|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ericp6387
Star Player
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 1836
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: Some Clarification on Kwame's Contract? |
|
|
| Somebody said he can be cut prior to July 2007 and that would void the third year. I do not want to believe that we have already guaranteed the third year, especially when Phil is talking about Bosh earlier in the year. There has been Emplay saying it has been guaranteed and another poster stated that if we cut him before July 2007 then he is off the books. This is very important and I would appreciate some clarification on this from anybody. Obviously, this would preclude us from signing R.Lewis or Bosh after next season, which would be very disappointing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's not the NFL. Most contracts in the NBA are guaranteed, so the team pays regardless. If Kwame's contract is guaranteed, he counts against the salary cap. Waiving him won't make his salary go away. Bosh is going to become a restricted free agent if he doesn't sign an extension. The Raptors would have a right to match. Bosh has publically stated he is willing to sign an extension. The only way Bosh would become available is if he decides to take a qualifying offer from the Raptors. If he does, he will become an unrestricted free agent after the one year expires.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 17109
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jeanie Buss said on 1540 that it WAS NOT guaranteed in year 3. Emplay and Larry Coon say otherwise, but Jeanie is in charge of contracts.
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Savory Griddles
Starting Rotation
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 920
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Laker wrote: | | Jeanie Buss said on 1540 that it WAS NOT guaranteed in year 3. Emplay and Larry Coon say otherwise, but Jeanie is in charge of contracts. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know that it was not guaranteed in 07-08 when originally signed. I have it on very good authority that it is now -- I had the Director of Player Personnel for another team look it up for me. So if it's not guaranteed, it's either an amazing miscommunication, or I've been lied to by someone who has no reason to do so (someone who has access to full & complete contract information for the entire league).
Since I did not hear Jeannie Buss say that and have no idea WHEN she might have said that, I can't evaluate her statement. As for the claim that she's in charge of contracts, I've SEEN Laker player contracts, and they have the GM's signature, not hers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OshadowO
Star Player
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 7356
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Imo it is an incredibly stupid thing to do. If you don't have to guarantee someone money till one or two years down the road, don't do it till you absolutely have to. Especially since Kwame has no leverage! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThePageDude
Star Player
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 2588
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now that both emplay and Larry have confirmed this, I can say this ...
this is an *extremely* disappointing turn of events.
The original trade, the stated 2007 plan, the justifications for not signing certain free agents because they were asking for more guaranteed years, I feel we've been misled on all of these things ...
The trade appears much less desirable with this new wrinkle. The 2007 plan was either an outright lie ... or a muddled contract contingency - very poor. And finally, I bet we could have signed more lucrative free-agents (or traded for restricted FA's) if we had been willing to offer a guaranteed third year ... would Spree have come if we had offered full MLE for 3 years?
I hate having the "rug swept from under my feet" like this ...
-ThePageDude |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 17109
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | I know that it was not guaranteed in 07-08 when originally signed. I have it on very good authority that it is now -- I had the Director of Player Personnel for another team look it up for me. So if it's not guaranteed, it's either an amazing miscommunication, or I've been lied to by someone who has no reason to do so (someone who has access to full & complete contract information for the entire league).
Since I did not hear Jeannie Buss say that and have no idea WHEN she might have said that, I can't evaluate her statement. As for the claim that she's in charge of contracts, I've SEEN Laker player contracts, and they have the GM's signature, not hers. |
She said it on Dave Smith's roundtable on either Monday or Tuesday of this week. ACTUALLY, Dave asked her SPECIFICALLY and her reply was "Why would we do that? We have no reason to guarantee his 3rd season."
Of course, obfuscation and misdirection have been the practice of Lakers management recently, so maybe she's playing coy.[/b]
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Savory Griddles
Starting Rotation
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 920
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Laker wrote: | | LarryCoon wrote: | I know that it was not guaranteed in 07-08 when originally signed. I have it on very good authority that it is now -- I had the Director of Player Personnel for another team look it up for me. So if it's not guaranteed, it's either an amazing miscommunication, or I've been lied to by someone who has no reason to do so (someone who has access to full & complete contract information for the entire league).
