The 2016 off-season has long been on the mind of Lakers’ fans. This is the summer where Kobe Bryant’s contract is off the books, the summer the salary cap will jump to (potentially) $90+ million, and the summer in which a certain small forward currently living in Oklahoma City hits the open market. The Lakers have big plans for this summer so, while it is still a year away, it is not really too early to look ahead.
While we all look at the things listed above, however, one thing not often spoke about is the pending free agency of Jordan Clarkson. When Clarkson was signed by the Lakers after being the 46th pick in the 2014 draft, he inked a two year, non-guaranteed deal**. We all know what happened next: Clarkson, after starting slowly and getting minimal playing time, came on strong in the 2nd half of his rookie season and earned 1st Team All-Rookie recognition.
Now, heading into his second year, his summer league play showed continued development, he is slated to be a starter at shooting guard, and will end this upcoming season as a restricted free agent. In a recent article at ESPN, Kevin Pelton mentioned Clarkson as a player who could be in for a big payday come next summer (insider):
Because Clarkson will be a free agent with two years of experience, he’ll be subject to the so-called “Arenas provision” limiting other teams from offering more than the mid-level exception as a starting point on an offer sheet. In year three, however, teams can offer Clarkson what would be his maximum salary — somewhere in the ballpark of $23 million, depending where the cap falls — setting up the possibility of a three-year, $34 million offer similar to the one the Houston Rockets used to acquire Omer Asik and Jeremy Lin as restricted free agents in 2012. Or teams could go an additional year and offer four years and up to around $58 million.
All of this sounds sort of scary, but it really isn’t. Yes, the contracts the Rockets doled out to nab Lin and Asik contained “poison pill” third years similar to that which Pelton describes as a possibility for Clarkson. And, yes, those players’ incumbent teams (the Knicks and Bulls) balked at paying those prices (the Knicks because…who can explain the Knicks and the Bulls because they’re notoriously cheap considering their profit margins). In theory, then, the Lakers might also balk at paying Clarkson a huge amount in the 3rd year of his deal.
But that’s in theory. In practice, I don’t imagine the Lakers deliberating too hard on whether to pay Clarkson huge money in the 3rd year of his deal should he show, next season, he’s on the upward trajectory to be even close to worth that money. I say this with confidence for two reasons:
- By the time Clarkson would be earning that large amount, the cap is very likely to be over $100 million. Clarkson’s salary, then, would be roughly 20% of the cap, which is below the first tier of “max” contracts under the current CBA. (The max contract tiers are currently 25% for players with 0-6 years experience, 30% for players with 7-9 years experience, and 35% for players with 10 or more years experience.)
- The Lakers’ plan — whether flawed or not — is to fill out their roster over the next two summers with max (or, at the very least, highly paid) free agents. With this, Clarkson not getting paid big money until the 3rd year of his deal is less of an issue than if he was getting big money in one of the first two years of his deal.
To build on that second point further, understand that the same “loophole” which would have the Lakers (potentially) paying Clarkson upwards of $20 million on the 3rd (and, maybe, a 4th) year of his contract also allows them to pay him (roughly) the mid-level in his first two seasons. Those seasons just happen to coincide with the ones where the Lakers want to be spending large amounts of cap space on free agents. In other words, Clarkson’s smaller cap hit keeps flexibility during the seasons where the Lakers want to maximize their spending the most.
The other point worth mentioning again is Clarkson would be a restricted free agent. The Lakers, for all the possibilities of poison pills and balloon payments, would still have the ability to match any offer. Further, because of the aforementioned Arenas Provision, they would be matching on a contract that is, at least at the outset, deflated in potential value and artificially capped due to the lower, MLE starting point for the first two seasons. This puts the Lakers in an advantageous position when negotiating his next contract, a topic Eric Pincus covered well here.
Of course, there are always ways this could turn out bad. Free agency represents a gamble and whenever a player and a team have to talk about money all while another team has the ability to come in and influence those discussions, things can turn sour. All these possibilities make Clarkson’s pending free agency worth monitoring, even if we are a year out.
**Here is my chance to once again note that I wish the Lakers would have used some of their cap space last season to sign Clarkson to a deal longer than two seasons to avoid this entire scenario. If you recall, they signed this year’s 2nd round pick Anthony Brown to a 3-year contract, maybe because of the success Clarkson had and the want to control Brown’s rights for longer. Of course, we’ll never know if Clarkson would have signed a longer deal or if the Lakers were trying to get him to sign one and Clarkson’s agent wouldn’t go for it. Still, though, I do wish they could have gotten it done.
