Al Horford next?

[Guest]

Only two members of Horford's draft class have signed extension:

Kevin Durant - 5yr/82 mil - max deal

Joakim Noah(agreed to in principal) - 5yr/60 mil

How much does Horf get?

[WraithSentinel]

I would say around 5 years around $65-$70 Million. I would be shocked if the Hawks got this done though. Hawks are slow as hell getting any contract extension done.

[niremetal]

I would say around 5 years around $65-$70 Million. I would be shocked if the Hawks got this done though. Hawks are slow as hell getting any contract extension done.

I'm surprised the Bulls signed Noah. That's just throwing money away with the CBA set to expire. I think there would some sense in signing Horford even with the likelihood that his price tag will be lower next offseason, but on the balance I still would wait it out. Odds are that the cap rules will be more restrictive going forward, which will drive his price tag way down. If there's a $60M hard cap starting in 2013 that gets put in place, we'd be screwing ourselves by giving Al a contract that takes up 20-25% of that when we could have had him for a good bit less by waiting a few months.

[capstone21]

Only two members of Horford's draft class have signed extension:

Kevin Durant - 5yr/82 mil - max deal

Joakim Noah(agreed to in principal) - 5yr/60 mil

How much does Horf get?

That's because that draft class is pretty unimpressive. Horford, Landry and Marc Gasol are probably the only other players really deserving of a good extension from that class.

[spotatl]

niremetal- who knows what the rules of restricted free agency will be? For all the Hawks know there will be no Restricted Free Agency anymore and Horford could be made an unrestricted free agent. Or there could be a hard cap with existing contracts grandfathered in- but the Hawks wouldn't have bird rights to sign Horford.

I don't think that any of these scenarios are likely- but remember that Horford is only a RFA under the old rules and no one knows what the new rules will be. With someone like Jamal Crawford that doesn't matter nearly as much- letting him go isn't the end of the world. But counting on the new rules being in the Hawks favor is definitely a gamble.

Edited October 4, 2010 by spotatl

[niremetal]

niremetal- who knows what the rules of restricted free agency will be? For all the Hawks know there will be no Restricted Free Agency anymore and Horford could be made an unrestricted free agent. Or there could be a hard cap with existing contracts grandfathered in- but the Hawks wouldn't have bird rights to sign Horford.

I don't think that any of these scenarios are likely- but remember that Horford is only a RFA under the old rules and no one knows what the new rules will be. With someone like Jamal Crawford that doesn't matter nearly as much- letting him go isn't the end of the world. But counting on the new rules being in the Hawks favor is definitely a gamble.

Spotatl - the restricted free agency terms are written into Al's current contract. The CBA cannot alter existing contracts. It can only set the terms for new contracts that are signed after the CBA is in place. So the terms of Al's restricted free agency (ie the amount of the qualifying offer, the Hawks' right to match offer sheets, etc) are all set in stone. The new CBA can't alter those. In the NBA as in the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, a contract is a contract is a contract.

The rules can, of course, impact the external rules in which his contract operates. To use an extreme example that would never happen, say that the new CBA provides for a hard $55M salary cap. As of today, the Hawks are committed to $53M in salary for next season. Assuming that's still the case next summer (ie assuming the Hawks make no trades), the new salary cap would prevent the Hawls from matching another team's offer sheet for Horford unless they first trade another player. But that is separate from the terms of the contract itself - even with the hypothetical $55M cap, the Hawks would still have the right to match an offer sheet for Horford within 7 days (as long as they could clear enough cap space), since the terms of his contract give the Hawks that right.

It's confusing, but the rules about the salary cap and the rules governing restricted free agency are related but separate. NBA player contract contain standard terms that are provided for in the CBA. The CBA affects those contract terms if and only if the contracts are signed after the CBA is in effect. Restricted free agency are one set of standard terms that are included in all contracts for certain categories of players. The rookie scale contract is another example (thus, the new CBA won't affect Teague or JC2's salary next year). There also are standard terms requiring the team to pay for the player's transportation and lodging for road games. And other terms allowing the contract to be terminated under certain conditions (gambling on team games, violating league drug policy, etc). Etc, etc, etc. All of those rules could be changed in the new CBA, but that wouldn't affect the rights and responsibilities of players whose contracts already contain those terms. Restricted free agency rules are like that. They aren't like salary cap rules.

Edited October 5, 2010 by niremetal

[spotatl]

Spotatl - the restricted free agency terms are written into Al's current contract

You couldn't be any more wrong about this. The rules of restricted free agency are written into the CBA. You also couldn't be more wrong that the new CBA cannot change the terms of existing contracts. Look at the NHL where the players agreed to an across the board rollback of all existing contracts. The new rules will be what are agreed to by the parties involved. IF the NBA got rid of restricted free agency then Al Horford could be made an unrestricted free agent.

