Phx-Suns.Net

Looks like no structural damage

Beverly out all season. Gallinari will be back soonish, and Teodosic around new years. But I wonder if the Clipps will be it too big a hole to make the playoffs by the time Blake gets back. I wonder if they would consider a trade that benefits them next season.

Their pick this summer for an athletic PG in his prime who can score in bunches, spread the floor with his shooting, defend and steal the ball, and create for others both in the half court and on the fly. The dude I'm thinking of was basically an allstar in the east, and I would be reluctant to part with him. With their full crew back, and this dynamic talent, they would truly be a force again.

The NBA standings are pretty interesting right now. Contrary to predictions about a weak East, right now there are 10 Eastern teams with .500 records or better. Meanwhile there are only 7 Western teams above .500.

In the West, the Thunder continue to disappoint, at just 8-11. Our Suns are 13th in the West with a 7-14 (.333) record.

In terms of interesting streaks, the Cavs have won 8 straight, and the Rockets have won 5 straight and sit atop the West at 16-4. The Cavs have won 8 in a row and have jumped up to #3 in the East at 13-7. The Magic have lost 9 straight, and the Grizzlies have lost 8 straight.

http://www.espn.com/nba/standings

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:The NBA standings are pretty interesting right now. Contrary to predictions about a weak East, right now there are 10 Eastern teams with .500 records or better. Meanwhile there are only 7 Western teams above .500.

In the West, the Thunder continue to disappoint, at just 8-11. Our Suns are 13th in the West with a 7-14 (.333) record.

In terms of interesting streaks, the Cavs have won 8 straight, and the Rockets have won 5 straight and sit atop the West at 16-4. The Cavs have won 8 in a row and have jumped up to #3 in the East at 13-7. The Magic have lost 9 straight, and the Grizzlies have lost 8 straight.

http://www.espn.com/nba/standings

Grizz, Thunder, and Clipps, Bucks, Hawks, and Bulls have all dropped out of playoff seeding. Only the Bulls and Hawks started the season expecting to miss the playoffs. I fully expect the Thunder and Bucks to figure it out, and there's a chance the Grizz and Clipps could come back after players come back from injury. But the balance of power is shifting.

O_Gardino wrote:

JCSunsfan wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

JCSunsfan wrote:Guys. Trading for Okafor does not make sense. If he does well, any team that trades for him will not be able to sign him because that team can only offer what the 4th year of his rookie deal would have been. Other teams can offer more. If he does not play well, we would not want him anyway. Its a lose/lose. I cannot understand why Brian Colangelo thinks he is worth anything at all in trade. His only value is as an expiring.

Please explain. Is there something in the CBA that keeps teams from being able to sign guys they acquired in a trade?

Yes. When a team does not pick up the fourth year option of a rookie, they are only allowed to spend on him what that fourth year option would have been. That restriction carries over to any team that trades for him. The oddity is this. The restriction is only on the team that has the player at the end of his third year. So, conceivably, the Sixers could trade Okafor to the Suns and then the Suns could only offer him a $6 million deal for that fourth year, but the Sixers could now offer more, because he is no longer their player.

This article explains it pretty well. https://midlevelexceptional.com/2014/10 ... -contract/


When a team declines an option on a rookie scale contract, two important things happen:

The player in question will be an Unrestricted Free Agent after that season.
The amount of the option that the team declined is the most the team that has the player when that contract ends can pay him the following summer.
The CBA puts that second restriction on to avoid a situation where a franchise could game the rookie scale by agreeing with a player to decline an option and paying them a higher salary, presumably on a longer deal.

In an interesting twist, it appears that Article VII, Section 6(m)(4) of the CBA puts that salary limitation on the team that has the player when his rookie scale contract ends rather than the team that declines the option. This would mean that if Portland traded Robinson during this season, the salary restriction would shift from the Blazers to the team that acquired him. This situation seems awfully unlikely but is fun to ponder nonetheless.

Crazy. Obviously, they intend to keep teams from declining the option to get players on full contracts early as a favor to the player. But the unintentional consequence is that it makes the player almost untradeable.

In any case, you are right. There's no point in checking out a long shot if we can't sign him if he pays off.

At this point, no one is paying Jah 6 million a year anyways.

At this point, no one is paying Jah 6 million a year anyways.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I agree that his value is down, but 6 mil/year is practically chump change in the NBA. And then you have to remember the weird network of linked deals between agents and GMs, "you sign this guy and I'll get you that guy" type of stuff. I bet at least one team brings him in.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:

At this point, no one is paying Jah 6 million a year anyways.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I agree that his value is down, but 6 mil/year is practically chump change in the NBA. And then you have to remember the weird network of linked deals between agents and GMs, "you sign this guy and I'll get you that guy" type of stuff. I bet at least one team brings him in.

Michael Beasley keeps getting paid. So yeah, someone will pay Jah $6M a year.

Michael Beasley has actually played well at each of his stops post Phoenix. And I'd be pretty upset if we signed Jah to a contract starting at 6 million a year.

JCSunsfan wrote:The amount of the option that the team declined is the most the team that has the player when that contract ends can pay him the following summer.

Just... wow. Give the man who came up with this a (fart flavored) cookie.

If Carey will forgive my arrogance:

QOTD: Which underachieving team is least likely to turn their season around? Clipps or OKC

Split T wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

JCSunsfan wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

JCSunsfan wrote:Guys. Trading for Okafor does not make sense. If he does well, any team that trades for him will not be able to sign him because that team can only offer what the 4th year of his rookie deal would have been. Other teams can offer more. If he does not play well, we would not want him anyway. Its a lose/lose. I cannot understand why Brian Colangelo thinks he is worth anything at all in trade. His only value is as an expiring.

Please explain. Is there something in the CBA that keeps teams from being able to sign guys they acquired in a trade?

Yes. When a team does not pick up the fourth year option of a rookie, they are only allowed to spend on him what that fourth year option would have been. That restriction carries over to any team that trades for him. The oddity is this. The restriction is only on the team that has the player at the end of his third year. So, conceivably, the Sixers could trade Okafor to the Suns and then the Suns could only offer him a $6 million deal for that fourth year, but the Sixers could now offer more, because he is no longer their player.

This article explains it pretty well. https://midlevelexceptional.com/2014/10 ... -contract/


When a team declines an option on a rookie scale contract, two important things happen:

The player in question will be an Unrestricted Free Agent after that season.
The amount of the option that the team declined is the most the team that has the player when that contract ends can pay him the following summer.
The CBA puts that second restriction on to avoid a situation where a franchise could game the rookie scale by agreeing with a player to decline an option and paying them a higher salary, presumably on a longer deal.

In an interesting twist, it appears that Article VII, Section 6(m)(4) of the CBA puts that salary limitation on the team that has the player when his rookie scale contract ends rather than the team that declines the option. This would mean that if Portland traded Robinson during this season, the salary restriction would shift from the Blazers to the team that acquired him. This situation seems awfully unlikely but is fun to ponder nonetheless.

Crazy. Obviously, they intend to keep teams from declining the option to get players on full contracts early as a favor to the player. But the unintentional consequence is that it makes the player almost untradeable.

In any case, you are right. There's no point in checking out a long shot if we can't sign him if he pays off.

At this point, no one is paying Jah 6 million a year anyways.

AT this point is correct. But if a team trades for him, and does not play him, like Philly, he walks. Gave up something for nothing.
If they play him and he plays poorly, the team lets him walk. Gave up something for nothing.
If he shows ANYTHING of his potential, someone will pay him more than 6 million. That is not much in today's NBA. Gave up something for nothing.

Trading for Jah is a no win scenario unless you just want to dump salary.

O_Gardino wrote:If Carey will forgive my arrogance:

QOTD: Which underachieving team is least likely to turn their season around? Clipps or OKC

That one is pretty obvious, isn't it? One team is injured while the other one is not. One team has multiple all-stars while the other has one.

O_Gardino wrote:If Carey will forgive my arrogance:

QOTD: Which underachieving team is least likely to turn their season around? Clipps or OKC

I'm not sure that being bad because of injuries is underachieving.

https://twitter.com/bballbreakdown/status/935301503971090432

Jeez!

Sixers were making light work of the Wizards, up double digits close to 20 most of the game and then in the 4th Wiz went to Hack-a-Simmons for like 6 straight minutes , dude shot 29 FTs !!

bajanguy008 wrote:Sixers were making light work of the Wizards, up double digits close to 20 most of the game and then in the 4th Wiz went to Hack-a-Simmons for like 6 straight minutes , dude shot 29 FTs !!

He only made 15 of them. Seems like a good plan.

Aaron Gordon had 40/15 in a win over the Thunder

It’s not fair how good Harden is. One of the best offensive players I’ve ever seen.

I really don’t like him. He is so unlikeable. Everything he does seems like a gimmick

specialsauce wrote:Aaron Gordon had 40/15 in a win over the Thunder

That hypothetical TJ Warren+assets for Aaron Gordon trade looks better by the day. But Orlando probably won't do it at this point.