George Best says
How much Clarkson costs isn’t a big issue for the club if he is awesome. It will be worth it if he has a great year because it will help attract free agents and it likely means Russell, Hibbert, and Randle had a good year. The real problem is if he gets hurt or just does not grow this year. Do you sign him when some team offers big money after an off year. Can you say Jeremy Lin.
Anonymous says
Will the cap for Clarksons salary be 14 million (the average) or 5 million over the first 2 years? Im kind of confused by Larry coons cbafaq’s explanation of the Gilbert arenas provision
Darius Soriano says
anonymous,
If the Lakers are put in a position to match a contract with a poison pill season, the cap hit will match the structure of the contract. So, for example, say a team like the Hornets offered Clarkson a contract for $50 million over 4 years, the structure might look like this:
year 1: $5 million
year 2: $5.5 million
year 3: $19.5 million
year 4: $20 million
For the Hornets, the cap hits for those years would be $12.5 million each year. But the cap hit for the Lakers would be exactly like the structure of the contract where they would be paying those small amounts in years 1 & 2 with balloon payments in years 3 & 4. I hope this makes sense.
Baylor Fan says
Hey Darius, let’s say that next year’s FA period plays out like this years and that Clarkson is offered a poison pill contract. Would the Lakers be allowed to offer the same total amount but change the pay schedule and increase the salary the first year when they would need to increase player salaries to meet the minimum?
Darius Soriano says
Baylor,
If Clarkson signs an offer-sheet, the Lakers are bound to the terms of that sheet should they choose to match. So, a lot of how this plays out will depend on the communication between the front office and Clarkson’s agent/representation. What I mean by that is, should Clarkson find an offer he likes, if, before he signs it, he communicated to the Lakers the terms of the deal and then worked with them to put together a similar deal, that is one way they could work together. But, as noted above, once he signs an offer sheet, he’s locked into those terms.
BigCitySid says
-D, you raise a rather interesting point pertaining to the $$’s Clarkson would be worth. This season will help answer that question. What is not as clear is will this season give Clarkson any idea of what his future role with the Lakers will be. Many Laker fans (me included) would love to get an idea of what Clarkson, Russell, & Randle can do with real minutes (28 to 34) on the floor. However they will be sharing playing time and ONE ball with three teammates who never met a shot they didn’t like in Kobe, Nick Young, and Lou Williams. Three guys who are the downside of their careers, or at the very best, have plateaued. Coach Scott will have his job cut out making sure the raising Laker stock know who they are.
If Clarkson were to decide to go elsewhere because he thought his skills were being underutilized on a team going nowhere, it shouldn’t come as a surprise (see Gasol, Howard).
Darius Soriano says
Sid,
I’ll only speak to your last point about going somewhere else since the other stuff will play out during the season. Clarkson really will not have a choice on “leaving”. Yes, he can sign a contract with another team, but the Lakers have a right to match and retain his services. The only way Clarkson escapes that path is by taking the qualifying offer and playing on a one-year deal to become an unrestricted free agent the next summer. Odds are if Clarkson is being offered between $30 – 50 million guaranteed over three to four years and he has to choose between that and a one-year deal for $1.18 million, I think I know what his decision will be.
George says
Was signing Clarkson to a longer initial contract an option when he was drafted? I noticed that the Pacers signed their young center, Christmas (also drafted in the 2nd round) to a four year deal. It would have been nice to have had Clarkson cost controlled for another few years before having to pay market prices.
Prob says
Look, first of all I don’t see any team signing Clarkson to the ridiculous offer sheets you people are mentioning. Depending on how he plays this season, He may sign a crazy offer sheet. Maybe. But as it stands right now Clarkson’s worth is in the 3-4 year 20 million range.
I still don’t think he’s expanded his game dramaticlly to the point where you consider him as a Jimmy Butler, or Damarre Carroll contract type of player here yet.
Anonymous says
I don’t think we have to worry about him leaving. But definitely have to monitor it, and as fans we don’t know what his personal thoughts are. However, Mitch said he sees both JC and DLo together for the next decade.
Ryan P says
I actually like the poison pill deal. Bring it on.
Clarkson will not go anywhere.
rr says
Majin Drew @drewmandrew27
@KingJames what’s your favorite Kobe play of all time?
LeBron James ?@KingJames
@drewmandrew27 He’s has way too many that I like to pick just 1 #MambaGotSoMuchGame
4:19 PM – 28 Jul 2015
Justin says
I doubt the Lakers would let him get away if he seemed close to the offer he received. Lakers are the most profitable team so I doubt money is an issue or them unless they suddenly get Durant, Horford, and Noah next summer and even then I would suspect they would match. More likely if they miss on big FA it hurts them more in losing cap space going forward when they pay him.
