RealGM

I'm not quite sure about the concept of renouncing rights but I think it's something like this:

Clips renounce the rights to Brand, meaning they can only offer him a 5 year deal like every other team but not the maximum of 6 years if they had retained the bird rights. What I don't understand is I read somewhere that they had to renounce the right to Brand and Maggete in order to offer Davis a lucrative deal. What I don't understand is why is necessary to renounce players rights in order to offer contracts to free agents.

Could someone please clarify the concept of renouncing rights and why it is necessary.

Neal04 wrote:I'm not quite sure about the concept of renouncing rights but I think it's something like this:

Clips renounce the rights to Brand, meaning they can only offer him a 5 year deal like every other team but not the maximum of 6 years if they had retained the bird rights. What I don't understand is I read somewhere that they had to renounce the right to Brand and Maggete in order to offer Davis a lucrative deal. What I don't understand is why is necessary to renounce players rights in order to offer contracts to free agents.

Could someone please clarify the concept of renouncing rights and why it is necessary.

To prevent loopholes.

In other words, so the Clippers couldn't offer Davis a huge deal and then say "Hey, we've got the Bird Rights to Brand and Maggette, too. Let's keep 'em!"

In this case, they either had to have the cap space outright (including their cap-holds) to sign Davis and then Brand and Maggette, or renounce their rights in order to create room.

But then, of course, you can't offer them as much money as before and they're no longer restricted and could then just go sign with, I don't know, say, Philadelphia and Golden State. Yikes.

Devin 1L wrote:
In this case, they either had to have the cap space outright (including their cap-holds) to sign Davis and then Brand and Maggette, or renounce their rights in order to create room.

But then, of course, you can't offer them as much money as before and they're no longer restricted and could then just go sign with, I don't know, say, Philadelphia and Golden State. Yikes.

This is not accurate. First, neither Brand nor Maggette could have been restricted free agents like you mention. They both could only be unrestricted free agents.

Secondly, as has been discussed in various places including the Brand thread in this forum, the Clippers didn't have to renounce Brand in order to sign Baron to the agreed upon terms. They could have signed Brand first with the bird rights advantages (6 year instead of 5 year, 10.5% of first year salary raise instead of 8%) to a salary that would still have allowed them to give Baron the contract they agreed to terms with him on.

GrandAdmiralDan wrote:

Devin 1L wrote:
In this case, they either had to have the cap space outright (including their cap-holds) to sign Davis and then Brand and Maggette, or renounce their rights in order to create room.

But then, of course, you can't offer them as much money as before and they're no longer restricted and could then just go sign with, I don't know, say, Philadelphia and Golden State. Yikes.

This is not accurate. First, neither Brand nor Maggette could have been restricted free agents like you mention. They both could only be unrestricted free agents.

I'm not sure what you are saying here that is any different from what I said.

You've either got to have cap space including your cap holds, or get rid of them to make room, thereby renouncing them and thus making them no longer restricted free agents, aka unrestricted free agents.

Secondly, as has been discussed in various places including the Brand thread in this forum, the Clippers didn't have to renounce Brand in order to sign Baron to the agreed upon terms. They could have signed Brand first with the bird rights advantages (6 year instead of 5 year, 10.5% of first year salary raise instead of 8%) to a salary that would still have allowed them to give Baron the contract they agreed to terms with him on.

To be honest, I didn't read through the Brand thread, but was using, what I thought was, common sense.

If the Clippers could have resigning Brand using his Bird Rights, and then signed Davis (to the deal he wanted), then why in hell would they ever renounce Brand?

I guess I don't follow the logic.

I assumed that they the reason that they were renouncing Brand is because without doing so they wouldn't have enough room for Davis, and that presumably Brand already agreed to a price (cheaper than his hold) provided that they brought in Davis. Brand would then resign trading off the higher salary this year (which gave them the room they needed) for a longer contract security and the ability for the team to bring him in a good point guard teammate.

