[閒聊] The Contract Statuses of Jeremy Lin an
http://knickerblogger.net/the-contract-statuses-of-jeremy-lin-and-landry-fields/
While obviously it is too soon to tell if Jeremy Lin is going to continue his
standout play for the New York Knicks, I figured that there was enough
uncertainty among the readers about Lin’s future status with the Knicks that
I would detail the situation (and discuss Landry Fields’ future, as well).
The Knicks are about to guarantee Jeremy Lin’s full salary, which is a
one-year contract for roughly $800,000. Landy Fields, meanwhile, is on the
second year of a two-year contract paying him roughly $800,000 a year. Both
Lin and Fields will be free agents at the end of this season.
Before I discuss anything, note that the Knicks are over the salary cap for
next season but will not be at the luxury tax level. Therefore, they will
have both the Bi-Annual Exception (roughly $2 million) and the full mid-level
(roughly $5 million) as exceptions (on top of the ability to pay any free
agent the minimum salary for that player, which is how they signed Baron
Davis and Mike Bibby).
Now on to Lin and Fields. The difference between the two is that Fields is
eligible for the so-called “Early Bird Exception,” since he has played for
the Knicks for two seasons. Lin, on the other hand, has only played one
season for the Knicks and is therefore not eligible for any Bird Rights
protections.
As an Early Bird player, Fields can be offered a contract that starts at 175%
of his current salary or anything up to the average NBA salary (which is
roughly $5 million). They can pay Fields this money without affecting their
mid-level exception. However, if Fields just signs a one year deal for
anything up to the average salary, then the following season the Knicks will
have his full Bird Rights and then can re-sign him to a salary larger than
the average salary. It really depends on how well Fields plays the rest of
the year to determine what kind of deal he signs.
Lin, however, is not an Early Bird player since he has only played one year
for the Knicks (while he is in the second year of a two-year deal, Bird
Rights are re-set when a player is waived, as Lin has been twice. From Larry
Coon’s invaluable Salary Cap FAQ, “If a player is waived and is claimed by
another team before he clears waivers, then his Bird clock resets.” Had Lin
been traded from the Warriors to the Knicks, he would have Early Bird status
like Fields. Instead, the Warriors waived him, as did the Rockets).
Therefore, if the Knicks want to re-sign him, they would have to use one of
the following:
1. The Non-Bird Exception, where they could pay him up to 125% of his current
salary (or roughly $1 million) (Non-Bird Exceptions are typically 120% of a
player’s current salary, but since Lin is a restricted free agent, he is
eligible for an extra 5% as a qualifying offer)
2. The Bi-Annual exception (which is roughly $2 million) or
3. However much of the mid-level (which is roughly $5 million) they would
need to re-sign him.
This is bad news in the sense that if Lin plays well enough to be worth more
than the Bi-Annual exception, the Knicks would be in a position where they
would have to dip into the mid-level to pay him and if they do that, well, it
is hard enough to get Steve Nash to come play for just the mid-level, see
what he would do if you couldn’t even offer him $3 million. It wouldn’t be
pretty.
One additional wrinkle is the ability of other teams to snatch Fields and Lin
away from the Knicks. Both Fields and Lin are technically restricted free
agents. However, due to the so-called “Gilbert Arenas provision,” other
teams are limited in what they can offer Fields and Lin. They can only offer
them up to the full mid-level. In the case of Fields, they Knicks would be
able to match any offer and not have to touch their own mid-level exception
(since they have Early Bird Rights on Fields). With Lin, though, they’d have
to dip into their mid-level exception.
So, as things stand, Fields is pretty much guaranteed to be a Knick next
season if the Knicks want him (which they certainly seem to) while Lin…it is
tricky. If he plays this well for the rest of the season, I suppose the
Knicks would pretty much have to pick him over Steve Nash, right? In that
case, if I’m Lin, I’m asking for the full mid-level for 2 years at which
point he would be eligible for full Bird Rights (since he would have been on
the Knicks for three straight years) and then he could get a substantial
raise. I guess he could also be more conservative and just say the full
mid-level period for five years. The trouble comes in if he plays somewhere
in between great and mediocre. If he’s good enough to make more than the
Bi-Annual exception (roughly $2 million) but not good enough that you’d want
to pass on Steve Nash, then I guess they’d lose him if anyone offers him
more than the Bi-Annual Exception. However, if the Knicks want to keep him at
all costs (as in using the entire mid-level on him), they can. It’s going to
be interesting to see how it turns out.
