2008 FA class - poor Marion

[OldDirtMcGirt]

The team without a healthy Amare to score in late game situations is not gonna win anything. Teams around the league know how to better contain Nash by now. With Nash neutralized the way he was in the Spurs series, you can already forget Marion and Bell as offensive threat. Hill will help if not run to injury by DA by the time playoffs come around but he is not the enforcer Amare can be.

Anyway, I still think Diaw could be a great fit for the Bulls, say for Noccioni, if BYC didn't prevent it.

I think we'd do just fine with Sheed and Nash for late game situations. It seemed to work for Detroit when they had Billups/Sheed, so I don't see any reason it wouldn't work for us.

Nocioni is a phenomenal player and I'd love him on the Suns, but we're going to have to pay people to get rid of Diaw, let alone get a productive player like Nocioni out of it.

 

[Ollie]

Next year we are at almost 72 million.

Take off marions 17 million.

Use atl pick and take off diaws 9 million.

Our total salary: 45

Projected salary cap 57 (Last year salary cap = 53 current salary cap = 55 as per http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2932279)


We could sign artest for say 8 million per, which though from his attitude problems would be way overpaying since his contract value shouldn't match close to his talent.

We would still be under the cap and I believe still able to sign whatever we want (up to a point, but quite a large one). Say a rashard knockoff for 100 million/6? Yep, we could do it. Not that I would recommend it.

I think that gives us quite a bit more then just 10 million to work with, but nice sarcasm there, maybe you can not be so condescending next time. It really helps if you turn out to be wrong. It especially REALLY helps if you turn out to be REALLY wrong.

We'll be over 73M next year and getting rid of Marion and Diaw puts us over 46M. With a cap at 55M and change, we'd have roughly 9M available. Even if we were able to sign Artest at 8M per year (and that's a huge IF), we'd be stuck. You can't go over the cap by signing other teams free agents.

So we'd getting rid Marion, Diaw and a first round pick to maybe sign Artest, if he's kind enough to take 8M to play for us. I don't know why, but I'm not sure you'll find a lot of Suns fans to back you up on that one.

 

[asudevil83]

We'll be over 73M next year and getting rid of Marion and Diaw puts us over 46M. With a cap at 55M and change, we'd have roughly 9M available. Even if we were able to sign Artest at 8M per year (and that's a huge IF), we'd be stuck. You can't go over the cap by signing other teams free agents.

So we'd getting rid Marion, Diaw and a first round pick to maybe sign Artest, if he's kind enough to take 8M to play for us. I don't know why, but I'm not sure you'll find a lot of Suns fans to back you up on that one.

it gets even worse though.

1.) we'd have only 8 players under contract, so 5 roster slots would have to be filled. each of those slots have a $400,000 cap hold. so right there take $2mil off our cap space.

2.) we'd also have to give up our MLE.

so for the slim opportunity to sign a guy like Artest, we get rid of Diaw, Marion, Atlanta's Pic, and our MLE

 

[Ollie]

it gets even worse though.

1.) we'd have only 8 players under contract, so 5 roster slots would have to be filled. each of those slots have a $400,000 cap hold. so right there take $2mil off our cap space.

2.) we'd also have to give up our MLE.

so for the slim opportunity to sign a guy like Artest, we get rid of Diaw, Marion, Atlanta's Pic, and our MLE

Well even if condescending is my middle name, I wouldn't like to be so much condescending.

(By the way, if the Suns don't pick Strawberry option and Hill retires, we'd have 7 roster spots to fill. Yippee!)

 

[CaptainInsano]

We'll be over 73M next year and getting rid of Marion and Diaw puts us over 46M. With a cap at 55M and change, we'd have roughly 9M available. Even if we were able to sign Artest at 8M per year (and that's a huge IF), we'd be stuck. You can't go over the cap by signing other teams free agents.

So we'd getting rid Marion, Diaw and a first round pick to maybe sign Artest, if he's kind enough to take 8M to play for us. I don't know why, but I'm not sure you'll find a lot of Suns fans to back you up on that one.

You can go over the salary cap by using a sign-and-trade from what I remember. I should have been more detailed in my original post, I had a bit of a "figure people would just get what I was saying" deal going on there, so let me write it out.

