The salary cap FAQs everywhere say early-Bird requires two year minimum before you can do an option either way.He’s correct. We’ve discussed it like 15 times on here.
The salary cap FAQs everywhere say early-Bird requires two year minimum before you can do an option either way.He’s correct. We’ve discussed it like 15 times on here.
The salary cap FAQs everywhere say early-Bird requires two year minimum before you can do an option either way.
Article VII
(3) (i) If the player is an Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, the new Player Contract must cover at least two (2) Seasons (not including a Season covered by an Option Year)...
EARLY BIRD EXCEPTION -- This is a weaker form of the Larry Bird exception. It also allows teams to exceed the cap to re-sign their own free agents, but with more limited contracts than the Larry Bird exception. To qualify for this exception the player must play for two seasons without clearing waivers or changing teams as a free agent (see question number 32 for details and nuances to this rule). A team may use the Early Bird exception to re-sign its own free agent for up to 175% of his salary in the previous season (not over the maximum salary, of course) or 105% of the average salary in the previous season3, whichever is greater (see question number 31 for the definition of "average salary"). Early Bird contracts must be at least two seasons in length, which prevents teams from using the Early Bird to sign a one-year contract, then signing the same player with the full Larry Bird exception the following season. Early Bird contracts can be up to four years in length, with raises up to 8% of the salary in the first season of the contract. Early Bird is also a component of the Veteran Free Agent exception, and qualifying players are called "Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agents" in the CBA.
And, if the salary cap FAQs aren't enough, here's the text from the CBA itself:
Two years minimum, right there in black and white.
so then the question is, why doesn’t he of all people not know this? I’m just baffled by it and was hoping there is some angle we aren’t seeing.
so then the question is, why does he of all people not know this? I’m just baffled by it and was hoping there is some angle we aren’t seeing.
Thanks Capt F I will never can get a full graspEarly Bird rights come after two years, Full Bird rights come after three years.
Steph Curry just won NBA clutch player award, so apparently the "must make the post season" requirement to win these award recognitions was lifted after all this fuss about Monk. Seems like it was only yesterday. Wild.
If Monk comes back we could start him and then look for a defensive stud at the 4. A DFS or even Ryan Dunn type. Keon has been so good and makes such winning plays its hard to know what the right move is. Keon was basically KCP the last 10 games. If he can refine his offense just a bit and play that level of defense all season? Going to be hard to keep him out of the starting lineup.
The Locked on Podcast today featured a guy who covers the Magic. He things Monk is near the top of the Magic's free agent list but he still thinks its most likely Monk signs with the Kings. He said the Magic usually Zig when everyone expects them to Zag. He things the Magic might use the cap space in trades or go for players like Claxton or Hartenstein.
I like Monk a lot and would hate to lose him but giving him a starting job just so he doesn't leave completely undermines both his value to the team and our coach's ability to define the roster and roles. It should be a non-starter unless Coach Brown decides that is the best path to team success. It would require we invest in both a defensive upgrade at the starting 4 and also another high octane offensive threat to come off the bench. Very costly propositions.
I get that but we don't need more scoring and no defense in our starting lineup. We do need it off the bench. While the salary would be quite a bit lighter its the same principle why I wasn't excited about targeting Beal or Lavine vs. role guys that will make up the shortcomings between a Fox-Keegan-Domas core. Monk does not help that core.Since Monk is an unrestricted FA, we are basically trying to court a top free agent along with every other team. If we go on negotiations stating that he will remain a 6th man, I think he is as good as gone.
Monk has proven he is a starting caliber SG. If MB doesn’t relent and give him at least the opportunity to start, he will sign elsewhere. Monk has said in many interviews he views himself as a starter and hates coming off the bench.
I get that but we don't need more scoring and no defense in our starting lineup. We do need it off the bench. While the salary would be quite a bit lighter its the same principle why I wasn't excited about targeting Beal or Lavine vs. role guys that will make up the shortcomings between a Fox-Keegan-Domas core. Monk does not help that core.
Also we can clown on "LeGM" but if you let Monk demand to start you are basically ceding control of your franchise to your 6th man.
