RFA contracts

[Birdie]

Curious question when it comes to RFA contracts, how do they operate/protocol? Reading Larry Coon's FAQ gives me a headache but maybe someone out there can put it into normal language speak.

So, for my query, I'll use the Cavs as my example. Tristan, Iman & Delly are RFA the day after the NBA finals. I believe the Cavs have all 3 of their Bird Rights, so, they can go beyond the cap to sign them to whatever $$$, if I'm not mistaken.

I believe, each player is entitled to a particular % raise per year based on their service/previous salary. So, I guess part of my query is, using Tristan as an example, could the Cavs offer him the minimum salaried contract allowed after his % raises, something like 4 years 28mil and he can happily sign that even if some other team tells him, we'll offer you 4 years 60mil? Does he have to physically sign an offer sheet with another team or the fact that someone just offered him a better deal trumps the Cavs lowball offer and that would make the Cavs required to match it?

I guess the question boils down to whether the RFA player has the ability to cut a team a hometown discount, extreme or not, for example purposes when a better deal is on the table? Not that I would encourage a player to do that (GET PAID) but is that option available for said player with that decision? Just curious if that was doable.

[bondom34]

Yes, a player can sign whatever contract they want.

[Birdie]

Thanks bondom! It rationally made sense but wasn't sure if CBA wise it could be done since I've never heard/nor paid attention to whether a RFA gave a team some sort of hometown discount.

I guess best example of this would be in Iman's case:

Cavs offer Iman the lowest possible value they're obligated to offer him, say 4yr/25-30mil. And say for instance, PHI comes calling with a max offer sheet, whatever that may be, 4yr 60mil, not sure what a RFA max can be in Iman's case. Iman is set with the decision, do I sign the Cavs offer, stay with the team and championship bandwagon, cut them a deal or sign with PHI, get paid but be on a suck team OR hope you force CLE's hand to match to stay AND get paid. From what I understand, until Iman signs an offer sheet with another team, he can resign back with the Cavs at any # they agree upon that are within the construct value that the Cavs are required to offer him.

It's going to be fascinating how David Griffin and the Cavs capologists play this game when it comes time to deal with this roster after the finals end to keep this team intact and the transaction voodoo they have to carry out.

[bondom34]

Yep, its like regular free agency in that regard. Its definitely a decision for a bunch of guys, I wouldn't mind if Kanter did the same!

[Birdie]

haha. Yea, I think it's unlikely Kanter will be about the hometown discount. He just seems like that kind of guy who's all about himself especially with all that hub bub over his return trip to Utah and the bickering back n forth that came out of that during that week.

It made no sense for him to trash Utah. Who cares? Move on. It just made him look like an ahole.

[DBoys]

I think there are some pieces of the process that you're missing. Or maybe not. But in simplified form...

1 In order to be a RFA, it takes an actual standing contract offer on the table by the prior team ("Qualifying Offer"), CBA-specified amount, one year, offered in June and able to be accepted once free agency opens. The player can accept that, play for a year, and then become UFA the next summer. So no matter what other offers he gets in July, he can opt for the QO if he prefers.
2 As to the offers made in July, they can be for any amount allowable under the CBA. Up to the max. As low as the minimum. Both as to money and as to years.
3 As a RFA, he will pick an offer. One offer. If it's with a new team, he signs an "offer sheet" which is basically an outline of the contract he has "accepted" with the new team. Then his old team can match, or they can decline. They have 3 days to decide.
4 Both the new team and the old team can only make (or match) offers if they have the cap ability (room, or an exception) that allows them to offer such a contract.
5 So a player's ability to sign "whatever contract they want" is limited by the cap ability of teams to make offers. But the interested teams make cap-allowable offers, then player picks (signs) whichever one he prefers and then waits to see if it's matched.

There are lots of other details, but that's the broad outline.

[Birdie]

I think there are some pieces of the process that you're missing. Or maybe not. But in simplified form...

