Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards

Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/)
-   NBA Talk (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f6/)
-   -   Should the NBA invoke the Allan Houston Rule as part of their new CBA? (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f6/should-nba-invoke-allan-houston-rule-part-their-new-cba-20880.html)

DocHoliday99 07-27-2011 06:56 PM

Should the NBA invoke the Allan Houston Rule as part of their new CBA?
 
A question asked on RealGM and I'm curious to know what RF posters feel about it.

js12 07-27-2011 07:09 PM

Quote:

The most striking innovation granted NBA teams a one-time option to release a player without his contract counting against the luxury tax threshold regardless of how long or how rich the contract was. The provision did not negate the player's contract, a team's obligation to pay the player, or the impact on the salary cap; it merely removed the player's salary when computing the luxury tax. This rule benefited teams that were in danger of facing the "luxury axe" penalty, a tax paid on salaries spent above a certain threshold of total team salary.
This is off Wikipedia. So I'm a bit confused about the rule. It says a team can use it one time. Does that mean one time per franchise?

Toby 07-30-2011 01:21 AM

Let's all just start picking on Brandon Roy.

C'mon kids, give him a chance, he earned it.

ClingRap 07-30-2011 10:27 AM

Chris Bosh:reporter:

West Coast NBA Fan 07-31-2011 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by js12 (Post 562326)
This is off Wikipedia. So I'm a bit confused about the rule. It says a team can use it one time. Does that mean one time per franchise?

In the old cba, teams could only do it once and it had to be done the very first year. Therefore, lots of teams took advantage of it knowing that they would never be able to do it again over the life of the cba.

The problem with that rule was that the player still got paid. The only benefit was to teams who would be paying the luxury tax. The salary of the waived player would not count against the team's lux tax payment but they would still be paying the player on it's regular payroll.

Another problem is that the small market teams that bank on luxury tax windfall payments would now be getting less due to tax payers now kicking in less money as a result of the rule. The whole point of this current lockout is to get small market, low revenue teams on an equal level of the larger market teams but that rule just gave them less money.

If I had it my way, teams would be able to terminate TWO guaranteed contracts over the course of a 10 year cba. The player's deal would not only be eliminated from the lux tax but be eliminated from the entire payroll altogether. That's not a huge dent to the players and they may even go for it when you consider that the 2 contracts being terminated would most likely be overpaid jakes that shouldn't have gotten the contract in the first place and even more importantly, his outgoing salary would create more cap space for free agents, money that woudn't have been available without the contract termination in the first place.

js12 07-31-2011 09:28 PM

Thanks for the clarification.

And I agree with your idea of having multiple terminations. I'm not sure if the players would agree to surrendering their entire salaries though. They is a bit unfair since both sides agreed beforehand to that contract.

West Coast NBA Fan 07-31-2011 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by js12 (Post 562991)
Thanks for the clarification.

And I agree with your idea of having multiple terminations. I'm not sure if the players would agree to surrendering their entire salaries though. They is a bit unfair since both sides agreed beforehand to that contract.

I actually agree. I don't want to see salary terminations, especially knowing that contract length is most likely going to be cut to 4 or 5 years. But the owners are really digging in and from a leverage standpoint, want to completely eliminate guaranteed deals. That's ridiculous and they know they won't get that but they're hoping to meet in the middle and if it gets down to the point where we have already missed games and players are itching to get paid, they may cave and go for something like that.

carp 08-01-2011 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Coast NBA Fan (Post 562988)
In the old cba, teams could only do it once and it had to be done the very first year. Therefore, lots of teams took advantage of it knowing that they would never be able to do it again over the life of the cba.

The problem with that rule was that the player still got paid. The only benefit was to teams who would be paying the luxury tax. The salary of the waived player would not count against the team's lux tax payment but they would still be paying the player on it's regular payroll.

Another problem is that the small market teams that bank on luxury tax windfall payments would now be getting less due to tax payers now kicking in less money as a result of the rule. The whole point of this current lockout is to get small market, low revenue teams on an equal level of the larger market teams but that rule just gave them less money.

If I had it my way, teams would be able to terminate TWO guaranteed contracts over the course of a 10 year cba. The player's deal would not only be eliminated from the lux tax but be eliminated from the entire payroll altogether. That's not a huge dent to the players and they may even go for it when you consider that the 2 contracts being terminated would most likely be overpaid jakes that shouldn't have gotten the contract in the first place and even more importantly, his outgoing salary would create more cap space for free agents, money that woudn't have been available without the contract termination in the first place.

