Can the Nuggets use the stretch provision ?

skywalker33 · Post #1 » by **skywalker33** » Fri May 11, 2018 8:25 pm

Plumlee, Faried or Chandler seems like good candidates. How often are teams allowed to do this ?

Post #2 » by **NuggetsWY** » Fri May 11, 2018 10:09 pm

If I understand this correctly, it's basically buying out the player's contract and then if "stretch" is used, his salary is counted against the cap for double his remaining years plus one more year. I think they have to stretch them before their next contract year begins, which is usually somewhere in early July for most players.

Somewhere in the back of my feeble memory, I think I remember something about only being allowed to stretch one player at a time, but I'm not real confident on that one.

They can buyout a player and just pay him his salary (guaranteed portion only), but then it counts against that year's cap.

Post #3 » by **The Rebel** » Sat May 12, 2018 1:03 am

Yes they can stretch guys, but I doubt they stretch anybody on this roster.

They can stretch the whole team if they want, if they do it before the end of August, but it is just delaying the payments while tying up future cap space as well.

You rarely see any teams stretch a player, fans talk about it all the time, but off the top of my head the only decent sized contract that was waived and stretched was Josh Smith. There is just not much benefit in cutting a guy and taking years to get his salary off the books.

Now the real question is if the Nuggets would even consider it, and I think that is clearly no. The Kroenkes have long shown that they have no problem trading picks to save money, it is not going to change after they just missed the playoffs again, if this team made the playoffs than I think Kroenke would have a chance of paying it. They also have a bunch of expiring contracts, next summer they could possibly hit the max in cap space if they choose to, that money being on the cap will kill that plan. They are better off creating the cap savings with the deals those expirings can bring back. It is a smarter move.

Taking back a bad 2 year contract for an expiring can worth if it you can get the guy you want in the draft or the right young prospect.

Post #4 » by **NuggetsWY** » Sat May 12, 2018 4:22 am

The Rebel wrote:Yes they can stretch guys, but I doubt they stretch anybody on this roster.

They can stretch the whole team if they want, if they do it before the end of August, but it is just delaying the payments while tying up future cap space as well.

You rarely see any teams stretch a player, fans talk about it all the time, but off the top of my head the only decent sized contract that was waived and stretched was Josh Smith. There is just not much benefit in cutting a guy and taking years to get his salary off the books.

Now the real question is if the Nuggets would even consider it, and I think that is clearly no. The Kroenkes have long shown that they have no problem trading picks to save money, it is not going to change after they just missed the playoffs again, if this team made the playoffs than I think Kroenke would have a chance of paying it. They also have a bunch of expiring contracts, next summer they could possibly hit the max in cap space if they choose to, that money being on the cap will kill that plan. They are better off creating the cap savings with the deals those expirings can bring back. It is a smarter move.

Taking back a bad 2 year contract for an expiring can worth if it you can get the guy you want in the draft or the right young prospect.

Didn't they still have part of Jameer Nelson's salary against their cap this year?

Post #5 » by **The Rebel** » Sat May 12, 2018 4:31 am

NuggetsWY wrote:
The Rebel wrote:Yes they can stretch guys, but I doubt they stretch anybody on this roster.

They can stretch the whole team if they want, if they do it before the end of August, but it is just delaying the payments while tying up future cap space as well.

You rarely see any teams stretch a player, fans talk about it all the time, but off the top of my head the only decent sized contract that was waived and stretched was Josh Smith. There is just not much benefit in cutting a guy and taking years to get his salary off the books.

Now the real question is if the Nuggets would even consider it, and I think that is clearly no. The Kroenkes have long shown that they have no problem trading picks to save money, it is not going to change after they just missed the playoffs again, if this team made the playoffs than I think Kroenke would have a chance of paying it. They also have a bunch of expiring contracts, next summer they could possibly hit the max in cap space if they choose to, that money being on the cap will kill that plan. They are better off creating the cap savings with the deals those expirings can bring back. It is a smarter move.

Taking back a bad 2 year contract for an expiring can worth if it you can get the guy you want in the draft or the right young prospect.

Didn't they still have part of Jameer Nelson's salary against their cap this year?

They did, but he was cut this season and was not stretched.

skywalker33 · Post #6 » by **skywalker33** » Sat May 12, 2018 11:37 pm

I was under the impression the Stretch Provision was a one-time thing, perhaps per CBA ?? I know we've already stretched one guy (can't remember who though), that's why I asked.

