Should the NBA invoke the Allan Houston Rule as part of their new CBA?

Go Back   Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards > NBA Discussion > NBA Talk

View Poll Results: Should the NBA invoke the Allan Houston Rule as part of their new CBA?
Yes 4 57.14%
No 3 42.86%
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-27-2011, 06:56 PM   #1 (permalink)
hates pounding the rock!

Membres supérieurs
 
DocHoliday99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 5,727
Representing:
Default 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.
DocHoliday99 is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2011, 07:09 PM   #2 (permalink)
#NorthernUprising

6 Man Like Lou Will
 
js12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: T.O.
Posts: 5,629
Representing:
Default

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?
js12 is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2011, 01:21 AM   #3 (permalink)
a nacho hound

Senior Member
 
Toby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South of Portland, home of the Blazers
Posts: 6,064
Representing:
Default

Let's all just start picking on Brandon Roy.

C'mon kids, give him a chance, he earned it.
Toby is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2011, 10:27 AM   #4 (permalink)
enjoying having the keys to destiny

perusing ancient database
 
ClingRap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The far side of the Universe.
Posts: 1,846
Representing:
Default

Chris Bosh
ClingRap is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 09:12 PM   #5 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 66
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by js12 View Post
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.
West Coast NBA Fan is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 09:28 PM   #6 (permalink)
#NorthernUprising

6 Man Like Lou Will
 
js12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: T.O.
Posts: 5,629
Representing:
Default

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.
js12 is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 09:35 PM   #7 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 66
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by js12 View Post
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.
West Coast NBA Fan is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 11:49 AM   #8 (permalink)
.

Senior Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,506
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by West Coast NBA Fan View Post
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.....
carp is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2011, 09:16 PM   #9 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 66
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
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.
West Coast NBA Fan is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2011, 09:46 PM   #10 (permalink)
.

Senior Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,506
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by West Coast NBA Fan View Post
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?
carp is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2011, 09:55 PM   #11 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

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?
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 12:48 AM   #12 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 66
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
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 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 12:52 AM   #13 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 66
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
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.
West Coast NBA Fan is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 09:10 AM   #14 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by West Coast NBA Fan View Post
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.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:01 PM.


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