BigCitySid says
-@ Darius, “…since the other stuff will play out during the season.” Agreed, however I’m basing my statements on the history of the three players I mentioned. Of course any or all are capable of modifying their game, but until they do, I expect them to be who they have been.
Craig W. says
Sid,
Your two examples – Gasol & Howard – were veteran players and one had previously been traded by the Lakers while the other wasn’t psychologically able to deal with L.A. Both were misused by the coaches after long careers as dominant big men. No way this compares to a player drafted in the 2nd round and given half-a-year starting at PG for our club. Scott would have to sit him on the bench for 30min/game to even start to approach the bad vibes built up by those two.
Oldtimer says
Clarkson is a proven stock after a year in NBA. He has a marketing value with lots of Filipino-American avid fans of the Lakers. Having said that, Clarkson is different from Russell and Randle. Currently, the latter two are hype until they can prove that they are NBA ready and could really help the Lakers. Therefore, whatever contract negotiation can be meted out of Clarkson at earlier stage will be a savings for the Lakers in the future. IMO, Lakers missed the boat on some players like that rookie Bazemore who moved to Atlanta; Davis who bolted out to Blazers; Meeks to Pistons and Ellington to Nets. They could have been acquired at cheap price and great role players. Every season the Lakers keep on rebuilding with too many experiments and lacked of Jerry West vision and PJ stability. They are enamored with big names who are hard to convince to join the Laker cause like Howard, mistake on Nash health, Melo, James, Aldridge, Jordan, Love (bad reading by so called ‘analytics”) What they need is logic and great intelligence from scouting who would know the odds where these players are heading. OK, another future dream is Durant, Westbrook who are light years away of joining the Lakers, got to know the inner motivation of the player from intelligent scouting. Jerry West is an old school who has perfected this style in luring good players. I think Mitch can do it if he is given full liberty in assembling a team.
Sam says
the irony of this situation is that the better Jordan Clarkson does this season, the more likely he is to sign a one year tender for $1.18mil with the Lakers. If he shows little signs of improvement, he’s much likely to sign a long term offer sheet in 2016 as he’s apt to grab the cash while he can.
the max contract he can get in
2016: 4yr/$58mil approx
2017: 4yr/112mil if he signs with another club
2017 4yr/119mil if he signs a 4yr deal with the Lakers
2017 5yr157mil if he signs a 5 year deal with the Lakers
Hence, if he has a breakout year in 2015-2016, his wisest financial decision is to wait til 2017.
Anonymous says
(misused by the coaches) – previous posts claimed the exact opposite. interesting how the views of supporters of coaches change after they are gone
LordMo says
First let us all be honest here and say this kids future is at PG period! He is not an off guard and it is a stretch to even call him a combo guard. The kid is a 1 plain and simple and the Lakers are trying to mold him into a PG to fit with Russell. We will see because again lets be honest….Clarkson does not shot from range well enough to be the SG period!
His game is speed and penetration with a developing mid-range game. Time will tell but when Clarkson doesn’t have the ball in his hands the defense has no need to worry about him…which what you don’t want from your 2. Swaggy really is the answer but he has to defend…Kobe plays the 3 and Clarkson the 1. You keep Clarkson because you really do not know what you have in Russell at this point so any offer should be readily matched. If Russell does develop into a player then you have a good problem. We better hope this works….we hocked our future for Nash. I believe our pick is gone for the next 2 years if I understand correctly. If this does not work Jim Buss will have buried this franchise for the next decade! Chickens coming home to roost!
Perspective says
He was the best player in the 5th worst team right?
Did you guys think this highly of the best player on the 5th worst team when the Lakers were winning championships?
Nope !
btw, I would love to see him do well next year, with real talent around him.
Perspective says
Misused by coaches = player did not put his big boy pants on that day
Don’t believe me? All Laker fans were enraged that Pau Gasol was not right under the basket during his last year with the Lakers:
” What is he doing shooting a three pointer? He is 7 feet tall !!! ”
Right?
How many threes did he shoot in Chicago last year? Under a good coach?
TWICE AS MANY lol lol lol
Craig W. says
Anonymous,
The coach wanted to play pick-n-roll with Howard, but he didn’t want that, or the L.A. lifestyle and exposure. Gasol has always wanted to play PF and not center and really didn’t fit in Mike D.’s system. Besides he had already been traded off the Lakers once. Perhaps ‘misused’ could have been better phrased, but they weren’t fits with the coach and city at the time.