Can a player who has option sign as a FA for 2 years?

[turk3d]

If a player with an option for next year cannot get his team to trade him to the team of his choice (perhaps they are asking to much in trade from the team he is going to and the player doesn't want to go to a team that could be weakened too much by the trade) could he instead sign with them as a FA for a two year deal or even a max deal (5 years instead of 6) but get another opt out clause built in (allowing him to escape the new contract and then get a new one)?

In this way he could get another extension (but this time for max money or S & T'd for the same)? If so is there a minimum # of years he has to wait on his new contract before the new opt out can be implemented? If this is not clear I'll be happy to further elaborate. Thx.

[Three34]

I think you might need to elaborate further because I didn't follow that. Draw some pictures with it or something.

[loserX]

I think it's the first "with an option" that's confusing.

I think the question is (and turk, please correct me if I'm wrong):

Let's take a player who is FA, and max-contract worthy. (We'll call him "Bosh".) He decides he wants to be sign-and-traded to a certain team ("the Warriors"), but his incumbent team ("the Raptors") want an exorbitant return in exchange for "Bosh", possibly crippling "the Warriors". "Bosh" does not want "the Warriors" to be terrible when he gets there, so this S&T makes no sense.

So, can "Bosh" sign a contract with "the Warriors" for whatever amount, but which has an opt-out clause, which he exercises after one year so that he can get a new contract?

Turk, is that what you meant? If so, you have to also remember that signing an FA contract with another team wipes out Bird rights. So even if "Bosh" opted out after one year with "the Warriors", they wouldn't be allowed to then offer him a max deal unless they were under the cap far enough to do so.

[turk3d]

I think you pretty much have it loser. I guess (based on your input) is let's say he opts out (and Bosh is the perfect example) then he's a FA and can sign with whomever for whatever he wants. Couldn't he sign a two year or a 3 year tender (or even a 5 yr deal) with another opt out provision after so many years (say 1, 3 or even 3). At that time (let's say two years later for arguments sake, couldn't then do s new deal (with his new team) and then get a "truly" max deal in the process (either by a S & T or with the team he's now with? Thx. Sorry for the lack of clarity as I'm not sure what the exact mechanism would be to do this (if even possible).

Edit: It looks like it would be at least 3 years before his new team would hold Bird rights which would allow him to be paid max money. Is that right? Still an interesting idea. Instead of a 6 year deal, he signs for 5 with an opt out at the end of the 3 year period which might be more beneficial to the signing team if they didn't have the assets to trade back to Toronto in order to give them the incentive to do a S & T. It also allows the team to keep the essential assets needed in order to be a serious contender and offers some interesting tradeoffs.

[FGump]

If a player with an option for next year cannot get his team to trade him to the team of his choice (perhaps they are asking to much in trade from the team he is going to and the player doesn't want to go to a team that could be weakened too much by the trade) could he instead sign with them as a FA for a two year deal or even a max deal (5 years instead of 6) but get another opt out clause built in (allowing him to escape the new contract and then get a new one)?

In this way he could get another extension (but this time for max money or S & T'd for the same)? If so is there a minimum # of years he has to wait on his new contract before the new opt out can be implemented? If this is not clear I'll be happy to further elaborate. Thx.

I think you are asking if a player can slide over to a team of his choice on a long-term deal that's not quite to his satisfaction, but with an out somewhere along the way that lets him then sign with that new team for the bigger better deal he always wanted.

The answer is "yes, sorta." He can get the opt out concept built into the deal (or an option), but it isn't allowed to be applied to the early years of a long-term contract.

For a max-length deal with a new team (5 years), he can't get an "opt out" built into it sooner than the end of 4 years. If he wanted out after 3 years - once he has Bird rights - to sign a new deal, then the best alternative available is to sign a deal for 3 years with a player option for yr 4. While that gets him out of the old deal and into a new one quicker, the downside to the PO alternative is that he's only guaranteed 4 years in the event of injury or declining skills.

In summary, there would be no way for the player to do a long deal for its guarantees, and then slide out of it in a year or two to get a max contract. He can do a "guaranteed 4 if he wants it" (3 yrs + PO for yr 4) and out in 3, or a guaranteed 5 and out in 4.

[turk3d]

Thanks Gump. So that means he'd have to stay a minimum of 3 years with the team he signs as a FA with before he can opt for a new deal which allows him to get back into a Bird situation, right?

[FGump]

Thanks Gump. So that means he'd have to stay a minimum of 3 years with the team he signs as a FA with before he can opt for a new deal which allows him to get back into a Bird situation, right?