1 In order to be a RFA, it takes an actual standing contract offer on the table by the prior team ("Qualifying Offer"), CBA-specified amount, one year, offered in June and able to be accepted once free agency opens. The player can accept that, play for a year, and then become UFA the next summer. So no matter what other offers he gets in July, he can opt for the QO if he prefers.
2 As to the offers made in July, they can be for any amount allowable under the CBA. Up to the max. As low as the minimum. Both as to money and as to years.
3 As a RFA, he will pick an offer. One offer. If it's with a new team, he signs an "offer sheet" which is basically an outline of the contract he has "accepted" with the new team. Then his old team can match, or they can decline. They have 3 days to decide.
4 Both the new team and the old team can only make (or match) offers if they have the cap ability (room, or an exception) that allows them to offer such a contract.
5 So a player's ability to sign "whatever contract they want" is limited by the cap ability of teams to make offers. But the interested teams make cap-allowable offers, then player picks (signs) whichever one he prefers and then waits to see if it's matched.

There are lots of other details, but that's the broad outline.

Thanks for expounding at that. Yea, I pretty much got the gist of the RFA "protocol" from reading Larry Coon's bible that the QO had to come in order to begin the process. I guess, I'm to assume, if the team doesn't extend a QO, they'll most likely renounce said player?

It's not that I needed to know the nuts and bolts intricacies of RFA but rather was curious, in other circumstances on whether a player has taken less than offer when a larger deal may've been had on the open market. Of course, in the player's interest, why take less money when someone is there offering you more money.

I'm kind of viewing this in the prism of how we're going to deal with Tristan's deal. On one hand, I don't think we should offer him more than 4yr/40mil MAYBE 44mil because I'm in a generous mood. However, I believe we're all but hamstrung to pay him 13-16mil/yr unfortunately. I sort of wish the Cavs would go to him and say, "Tristan, all we're offering you is 4/40 to stay with our championship club. We're not matching anything above that. Congrats to you if you get a 4/60-70mil deal from some crappy team going nowhere. You'd think the team would have some kind of leverage in that case and why him passing on 4yr/52mil almost sounds absurd for him to have done, IMO. Watch it be 4/60mil, he played for an extra 2mil per yr.

[DBoys]

"if the team doesn't extend a QO, they'll most likely renounce said player"

Not necessarily. If no QO, a player is simply UFA rather than RFA. Team may want him, just at a lower price, but keeping Bird rights offers some cap flexibility if needed.

"whether a player has taken less than offer when a larger deal may've been had on the open market."

Of course players at times choose team over money, although it's not the norm. TT may end up with having to make a choice of "less money but better team" vs "more money but not-as-desirable team" but if so, don't lose sight of the fact that it's not a cap issue with CLE that is letting them be outbid, but rather it's a willingness to pay. Dan G has the money. Will he spend some of his billions to make sure he has the best team around LBJ, or not?

[165bows]

@ZachLowe_NBA: One arcane cap clarification re Kawhi: If Spurs submit max 5-year qualifying offer w/o any options, other teams must make full 3-yr offers

@ZachLowe_NBA: (I.e, if Spurs go the full boat, as they should, the third-year player option in a Parsons-style deal is out of bounds. No options allowed)

I've been interested in the possibility that some of the RFAs might sign short deals I order to get to UFA faster with the cap increasing. Hadn't seen this wrinkle before.

So certain teams that can offer a five year deal (GS, SA), are basically 'immune' to that kind of offer, where a team like Chicago (used their five year post-rookie deal) or even Milwaukee (saving it for Giannis) may not be.

Can anyone clarify if this is accurate or not?

[DBoys]

I'm not sure what the issue is.

If a team is willing to pay a max salary, then matching a max salary (even if the deal is shorter than they would prefer) shouldn't be an obstacle. What hamstrung HOU with Parsons was the fact they didn't want to pay him that much, but the structure of the offered contract would force them to commit at that level.

I'd still consider it unusual if a player hitting free agency for the 1st time wouldn't simply want the biggest total deal possible. Because it's guaranteed money.

[Dunkenstein]

I'd still consider it unusual if a player hitting free agency for the 1st time wouldn't simply want the biggest total deal possible. Because it's guaranteed money.

I think you have to factor into the equation the quantum leap in the salary cap that will happen both in 2016 and then again in 2017 (not taking into account the probability of a lockout in 2017).

