Declined Rookie Options

[TheBallDoLie]

When a team decides to decline a team option for a player on a rookie scale contract, I am aware that team can not resign the player for more than what their option was worth for that season.

So for example, Philadelphia can not pay Okafor more than what his 2018-19 option was worth this offseason. My question is what if they trade Okafor to let's say Chicago. Can Chicago pay him more than what his option was worth or must they also abide by the rules of not going over? Also does this only apply to the resigning team? For example when Okafor enters unrestricted free agency can a team like Brooklyn offer him more than what his option was? Or is Okafor not allowed to make more than his option no matter what?

[DBoys]

When a team decides to decline a team option for a player on a rookie scale contract, I am aware that team can not resign the player for more than what their option was worth for that season.

So for example, Philadelphia can not pay Okafor more than what his 2018-19 option was worth this offseason. My question is what if they trade Okafor to let's say Chicago. Can Chicago pay him more than what his option was worth or must they also abide by the rules of not going over? Also does this only apply to the resigning team? For example when Okafor enters unrestricted free agency can a team like Brooklyn offer him more than what his option was? Or is Okafor not allowed to make more than his option no matter what?

The restriction applies to his original team that declined the option, and also to any team to whom that contract was subsequently "assigned." So in your example...

Can Chicago pay him more than what his option was worth
NO
or must they also abide by the rules of not going over?
YES
when Okafor enters unrestricted free agency can a team like Brooklyn offer him more than what his option was?
YES

See CBA Art VII Sec 6 (m) (4)

[TheBallDoLie]

When a team decides to decline a team option for a player on a rookie scale contract, I am aware that team can not resign the player for more than what their option was worth for that season.

So for example, Philadelphia can not pay Okafor more than what his 2018-19 option was worth this offseason. My question is what if they trade Okafor to let's say Chicago. Can Chicago pay him more than what his option was worth or must they also abide by the rules of not going over? Also does this only apply to the resigning team? For example when Okafor enters unrestricted free agency can a team like Brooklyn offer him more than what his option was? Or is Okafor not allowed to make more than his option no matter what?

The restriction applies to his original team that declined the option, and also to any team to whom that contract was subsequently "assigned." So in your example...

Can Chicago pay him more than what his option was worth
NO
or must they also abide by the rules of not going over?
YES
when Okafor enters unrestricted free agency can a team like Brooklyn offer him more than what his option was?
YES

See CBA Art VII Sec 6 (m) (4)

Thank you for the response.

[TheBallDoLie]

I have one more question regarding this topic..

Does this still apply if Okafor is bought out, clear waivers, and signs with another team on a brand new contract? Let's say all that happens, and he signs a new contract with another team. Can that team sign him over what that option was worth for next season?

[DBoys]

Can that team sign him over what that option was worth for next season?
Yes

[TheBallDoLie]

Yes it still apples ? Or yes that team can sign over what the option was worth?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Smitty731]

Yes it still apples ? Or yes that team can sign over what the option was worth?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

In your example, he can be signed for whatever amount the team has available and wants to commit to him up to his max.

Being capped at at the TO amount only applies to Philadelphia or any team he is traded to while still under this contract.

[DBoys]

In your example, he can be signed for whatever amount the team has available and wants to commit to him up to his max.

Being capped at at the TO amount only applies to Philadelphia or any team he is traded to while still under this contract.

"only applies to Philadelphia or any team he is traded to "

Actually, it says "assigned" which means it would include being moved in ANY way to any other team for which he was under that rookie-scale deal. Not only a trade, but also a waiver claim, would be included in such a designation.

[Smitty731]

In your example, he can be signed for whatever amount the team has available and wants to commit to him up to his max.

Being capped at at the TO amount only applies to Philadelphia or any team he is traded to while still under this contract.

"only applies to Philadelphia or any team he is traded to "

Actually, it says "assigned" which means it would include being moved in ANY way to any other team for which he was under that rookie-scale deal. Not only a trade, but also a waiver claim, would be included in such a designation.

Good point. Waiver claim could actually come into play here too. Celtics have the DPE and a couple of teams have TPEs large enough to claim his deal.

[TheBallDoLie]

I appreciate all the help here.

[DoItALL9]

In your example, he can be signed for whatever amount the team has available and wants to commit to him up to his max.

Being capped at at the TO amount only applies to Philadelphia or any team he is traded to while still under this contract.

"only applies to Philadelphia or any team he is traded to "

Actually, it says "assigned" which means it would include being moved in ANY way to any other team for which he was under that rookie-scale deal. Not only a trade, but also a waiver claim, would be included in such a designation.