It takes 3 years (after signing as a FA) to accumulate full Bird Rights again, yes.

[Three34]

What you've inadvertently stumbled upon is the exact reason why the three year system exists in the first place.

[turk3d]

I don't think that it was inadvertent.

It's a good thing they made it 3 years but it could come into play in a stubborn trade negotiation. As Gump pointed out the injury factor comes into play but it does give the player (and the team he wants to go to) a little additional leverage in any negotiations. In either case, he'll get a max deal (-10% and - the 5th and 6th years). Max minus 10% is pretty good and so is a 4 year max deal, probably enough to set up the player and his family for the rest of their lives.

So the question posed is this: does a player go somewhere (maybe to a franchise he doesn't want to or where he feels if his current teams trade demands are met it leaves him with a depleted team which he feels may not be able to compete on the level he's looking for) or will he take the money and perhaps have to wind up with another rebuilding program that he desires to leave? If it's all about the money, then he might as well just stay where he's at and take the 6 year max deal which his current team can offer him.

There could be a lot of bluffing going on after the playoffs between teams and players who are negotiating deals once we get into this years offseason. Should prove quite interesting. Although certainly not the norm, guys have been known in the past to leave significant amounts on money on the table to go somewhere or to play with guys they may be close to. See Karl Malone, Payton and even Shaq (who restructured his deal) as examples in order to play with a team and players that they wanted to play with.

[Dunkenstein]

Shaq (who restructured his deal)

When did Shaq restructure his contract?

[daddyfivestar]

It must've right after he dunked and screamed "Pay me my f*#^&ing money Buss!"

Oh wait.

[turk3d]

Shaq (who restructured his deal)

When did Shaq restructure his contract?

When he went to Miami. His contract called for about 30M and he restructured to 20M I believe.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2122716

O'Neal signed a $100 million, 5-year contract with the Miami Heat on Tuesday, a deal that gives the 12-time All-Star center added financial security while allowing his team salary flexibility to pursue other players.

He'll make $20 million in each of the next five seasons in an agreement believed to include incentives. He was to have earned $30.6 million this coming season, but opted out of that deal for a longer-term pact with less money annually.

This was so the Heat could still pursue getting quality players to surround him with, which could wind up being a factor with some of these other guys. Malone gave up around 16 M to come play with the Lakers for about a Million and a half. I believe Payton did something similar so it's not unprecedented.

[Dunkenstein]

^^^^^ Technically, opting out of a contract and signing a new contract is not considered restructuring a contract. What Shaq did was agree to a new contract at a lower salary, though much longer in length, rather than complete the final year of his Laker contract.

[turk3d]

Agreed Dunk. It would be "restructuring" I suppose if he remained with his current team. Not sure if anyone has done. Did Wade/Riley do something along those lines with his most recent deal? I'm just making the point that guys on some occasions are willing to take less money to get themselves into what they consider to be in a better situation.

[Dunkenstein]

Restructuring of an existing contract has been outlawed by the last two CBAs (I think it's two). The only time a contract can be restructured is during the waiver process, when a player agrees to accept a buyout of a smaller amount than he is contractually owed.

[FGump]

In theory Shaq supposedly took less money ...but in actual real life terms, he ended up with way more.

He had one year left for 25M and opted out. In exchange for letting go of that 25M, he got 100M ...a deal no other team in the league could have given him. By signing it and getting it locked in, he was assured he'd get 100M even if his game went down or his weight went up (rather than just 25M) and there's no question he's been relatively overpaid for almost that entire contract.

[Dunkenstein]

In theory Shaq supposedly took less money ...but in actual real life terms, he ended up with way more.

He had one year left for 25M and opted out. In exchange for letting go of that 25M, he got 100M ...a deal no other team in the league could have given him. By signing it and getting it locked in, he was assured he'd get 100M even if his game went down or his weight went up (rather than just 25M) and there's no question he's been relatively overpaid for almost that entire contract.

If he helps Cleveland win a championship or two, is he being overpaid?

If he helps to keep LeBron in Cleveland, is he being overpaid?

If a guy with more money than he knows what to do with wants to assemble the best team money can buy, is he being overpaid?

[turk3d]

What about a sign and trade? What if Toronto extended him? Could it be for just one additional year (rather than another 5)? If so, could they immediately trade him to another team? How would that work? After the two years would his new team now own Bird rights? Hope you see where I'm going with this.

[FGump]

Larry Coon's CBA FAQ is your friend.

[turk3d]

Sounds like the answer is no.