I specifically used the rashard example when I could have used any other.
Why? Because like I said we sign Artest while we are under the cap for a number close to (but still leaving room) the cap amount.

Then as I tried to simply imply, I believe we can sign a player in a rashard type deal to almost whatever the heck we want, JUST LIKE ORLANDO/SEATTLE did for a measly 2nd round pick in the transaction.

In my original post about it I included brand in the 2nd part of the deal where he has a player option and it would be almost exactly like the orlando-seattle trade if I am correct (brand leaving would set the clippers far under the cap = no salary matching IIRC).

Hopefully that explains it and I also hope I worded/worked it out correct this time. So no, you are technically still wrong, though I don't think it counts since I was quite a bit vague there in that original salary cap post of mine anyway.

 

[elindholm]

Then as I tried to simply imply, I believe we can sign a player in a rashard type deal to almost whatever the heck we want, JUST LIKE ORLANDO/SEATTLE did for a measly 2nd round pick in the transaction.

You can believe it all you want, but it's not true. Orlando had the cap space to sign Lewis outright. They agreed to the sign-and-trade because it permitted Lewis to get more years with bigger raises.

Acquiring another team's free agent in a sign-and-trade is subject to the same salary cap restrictions as any other trade. For teams over the cap, the most salary they can take on is 125% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000.

People can't "just get what you are saying" when your argument is based on hidden, incorrect assumptions.

 

[CaptainInsano]

You can believe it all you want, but it's not true. Orlando had the cap space to sign Lewis outright. They agreed to the sign-and-trade because it permitted Lewis to get more years with bigger raises.

Acquiring another team's free agent in a sign-and-trade is subject to the same salary cap restrictions as any other trade. For teams over the cap, the most salary they can take on is 125% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000.

People can't "just get what you are saying" when your argument is based on hidden, incorrect assumptions.

In my example, both the suns and clippers would still be under the cap, the clippers by a large amount, the suns a small amount.

Suns were at 45, signing artest to say 8 million puts it at 53 million while the salary cap would be 57 million.

Do we still need to match salaries?

So you are saying we still could not sign and trade for a player, while being under the cap, from a team under the cap, going over our salary cap? From what I have read I was under the impression that we could go over the salary cap in a sign and trade.

If I am wrong then I am wrong, I am not an expert on the NBA salary cap rules but I go with what I can figure out. Sorry if my mistakes upset you so much Mr. Almighty.

 

[elindholm]

Suns were at 45, signing artest to say 8 million puts it at 53 million while the salary cap would be 57 million.

If the Suns were really at 45 and the cap were really at 57, then yes, Artest could be signed starting at 8.

Do we still need to match salaries?

Thinking of it as "matching" salaries tends to be confusing, because that's not the issue. The issue is that each team is restricted in how much salary they can take on in a trade.

So you are saying we still could not sign and trade for a player, while being under the cap, from a team under the cap, going over our salary cap?

I've read this four times and have no idea what it means.

From what I have read I was under the impression that we could go over the salary cap in a sign and trade.

No. A team can stay over the cap in a sign and trade. For example, the Suns could (by salary cap rules) trade Stoudemire for Artest next summer without shedding any additional salary, as long as Artest started at a number not too much higher than Stoudemire's.

If I am wrong then I am wrong, I am not an expert on the NBA salary cap rules but I go with what I can figure out.

cbafaq.com is a useful resource.

Sorry if my mistakes upset you so much Mr. Almighty.

If you'd rather not learn anything, just let me know. It makes absolutely no difference to me. I was trying to help you understand something and don't need your sarcasm.

 

[CaptainInsano]

If you'd rather not learn anything, just let me know. It makes absolutely no difference to me. I was trying to help you understand something and don't need your sarcasm.

People like to learn as long as they don't feel like they are being insulted for not being experts on the topic.

The clippers would be far under the cap.

The suns would be under the cap by a small amount.

Salary cap is 57 suns at 53 (after artest).

The suns want to do a sign and trade for brand.

Can brand be signed for 16 million per, putting the suns OVER the salary cap?

As for orlando you said orlando already had the capspace, true. Yet according to what I have read you can go over the salary cap with a sign and trade.