I absolutely disagree on the termination of contracts.... A player could have legitimately gotten injured, and you're going to try and take away that money he was given? Contracts are in place to avoid such arbitrary power.

Freeing a team of that cap pressure is one thing, but contracts still need to be lived up to.....

West Coast NBA Fan 08-02-2011 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carp (Post 563048)
I absolutely disagree on the termination of contracts.... A player could have legitimately gotten injured, and you're going to try and take away that money he was given? Contracts are in place to avoid such arbitrary power.

Freeing a team of that cap pressure is one thing, but contracts still need to be lived up to.....

Ok, then how about a rule that stipulates that all contracts that exceed 3 years have an out clause after the 3rd year but that the owners can only trigger the out clause on 2 over the course of a 10 year cba? That way, 90% of the players with long term contracts get the whole 4 or 5 year deal and the owners can opt out of the two big mistakes that they will at some point make.

Also, the players are now protected in case they get injured in years 1, 2 or 3. Even if they happen to have the contract that gets tossed, they still have 3 years of pay to fall back on.

carp 08-02-2011 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Coast NBA Fan (Post 563332)
Ok, then how about a rule that stipulates that all contracts that exceed 3 years have an out clause after the 3rd year but that the owners can only trigger the out clause on 2 over the course of a 10 year cba? That way, 90% of the players with long term contracts get the whole 4 or 5 year deal and the owners can opt out of the two big mistakes that they will at some point make.

Also, the players are now protected in case they get injured in years 1, 2 or 3. Even if they happen to have the contract that gets tossed, they still have 3 years of pay to fall back on.

Why not just restrict length of contracts and remove contract guarantees..... Wouldn't that be less complicated and less punishing of a select few?

'trane 08-02-2011 09:55 PM

west coast - just to clarify, are you suggesting that the 2 guys chosen no longer get paid anything, or that some other entity takes the contract off the team's hands?

West Coast NBA Fan 08-03-2011 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carp (Post 563339)
Why not just restrict length of contracts and remove contract guarantees..... Wouldn't that be less complicated and less punishing of a select few?

Well, the union is willing to cut contract length to 5 years but the league wants to get rid of guarantees altogether. I'm thinking that a good compromise is giving the players 4 or 5 year deals but allowing the owners to get out from under 2 mistakes. The more deserving players would then be protected for the duration of the contract.

The problem with limiting all contracts to 3 years is that the big, attractive market teams will be reloading all the time. Right now, I like the fact that the Lakers are stuck with Bynum's bad knees, Kobe regressing, Metta World Peace becoming worthless and Blake not living up to his deal. They're stuck but if everyone were on a 3 year deal, they'd just reload with CP and Howard next summer since everyone would be off the books by now.

West Coast NBA Fan 08-03-2011 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 563341)
west coast - just to clarify, are you suggesting that the 2 guys chosen no longer get paid anything, or that some other entity takes the contract off the team's hands?

I'm saying 2 guys don't get anything. Unlike the last cba where the player not only got paid but got to go to the situation of his choice. That was lame. This cba is trying to make the large markets and players cut back while helping the small market. That rule did the opposite. Big market team got cap relief while the small market got less of a tax kickback.

With my idea, we're only talking 2 players over the course of a 10 year cba having their 3 year out clause exercised. When looking at the history of NBA payrolls, it's usually just 1 or 2 deals that really screw over a team so I'm allowing the owners to get out from those mistakes but they'll have to live up to the rest of the deals they sign on to.

'trane 08-03-2011 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Coast NBA Fan (Post 563384)
I'm saying 2 guys don't get anything. Unlike the last cba where the player not only got paid but got to go to the situation of his choice. That was lame. This cba is trying to make the large markets and players cut back while helping the small market. That rule did the opposite. Big market team got cap relief while the small market got less of a tax kickback.

With my idea, we're only talking 2 players over the course of a 10 year cba having their 3 year out clause exercised. When looking at the history of NBA payrolls, it's usually just 1 or 2 deals that really screw over a team so I'm allowing the owners to get out from those mistakes but they'll have to live up to the rest of the deals they sign on to.

i hear what you are getting at, but it seems grossly unfair to the player. he signed a deal, and the team gets to just opt out of their obligation? that seems odd. it might be more fair if a player or two, over the course of the cba, gets to opt out of their deal if they sign cheap but end up developing into a star. it has to go both ways. but in that case it would just make more sense to have short deals all around.

i dunno, imo, if you enter into a contract with someone you owe it to them to live up to your half of the deal. if it turns out you made a bad deal, that should be your responsibility to manage. otherwise you get a free pass for making stupid mistakes.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24