Will he opt out to get an Extension? [does he have to to get an extension?] If he doesn't opt out.. . how much does he make a year? I guess the question is. . . How do we lock him up long term? Rocket River
He will/should opt out so he can get a bigger pay day and more guaranteed money. Negotiations will begin August 4th. I think that is the soonest the Rockets can sign him. Hopefully, Tmac doesn't flake on us and just signs the max extension.
They'd better be REALLY careful now to sign him fast after he opts out. After the entire Carlos Boozer fiasco, things will never be the same again. I remember Tim Duncan opted out last year, and signed a new and longterm contract with the Spurs without much problem. I hope this will be the case with the Rockets and T-mac. Well, CD is 6546565% smarter than Jim Paxson, so I guess we'll be fine.
Boozer went with more money. Fortunately, we have T-Mac's full Bird right, so we can give him more money than every other team. Not the same situation at all.
This is what I was thinking but was unsure so this should be a slam dunk will it be 6~7 years. . . 85<>95 million? Rocket River
Tracy McGrady doesn't have to opt out, the Rockets can just give him an extension. That's what the Rockets did with Cato I believe, just gave him an extension. He played out his old contract and then the new one kicked it.
He'll sign for the maximun amount allowed under the CBA in early August. Bank on it. Uh, and if he doesn't, the suicide chamber is through the door to the right.
T-Mac is scheduled to make $14.487 million this year. So if he signs a new contract, the maximum Rockets can offer is 105% of his 2004 salary, 12.5% annual raise, and 7 years. 1 15.211 2 17.113 3 19.014 4 20.916 5 22.817 6 24.718 7 26.620 Total 146.409 Darn, that's a lots of money. Paying T-Mac at year 7 when he is 33 years old for $26M is a lot! http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2004-07-01-dupree-free-analysis_x.htm
I'd rather pay a 33 year old 26 million rather than pay a guy 17 million who's going to be 37 Tracy will still be playing at a high level, he's worth every penny
No one has been right on, but here's the answer from the CBA... lancet- Free agents and extensions are different... Article VII, Section 7 (1) Subject to the rules set forth in subsection (2) below, a Player Contract covering a term of six (6) or seven (7) Seasons may be extended no sooner than the fourth anniversary of the signing of the Contract That would be August 3, according to TMac's nba.com profile... (3) Subject to Article II, Section 7, a Player Contract extended in accordance with this Section 7(a) may, in the first Season of the extended term, provide for a Salary of up to 112.5% of the Regular Salary in the last Season of the original term of the Contract. In the event that the last Season of the original term of the Contract provides for Incentive Compensation, the first Season of the extended term may provide for Likely Bonuses and Unlikely Bonuses of up to 112.5% of the Likely Bonuses and Unlikely Bonuses, respectively, in the last Season of the original term. Annual increases and decreases in Salary and Unlikely Bonuses shall be governed by Section 5(c)(3) above. And here we find one distinct advantage to an extension (and perhaps why Shaq wanted one?). As a free agent, a player on a max contract can only get 105%. As an extension, it's 112.5%. Now one part that's vague to me is the length of the extension. Would it be a 7 year extension kicking in as soon as his contract's done? Or can he only be under contract for 7 years at a time. Here's the closest I could find from the CBA. (If someone finds something more relevant, by all means)Article IX, Section 1/2 ARTICLE IX LENGTH OF PLAYER CONTRACTS Section 1. Maximum Term Except where a shorter term is expressly provided for elsewhere in this Agreement, a Player Contract entered into after the date of this Agreement may cover, in the aggregate, up to but no more than six (6) Seasons (including any Season covered by an Option) from the date such Contract is signed; provided, however, that (a) a Player Contract between a Qualifying Veteran Free Agent and his Prior Team may cover, in the aggregate, up to but no more than seven (7) Seasons (including any Season covered by an Option) from the date such Contract is signed, and (b) an Extension of a Rookie Scale Contract may cover, in the aggregate, up to but no more than seven (7) Seasons (including any Season covered by an Option) from the date such extension is signed. Section 2. Computation of Time For purposes of Section 1 above, if a Player Contract or Extension is signed after the beginning of a Season, the Season in which the Contract or Extension is signed shall be counted as one(1) full Season covered by the Contract or Extension. This explicitly states "free agent", but it still seems a player may be under contract for at most 6 or 7 seasons at a time. The real tough question imo- the language only states 7 seasons for free agents (though if a free agent, Tmac would qualify) and rookie scale extensions, for everybody else, it's 6. The extension would kick in at the end of the contract (hence, extension). Here's how I see his contract looking... 04-05: $14.487m 05-06: 15.694250m 06-07: 16.901500m (end of current contract) 07-08: 19.014187m (start of new contract 112.5%) 08-09: 21.390961m 09-10: 23.767734m 10-11: 26.144507m (this year under question) So, we're looking at either a 3 year, $64.17m extension, or 4 year, $90.31m
exactly. If the economy collapses, inflation rate hits 700%, we will be paying more than $100M for a car!
Addendum: The Final Word. Based on Kevin Garnett, I've come to the conclusion that an extension with TMac can only put him under contract for the next 6 years. 3 year, $64m+ extension is what it will be.
weird, i guess so many extensions are rookie scale that i just assumed everyone could get 7 years of being under a contract (like battier just got, can't believe he got a 6 year extension) but apparently not. not sure if i like the idea of not being tied to him for another year of huge money if something goes wrong or if it's bad to not have him locked up. of course, if things go well he'll just get another extension so this is probably good.