Are you really under the impression that the NBA is certain to have restricted Free Agency in its current form for all players who were drafted in the first round this past offseason? So even 4 years from now even if the CBA completely changed that we would still be dealing with the same rules for those players?

Edited October 5, 2010 by spotatl

[spotatl]

Niremetal- I'm not sure how long you have been an NBA fan. But this is exactly how Shaq was allowed to go to the Lakers. Shaq's was supposed to be a restricted free agent, but the CBA did away with restricted free agency and shaq was reclassified as an unrestricted free agent.

[niremetal]

Niremetal- I'm not sure how long you have been an NBA fan. But this is exactly how Shaq was allowed to go to the Lakers. Shaq's was supposed to be a restricted free agent, but the CBA did away with restricted free agency and shaq was reclassified as an unrestricted free agent.

I followed the NBA just fine back then, thanks. And I have absolutely no clue why you brought up the NHL, since the collective bargaining rules of different sports leagues are, well, different.

Basically, there’s one semi-exception to the rule that new CBA agreements cannot alter existing contracts. In some cases, the player contract references documents and rules outside the contract, and those documents and rules are subject to revision. To use an example, the uniform player contract states that a player’s contract “may be terminated in accordance with the express provisions of Article XXXIII (Anti-Drug Program) of the CBA.” The Anti-Drug Program, in turn, references a list of prohibited substances. That list is subject to change. Thus, if the NBA banned alcohol tomorrow, a player’s contract could then be terminated if the player is caught drinking even though alcohol was not prohibited at the time the player’s contract was signed.

I don't have access to the 1996 CBA, so I don't know for sure, but I believe the rules for "restricted" free agency in 1996 (I use the quote marks because restricted free agency back then was quite different from restricted free agency today) were written into contracts in the same kind of way. Back then, the CBA was basically being renewed each year and lots more things were subject to indirect revision because both sides were hesitant to agree to anything long-term given the uncertainty surrounding the labor negotiations. I'm guessing you remember the chaos that existed, with some players (led by Jordan and Ewing) trying to decertify the union and everyone being edgy about a strike or lockout. Today, however, restricted free agency is written into the rookie contracts precisely so players and teams can avoid the uncertainty that existed back then. The list of revisions that can be made to a contract are pretty narrow (see sections 2-3 here), and the right of first refusal is not among them.

I'm open to being shown where I'm wrong, but after the lockout in 1999, both sides wanted a lot more certainty going forward. I'm 90% sure that reclassification of free agents was one of the things they decided to avoid. Maybe the 2005 CBA changed that somehow, but I remember for sure that the '99 version shoehorned the restricted free agency rules straight into the uniform contract, and I know that the 2005 CBA was mostly the same as the 1999 version.

Edit: I just looked at the Uniform Player Contract under the current CBA, and it says nothing about restricted free agency. So nevermind. I thought I'd read through it more recently than 2005, but I guess not. I still reeeeaallly doubt that the new CBA will eliminate restricted free agency, since that's an owner-friendly provision and the next CBA is expected to be even more owner-friendly, but it looks like it's possible. My bad.

Edited October 5, 2010 by niremetal

[spotatl]

Well we are on the same page now- I also doubt that they will get rid of restricted free agency because I think its good for the league overall and the fans like to see their team have the ability to retain good draftpicks for a few more seasons. Personally I think that the odds of there being a franchise player type rule that leads to a form of Restricted Free Agency for veterans is more likely than getting rid of RFA for guys in Horford's situation. Really all I am pointing out is that we don't know what the new rules will be and we can't COUNT on Horford being a restricted free agent.

But I do think that there is a very good chance that the players decertify the union this time. Even with a strong luxury tax (dollar for dollar...) and salary cap rules the owners are still throwing out piles of money at players. SO the owners are using the CBA to protect against their own decisions. Without a union there isn't a CBA and so there isn't a salary cap. And when I do think the owners are looking to "break" the players- in the end I think the players will see they are better off decertifying the union than to lock themselves into a bad deal for several seasons.

So what would happen to Al Horford if the union decertified? I don't think that anyone really knows. And with the NFL players looking very likely to at least give their negotiators the authority to decertify the union I do think there is a good chance that the NBA players do the same. And even if the union doesn't decertify but there is a lockout then Horford would be eligible to go play in Europe while the labor dispute is going on.

With Jamal Crawford there is little risk in waiting until the new CBA is in effect. With Horford the equation is just riskier.

Edited October 5, 2010 by spotatl