Phx-Suns.Net

ShelC wrote:Middle of the season we can trade him for Lin/Nash and Hill.

ewww. gross.

Shabazz wrote:

ShelC wrote:Middle of the season we can trade him for Lin/Nash and Hill.

ewww. gross.

+1

We need a barf smiley.

There all expirings. I think his point is we can get out of it if we want.

Jordan Hill just signed for 2 years, $18M. No thanks on having him on the books for $9M in '15-16.

Shabazz wrote:Jordan Hill just signed for 2 years, $18M. No thanks on having him on the books for $9M in '15-16.

Isn't there an option on the second year?

Hill's second year is team option.

In2ition wrote:I proposed a system where they could designate one player per team that is their MAX player and could be paid any amount necessary, but only a max set number is assigned to their cap number. So, any amount above that number paid by the team, doesn't get counted against the cap or applied to the luxury tax. One thing that could also be added to this designation is that this contract isn't guaranteed and the team could cut the player and make them an unrestricted free agent. Perhaps a time period could be set to hold this 1 Max slot on the team and the salary is applied to the cap even if they aren't paying the player if they cut them. Now, you could pay two other players a Max contract, but it would severely limit what you could pay any of the rest of the team, using nearly similar CBA rules to what is given right now for the rest of the roster.

Tag systems sound good, and this would mean more money to the real superstars but the problem is that it wouldn't keep second rate players like Joe Johnson from taking advantage of lesser franchises' weakness, which is one of the flaws in the CBA.

In the end you want a clear distinction between real franchise guys and the rest, but if as a team you can apply the tag to whoever you want (or are forced to) the problem persists. Making it so after a certain point the contract doesn't count against the cap helps mitigating the issue, but doesn't solve it.

Probably nothing does as long as the use of the tag is subject to negotiation between the player and the team, unless there were strict prerequisites the player needs to meet to be tag elegible, but there's already something similar in place after 2011, the so called Derrick Rose Rule that allow extraordinary young players earn 30% of the cap. That's a step in the right direction if what you want is keeping the talent where it was discovered, but ultimately the CBA falls short after the first big contract. It needs to be even more favorable to current teams than 1 extra year and extra 3% in raises.

What a world we live in. Kyle Lowry is happy as a clam with his $48 million dollar deal while Eric Bledsoe is miserable about it and a victim.

I'm kind of over him. He's never shown a desire to play here. Just let him rot, take the QO, whatever. I don't really care anymore.

Disclaimer: I have the right to change my mind at any time but this is how I feel right now.

Sunsfan4life wrote:If the Suns had a good S&T offer for Bleds, they probabaly would of done it already.

I think that's assuming a lot.

INFORMER wrote:

Sunsfan4life wrote:If the Suns had a good S&T offer for Bleds, they probabaly would of done it already.

I think that's assuming a lot.

Maybe for a pessimist.

If a big market is what Bledsoe is all about, call the Knicks and Raptors and get Bargnani's expiring, Shumpert and NYK 1str in 2018 and 2016 (via Tor and Denver); send Ennis to the place he belongs to. If it is Shumpert vs pick, go with the pick.

Also, since the Knicks are over the tax+4M mark they only can execute sign and trades if they end up under said limit (~$81M), so big contracts would have to get involved in their favor. The Knicks could take Wallace's two years plus filler in exchange for Amare.

The Suns get draft assets and a Frye replacement for one season.

The Knicks get a second banana to Melo and probably a motivated veteran role player in Wallace. It is true that they lose cap space in 2015 but they can attatch the rights to their draftee to expirings and do another s+t next offseason.

Bledsoe goes to the biggest market.

The Raptors grab the guy they coveted for a fair price (worst of Knicks and Nuggets pick in 2016).

The Celtics get their cap space one year earlier. Probably could push for a second rounder too.

Dan H wrote:I think the only reason they have a luxury tax is because of cap exemptions. If they did away with those and went to more of a hard cap like the NFL, I could see not having a luxury tax. But then the players would crap their pants because contracts would become shorter or non-guaranteed.

Soft cap and no l.tax don't have to be mutually exclusive. A hard cap punishes teams too much for their mistakes unless contracts are non-guaranteed as you point, but that wouldn't be fair either depending on the case. A player's performance is exposed to the risk of injury, roster and coaching variables, etc. You have to provide protection against those factors. Of course, players shouldn't have any guarantees when poor production is their fault, like if they get out of shape or abuse substances, but that's a different issue.

Speaking in terms of team-team relationship, ideally you'd have a system where the franchises that manage to find and groom talent don't get punished by their own success. That's very different from allowing franchises to just purchase said talent, which is what happens in european soccer. The luxury tax apparently fights that phenom, but in practice it just makes everything way harder for the 'poorer' franchises.

Sunsfan4life wrote:If the Suns had a good S&T offer for Bleds, they probabaly would of done it already.

Wally, can you pull some of those bullets out of your backside? I need them.

All this Bledsoe trade talk for expirings is useless IMO. Why get expirings when that's what he would be right now anyway? I'm 48 million is enough to get him to adapt to the climate there in Phoenix. Plus no one is holding him hostage there in the summer. If he doesn't want to be here then he'll take the qualifying offer, risk losing millions and then roll the dice.

Pairing him with Dragic is our most effective solution.

We're not getting any pieces more valuable than Bledsoe. I'm not trading him for anything. I'm calling his bluff.

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Dan H wrote:I think the only reason they have a luxury tax is because of cap exemptions. If they did away with those and went to more of a hard cap like the NFL, I could see not having a luxury tax. But then the players would crap their pants because contracts would become shorter or non-guaranteed.

Soft cap and no l.tax don't have to be mutually exclusive. A hard cap punishes teams too much for their mistakes unless contracts are non-guaranteed as you point, but that wouldn't be fair either depending on the case. A player's performance is exposed to the risk of injury, roster and coaching variables, etc. You have to provide protection against those factors. Of course, players shouldn't have any guarantees when poor production is their fault, like if they get out of shape or abuse substances, but that's a different issue.

Speaking in terms of team-team relationship, ideally you'd have a system where the franchises that manage to find and groom talent don't get punished by their own success. That's very different from allowing franchises to just purchase said talent, which is what happens in european soccer. The luxury tax apparently fights that phenom, but in practice it just makes everything way harder for the 'poorer' franchises.

That's true. I think it would be interesting to allow teams to designate one or two players as critical guys, and be allowed to exceed the cap to keep them. Maybe make it so the player has to have played there for at least 2-3 years after signing a free agent deal or have been drafted by the club.

I think that overall a hard cap is not a good idea for the NBA, and I believe that teams wouldn't take too long to realize it if such system was implemented.

Dan H wrote:I think it would be interesting to allow teams to designate one or two players as critical guys, and be allowed to exceed the cap to keep them. Maybe make it so the player has to have played there for at least 2-3 years after signing a free agent deal or have been drafted by the club.

So a player acquired by trade can't be designated a critical guy?

Ring_Wanted wrote:I think that overall a hard cap is not a good idea for the NBA, and I believe that teams wouldn't take too long to realize it if such system was implemented.

I agree. It makes it very hard to develop a group of young talent together.

Cap wrote:

Dan H wrote:I think it would be interesting to allow teams to designate one or two players as critical guys, and be allowed to exceed the cap to keep them. Maybe make it so the player has to have played there for at least 2-3 years after signing a free agent deal or have been drafted by the club.

So a player acquired by trade can't be designated a critical guy?

I'm mentally envisioning this as a sort of 'Ripken rule' for teams to be able to keep guys that have become franchise cornerstones. The 2-3 year thing could apply to trades as well, obviously.