The most predictable thing about a new NBA collective bargaining agreement is that not all its features will work as predicted by players and owners. Unforeseen consequences are the norm, not the exception, given the complex nature of the rules that govern the league's salary cap and player movement.
The same is likely to prove true with the biggest addition to the CBA the players and owners agreed to last Thursday: the "designated veteran player exception," which allows teams to pay more to extend or re-sign qualifying young stars. In theory, the move is supposed to help teams keep their star talent longer. But the rule might have unintended consequences: more reasons for young stars to demand trades.
How the new rule works
The designated veteran player exception will apply only to certain players. As summarized by Tim Bontemps of the Washington Post, to qualify a player must have been chosen to an All-NBA team or won either MVP or Defensive Player of the Year the previous season, been chosen All-NBA or named Defensive Player of the Year two of the previous three seasons or been MVP any of the previous three seasons.
Under those scenarios, players with seven or eight years of experience can be extended and free agents with eight or nine years experience re-signed for an extra year and up to 35 percent of the salary cap, as compared to the typical 30 percent maximum for players with 7-9 years of experience.
There's one more crucial catch: To be able to utilize the designated veteran player exception, a player must either be with his original team or traded during his first four years in the NBA. A player can't qualify for this additional money if he has changed teams as a free agent or been traded after signing an extension to his rookie contract. And that's where things might go awry.
The Stephen Jackson scenario
As written, the rule is designed to prevent players from forcing a trade before signing an extension, as happened with Carmelo Anthony when he went from the Denver Nuggets to the New York Knicks in 2011. Anthony's awkward exit from Denver had outsized impact when players and owners negotiated a new CBA months later. Owners responded by making it much more difficult to extend players, which had its own unintended consequences in terms of allowing them to leave via unrestricted free agency. (See Kevin Durant, for instance.)
However, under the new rule, players would be able to extend their contract and then seek a trade. Consider this the Stephen Jackson scenario -- what happened when Jackson left the Golden State Warriors not long after signing an extension.
In November 2008, Jackson signed a three-year extension worth $28 million that locked him up through 2012-13. (Jackson told the TrueHoop podcast this summer how he negotiated the extension.)
"He expressed a desire to be here long-term and we wanted him to be a part of our team as we move forward," Warriors president Robert Rowell said in the team's press release. "We view this as a win-win for everyone "
The following August, Jackson told Dime Magazine he was seeking a trade from Golden State. He got his wish.
After weeks of rancor and controversy, Jackson was dealt to Charlotte with four years left on his contract.
"We can get back to playing basketball," said Warriors GM Larry Riley after the trade. "Our players had done a great job doing everything they could to play through this and not let it be a major distraction. We felt we needed to do this and move on."
The Jackson scenario might play itself out in similar ways for free agents under the new CBA. Like Jackson, eligible players can get the best of both worlds -- a more lucrative contract and the chance to play where they want -- by agitating for a trade after signing an extension. The new rules do say a player can't be traded for a year after signing the extension, but here's the kicker: Jackson was traded precisely 364 days later.
While an extension followed by a trade isn't exactly what owners have in mind for the designated veteran player extension, it's not the worst thing for teams, who can still take advantage of the trade value such stars would inevitably have -- as the Nuggets did with Anthony.
There's a much greater possible unforeseen consequence of the new rule.
The James Harden scenario
When it comes to the CBA, the devil is in the details, and the fine print here is that trade exception -- players are eligible for the designated veteran player exception as long as they were traded during their rookie contract. And that means if you're a potential superstar and don't want to stay with your team long-term, you have to get out before your rookie contract ends.
We can call this the James Harden path. Though it's not clear Harden wanted out of Oklahoma City when he turned down the Thunder's offer of a below-max extension in 2012, Harden knew the potential consequences. Hours after he passed on Oklahoma City's last offer, Harden was traded to the Houston Rockets and subsequently signed a max extension.
Younger players could follow Harden's lead, using the threat of passing on an extension offer to leverage their original teams into trading them to a desired destination so they could benefit from this new rule.
Such a move would require a lot of foresight: Young players who have yet to make much money in the NBA would have to risk the security of a rookie extension for a possible windfall years in the future. And it would give players just three years to evaluate their current situation and decide it's not going to get better.
That means 2014 draft picks Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker would have to request a trade next season. Same with Joel Embiid, who has played just 18 NBA games due to injuries.
Odds are those players aren't ready to move on. Still, any time a rule in the CBA leaves a loophole, someone is likely to find it and exploit it. In that case, owners and players may have to adjust the next CBA to fix the unintended consequences of the current one -- and create some unforeseen problems in the process.