A player coming off a rookie scale contract who expects a big pay day could conceivably sign a one or two year contract knowing that in '16 and '17 there are going to be a myriad of teams with boatloads of cap space, while max contracts will be much higher than they will be this summer. It's currently estimated that max salaries for players with six or less years of service will go from starting at around $15M this summer to $20M next summer to $25M in 2017.

I know GMs and agents are currently gaming all the different possibilities that both teams and players will encounter over the next several summers.

[giberish]

I'd still consider it unusual if a player hitting free agency for the 1st time wouldn't simply want the biggest total deal possible. Because it's guaranteed money.

I think you have to factor into the equation the quantum leap in the salary cap that will happen both in 2016 and then again in 2017 (not taking into account the probability of a lockout in 2017).

A player coming off a rookie scale contract who expects a big pay day could conceivably sign a one or two year contract knowing that in '16 and '17 there are going to be a myriad of teams with boatloads of cap space, while max contracts will be much higher than they will be this summer. It's currently estimated that max salaries for players with six or less years of service will go from starting at around $15M this summer to $20M next summer to $25M in 2017.

I know GMs and agents are currently gaming all the different possibilities that both teams and players will encounter over the next several summers.

There's a couple of different scenarios. First there are the guys who are worth ~$17-18M/yr with the higher cap #s, who wouldn't normally be 2nd contract max candidates, but make sense at that level for this offseason (Middleton for instance). They'll probably look to sign a long-term deal.

Then there are players who are worth more, perhaps a lot more than $17-18M/yr under the higher cap numbers (Kwahi most notably, perhaps some others). They could well look for shorter deals. Though for Kwahi I'd kind of expect that he'd sign for 3 years, so he could potentially get a 30% max deal as soon as possible (with the Spurs offering a 5yr deal instead).

[165bows]

Most interesting one is Butler. Is he eligible to receive five years from Chicago or only four?

He might be the one most likely to sign a LeBron type one year plus option deal, and just hit UFA as the cap goes up.

[HartfordWhalers]

Most interesting one is Butler. Is he eligible to receive five years from Chicago or only four?

He might be the one most likely to sign a LeBron type one year plus option deal, and just hit UFA as the cap goes up.

Any team other than Chicago needs to offer at least 2 full years (not options) or 3 if Chicago does the max q/o.

[HartfordWhalers]

@ZachLowe_NBA: One arcane cap clarification re Kawhi: If Spurs submit max 5-year qualifying offer w/o any options, other teams must make full 3-yr offers

@ZachLowe_NBA: (I.e, if Spurs go the full boat, as they should, the third-year player option in a Parsons-style deal is out of bounds. No options allowed)

I've been interested in the possibility that some of the RFAs might sign short deals I order to get to UFA faster with the cap increasing. Hadn't seen this wrinkle before.

So certain teams that can offer a five year deal (GS, SA), are basically 'immune' to that kind of offer, where a team like Chicago (used their five year post-rookie deal) or even Milwaukee (saving it for Giannis) may not be.

Can anyone clarify if this is accurate or not?

Not accurate. The one per team 5 year deal is a restriction on extensions signed before the 4th year, not new contracts signed after it. So, GS and Chicago can offer max q/o's and full 5 year contracts to Green and Butler, and ensure that any team would have to lock them up for at least 3 years.

It is a great point that a team might want to force this, as the value of a player that young could be catching up and come primarily towards the end of a contract (you overpay early while potential is still turning into results to underpay when the results are there), so even without the rising cap situation you might want a longer deal as the team. And then with the cap expanding rapidly, the relative price of a player would be dipping as is.

[Curmudgeon]

But the 3 year deal can include one or more player options, can't it?

[Smitty731]

But the 3 year deal can include one or more player options, can't it?

No deal, except Rookie Scale deals, can include more than 1 option year of any kind, be it Player, Team or ETO. That changed in this latest CBA.

[DBoys]

But the 3 year deal can include one or more player options, can't it?

It can include exactly one option, which must be in the right place.

The 3-year minimum must be 3 set in stone years. Then there can be an option year for year 4, in favor of one side or the other.

[Curmudgeon]

But it can include the one, right?

[Smitty731]

But it can include the one, right?

Yes. One option year.