BAE question

[daddyfivestar]

LA used it's BAE on Shannon Brown last yr with a player opt for year 2.

If he opts out, does LA get it back for 2010-11, or do they still have to wait until 11-12?
What if they give him a new contract this summer?

[Three34]

If he opts out, does LA get it back for 2010-11

No

or do they still have to wait until 11-12?

Yes

What if they give him a new contract this summer?

What of it? They'll just have to use something else. They'll have Early Bird rights on him by that time so it shouldn't be a problem.

[FGump]

If he opts out, does LA get it back for 2010-11

No

or do they still have to wait until 11-12?

Yes

What if they give him a new contract this summer?

What of it? They'll just have to use something else. They'll have Early Bird rights on him by that time so it shouldn't be a problem.

Why did they have to use BAE on their own FA they got via trade? Was he a "rookie scale option declined" player? If not, ...? If so, at what point did his Bird clock start again and how much Bird time does he now have accrued?

[Dunkenstein]

Why did they have to use BAE on their own FA they got via trade? Was he a "rookie scale option declined" player? If not, ...? If so, at what point did his Bird clock start again and how much Bird time does he now have accrued?

Yes, he was a "rookie scale option declined" player. As for your second question, I have no section of the CBA to cite, but I suspect that his Bird clock started with his new BAE contract. Logic dictates that if it continued from his Rookie Scale Contract, the Lakers wouldn't have had to use its BAE to re-sign him. This season would be his first year of service on his new Bird clock.

[Three34]

Brown's rookie scale ended after two years when Cleveland declined his third year option, trading him to Chicago partway through year two. After that, Charlotte signed him to a one year minimum, then traded him to the Lakers, where he was a UFA (with three years experience) with only non-Bird rights and a previous salary of only the minimum. So they had to use the BAE. However, since he has now played two years without changing teams as a free agent, I see no reason why he would not now be an early Bird free agent were he to opt out in the summer.

[FGump]

Brown's rookie scale ended after two years when Cleveland declined his third year option, trading him to Chicago partway through year two. After that, Charlotte signed him to a one year minimum, then traded him to the Lakers, where he was a UFA (with three years experience) with only non-Bird rights and a previous salary of only the minimum. So they had to use the BAE. However, since he has now played two years without changing teams as a free agent, I see no reason why he would not now be an early Bird free agent were he to opt out in the summer.

I didnt know all that history (didnt remember, didnt look). Conclusion looks right, in context. Muchas gracias for the help.

[mysticbb]

Regarding Shannon Brown: His caphold is 130% of his previous salary (Early Bird not coming off a rookie contract). Now the question is: Can the Lakers sign him to more than that using the Early Bird Exception? Because own players who qualify for the Early Bird Exception can be signed up to the greater of 175% or average salary. Wouldn't that be against the purpose of the caphold?

That isn't really a question which would be a concern regarding the Lakers, but for capspace teams. Say a team has such a player under contract, the player doesn't exercise his option and would count with 130% of his previous salary against the cap. The team would like to keep him to a higher salary. In that case they can sign other FA first and then use the Early Bird rights to sign said player to a bigger contract. In that way - just using Brown's salary as an example - they could gain $3.1m in some sort of "additional capspace", assuming the MLE will be $5.7m, because his caphold is only $2.6m.

Has anyone something useful to say about that?

[Three34]

I don't see why that's a problem.

[mysticbb]

Don't know exactly how your answer qualifies as "useful". ;)

Well, what is the purpose of the cap holds in the first place? I always thought the cap holds are there to make sure that this kind of scenario isn't possible. Using 130% as the cap hold while the team has the ability to sign said player to MLE-like money makes not much sense, at least to me. What is the reason for that?

[Three34]

Cap holds aren't designed to eliminate a team's cap room. They're designed to cut into it.

[FGump]

Don't know exactly how your answer qualifies as "useful".

Well, what is the purpose of the cap holds in the first place? I always thought the cap holds are there to make sure that this kind of scenario isn't possible. Using 130% as the cap hold while the team has the ability to sign said player to MLE-like money makes not much sense, at least to me. What is the reason for that?

Here's how I see it.

Cap holds are designed as a blind "estimate" of the size of the next contract, and are used to tie up the expected cap room needed - basing that estimate on the size of the last contract along with certain other contractual parameters that often have an effect.

In Brown's case, the system "estimates" he'll make a bit more the next time than he did in his last salary, and takes that size of a cap bite from the Lakers until he's actually signed.

But there's nothing within that system used to determine a player's actual ability and likely contract, just a blind situationally-based estimate, which means that there's always the chance that the blind estimate could be much too high or much too low.

In Brown's case, of course, it is likely much too low.

But the league wants to encourage improvement and continuity. In instances like with Brown where a team has a player who has developed and improved considerably as he enters free agency, with an "underestimation" on that cap hold for his next contract, this system gives a reward of sorts to the team for doing a better job of developing their players. Which is an action the league wishes to reward.