Powder Blue · Post #7 » by **Powder Blue** » Wed May 16, 2018 7:46 pm

skywalker33 wrote:I was under the impression the Stretch Provision was a one-time thing, perhaps per CBA ?? I know we've already stretched one guy (can't remember who though), that's why I asked.

The amnesty clause was the 1-time transaction, Nuggets did it to Birdman back in 2012

skywalker33 · Post #8 » by **skywalker33** » Wed May 16, 2018 8:56 pm

Powder Blue wrote:
skywalker33 wrote:I was under the impression the Stretch Provision was a one-time thing, perhaps per CBA ?? I know we've already stretched one guy (can't remember who though), that's why I asked.

The amnesty clause was the 1-time transaction, Nuggets did it to Birdman back in 2012

Thanks for the clarification, guess I was confusing the two.

Post #9 » by **NuggetsWY** » Wed May 16, 2018 9:10 pm

skywalker33 wrote:
Powder Blue wrote:
skywalker33 wrote:I was under the impression the Stretch Provision was a one-time thing, perhaps per CBA ?? I know we've already stretched one guy (can't remember who though), that's why I asked.

The amnesty clause was the 1-time transaction, Nuggets did it to Birdman back in 2012

Thanks for the clarification, guess I was confusing the two.

Imagine that, we are having trouble understanding NBA rules. Of course that's OK, the owners, GMs, coaches, players, agents, announcers, and refs have a hard time understanding them too.

Post #10 » by **The Rebel** » Wed May 16, 2018 9:21 pm

NuggetsWY wrote:
skywalker33 wrote:
Powder Blue wrote:The amnesty clause was the 1-time transaction, Nuggets did it to Birdman back in 2012

Thanks for the clarification, guess I was confusing the two.

Imagine that, we are having trouble understanding NBA rules. Of course that's OK, the owners, GMs, coaches, players, agents, announcers, and refs have a hard time understanding them too.

We all know Josh and TC don't understand them, it seems like every offseason they try to do something illegal like the Millsap sign and trade last year.

skywalker33 · Post #11 » by **skywalker33** » Wed May 16, 2018 11:58 pm

They really need to get a good capologist

Post #12 » by **NuggetsWY** » Thu May 17, 2018 12:18 am

skywalker33 wrote:They really need to get a good capologist

From the Nuggets' website:

Ben Tenzer enters his fifth season as the Nuggets Director of Basketball Operations, working closely with Team President Josh Kroenke and General Manager/Executive Vice President Tim Connelly on day-to-day management, legal, and operational issues; with a focus on the salary cap and the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Tenzer, 32, rejoined the Nuggets organization in 2013 after previously working in various capacities for the front office from 2005-2009.

His background includes working for the NBA Vegas Summer League (2005-2012), Adidas Nations (2010-2012), and the international sports and entertainment agency, Wasserman Media Group. He was also a member of the NBA’s global outreach program, Basketball Without Borders-Africa, in 2007 and 2008.

Tenzer, a Los Angeles native, is a graduate of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles. He is a member, and in good standing, of the State Bar of California.

Doesn't impress me but I don't know if he's good and they ignore him or what. His background doesn't appear to have a lot of salary-cap experience. It looks like the liked his work in the past and so gave him this position but that is merely supposition on my part.

Powder Blue · Post #13 » by **Powder Blue** » Thu May 17, 2018 7:49 pm

NuggetsWY wrote:
skywalker33 wrote:They really need to get a good capologist

From the Nuggets' website:
Ben Tenzer enters his fifth season as the Nuggets Director of Basketball Operations, working closely with Team President Josh Kroenke and General Manager/Executive Vice President Tim Connelly on day-to-day management, legal, and operational issues; with a focus on the salary cap and the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Tenzer, 32, rejoined the Nuggets organization in 2013 after previously working in various capacities for the front office from 2005-2009.

His background includes working for the NBA Vegas Summer League (2005-2012), Adidas Nations (2010-2012), and the international sports and entertainment agency, Wasserman Media Group. He was also a member of the NBA’s global outreach program, Basketball Without Borders-Africa, in 2007 and 2008.

Tenzer, a Los Angeles native, is a graduate of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles. He is a member, and in good standing, of the State Bar of California.

Doesn't impress me but I don't know if he's good and they ignore him or what. His background doesn't appear to have a lot of salary-cap experience. It looks like the liked his work in the past and so gave him this position but that is merely supposition on my part.

Good to know there were plenty of "Yes" men that OK'd the Plumlee deal :crazy: