this certainly changes my opinion on the rubio situation...

[jersey wolf]

assuming sheridan's facts are correct, rubio seems more and more like trade bait to me now. (not trading him now, but in being a different opinion than i've had in the past.)

damnit!

http://www.canishoopus.com/2009/9/2/...cky-not-coming

[Cory]

Originally Posted by jersey wolf

assuming sheridan's facts are correct, rubio seems more and more like trade bait to me now. (not trading him now, but in being a different opinion than i've had in the past.)

damnit!

http://www.canishoopus.com/2009/9/2/...cky-not-coming

LA_33 should be an ESPN reporter.

This doesn't really change a lot for me. At that point I don't think we'll be under the cap if we use our assets correctly. And if he wants to sign for the MLE at that point, I'd be fine with it. I still don't see him as trade bait though until at least 2011.

[dcv]

Pretty sure ESPN has this wrong. Item 42 on Larry's FAQ

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 during the regular season 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.

Italicized part: If Ricky signs a deal between 3 and 5 years and then comes over he is the exclusive rights of the Wolves at his rookie scale from that summer for one year. If then he is not signed by the Wolves he can enter the draft. The Wolves have his rights in perpetuity as long as he plays outside the US. Once that ends the Wolves have his rights for a calendar year. He can then enter the draft, choose not to play for another season and then become a rookie FA.

[LA_33]

Originally Posted by dcv

Pretty sure ESPN has this wrong. Item 42 on Larry's FAQ

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 during the regular season 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.

Italicized part: If Ricky signs a deal between 3 and 5 years and then comes over he is the exclusive rights of the Wolves at his rookie scale from that summer for one year. If then he is not signed by the Wolves he can enter the draft. The Wolves have his rights in perpetuity as long as he plays outside the US. Once that ends the Wolves have his rights for a calendar year. He can then enter the draft, choose not to play for another season and then become a rookie FA.

In general, I share your deference for Coon's interpretation, dcv, but I quoted the actual CBA article pertaining to the rookie scale in the "statements from Kahn and Rubio" thread, and the language is very clear. With Sheridan reporting this afternoon that he confirmed this rule with the NBA higher-ups, I'm satisfied that I'm interpreting it correctly, and that Coon somehow missed this clause (Sheridan can speculate inaccurately just like any other scribe, but when he reports factual info like this, I trust him completely).

[dcv]

Originally Posted by LA_33

In general, I share your deference for Coon's interpretation, dcv, but I quoted the actual CBA article pertaining to the rookie scale in the "statements from Kahn and Rubio" thread, and the language is very clear. With Sheridan reporting this afternoon that he confirmed this rule with the NBA higher-ups, I'm satisfied that I'm interpreting it correctly, and that Coon somehow missed this clause (Sheridan can speculate inaccurately just like any other scribe, but when he reports factual info like this, I trust him completely).

I'm confused. I read the same clause in the CBA. The Wolves have his rights at the rookie scale contract in perpetuity and never lose those rights unless he is out of basketball for a year. If they have cap space they can elect to sign him to a deal greater than his rookie scale contract but if they decide not to do that its not as if he becomes a free agent. If he wants to play in the NBA the Wolves or any team obtaining his rights can indeed force him to play at the salary for the 5 pick in that season in perpetuity.

[Grover M]

So why hasn't anybody taken a shot a Tiago Splitter, Fran Vasquez, etc. yet. This makes no sense to me.

[lkalantari]

Originally Posted by dcv

I'm confused. I read the same clause in the CBA. The Wolves have his rights at the rookie scale contract in perpetuity and never lose those rights unless he is out of basketball for a year. If they have cap space they can elect to sign him to a deal greater than his rookie scale contract but if they decide not to do that its not as if he becomes a free agent. If he wants to play in the NBA the Wolves or any team obtaining his rights can indeed force him to play at the salary for the 5 pick in that season in perpetuity.

this actually creates a very interesting situation in that we control rubio, so all things nba must go through us (unless he sits out a year), yet he can threaten to stay in spain. so in essence each side has enormous leverage against the other, yet desperately needs the cooperation of the other. hopefully that would mean we work something out together so he plays here, potentially at a price significantly above rookie scale for example. if we can't, it's not like someone with salary cap space could offer him alot more without us. sure, we could be forced to consider a below market offer, since he could stay overseas, yet it could make for a heckuva game of chicken.

i remain in the stash him away, catch our breath and wait a year or two mode. yes, i'd listen to offers, but not desperate ones like we've heard so far.

very cool stuff.

[Vegas]

Considering Rubio backed out at the last minute, who is going to give up significant value for a kid now or even in a year who may or may not change his mind again in two or possibly three years? "guarantees" don't mean alot after backing out the way he did.

The only way I see us getting significant value for him is actually buying him out, signing him and then working a deal.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Grover M

So why hasn't anybody taken a shot a Tiago Splitter, Fran Vasquez, etc. yet. This makes no sense to me.

Yeah, that's something that I don't understand either. Why hasn't San Antonio pursued this option?

[dschroeder01]

Originally Posted by Cory

Yeah, that's something that I don't understand either. Why hasn't San Antonio pursued this option?

He was drafted in 2007. I believe that would make him available to this option next offseason.

It could be done with Vasquez, but I don't think money is his issue.

Regardless, I don't if this makes Rubio less likely to come to MN. Maybe just a year later. I suppose this could all change with the new CBA as I would hope they would address situations like the Rubio saga.

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by Vegas

Considering Rubio backed out at the last minute, who is going to give up significant value for a kid now or even in a year who may or may not change his mind again in two or possibly three years? "guarantees" don't mean alot after backing out the way he did.

The only way I see us getting significant value for him is actually buying him out, signing him and then working a deal.

I would think any deal would have to be structured similar to a sign-and-trade arrangement, where the signing the the trading are effectively a single transaction with two interdependent components.