Thread Tools

Display Modes

meru · 07-16-2008, 05:10 PM

Here's my understanding, such as it is:
The team almost certainly is SIGNING Batum and keeping him here. This was not necessarily the original intention (one of the supposed advantages of drafting a Euro is to have him develop overseas) but... what? I think I heard that he doesn't have a contract right now and thus the team HAS to sign him - but why is that? Is it his call - that is, if he's not under contract and he says "take me", then the team has to choose between signing him and renouncing his rights?

Koponen seems to be in a different situation: there the worry is not losing his rights but having him locked into a long term contract. But does that mean he's not currently under contract (because the long term contract would be to a big team in mainland Europe and not a Finnish team), in which case, why isn't his situation just like Batum's?

It's confusing because as I understand it, we're almost certainly signing Batum and almost certainly NOT Koponen, even though it's obvious PK is more NBA-ready than NB. Can anyone clarify?

Reep · 07-16-2008, 05:41 PM

Because Batum was first round pick, they have to sign him, if that is what he wants. Kop is probably more level headed and doesn't want to force the Blazers to sign him if they are not ready. For some reason, Batum doesn't care. I seems that he wants to be here no matter what.

Too bad, I would sign Kop and send Batum to Europe for four years.

B-Roy · 07-16-2008, 05:48 PM

Sign Kop and Batum. Trade Sergio for a future pick. Problem solved.

meru · 07-16-2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reep

Because Batum was first round pick, they have to sign him, if that is what he wants.

Do you KNOW this for a fact? Can you give me a link?

Quote:

Kop is probably more level headed and doesn't want to force the Blazers to sign him if they are not ready.

I cannot believe that that would be the only difference between their situations. (Because of course Koponen is also a first-rounder.)

Reep · 07-16-2008, 06:19 PM

Quote:

44. What if a team likes its first round pick and wants to sign him, but either feels he isn't worth the scale salary or doesn't want to commit to two seasons?

They're stuck. In essence, this makes late first round picks less valuable, because it forces teams to make a two-year commitment to a marginal player. It was worse under the previous CBA, when the minimum commitment was three years. In 1996, rather than give their first round pick Travis Knight (29th overall) a three-year deal, the Bulls renounced him, making him a free agent.

45. If a first round draft pick is renounced, is he still bound to the salary scale for a first round pick?

No. The salary scale only applies to the team that drafts the player or the team to which the player's draft rights are traded. When Chicago renounced first round pick Travis Knight in 1996, he then signed with the Lakers for one year at the league minimum salary.

So I guess if Batum doesn't want to go to Europe or play for some other league, then the Blazers could renounce their rights to him and he is a FA.

If they don't renounce him and can't sign him then he comes back under the next draft? This part is unclear.

meru · 07-16-2008, 06:19 PM

This makes it sound like it's not up to Koponen:

Quote:

Even so, a spot on the Blazers roster is not a given. Pritchard values the flexibility a vacant roster spot would provide. Plus, there is a chance the Blazers could acquire a veteran free agent at a good value late in the free agent signing period.

But failing to sign Koponen also carries risk. Pavicevic said Koponen is highly coveted by European club teams -- nine teams sought to meet with Pavicevic on Sunday night alone -- and it's possible any deal would carry a seven-figure buyout. The Blazers would be able to contribute only $500,000.

"We will see what the situation is after the summer league and what is going on," Koponen said. "But now I want to focus on these games and show them what I can do and make the team (this) year."

Should Koponen convince the Blazers that he is worth a roster spot, the team not only would gain 6-foot-4 size, potential and intelligence, but also rare real-world experience. Finnish men are required to undergo military training, and Koponen fulfilled his duties last fall, participating in a six-month basic training program

meru · 07-16-2008, 06:25 PM

Reep, I think the more relevant entry is this one:

Quote:

42. What if the team and player can't agree to a contract? What options does the player have? How long does the team keep his draft rights?