Thanks to the man, the myth, the legend Larry Coon and his Salary Cap FAQ for
the ground rules of this discussion. Read them for some other tricky stuff
about the Gilbert Arenas provision that have not, to my knowledge, ever come
up before so I didn’t address them but I guess they could (like how a team
can backload a contract for a player like Fields so that the overall deal
could be 4 years/$40 million).
EDITED TO ADD: Despite saying in his FAQ “If a player is waived and is
claimed by another team before he clears waivers, then his Bird clock resets,
” Larry Coon now says that if that happens, a player does not lose his Bird
Rights. If that is the case, then the Knicks would, in fact, own Lin’s Early
Bird Rights. In which case they can do the same thing with Lin that they can
do with Fields, which is to say that he can be signed for any amount up to
the mid-level salary without having to touch the Knicks’ own mid-level
exeception (and other teams would be limited to offering the mid-level for
Lin, so the Knicks could match if they wish).
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 59.120.54.76
→
02/09 17:35, , 1F
02/09 17:35, 1F
推
02/09 17:46, , 2F
02/09 17:46, 2F
推
02/09 17:46, , 3F
02/09 17:46, 3F
推
02/09 18:04, , 4F
02/09 18:04, 4F
推
02/09 18:13, , 5F
02/09 18:13, 5F
→
02/09 18:14, , 6F
02/09 18:14, 6F
推
02/09 18:16, , 7F
02/09 18:16, 7F
→
02/09 18:17, , 8F
02/09 18:17, 8F
→
02/09 18:18, , 9F
02/09 18:18, 9F
→
02/09 18:19, , 10F
02/09 18:19, 10F
→
02/09 18:20, , 11F
02/09 18:20, 11F
→
02/09 18:20, , 12F
02/09 18:20, 12F
→
02/09 18:20, , 13F
02/09 18:20, 13F
推
02/09 18:23, , 14F
02/09 18:23, 14F
推
02/09 18:25, , 15F
02/09 18:25, 15F
推
02/09 18:27, , 16F
02/09 18:27, 16F
→
02/09 18:28, , 17F
02/09 18:28, 17F
→
02/09 18:29, , 18F
02/09 18:29, 18F
推
02/09 18:30, , 19F
02/09 18:30, 19F
→
02/09 18:30, , 20F
02/09 18:30, 20F
→
02/09 18:32, , 21F
02/09 18:32, 21F
→
02/09 18:32, , 22F
02/09 18:32, 22F
→
02/09 18:35, , 23F
02/09 18:35, 23F
→
02/09 18:36, , 24F
02/09 18:36, 24F
→
02/09 18:36, , 25F
02/09 18:36, 25F
→
02/09 18:36, , 26F
02/09 18:36, 26F
推
02/09 18:39, , 27F
02/09 18:39, 27F
推
02/09 18:41, , 28F
02/09 18:41, 28F
推
02/09 18:42, , 29F
02/09 18:42, 29F
→
02/09 18:43, , 30F
02/09 18:43, 30F
推
02/09 19:04, , 31F
02/09 19:04, 31F
→
02/09 19:19, , 32F
02/09 19:19, 32F
→
02/09 19:20, , 33F
02/09 19:20, 33F
推
02/09 19:21, , 34F
02/09 19:21, 34F
推
02/09 19:30, , 35F
02/09 19:30, 35F
→
02/09 19:53, , 36F
02/09 19:53, 36F
推
02/09 20:51, , 37F
02/09 20:51, 37F
推
02/09 22:13, , 38F
02/09 22:13, 38F
推
02/10 10:42, , 39F
02/10 10:42, 39F
推
02/10 11:19, , 40F
02/10 11:19, 40F
推
02/10 11:33, , 41F
02/10 11:33, 41F
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 4 篇):