Hoopsworld reports a new intriguing twist among the "B-list" provisions

[sturt]

Player contracts can be renegotiated downward in extensions, as long as the player’s salary does not decrease by more than 40 percent. Previously, renegotiations could only increase a player’s salary. This could provide another key avenue for teams to maintain roster flexibility and add players with space created by restructuring existing contracts, similar to the NFL.

[TheTruth]

Way overdue.

[thecampster]

So if I understand you correctly. Hinrich has 1 year and 8 million left. 60% of 8 million is 4.8 million. So the Hawks could reduce his salary this year by extending his contract for additional years as long as this year's salary doesn't decrease to less than 4.8 million. I.E. He could sign for a 3 year extention at say 5.5 mil, 6 mil and 6.5 mil in exchange for reducing this year's salary to 5 million and thereby creating 3 million in cap/LT room. Or am I misunderstanding you?

[y2kenta]

So if I understand you correctly. Hinrich has 1 year and 8 million left. 60% of 8 million is 4.8 million. So the Hawks could reduce his salary this year by extending his contract for additional years as long as this year's salary doesn't decrease to less than 4.8 million. I.E. He could sign for a 3 year extention at say 5.5 mil, 6 mil and 6.5 mil in exchange for reducing this year's salary to 5 million and thereby creating 3 million in cap/LT room. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Yeah, but why use it for Hinrich's expiring deal???

Makes way more sense to want to reduce Joe's MASSIVE cap killer or at least Marvin's deal. Say if Joe's deal was reduce to at least 75%, it would give us some flexibility. I think his deal is for $125M. So 75% of that would be about $94M...BIG DIFFERENCE! And waaayyy more reasonable for him.

[LucastheThird]

Yeah, but why use it for Hinrich's expiring deal???

Makes way more sense to want to reduce Joe's MASSIVE cap killer or at least Marvin's deal. Say if Joe's deal was reduce to at least 75%, it would give us some flexibility. I think his deal is for $125M. So 75% of that would be about $94M...BIG DIFFERENCE! And waaayyy more reasonable for him.

Yes it makes sense for the Hawks to try to reduce JJ's contract. But if you were JJ would you give up that much money on your last big time contract. There's taking one for the team and then there's being an idiot. (Not calling you an idiot btw)

[TheTruth]

Yeah, but why use it for Hinrich's expiring deal???

Makes way more sense to want to reduce Joe's MASSIVE cap killer or at least Marvin's deal. Say if Joe's deal was reduce to at least 75%, it would give us some flexibility. I think his deal is for $125M. So 75% of that would be about $94M...BIG DIFFERENCE! And waaayyy more reasonable for him.

I believe this is only for the extended years on new extensions. Therefore, even if we extended JJ right now, which we wouldn't, then only his extended years could be decreased by no more than 40%. In other words, his current max deal numbers would be left unchanged, but any additional years could see a reduction in salary.

Of course, unless I am reading it wrong.

[thecampster]

Yeah, but why use it for Hinrich's expiring deal???

Makes way more sense to want to reduce Joe's MASSIVE cap killer or at least Marvin's deal. Say if Joe's deal was reduce to at least 75%, it would give us some flexibility. I think his deal is for $125M. So 75% of that would be about $94M...BIG DIFFERENCE! And waaayyy more reasonable for him.

See the answers others gave. Kirk would be willing because 4 years guaranteed is better than 1 year guaranteed. Joe would not because 6 years guaranteed is not necessarily better than 4 years guaranteed if the salary drop is too great.

You would use this on a player in his last or next to last year as a way to avoid future free agency mishaps and correct cap restrictions today. I'm guessing this is designed to avoid massive player movement.