New question: If a team traded for Okafor could they then cut him (and assuming he clears waivers and actually wants to stay with them) then resign him to avoid the current contract's $$ restrictions summer 2018?

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

[DBoys]

no

[d-train]

When was this limitation on the rookie exception added?

[DBoys]

When was this limitation on the rookie exception added?

This has nothing to do with the rookie exception, so I take it you are asking about the rule we have been discussing.

The rule we have been discussing has been that way for as long as I can recall. I first starting working on CBA stuff under the 1999 CBA and its rules, so that means my answer would be "at least 1999." I no longer have a copy of the 1999 CBA readily available, so I can't check to see if the wording was somehow different, but the gist of the rule was the same back then. The rule was designed to close a potential loophole in the setup of rookie scale contracts, that would enable faster increases in salary to young players than the rules intend, since option years exist after full Bird rights have already been earned.

[d-train]

When was this limitation on the rookie exception added?

This has nothing to do with the rookie exception, so I take it you are asking about the rule we have been discussing.

The rule we have been discussing has been that way for as long as I can recall. I first starting working on CBA stuff under the 1999 CBA and its rules, so that means my answer would be "at least 1999." I no longer have a copy of the 1999 CBA readily available, so I can't check to see if the wording was somehow different, but the gist of the rule was the same back then. The rule was designed to close a potential loophole in the setup of rookie scale contracts, that would enable faster increases in salary to young players than the rules intend, since option years exist after full Bird rights have already been earned.

Is there a history of this rule being implemented? If it's not the rookie exception that denies a team matching rights, what rule is it?

[d-train]

When was this limitation on the rookie exception added?

This has nothing to do with the rookie exception, so I take it you are asking about the rule we have been discussing.

The rule we have been discussing has been that way for as long as I can recall. I first starting working on CBA stuff under the 1999 CBA and its rules, so that means my answer would be "at least 1999." I no longer have a copy of the 1999 CBA readily available, so I can't check to see if the wording was somehow different, but the gist of the rule was the same back then. The rule was designed to close a potential loophole in the setup of rookie scale contracts, that would enable faster increases in salary to young players than the rules intend, since option years exist after full Bird rights have already been earned.

Are you thinking the rookie salary scale applies to this? I question this application unless the rookie is renounced. A team can opt to not pick up a players option and not renounce the player.

Edit: Larry Coon cites a 1996 example (Travis Knight) of salary scale not applying to a renounced rookie because Lakers didn't draft or acquire Knight's rookie rights. This is not the same as a team not picking up their rookies option.

[DBoys]

Is there a history of this rule being implemented? If it's not the rookie exception that denies a team matching rights, what rule is it?

I'd be glad to help, but now I'm not even sure what rule you are referencing, or if we're talking about the same thing. It seems like you are confusing our conversation and topic with something completely different, but I'm not sure, because I have no idea what you mean with your terminology.

The "rookie exception" is the ability for teams to sign their first round draft picks to rookie "scale" contracts even if they will be over the cap as a result. See FAQ 25. The "rookie exception" has nothing to do with "team matching rights." And neither of those is really pertinent to the rule we have been discussing afaik.

[d-train]

Alright, I will use examples instead of misusing terminology. Recently, the Sixers didn't pickup Okafor's 4th year option. So, Okafor will be a RFA next summer. The Sixers or a team receiving Okafor via trade has a right to match offers made to their RFA's with full bird rights. However, some say this (right to match) won't apply to Okafor because the max Sixers or a team that acquires Okafor via trade can offer Okafor is rookie scale provided the teams with Okafor's rights have no cap room. I don't know Sixers cap situation, but assume they have no cap room.

[Smitty731]

Alright, I will use examples instead of misusing terminology. Recently, the Sixers didn't pickup Okafor's 4th year option. So, Okafor will be a RFA next summer. The Sixers or a team receiving Okafor via trade has a right to match offers made to their RFA's with full bird rights. However, some say this (right to match) won't apply to Okafor because the max Sixers or a team that acquires Okafor via trade can offer Okafor is rookie scale provided the teams with Okafor's rights have no cap room. I don't know Sixers cap situation, but assume they have no cap room.

I think the part I bolded is causing your confusion. Okafor will be a UFA. In the case of a declined rookie scale team option, the player becomes a UFA, not an RFA.

That one tripped me up a little bit for a while too.

[d-train]

My question is regarding the rookie scale limiting Okafor's current team's rights to match offers without using cap room or some other exception besides bird rights. Does such a limitation exist?