They wouldn't renounce Brand- thats the point.

killbuckner wrote:They wouldn't renounce Brand- thats the point.

the original point is that you cannot renounce Restricted Free Agents... it's in the CBA. You have to pull their Qualifying Offer first, which makes them unrestricted, and then renounce them (assuming it's between July 1 and July 23)... so there really is no such a thing as renouncing a restricted free agent since he becomes unrestricted when the QO is pulled anyway

The only reason they'd renounce Brand was if they wanted to sign Davis first and Brand wanted to wait it out a little bit (which doesn't really make sense anyway if the Clips just would have given him the largest deal they could in the 1st place)

Devin 1L wrote:

GrandAdmiralDan wrote:

Devin 1L wrote:
In this case, they either had to have the cap space outright (including their cap-holds) to sign Davis and then Brand and Maggette, or renounce their rights in order to create room.

But then, of course, you can't offer them as much money as before and they're no longer restricted and could then just go sign with, I don't know, say, Philadelphia and Golden State. Yikes.

This is not accurate. First, neither Brand nor Maggette could have been restricted free agents like you mention. They both could only be unrestricted free agents.

I'm not sure what you are saying here that is any different from what I said.

You've either got to have cap space including your cap holds, or get rid of them to make room, thereby renouncing them and thus making them no longer restricted free agents, aka unrestricted free agents.

Secondly, as has been discussed in various places including the Brand thread in this forum, the Clippers didn't have to renounce Brand in order to sign Baron to the agreed upon terms. They could have signed Brand first with the bird rights advantages (6 year instead of 5 year, 10.5% of first year salary raise instead of 8%) to a salary that would still have allowed them to give Baron the contract they agreed to terms with him on.

To be honest, I didn't read through the Brand thread, but was using, what I thought was, common sense.

If the Clippers could have resigning Brand using his Bird Rights, and then signed Davis (to the deal he wanted), then why in hell would they ever renounce Brand?

I guess I don't follow the logic.

I assumed that they the reason that they were renouncing Brand is because without doing so they wouldn't have enough room for Davis, and that presumably Brand already agreed to a price (cheaper than his hold) provided that they brought in Davis. Brand would then resign trading off the higher salary this year (which gave them the room they needed) for a longer contract security and the ability for the team to bring him in a good point guard teammate.

I think you are not correctly using the term "Restricted Free Agent". Keep in mind that a player can only be a restricted free agent if he has been in the league for less than 4 years or if he is coming off the 4th year of his rookie scale contract. In Elton Brand & Corey Maggette's case they are both "Unrestricted Free Agents".

Devin 1L wrote:You've either got to have cap space including your cap holds, or get rid of them to make room, thereby renouncing them and thus making them no longer restricted free agents, aka unrestricted free agents..

What GAD was correcting was your concept (repeated above) that the Clippers could have somehow done something, if they had chosen, to make Brand and Maggette restricted free agents.

Under ANY circumstances, neither player could have been restricted. No matter what. It didn't matter what LA chose to do, it was impossible under the rules. (The only way for a player to be made a restricted free agent is to have 4-or-less seasons of NBA experience on his resume, and in most circumstances it's less. Obviously Brand and Maggette are way past that point.)

And the scenario to keep Brand would have been to sign him first, using Bird rights, and then sign Davis afterwards using the remaining cap space. Obviously Brand would NOT have been renounced by doing it in that sequence, which was the point GAD was making and which would have been the most advantageous sequence for the Clippers to follow.

lakerfan10770 wrote:
I think you are not correctly using the term "Restricted Free Agent". Keep in mind that a player can only be a restricted free agent if he has been in the league for less than 4 years or if he is coming off the 4th year of his rookie scale contract. In Elton Brand & Corey Maggette's case they are both "Unrestricted Free Agents".

You're right, I was using the term incorrectly.

FGump wrote: which would have been the most advantageous sequence for the Clippers to follow.

You mean like waiting to sign your 1st round draft pick until after taking care of the big money free agents, so as to maximize your cap room?