PDA

View Full Version : NBA to pay a portion of Kevin Durantís max contract


dirt_dobber
07-20-2013, 10:22 AM
NBA to pay a portion of Kevin Durantís max contract
by: Dan Feldman
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/07/19/nba-to-pay-a-portion-of-kevin-durants-max-contract/


NBA teams were operating under uncertainty entering the 2010-11 season. The Collective Bargaining Agreement was scheduled to expire the next summer, and there was no telling what terms the new deal would include.

Teams might have to drastically shed salary to get under a hard cap. Trade exceptions could expire during a lockout. Existing contracts could change.

Besides the usual risks that come with transactions, there were plenty of ways teamsí decisions could backfire simply via the upcoming negotiating process between the owners and players.

But it seemed the Thunder signing Kevin Durant to a five-year, maximum contract extension in 2010 couldnít go wrong. In his third year, Durant had just made the All-NBA first team, and his future seemed bright. Durant capitalized on that momentum, making another All-NBA first team in 2010-11 as the NBA headed into the lockout.

Durantís extension didnít call for a set dollar amount. Rather, it just specified heíd make a maximum salary. That max salary for players like Durant changed dramatically from the previous CBA to current edition thanks to whatís often called the Derrick Rose Rule. Durant, because he had made two All-NBA teams, was eligible for a larger extension than other players coming off their rookie-scale deal.

Suddenly, the Thunder were on the hook for $89,163,134 rather than $74,302,616 for the next five years based on the new rule structure, but still using the current Basketball Related Income split between players owners. The difference: $14,860,519.

No doubt, that contributed to Oklahoma Cityís decision trade James Harden and let Kevin Martin leave this summer.

Too late to change those outcomes, the Thunder had their protest answered by the NBA.

tweet by Zach Lowe of Grantland: Owners today voted to reimburse Thunder "several million $" for rule change new CBA applied retroactively to Durant's contract, per sources.

The vote took place at today's Board of Governors meeting, according to several league sources here in Vegas.

tweet by Darnell Mayberry of the Daily Oklahoman: The Oklahoman also has learned the reimbursement will not alter OKC's team salary. All of Durant's "super" max deal still counts against cap.

The reimbursement OKC received also was not the full differential b/ween the 25% max & the 30% max (roughly $15M), The Oklahoman has learned

This sets a dangerous precedent, and frankly, Iím surprised the owners approved it. The Thunder certainly werenít the only team who made a decision the new CBA adversely affected. When do teams that paid a steeper luxury tax as specified by the new CBA get their handout?

Durant Ė whose take-home salary wonít be affected by this vote Ė will also be eligible to make more on his next contract because of this rule. Can Oklahoma City ask for money from the rest of the league then, too?

By not altering the Thunderís team salary Ė i.e., not changing their luxury-tax bill Ė and not reimbursing the full $14,860,519, the other owners didnít take as large as step as they could have. But they still took a huge leap. Probably too large of one.
.

PartywithDirk
07-23-2013, 05:17 PM
This smells fishy to me....

dirno2000
07-23-2013, 08:35 PM
So did the Thunder argue with a straight face that they may not have signed him had they known he'd be eligible for the super max?

Ninkobei
07-23-2013, 10:49 PM
Seems reasonable. Since the new CBA added so much to Durant's contract, why shouldn't the NBA be held accountable? As for reimbursing luxury taxes, teams had plenty of opportunity to trade away high cap pieces. You can't reasonably expect OKC to trade away Durant.

dirno2000
07-24-2013, 12:19 AM
You also can't reasonably think that they wouldn't have maxed him out at 30% of the cap. He's a max player in any environment. Lowe said that the vote was not unanimous so that would probably be the argument for those that voted no.

It doesn't matter much from a fans perspective since OKC gains no real advantage from this but I'd have a problem with it if I was an owner.

Ninkobei
07-24-2013, 03:21 AM
You also can't reasonably think that they wouldn't have maxed him out at 30% of the cap. He's a max player in any environment. Lowe said that the vote was not unanimous so that would probably be the argument for those that voted no.

It doesn't matter much from a fans perspective since OKC gains no real advantage from this but I'd have a problem with it if I was an owner.

I don't see why other owners would have a problem with it. It's not like that money was going to be divided amongst the teams anyway. (crap, was it? i dont know enough to make that claim but i'm going to anyway)

Really thought is is simple: New cba costs your team 14 mil, whether the player is worth it is not the point. The contract was already signed and couldn't be undone. Teams had a year to prepare for the luxury tax changes. OKC didn't get a warning.

As long as they do the same for all other max rookie contracts I guess its fine. I'm guessing there aren't any.

Underdog
07-30-2013, 09:07 AM
Interesting article from Zach Lowe on the topic: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9520497/the-oklahoma-city-thunder-future-legacy-james-harden-trade