Stretch Questions

[shrink]

I've been thinking a lot lately about the stretch provision lately.

1. Can the decision to stretch a player be made at any time after the player is waived? For example, suppose a player had three years left on his deal at $10 mil a year. Must the team decide immediately to stretch the $30 mil over 7 years, or not stretch and pay it off in three years? Is there a middle ground, for example, where they pay him for a year, and later stretch $20 mil over 5 years? If there is no flexibility, why not give teams that choice? It's no loss to the player, and the team is already suffering from the fact they had to waive him and get zero production for those dollars.

2. Why not make the obligations to stretched players (and all waived players) tradable? We have seen Morey trade "dead men walking" to LAC, to clear financial hurdles in the Chris Paul trade - would tradable stretched obligations really be much different? Again, I don't see the harm to the players, and it seems like a benefit to owners.

I feel like I'm missing some unintended consequence, so enlighten me please.

[DBoys]

The salary itself is automatically stretched, regardless. There is no decision to be made about the payout.

The cap hit stays unchanged from the original contract, unless the team tells the league they want to invoke the opportunity to stretch the cap hit. If they decide that's what they wish to do, the team has to the end of the next day, after a player clears waivers, to notify the league.

The idea of trading "stretched obligations"? A rules change of that sort would be a total non-starter. You're just swapping a pile of cash (the money to pay off the stretch debt) from one team, and sending talent the other way for that cash. Selling off talented players is a practice the NBA has spent years trying to limit and eliminate. Also, there's the "lesson to be learned" factor: with the rules as they are, if you screw up and have to stretch-waive a player, that impacts your cap for years and nags at you every time you see your cap. As a result, that hopefully serves to motivate you to be smarter the next time when offering deals.

[Smitty731]

DBoys answered your questions the same way I would have.

But one thing hit me with the "nags at you every time you see your cap" comment: I don't understand some of the stretches this year at all. I get why Boston did it, so that they could bump the pay for Semi Ojeleye. But some of the others didn't do anything as far cap space at all and now the teams are carrying money.

I've always been of the mind that if you don't need to stretch for cap space, or to lower a luxury tax hit, it is always best just to take your lumps at once.

[DBoys]

Interesting observation. Perhaps those teams haven't had the um "thrill" of seeing dead money on their cap for some player waived years ago, and still have a lesson to be learned.

[HartfordWhalers]

DBoys answered your questions the same way I would have.

But one thing hit me with the "nags at you every time you see your cap" comment: I don't understand some of the stretches this year at all. I get why Boston did it, so that they could bump the pay for Semi Ojeleye. But some of the others didn't do anything as far cap space at all and now the teams are carrying money.

I've always been of the mind that if you don't need to stretch for cap space, or to lower a luxury tax hit, it is always best just to take your lumps at once.

Oh, I think this is pretty close to axiomatic.

And there is a sort of vicious circle that can accompany it on the wrong side:
Portland stretching Varejao begets Portland stretching Nicholson begets...

On the plus side, Sacramento seemed to figure it out this year. Sure they have cap hits for 2 more years for Caron Butler and three more years of Matt Barnes, but they decided not to stretch Afflalo and Tolliver and break that cycle.

[BdeRegt]

What stretch was really surprising this offseason? I haven't seen any that seem too eyebrow raising.

[Smitty731]

Ellis seemed somewhat unnecessary. Watson for Orlando certainly was. Hamilton from Toronto. Just eat the money at once and be done with it in those situations.

[giberish]

Ellis seemed somewhat unnecessary. Watson for Orlando certainly was. Hamilton from Toronto. Just eat the money at once and be done with it in those situations.

Toronto's competing and in high-salary mode. Hamilton's somewhat justified.

Orlando and Indy really stretched guys? I understand waiving some unnecessary and not good vets, but why wouldn't they want the full cap hit as soon as possible. They aren't competing this year and 2017 cap space is less valuable than 2018 or 2019 cap space. That's just nuts.

[BdeRegt]

Ellis seemed somewhat unnecessary. Watson for Orlando certainly was. Hamilton from Toronto. Just eat the money at once and be done with it in those situations.

Toronto stretched to get some wiggle room under the apron. They are hard capped so every dollar could count for a move during the season. For Orlando, it is small future hit. I can't recall if they needed the extra cap room for Simmons or the 3 year deal for their 2nd rounder (although could have used room exception). When Indiana stretched Ellis, I figured they might be looking to take someone into cap room in order to gain an asset. We'll see if this ends up happening during the season. If I was Pacers, I would have wanted more cap space next summer when think teams will pay more to dump. Ellis is one I wouldn't do but others make sense.

[DoItALL9]

Why not allow "scrunching"? I would define this as pushing part of a players' salary cap hit up sooner. For example, provided they had the cap space, why not allow the Lakers' Luol Deng contract to be converted into a 1 year deal for all of the remaining money left on the contract. If they didn't have the full amount then the small remaining amount could be pushed until next season. The player still gets paid. The team still had to use cap space. The fan gets a more competitive team faster instead of being hamstrung by the mistakes of often previous/removed/demoted/resigned/fired General managers and team presidents. What's the drawback?

I don't believe this benefits richer owners because for example in Portland because the tax would still be in place and if they converted they're bad deals they'd quadruple in price under the one year payoff based on the tax.

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

[BdeRegt]

Why not allow "scrunching"? I would define this as pushing part of a players salary cap hit upon sooner. For example, provided they had the cap space, why not allow the Lakers' Luol Deng contract to be converted into a 1 year deal for all of the remaining money left on the contract. If they didn't have the full amount the small remaining amount could be pushed until next season. The player still gets paid. The team still had to use cap space. The fan gets a more competitive team faster instead of being hamstrung by the mistakes of often previous/removed/demoted/resigned/fired General managers and team presidents. What's the drawback?
I don't believe this benefits richer owners for example in Portland because the tax would still be in place if they converted they're bad deals so they'd quadruple in price under the one year payoff.

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

This would definitely benefit rich owners who can afford to pay to fix their mistakes. That is the secret of the tax, it punishes small market teams. It'd basically be a re-negotiation with the player but changing those rules. I like ideas that allow teams to get more creative. I don't see it happening though.

[DoItALL9]

Why not allow "scrunching"? I would define this as pushing part of a players salary cap hit upon sooner. For example, provided they had the cap space, why not allow the Lakers' Luol Deng contract to be converted into a 1 year deal for all of the remaining money left on the contract. If they didn't have the full amount the small remaining amount could be pushed until next season. The player still gets paid. The team still had to use cap space. The fan gets a more competitive team faster instead of being hamstrung by the mistakes of often previous/removed/demoted/resigned/fired General managers and team presidents. What's the drawback?
I don't believe this benefits richer owners for example in Portland because the tax would still be in place if they converted they're bad deals so they'd quadruple in price under the one year payoff.

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

This would definitely benefit rich owners who can afford to pay to fix their mistakes. That is the secret of the tax, it punishes small market teams. It'd basically be a re-negotiation with the player but changing those rules. I like ideas that allow teams to get more creative. I don't see it happening though.

Yeah maybe I should've said doesn't benefit them outrageously.