. It is so teams can keep a player for his whole career like a Kobe, Duncan, or Dirk situation versus NFL with hard cap that forces successful teams to get rid of veterans. I like the idea of exceptions staying in that manner not creating more opportunities for a team to build through Free Agency. There are already enough exceptions with minimum, MLE, etc. to build a team. All the players you mentioned, the team has an option to replace that player with a guy worth about 50% of their salary using the MLE but the team wanted to save the MLE to improve another spot and keep the player.

[Duke4life831]

I usually cant stand threads like these but I gotta say I like it a lot. Something like this wouldve really saved the Pelicans this summer with the Holliday signing. The Pelicans were really stuck in the middle of a rock and a hard place with the Holliday situation, they still wouldve received no cap room if they just let him walk so they were basically forced to overpay him to keep from losing him for nothing.

[turk3d]

I think this might be a good idea. Whatever the players signs for, allow them an exception It would be up to the team whether or not to use it for that amount which would allow them to go out and buy (or purchase) another player or two to replace the one which was lost. Maybe even give them a TPE. It would be up to the team whether or not they used it, but if they did, they wouldn't be required to pay the luxury tax. I like it and I think it would be a great idea so that teams that have players spit, are put into a much better position to recover.

[2LeTTeRS]

I don't like this idea. The idea behind the Bird exception is to allow teams to keep players that they draft and have grown with the team. It is so teams can keep a player for his whole career like a Kobe, Duncan, or Dirk situation versus NFL with hard cap that forces successful teams to get rid of veterans. I like the idea of exceptions staying in that manner not creating more opportunities for a team to build through Free Agency. There are already enough exceptions with minimum, MLE, etc. to build a team. All the players you mentioned, the team has an option to replace that player with a guy worth about 50% of their salary using the MLE but the team wanted to save the MLE to improve another spot and keep the player.

Understand completely; and I appreciate you providing a reason why you're opposed to it. I just look around the league and see so many deals that teams would not have made if they weren't capped out and had the flexibility to add a player even half as expensive as the impending free agency. I mean besides the players I already mentioned -- look at the Hornets with Nic Batum, or the Clippers who basically had to either pay Blake Griffin this summer or trot out a team of also-rans around Deandre Jordan and the crew acquired from Houston (and lets not even mention how the capped out Cavs will look next year if LeBron leaves).

[ProfessorJM]

I'm kind of one that favors a true hard cap but this idea is pretty interesting because it might allow both players and owners some incentives to make more flexible decisions.

[HoopsterJones]

I like the premise of the idea provided that the team the player left offered a deal to re-sign said player. This is to avoid team's taking advantage of the provision and letting a player walk to create a sizeable exception to sign another FA. For example GS let's Klay walk in free agency and are able to offer a contract to another quality player and don't skip a beat while trimming salary and luxury tax.

[BdeRegt]

I don't like this idea. The idea behind the Bird exception is to allow teams to keep players that they draft and have grown with the team. It is so teams can keep a player for his whole career like a Kobe, Duncan, or Dirk situation versus NFL with hard cap that forces successful teams to get rid of veterans. I like the idea of exceptions staying in that manner not creating more opportunities for a team to build through Free Agency. There are already enough exceptions with minimum, MLE, etc. to build a team. All the players you mentioned, the team has an option to replace that player with a guy worth about 50% of their salary using the MLE but the team wanted to save the MLE to improve another spot and keep the player.

Understand completely; and I appreciate you providing a reason why you're opposed to it. I just look around the league and see so many deals that teams would not have made if they weren't capped out and had the flexibility to add a player even half as expensive as the impending free agency. I mean besides the players I already mentioned -- look at the Hornets with Nic Batum, or the Clippers who basically had to either pay Blake Griffin this summer or trot out a team of also-rans around Deandre Jordan and the crew acquired from Houston (and lets not even mention how the capped out Cavs will look next year if LeBron leaves).

Ya, I think it is a difference of opinion. I like the difficulties that cap can cause and think teams who don't manage the cap well should struggle because of it. The Hornets are a great example of a team I think should be punished because of poor decision making. Clippers on the other hand I think have done a tremendous job handling the CP3/Blake offseason and set themselves up well for present and future. Ultimately, most of the time the cap causes a cyclical nature where a team gets good, has to spend a lot, ends up with bad cap situation as players fade, struggles, gets younger players, clears cap space, gets prospects, and rebuilds until good again. Some teams are able to maneuver to stay good while others make poor decisions and never improve but I like that general cycle.

[OptionZero]

The logjams or "hostage" situations are usually self-created due to stupid spending elsewhere, and i am opposed to anything that helps dumbass teams bail themselves out.

The Blazers didn't need to overpay and re-sign everyone; neither did CHA; neither did MIA. They chose to, they can live with the consequences.

[Nolan]

I don't mind the idea. One little addition I would make to it is that if a team uses it 50% exception (or whatever you want to call it) they then forfeit their MLE and bi-annual exceptions.

But at the same time a rule like this only helps keep the rich rich and gives some poorly managed teams an easy out. Free agency doesn't just sneak on teams, the Wizards are a prime example of this. They knew Porter was going to be restricted this summer and due for a big raise yet they went out and spent like drunken sailors last summer. That was their choice and it was their choice to match on Porter and pay the tax this year (unless they dump someone). They could of been smarter with their money last summer and set themselves up to be a better cap situation this summer but they didn't and I don't think teams that put themselves in situations like this should get an out.

[Hangtime84]

A player is already held hostage for 8 years if they are good why do people think it should be longer

[Chinook]

I'd rather the league offer compensatory picks between the first and second rounds. I dunno, offer five of them a year for teams who lost their FAs the July before. And set those up on a scale where the players get a guaranteed first year and two options then RFA.

Players get more guaranteed money, teams get an asset without large-market teams having an unfair advantage.

[jbk1234]

As a practical matter, it has zero chance of happening. Owners in general don't like exceptions to the salary cap because every exception gives back more BRI. More specifically, a majority of owners would never agree to it because most of the teams in the luxury tax are really good and teams under the luxury tax have to compete against them. If my competitor has to overpay the JRs & Crawfords of the league, or lose them with no means of replacing their production, then let them overpay. That's one less team to worry about competing against in FA. Finally, there's no way a majority of owners would agree to a rule change that would benefit the Warriors and this clearly would.

[Teen Girl Squad]

I'd rather the league offer compensatory picks between the first and second rounds. I dunno, offer five of them a year for teams who lost their FAs the July before. And set those up on a scale where the players get a guaranteed first year and two options then RFA.

Players get more guaranteed money, teams get an asset without large-market teams having an unfair advantage.

I really like this idea as well if you can limit the amount of picks. I'm for flexibility and not punishing teams for 4+ years for 1-2 mistakes.

[jbk1234]

If the concern is overpaying role players, I'd go the other way and suggest only four, or even three, players on any roster in any particular season could be eligible for full Bird rights.

[Pinkyring]

I could go either way but i really prefer it how it is now, u already can get the ability of a tpe if you're over the cap and workout a snt but also u know a guys worth and his market so jrue for example was mentioned above, if u knew he'd be a price u didnt wamt to pay just trade him at the deadline, new orleans was set on this core so thats the price u pay. Same with wizards and porter and lets not even get on other terrible contracts on these teams roster(mahimmi) that made maxes like porter harder to swallow

[2LeTTeRS]

A player is already held hostage for 8 years if they are good why do people think it should be longer

I think you may have misunderstood; this idea is actually the polar opposite of holding a player hostage -- the players ability to leave remains the same while the vitriol due to them leaving presumably would be less as the original team has the ability to pick up compensatory players.

As a practical matter, it has zero chance of happening. Owners in general don't like exceptions to the salary cap because every exception gives back more BRI. More specifically, a majority of owners would never agree to it because most of the teams in the luxury tax are really good and teams under the luxury tax have to compete against them. If my competitor has to overpay the JRs & Crawfords of the league, or lose them with no means of replacing their production, then let them overpay. That's one less team to worry about competing against in FA. Finally, there's no way a majority of owners would agree to a rule change that would benefit the Warriors and this clearly would.

I don't think this is the case. BRI is set by the CBA; and the mechanism to ensure that players salaries don't exceed it is by putting a percentage of their salaries into escrow.

Here goes Larry Coon's explaining this much better than I can >>>>>>

The escrow system tries to ensure that salaries & benefits do not exceed the players' guaranteed share of BRI. To do this, 10% of the players' salaries1 is withheld from their paychecks and deposited into an escrow account. At the end of each season they compare the players' guaranteed share of BRI to the amount they were actually paid in salaries & benefits. If there was an overage (i.e., if the players were paid more pre-escrow than they were guaranteed), then the amount of the overage is returned to the teams from the escrow account. The players then receive any escrow money that remains. It is also possible that they find themselves at the end of the season with insufficient escrow funds to cover the overage.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16

[jbk1234]

A player is already held hostage for 8 years if they are good why do people think it should be longer

I think you may have misunderstood; this idea is actually the polar opposite of holding a player hostage -- the players ability to leave remains the same while the vitriol due to them leaving presumably would be less as the original team has the ability to pick up compensatory players.

As a practical matter, it has zero chance of happening. Owners in general don't like exceptions to the salary cap because every exception gives back more BRI. More specifically, a majority of owners would never agree to it because most of the teams in the luxury tax are really good and teams under the luxury tax have to compete against them. If my competitor has to overpay the JRs & Crawfords of the league, or lose them with no means of replacing their production, then let them overpay. That's one less team to worry about competing against in FA. Finally, there's no way a majority of owners would agree to a rule change that would benefit the Warriors and this clearly would.

I don't think this is the case. BRI is set by the CBA; and the mechanism to ensure that players salaries don't exceed it is by putting a percentage of their salaries into escrow.

Here goes Larry Coon's explaining this much better than I can >>>>>>

The escrow system tries to ensure that salaries & benefits do not exceed the players' guaranteed share of BRI. To do this, 10% of the players' salaries1 is withheld from their paychecks and deposited into an escrow account. At the end of each season they compare the players' guaranteed share of BRI to the amount they were actually paid in salaries & benefits. If there was an overage (i.e., if the players were paid more pre-escrow than they were guaranteed), then the amount of the overage is returned to the teams from the escrow account. The players then receive any escrow money that remains. It is also possible that they find themselves at the end of the season with insufficient escrow funds to cover the overage.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16

The salary cap is a function of BRI league wide. So if BRI tanks one year, and the cap was set too high, then everyone's salary is reduced accordingly. But, if your team goes over the cap, then you're voluntarily spending more than 51% of BRI. If your team is in the luxury tax, then you're voluntarily spending way more than 51% of BRI.