Is that false? Then it is obviously my bad, but I would hope we can all admit it is confusing.

If both teams are under the cap there is no salary matching either way I believe. I know one way there is no salary matching, like how we "lost" KT obviously. So even if WE were the only ones under the cap and thus the clippers were above it we could still do the deal?

So then what is the problem doing the deal with both teams under the cap? There is no way in a trade to go over the salary cap? That is madness!

 

[CaptainInsano]

Same thing with that faq:

78. Why would teams or players want to do a sign-and-trade?

"Players benefit because they can get a richer contract, and/or play for a team that is over the salary cap and otherwise wouldn't be able to afford them"

Now, granted my english reading comprehension might not be extremely proficient, but that sounds a lot like the other things I have read. To me that is saying you can go over the salary cap in a sign-and-trade.

*edit: Hah so I got to thinking, when we make this trade we would be over the cap obviously. Now the problem is, do we count as over the cap WHILE making the trade that would put us over the cap or not until AFTER we made the trade?

If it is WHILE we make the trade then we would have to match salaries. Is that what you were pointing out before?

Trying to find out the answer to this one has been a toughy.

 

[elindholm]

Salary cap is 57 suns at 53 (after artest).

The suns want to do a sign and trade for brand.

Can brand be signed for 16 million per, putting the suns OVER the salary cap?

Only if they ship out comparable salary, i.e. Marion or Stoudemire. Obviously the Clippers aren't going to accept Marion for Brand.

Yet according to what I have read you can go over the salary cap with a sign and trade.

No, as I said before, you can stay over the cap with a sign and trade, by sending out a comparable salary to what's being brought in.

If both teams are under the cap there is no salary matching either way I believe.

As I said before, salary "matching" isn't the real issue. A team can always take back less salary than they receive in a trade. (Well, not if it would put them below the minimum team salary, but that basically never comes into play.)

So even if WE were the only ones under the cap and thus the clippers were above it we could still do the deal?

Being a few million dollars under the cap is useless for bringing in a big salary. The restrictions are the same as if the team is over the cap.

So then what is the problem doing the deal with both teams under the cap? There is no way in a trade to go over the salary cap? That is madness!

If the cap is 55 and a team is at 53, they could trade out 15 in salaries, take back 18, and put themselves over the cap that way. But no, there is no way for a team, through a trade, to "add" a large salary that is almost entirely over the cap.

"Players benefit because they can get a richer contract, and/or play for a team that is over the salary cap and otherwise wouldn't be able to afford them"

Again, the other team has to send out comparable salaries. For example, let's say Marion opts out next summer and the Pistons really want him for some reason. They wouldn't be able to sign him outright to a big contract, but they could try to negotiate a sign-and-trade in which they get Marion and the Suns get comparable salary back -- hypothetically we could say Prince and Mohammed. Detroit would have to limit how much salary they add, and this would be true whether they were over the cap or slightly under. So if Detroit and Marion really wanted to hook up for big money, this would be their only option. Of course the Suns would have to agree to the terms as well, which makes things difficult.

 

[CaptainInsano]

Being a few million dollars under the cap is useless for bringing in a big salary. The restrictions are the same as if the team is over the cap.

Drats!

But no, there is no way for a team, through a trade, to "add" a large salary that is almost entirely over the cap.

Damnations!

Again, the other team has to send out comparable salaries.

Son of a monkey!

Well, the CBA sure is quite the party pooper.

I mean I almost vomited after realizing the truth. The truth is we might as well sign marion to the ridiculous #$@! 20 per contract because if he bolts we basically have jack mcpoo (aka the mle).

Well screw the CBA.

 

[elindholm]

I mean I almost vomited after realizing the truth. The truth is we might as well sign marion to the ridiculous #$@! 20 per contract because if he bolts we basically have jack mcpoo (aka the mle).

Well... The Suns could sign-and-trade Marion for one or more players on another team (as in the Detroit example), but they'd have to be players that the other team was willing to let go. If the Suns lose Marion "for nothing," it's not just the MLE that they can keep, but also their first-round picks -- you know, the ones that are constantly being dumped for cash right now. So the compensation could start to add up pretty soon.