CaronOwnsU

I would appreciate any help regarding the following situation:

Facts -

Laphonso Ellis recently waived an incentive clause in his contract which gave him a player option with the HEAT for next season at $3.6M if he remained on the active roster for a certain amount of days over the last year and a half. He was guaranteed to meet this threshold in two weeks.

Due to the HEAT requiring as much Cap Space as they can get next season, the organization was about to waive him which would allow him to file a grievance and collect any judgement off the books.

Fortunately, as previously mentioned, Ellis waived this incentive clause and turned it into a Team option for next season.

Question -

Coons FAQ specifically talks about a player's ability to waive a trade kicker yet makes no mention of a player being allowed to waive an incentive clause.

Can anyone shed more light on this situation? Should I be worried that the league or Players Union will rescind the new agreement between Ellis and the HEAT?

Thanks

MikeDC

I honestly don't know, but I would think that an incentive would be similar to a kicker (in that they're both benefits to the player), and hence, if he says he wants to waive it, it's his right to do so.

Anyway, if the players union fought it, it would just end up in forcing the Heat to waive LaPhonso, which, I have to think, would be a worse outcome for all involved. If I was a player, I wouldn't be too happy if my union made a move that resulted in me getting waived.

Hence, I think the Heat are in the clear. Just a guess though

__________________
* De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum
* Images in signatures are now operational

CaronOwnsU

Thank you for trying....

Each day that goes by without news about it, I get happier with its legality. Although, there are some rumors saying that this new agreement may have issues.

I bet I would have to read a copy of the actual CBA to get the precise language.

Anyway, thanks again for trying.

CaronOwnsU

But, if the HEAT end up waving Ellis then he simply could file a grievance and collect the full judgement off the books next summer. Atleast I think this is right.

Also, IMO, the Players Union/Assoc. may not want this sort of precedent that Ellis is setting - I couldn't think of another past example where this scenario has come up before.

What do you think?

MikeDC

I agree on the latter part, but how could they file a grievance just because Ellis gets waived. It might not be a "nice" thing to do, but it would certainly be within the Heat's rights to waive him, wouldn't it?

If I were the union, I wouldn't like the fact that the Heat were basically threatening to waive him outright if he didn't give up his incentive, but at the same time, by fighting it, they come off as shoving a player out on the street because fighting it would lead to Ellis being waived. And really, waiving a player is within the Heat's rights to do.

The other thing is that waiving a player isn't a costless option for the Heat (or any team) either, so I don't think the union faces a real threat that this would be a common occurence.

__________________
* De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum
* Images in signatures are now operational

CaronOwnsU

LOL! You are absolutely right. I wrote that last post while I was way too tired.... too many papers recently.

Okay, this is what I think:

1. Players Union would only file a grievance if Phoz was cut and initiated the procedings. The only possibility that I can come up is that they argue that the HEAT's actions (cutting Phonz) were the direct result of PHONZ not conceding to some sort of "downward negotiation". Probably file something under section 9 of the grievance procedure manual (not sure if I picked the right section though)

2. As you stated, however, the HEAT do have every right to cut him for whatever reason they see fit or for no reason at all. Yet, if the waiver is seen as the "product of unfairness or unconsconabilty" then the arbitrator rules against the franchise.

3. I know that the HEAT also have every right to to convert options and incentives in player contracts with agreement but I have not found the specific language yet which explicitly makes a comparison or distinction between an incentive clause and a trade kicker.

BTW, if I messed up anything in my analysis please don't hesitate to tell me. I just started learning the CBA material recently and can still be pretty slow grasping the concepts and jargon.

For instance, when we discussed the "poison pill", I only understood how correct your analysis was after I walked through the scenario myself four posts below yours. LOL!

Anyway, thanks for your help.