Who understands the new 40% rule and why it's not used?

[turk3d]

Supposedly a new rule was added to allow a team to rengotiate player contracts to spread them out over a greater number of years thereby reducing payroll and the players salary by as much as 40%.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/73294 ... -agreement

• A new "renegotiation and extension" provision allows an existing contract to be renegotiated so the player is paid a smaller amount over a longer period, but the player's salary cannot decrease by more than 40 percent. Renegotiations previously could only increase a player's salary.

This seems like a nice loophole which was added for teams over the cap to allow them to make trades (or even FA signings) which they otherwise wouldn't be able to do. I wonder why no one has attempted this yet. Have that not yet filled in the details?

[HartfordWhalers]

From a few threads down supposedly it doesn't exist:

quote="JES12"I understand the new CBA will allow a downward re-structure where a player cannot drop more than 40% of his current year salary and shift that money to a future year making the contract length longer/quote

^ Not allowed under new CBA

You sure? Espn reported it was added, and reported so after the deal was finalized and voted on.

A new "renegotiation and extension" provision allows an existing contract to be renegotiated so the player is paid a smaller amount over a longer period, but the player's salary cannot decrease by more than 40 percent. Renegotiations previously could only increase a player's salary.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/73294 ... -agreement

ESPN erred

http://mavericks.scout.com/2/1145100.html

[turk3d]

From a few threads down supposedly it doesn't exist:From a few threads

quote="JES12"I understand the new CBA will allow a downward re-structure where a player cannot drop more than 40% of his current year salary and shift that money to a future year making the contract length longer

^ Not allowed under new CBA

You sure? Espn reported it was added, and reported so after the deal was finalized and voted on.

A new "renegotiation and extension" provision allows an existing contract to be renegotiated so the player is paid a smaller amount over a longer period, but the player's salary cannot decrease by more than 40 percent. Renegotiations previously could only increase a player's salary.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/73294 ... -agreement

ESPN erred

http://mavericks.scout.com/2/1145100.html

Supposedly was a "B-List" item. That would certainly explain why no one's used it because I can sure see how it might be used by teams wanting to make trades that they otherwise wouldn't be able to. Thanks.

[HartfordWhalers]

Yeah, supposedly it either died on B list negotiations, (or was always misunderstood).

If it had made it into the CBA, it definitely had big big implications for a few teams like the Knicks and Dallas at least.

[turk3d]

Yeah, supposedly it either died on B list negotiations, (or was always misunderstood).

If it had made it into the CBA, it definitely had big big implications for a few teams like the Knicks and Dallas at least.

It might have gotten the Lakers over the top in obtaining Dwight.

[answerthink]

The article was incorrect. It written at a time when there was still much confusion.

The rule being referred to states that if a contract is extended and renegotiated simultaneously, then the player’s salary in the first season of the extended term cannot decrease by more than 40% of the player’s salary in the previous season.

However, as was true in the 2005 agreement and is again true in the 2011 agreement, a player cannot renegotiate existing salary downwards under any circumstances.

The provision may have been incorporated in response to the renegotiation and extension that the Thunder accomplished with Nick Collison last season (which is described here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1140118).

[DBoys]

Some saw the word "renegotiate" and assumed that meant you could do anything with the old contract, as in the NFL. Such was not (and has never been) the case in the NBA, and by DEFINITION an NBA "renegotiation" is always upward. The CBA explicitly says they can't ever renegotiate lower any year of a deal, period.

[turk3d]

The way I understood it (at least about the total value) is that it couldn't be less than 40% of the current deal per year spread out for some additional years. For example, let's say a player had another 3 years on his contract at 10M per (30M total) if the player agreed, the team could rewrite his contract @ 6M per year and adding an additional 2 years thereby lengthening the contract but not reducing the total amount (that is providing that the player would agree to it).

Is this plausible and if so, when could they do such a thing? Could it be done during the season. And constraints on it that are obvious ones? Of course the team could even add on an additional year to make it more attractive to the player. This would be another way for player who's on a good contract to make a sacrifice for the team in order to acquire a player (or players) that they need in order to get to the next level.

[answerthink]

Not plausible. A player’s salary in any given season cannot be re-negotiated downward.

[DBoys]

Dear Turk,

No, a renegotiation of a player's salary downward can't be done. Any how, any way, anytime, at all. That's what "a player cannot renegotiate existing salary downwards under any circumstances" and "the CBA explicitly says they can't ever renegotiate lower any year of a deal, period" and "a player’s salary in any given season can never be negotiated downward" are all telling you.

Love,

The CBA

[answerthink]

It’s perhaps a tough rule to understand, in light of the ESPN article that was initially posted.

The rule was actually designed to be more restrictive than the previous CBA (as opposed to less), and was designed to cover a different scenario than was originally thought. If you think about what Nick Collison and the Thunder did last season, the rule should hopefully make more sense.

[turk3d]

Well that explains why no ones done it. Really misleading, whoever wrote that article. Thanks.