The player's options are limited. What happens depends on a number of factors:
If the player is already under contract to, or signs a contract with a non-NBA team, the team retains the player's draft rights for one year after the player's obligation to the non-NBA team ends. Essentially, the clock stops as long as the player plays pro ball outside the NBA. Players are not included in the team's team salary while the player is under contract with a non-NBA team.

If the player was still eligible to play in college before he was drafted, the team retains the player's draft rights until the draft the player would have entered had he not left college early. For example, if a team drafts a college sophomore in 2005, they retain his draft rights until the date of the 2007 draft. Note that the current NCAA rules state that players lose their NCAA eligibility if they are drafted, so the player could not return or go on to play college ball.

For all other players, the team retains the player's draft rights until the date of the next draft.

In any of the above cases, if the team does not sign the player in the allotted time, the player can enter the next draft. If the team that selects the player in the next draft doesn't sign him either, he becomes a rookie free agent.

When a team signs a first round draft pick in a year other than the year in which he was drafted, the player is signed using the salary scale for the year in which he is signed, not the year in which he was drafted. An exception to this is for players drafted prior to 2005, under the previous CBA. These players may be signed according to the rules for scale contracts set forth in the previous CBA, including three guaranteed years plus one option year, at the scale salary for the year in which the player was drafted.

This makes it sound like the Blazers DON'T have to sign Batum. The only way they lose his rights is if he sits out for a year and re-enters the draft. Given his showing so far in Summer League, that probably would NOT be a good idea for him.

blue32 · 07-16-2008, 06:25 PM

All i gotta say, is whomever said Batum was going to replace Webs or Outlaw is nuts. The guy is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo lost out on the court, and furthermore can't hold his spot because he's so damn small. The dude, seriously needs to gain some muscle. I havent been impressed in the first two games, but I'm keeping an open mind on the rest.....bring on the Blazers!

It's_GO_Time · 07-16-2008, 06:26 PM

Interesting issue. I think Kop could force the Blazer's hand.

**Zybot** · 07-16-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meru

Do you KNOW this for a fact? Can you give me a link?

I cannot believe that that would be the only difference between their situations. (Because of course Koponen is also a first-rounder.)

Larry Coon's #42? Sounds like if Batum has a contract with a Euro squad then we keep rights until one year after the contract expires. But if he doesn't have a contract and wants to sit out a year then he could go back into the draft.

Edit: I started to type this and then got distracted and hit submit -- so yeah what meru said.

Jayps15 · 07-16-2008, 06:42 PM

It's a completely ambiguous situation, I've discussed this before and there's just no way we can answer whether or not Batum/Kop can force the Blazers to sign them.

But my take on it is that they cannot force the organizations hand in this, that the only recourse either has is to sit out of professional basketball for a full year and re-enter the draft, otherwise the Blazers just hold onto their rights.

The reason it was being assumed Batum was coming over and Kop was likely to be going back oversees is I think because of two factors, first that if both were to go back to Europe that Batum would be given a more lucrative contract with a higher buyout and maybe more years making it extremely difficult for the Blazers to get him to come over later on(like a Rudy situation, where he's forced to decide, but later on in his career and maybe losing even more money), and second I think it was assumed that Batum was more developed right now and that Kop was the one who needed to go back to Europe to develop.

Paxil · 07-16-2008, 07:06 PM

Batum's rights are like a dormant STD... not something you want. I almost felt sorry for him in summer league. I know he can improve and all... but I'd be pretty shocked if he ever plays in the NBA.

chairman · 07-16-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paxil

Batum's rights are like a dormant STD... not something you want. I almost felt sorry for him in summer league. I know he can improve and all... but I'd be pretty shocked if he ever plays in the NBA.

Thank you for keeping the string alive. Every summer someone says they would be shocked if a certain player EVER plays in the NBA, and every year that player proves them wrong.

Cograts to Batum in securing a 10 year career in the "association"

ehizzy3 · 07-16-2008, 09:10 PM

lol at you guys judging him after just 2 summer league games...i trust kp somehow you guys all preach you do and then don't...

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes