Shabazz wrote:If it comes to the point that Bledsoe is about to take his qualifying offer, what about offering him a 1 year, $5M deal so he loses his veto rights (for $1M+) and we have the ability to trade him anywhere it suits us?
Why stop at $5 million?
But conceptually, I think trying to iron out a 1-yr deal in lieu of signing the QO is the way to go.
Shabazz wrote:If it comes to the point that Bledsoe is about to take his qualifying offer, what about offering him a 1 year, $5M deal so he loses his veto rights (for $1M+) and we have the ability to trade him anywhere it suits us?
Why would he sign that when he's willing to look away from $48 million and sign the QO? It's only $1.3 M more than he'll get for the QO.
Because it's still a 1-yr deal, which grants him the freedom to enter free agency as an unrestricted free agent in 2015, which is the entire point of accepting the QO.
Shabazz wrote:If it comes to the point that Bledsoe is about to take his qualifying offer, what about offering him a 1 year, $5M deal so he loses his veto rights (for $1M+) and we have the ability to trade him anywhere it suits us?
Why stop at $5 million?
But conceptually, I think trying to iron out a 1-yr deal in lieu of signing the QO is the way to go.
So do I. Basically like what the Knicks did with David Lee & Bulls did with Ben Gordon. I am just not sure who would give up anything of value. Maybe wait until the deadline & see if a contender loses their starring PG to injury, though obviously I don't wish that on anyone.
Shabazz wrote:If it comes to the point that Bledsoe is about to take his qualifying offer, what about offering him a 1 year, $5M deal so he loses his veto rights (for $1M+) and we have the ability to trade him anywhere it suits us?
Why would he sign that when he's willing to look away from $48 million and sign the QO? It's only $1.3 M more than he'll get for the QO.
Because it's still a 1-yr deal, which grants him the freedom to enter free agency as an unrestricted free agent in 2015, which is the entire point of accepting the QO.
I'm still not following you. He already becomes an unrestricted free agent in 2015 if he takes the QO, right? So, you're just trying to trade more money for him to give up his trade veto rights?
Shabazz wrote:If it comes to the point that Bledsoe is about to take his qualifying offer, what about offering him a 1 year, $5M deal so he loses his veto rights (for $1M+) and we have the ability to trade him anywhere it suits us?
Why would he sign that when he's willing to look away from $48 million and sign the QO? It's only $1.3 M more than he'll get for the QO.
Because it's still a 1-yr deal, which grants him the freedom to enter free agency as an unrestricted free agent in 2015, which is the entire point of accepting the QO.
I'm still not following you. He already becomes an unrestricted free agent in 2015 if he takes the QO, right? So, you're just trying to trade more money for him to give up his trade veto rights?
Yes. Paying him to give up his veto rights is the idea.
Shabazz wrote:If it comes to the point that Bledsoe is about to take his qualifying offer, what about offering him a 1 year, $5M deal so he loses his veto rights (for $1M+) and we have the ability to trade him anywhere it suits us?
Why would he sign that when he's willing to look away from $48 million and sign the QO? It's only $1.3 M more than he'll get for the QO.
Because it's still a 1-yr deal, which grants him the freedom to enter free agency as an unrestricted free agent in 2015, which is the entire point of accepting the QO.
I'm still not following you. He already becomes an unrestricted free agent in 2015 if he takes the QO, right? So, you're just trying to trade more money for him to give up his trade veto rights?
Yes. Paying him to give up his veto rights is the idea.
Would the team that trades for him then have his Bird rights? The way he has been acting , they might not WANT them.
JCSunsfan wrote:
Would the team that trades for him then have his Bird rights? The way he has been acting , they might not WANT them.
That's a good question. I'm pretty sure they would not which would considerably shrink any market for him (which is already quite small considering his contract demands.)
Though I just read the CBA...." a player who signs a one year contract and who will be a bird or early bird free agent at the end of the contract cannot be traded without the player's consent. If the player consents and is traded the player loses whatever bird rights he has acquired."
So maybe that's why we haven't done it. CBA change.
Mori Chu wrote:If he doesn't want to be here, GTFO. Bench him and don't play him.
Well that could harm or even destroy team chemistry, and also hurt the Suns reputation with other agents and players around the league.
Having a player on a one-year deal who's not in your long-term plans and is basically auditioning for his next team is... not exactly a novel situation in the NBA. Nor in Phoenix. So what. If the rental is one of the top two or three players on the team, you still start him and play him substantial minutes and make the best of the situation for everyone involved.
On the other hand, a fan being really peeved by his disrespectful behavior and venting is something I can get behind.
“Are you crazy?! You think I’m going to go for seven years and try to get there? You enjoy the 2030 draft picks that we have holding? I want to try to see the game today.” — Ish 3/13/25
Andray Blatche would take less next year to make Wizards pay more
By Mike Prada @MikePradaSBN on Mar 16 2013, 10:41a
Former Washington Wizards big man Andray Blatche is in a unique situation next summer. He is a free agent because his one-year minimum contract with the Brooklyn Nets expires, and yet he still is being paid $7.8 million next year and $8.5 million the year after from the Wizards after being released with the amnesty clause last summer.
Shabazz wrote:Hey SDC, what do you think the Suns should do with their two remaining roster spots? Do you like Blatche and Zoran as potential additions?