Since I did not hear Jeannie Buss say that and have no idea WHEN she might have said that, I can't evaluate her statement. As for the claim that she's in charge of contracts, I've SEEN Laker player contracts, and they have the GM's signature, not hers. |
She said it on Dave Smith's roundtable on either Monday or Tuesday of this week. ACTUALLY, Dave asked her SPECIFICALLY and her reply was "Why would we do that? We have no reason to guarantee his 3rd season."
Of course, obfuscation and misdirection have been the practice of Lakers management recently, so maybe she's playing coy.[/b] |
If that's what her exact words were then that's not a denial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 17109
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Savory Griddles wrote: |
If that's what her exact words were then that's not a denial. |
True - it could be misdirection, but I cannot imagine why they would hide it. FWIW, everywhere I've checked on the Web shows that 3rd year as guaranteed.
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fansincemagic
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 11076
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe I'm a softie, but even the biggest Kwame hater has to feel for him a bit. He's got a great NBA body, except small hands... and that really affects his game. He gets booed at home, and now the one that signs his checks has to deny that he's even signed for a 3rd year. Its like he's an unloved family pet. I hope things work out for him.
Honestly, I trust Larry more than the owner's daughter/Lakers exec. Maybe we need to petition the front office and demand the truth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fansincemagic
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 11076
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe I'm a softie, but even the biggest Kwame hater has to feel for him a bit. He's got a great NBA body, except small hands... and that really affects his game. He gets booed at home, and now the one that signs his checks has to deny that he's even signed for a 3rd year. Its like he's an unloved family pet. I hope things work out for him.
Honestly, I trust Larry more than the owner's daughter/Lakers exec. Maybe we need to petition the front office and demand the truth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can think of one very good reason why they would want to pick up the guarantee: Because they needed to promise to do so in order to do the original sign-and-trade deal with Washington. Like I said in other threads, a sign-and-trade requires the player's cooperation (along with the other team's). Kwame's agent could have asked for all three years to be guaranteed, while the Lakers were offering two years so that they could potentially go after Yao or Stoudemire in 2007. The compromise could have been no guarantee for 07-08, with a promise to pick up the guarantee if those two players signed extensions. The timing of them picking up the guarantee suggests that this is plausible.
I can see two reasons for them to want to hide the fact that they did so:
1. Such a promise constitutes an under-the-table agreement, for which the league punishes teams severely (think Minnesota and Joe Smith). [Note: However, I have no direct knowledge that they made an agreement which they did not disclose to the league.]
2. The Lakers have been pushing a "be patient, we have a 2007 plan" on the public. Guaranteeing Kwame officially pushes it back to 2008 (if the fact that there will be no premier UFAs to chase didn't do so already). It's one thing to ask the public to be patient until 2007. It's another thing to tell them they'll have to keep being patient for an additional year on top of that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 17109
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fansincemagic wrote: | | Honestly, I trust Larry more than the owner's daughter/Lakers exec. Maybe we need to petition the front office and demand the truth! |
Me, too. PERHAPS ... they are playing down the guarantee to avoid the ire of an irate LakerNation? A few months ago, the consensus opinion seemed to be pointing to there not being ANY plan, 2007 or otherwise. Extending Kwame would just confirm the absence of said plan.
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ziggy
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 12717
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Laker wrote: | | Savory Griddles wrote: |
If that's what her exact words were then that's not a denial. |
True - it could be misdirection, but I cannot imagine why they would hide it. FWIW, everywhere I've checked on the Web shows that 3rd year as guaranteed. |
I know hoopshype has had it guaranteed for a long, long time. Long before we even heard Larry or emplay mention that it was guaranteed. So I don't think it's completely accurate. I think the only people that know for sure are the people in the Lakers' front office and Kwame Brown.
It's just too difficult for me to imagine this being true. After having a disappointing, underachieving half of a season, they decide to pick up his option? That team option was put in place specifically to get out of this type of situation. Just doesn't make any sense at all. I don't want to believe they're that stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ziggy
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 12717
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | I can think of one very good reason why they would want to pick up the guarantee: Because they needed to promise to do so in order to do the original sign-and-trade deal with Washington. Like I said in other threads, a sign-and-trade requires the player's cooperation (along with the other team's). Kwame's agent could have asked for all three years to be guaranteed, while the Lakers were offering two years so that they could potentially go after Yao or Stoudemire in 2007. The compromise could have been no guarantee for 07-08, with a promise to pick up the guarantee if those two players signed extensions. The timing of them picking up the guarantee suggests that this is plausible.
I can see two reasons for them to want to hide the fact that they did so:
1. Such a promise constitutes an under-the-table agreement, for which the league punishes teams severely (think Minnesota and Joe Smith). [Note: However, I have no direct knowledge that they made an agreement which they did not disclose to the league.]
2. The Lakers have been pushing a "be patient, we have a 2007 plan" on the public. Guaranteeing Kwame officially pushes it back to 2008 (if the fact that there will be no premier UFAs to chase didn't do so already). It's one thing to ask the public to be patient until 2007. It's another thing to tell them they'll have to keep being patient for an additional year on top of that. |
Unfortunately, that makes a lot of sense. 
I'm glad Yao extended, but Amare would have been nice. Damn! 
2008 here we come.
Last edited by Ziggy on Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fansincemagic
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 11076
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good point, never thought of that. I won't disagree with you here, but why would Mitch agree to such a thing? I mean the sad thing are, chances are he did, but what a blunder if so. It seemed to me that at the time he really did think there would be a 2K7 plan. The trade was made before Amare had his deal, but I'm thinking Yao may have been agreed upon already. Anyway, if they had a hard stance on trades and free agency signings (making Antonio Daniels and Earl Watson impossible), why break for Kwame? Either Mitch would have to be in love with him, or they were that desperate for a big man in the fold. You'd think you could have traded Kwame for a lesser talented big man that only has a 2 year deal.
The question I have to ask is: Is there a deadline on when the Lakers could pickup Kwame's option? After Emplay's article, if indeed the Lakers were totally giving up on the 2K7 idea, that could justify having to extend him. Maybe they did pick up the deal to have another trade asset, but you'd think that would open up the door for making deals for guys with 2 years left now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Laker wrote: | | True - it could be misdirection, but I cannot imagine why they would hide it. FWIW, everywhere I've checked on the Web shows that 3rd year as guaranteed. |
FWIW, I don't want people out there thinking there are lots of independent sources corroborating this information. The public sites with salary information all come from secondary (or ternary or worse) sources, and none of them really have information on partial- or non-guarantees. I have access to some non-public information that's a lot more authoritative, but that information doesn't include information on incentives or guarantees. If I want to know more, I need to ask people.
As for Emplay also reporting this, I'll confirm that I was the person he went to for verification before he wrote about it. In fact, Emplay asking me was the reason I asked a team exec about it.
Emplay and I first got wind of it from a local media report which said the Lakers had "quietly" picked up the guarantee (I don't remember which media outlet it was any more). I wonder why they chose to use the word "quietly." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThePageDude
Star Player
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 2588
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | I wonder why they chose to use the word "quietly." |
Yes, highly suggestive, and supports your hypothesis above.
And, if your hypothesis is correct, it completely changes my assessment of last year's moves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sage_10
Star Player
Joined: 24 Dec 2005
Posts: 6668
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt "Money" Smith on AM570 stated that it was a team option and that they hadn't picked it up. He said there are rumors from Hoopsworld and Hoopshype but he said he knows for sure, Kwame's 3rd year hasn't been picked up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fansincemagic wrote: | | Good point, never thought of that. I won't disagree with you here, but why would Mitch agree to such a thing? I mean the sad thing are, chances are he did, but what a blunder if so. It seemed to me that at the time he really did think there would be a 2K7 plan. |
A couple of things here -- as to why they would agree to that, it'd be because Kwame's agent said "no deal" without that promise. I imagine that Phil told Mitch he could find the basketball player hidden within that body, so they felt a three-year commitment was fine -- unless it cost them their shot at Yao or Stoudemire in 2007.