And just randomly signing Monk to be our starter when we need a starter with Keon's tools & skills is exactly why I'm against this. Starting Monk is a horrible fit and not the same player that 6th man Monk is. If we're going to evaluate in a new role/assignment we have to look at what we are losing and what we need to replace, and the cost of adding "starter Monk" vs. the costs of replacing 6th Man Monk and still filling in the other glaring holes on this roster.Let’s not look at Monk as our own free agent but as an unrestricted free agent looking for a new contract (which he is). If we were trying to sign Monk off the street after what he has proven and told him his role is 6th man only, there is no way we can sign him. The only way we would be able to sign him is if we offered him a shot at the starting SG spot. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to sign a FA of Monk’s caliber.
And just randomly signing Monk to be our starter when we need a starter with Keon's tools & skills is exactly why I'm against this. Starting Monk is a horrible fit and not the same player that 6th man Monk is. If we're going to evaluate in a new role/assignment we have to look at what we are losing and what we need to replace, and the cost of adding "starter Monk" vs. the costs of replacing 6th Man Monk and still filling in the other glaring holes on this roster.
I think making Monk a starter is taking two steps back without one step forward. I'll die on that hill.
They both suck. But promising a starting job as some hail mary to get a guy to take a discount and re-sign completely undermines your coach and gives every other player leverage when signing they haven't had. What if other players pull that ish?What’s the better option, the two steps back without one step forward or like the seven steps back losing him for nothing would be? The dude saved us far more than he ever hurt us these past two seasons. I can’t imagine how lousy and this past season would have been without Monk. Dude’s a X-Factor we will not be able to replicate on the market.
They both suck. But promising a starting job as some hail mary to get a guy to take a discount and re-sign completely undermines your coach and gives every other player leverage when signing they haven't had. What if other players pull that ish?
I ain't down with it.
It's a thought exercise because I'm convinced he's leaving at this point. But I just don't see starter Monk as the same thing as 6th man Monk. We need 6th Man Monk even if it's a different player. We don't need another scorer with questionable defensive tendencies starting. We already didn't have enough shots to go around in the starting lineup that we were constantly risking icing out one of our guys because another couldn't get hot unless he got a dozen shots. I guess if you actually found your shot blocking rim running PF that sits perfect between Keegan and Domas you can afford this luxury but most people are talking about adding another offensive minded questionable defender at the 4 too.Sacramento is never in the position it bleed talent. If a player pulls this demand ish, you examine the circumstances. On this team, Monk is better than Hurter. Especially after this past down season and now big injury. He absolutely should start in front of him on all rosters. Sure, Ellis fits the starting lineup much better, but Malik has him beat in terms of raw talent. This isn’t like he’s asking to start in front of a guy like Lillard or even McCollum. He’s earned the shot, especially on this roster, and if that keeps Sacramento from losing a big piece of talent Brown needs to get over his stubbornness and make it work.
What’s the better option, the two steps back without one step forward or like the seven steps back losing him for nothing would be? The dude saved us far more than he ever hurt us these past two seasons. I can’t imagine how lousy and this past season would have been without Monk. Dude’s a X-Factor we will not be able to replicate on the market.
No denying that the season was lost once he went down but it wasn't because we came out slow in first quarters.
Keon starting was revelatory. I am not saying he is the final answer but those are the tools you want in that spot.
You're treating a complimentary player like he's an all star. He's not. I don't like advanced stats but they really show that we should not be starting him. I really like Monk too so I feel bad saying all of this. I love when he does connect with Fox and what they have for each other. But starting him we will be a worse team for it, and we'll still need to go find a player to do what Monk did as 6th man because we won't have that.
Agreed. Monk was the heart and soul of this team. When he went down, the season was lost.
I think we make the playoffs if he's healthy and he will be a tough hole to fill but his importance to the team was as the spark plug when the engine is sputtering he could come in and reignite the team. Make him the starter and you still need that new spark plug off the bench.This sounds like an exaggeration. Monk had not been playing well going into the game where he was injured....and there were lots of bad loses when he was available
This sounds like an exaggeration. Monk had not been playing well going into the game where he was injured....and there were lots of bad loses when he was available