Also remember that when Kupchak elaborated on the plan, he threw in "or 2008." He knew going in that signing a premier FA in 2007 would be nice, but not necessarily probable.
| Quote: | | The trade was made before Amare had his deal, but I'm thinking Yao may have been agreed upon already. |
The Kwame trade was 8/2/05. Yao signed on 8/31/05, Amare on 10/3/05.
| Quote: | | Anyway, if they had a hard stance on trades and free agency signings (making Antonio Daniels and Earl Watson impossible), why break for Kwame? |
Because those guys were looking for FIVE year deals. In Kwame's case, it was a matter of being free to go after the guys you want to go after in 2007, but if you can't go after those guys, you can go after the guys you want to go after in 2008.
| Quote: | | The question I have to ask is: Is there a deadline on when the Lakers could pickup Kwame's option? |
First, let's get the terminology straight -- it wasn't an option. Nor was it an extension, which is something I've also seen. It was changing the compensation protection (guarantee). This can be done at any time. It's most commonly done in a completely different situation -- a buyout. Let's say a guy has a $10 million guaranteed salary, but they agree to a $5 million buyout. The way they instrument the buyout is to change the compensation protection from $10 million to $5 million (often simultaneously changing the payment schedule as well to a lump-sum or even a spread provision), and then waive the player. Once the player clears waivers, the compensation protection (which is now $5 million) kicks in, and the player is a free agent with his buyout money in his pocket.
| Quote: | | After Emplay's article, if indeed the Lakers were totally giving up on the 2K7 idea, that could justify having to extend him. Maybe they did pick up the deal to have another trade asset, but you'd think that would open up the door for making deals for guys with 2 years left now. |
Like I said, my personal speculation is that the Lakers had to make the promise in order to sign him in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sage_10 wrote: | | Matt "Money" Smith on AM570 stated that it was a team option and that they hadn't picked it up. He said there are rumors from Hoopsworld and Hoopshype but he said he knows for sure, Kwame's 3rd year hasn't been picked up. |
Here's how you can verify for yourself that he's full of it.
The CBA is online at the Players Association's web site. Here's a link to Article VII: link
Refer to Section 8(e). I'll quote the relevant part:
| Quote: | | A Veteran Free Agent and his Prior Team may enter into a Player Contract pursuant to an agreement between the Prior Team and another Team concerning the signing and subsequent trade of such Contract, but only if (i) the Contract is for three (3) or more Seasons (excluding any Option Year) |
Now if a sign-and-trade contract must be for at least three seasons, not including any option year, then how does Kwame get a three year contract with a team option in the third year? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 5004
Location: Deep Europe
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, Kwame ' s contract couldn't have the option ?
If it's true , the entire discussion is pointless , and the 2007 plan was already dead when we signed Kwame, on 08/02/2005...
...of course , unless we trade him or Lamar before the summer of 2007... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Luke wrote: | So, Kwame ' s contract couldn't have the option ?
If it's true , the entire discussion is pointless , and the 2007 plan was already dead when we signed Kwame, on 08/02/2005... |
No, no -- A sign-and-trade cannot have an option in the first three seasons. However, it can have non-guaranteed salary. Let me quote the full rule, which includes that part (emphasis mine):
| Quote: | | (1) A Veteran Free Agent and his Prior Team may enter into a Player Contract pursuant to an agreement between the Prior Team and another Team concerning the signing and subsequent trade of such Contract, but only if (i) the Contract is for three (3) or more Seasons (excluding any Option Year), (ii) the Contract is not signed pursuant to the Mid-Level Salary Exception or the Disabled Player Exception, (iii) the first Season of the Contract is fully protected for lack of skill, and (iv) the acquiring Team has Room for the player’s Salary plus any Unlikely Bonuses provided for in the first Season of the Contract. |
"Protected for lack of skill" refers to the contract guarantee (there are other things that the contract can be protected for, such as death and injury/illness, but the "lack of skill" provision is the one that lets teams waive an otherwise healthy and able player).
So the first year of a sign-and-trade contract must be guaranteed, but the remaining two years don't have to be. The reason they wrote the rule this way is because it prevents teams from gaining Bird rights in less than three years, since the three-year minimum (even non-guaranteed) means the team has to waive the player to make him a free agent, and waiving a player resets his Bird clock.
In Kwame's case, 05-06 and 06-07 were originally guaranteed, but not 07-08. So let's say Stoudemire hadn't signed an extension and wanted to sign with LA in 2007. With 07-08 not guaranteed, they would simply waive Kwame, and he would come off the cap immediately. This would clear the room for them to sign Stoudemire. (And since Kwame's Bird clock would be reset, they couldn't then re-sign Kwame using the Bird exception, which was the point of the rule.)
My point is, if Matt "Money" Smith knew "for sure," he wouldn't have said it was a *&$^%& team option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 5004
Location: Deep Europe
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ok, Larry, thank you very much for the clarification . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
