A Few Thoughts About Plan C

[George O'Brien]

PLAN A - Get the Bobcats to take White and use the cap money to sign Kobe

PLAN B - If Kobe does not sign, then use the cap space to sign two mid level free agents (starting above mid cap)

PLAN C - Do not move White and use the existing cap space to sign role players to one year deals.

One of the problems with the deal relating to White ($5.9 million) is that the Suns are not the only team that want to do the same thing. It looks certain that the Pistons will try to move Eldon Campbell that way ($4.4 million) and there are hints that the Sonics are considering the same plan with Jerome James ($4.5 million). It depends on what is offered, but the Bobcats might insist on the Suns lottery pick and get turned down.

In any case, the main concern raised about Plan B is that it would lock the Suns into contracts with "good" but not "great" players. The argument is that the Suns need a great player to get to the finals.

Since Kobe is the only great player in free agency this summer, Plan C means keeping the caps space available to go after a great player in 2005.

Signing players to one year contracts is the equivalent of not signing anyone at all, since it keeps the cap space available. For example, last summer Denver signed one year contracts with Jon Barry, Earl Boykins, Chris Anderson, Jeff Trepagnier, and Mark Pope. They will drop to $25.9 million next season.

Obviously most really good players want more than one year contracts, but there are some useful guys who came to their teams on one year deals. Boykins has been a big part of the Nuggets success, Rafer Alston has been huge for Miami, Marquis Daniels with the Mavericks has played well, Fred Hoiberg, Trenton Hassell and Gary Trent have all played a part in the Wolves success, Carlos Arroyo of the Jazz has been effective, and Brian Cardinal and Calbert Cheaney have both helped the Warriors a lot.

Most of these players were signed for relatively little money. Jon Barry was the exception with a one year $3 million deal. Most signed for the minimum.

With Plan C, the Suns could afford to pay quite well for a one year deal since it would not tie up cap space for 2005. One guy I like in the model is Brian Cardinal of the Warriors.

6'8" 245

9.8 ppg in 21.5 minutes, 46.6% shooting, 46.1% beyond the arc and 4.2 rpg.

Brian is not going to be a star, but he could be a good addition for a season. He could replace Harvey, who is very limited offensively, as the hustle/dirty work guy but still give a serious outside shooting threat.

He played well enough that he may get a good sized long term contract, but otherwise the Suns might get him for one year while searching for superstar.

 

[fordronken]

Didn't Boykins get a multi-year deal?

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Didn't Boykins get a multi-year deal?

Thats what I thought.

Just looked it up, he is listed as under contract till 2008 for about a 14 million dollar deal.

 

[Joe Mama]

I like Brian Cardinal, but I don't see him as a very good free-agent for the Phoenix Suns. Surely somebody will give him a multiyear contract.

Joe Mama

 

[George O'Brien]

Didn't Boykins get a multi-year deal?

You're right. Hoopshype screwed me up again.

I like Brian Cardinal, but I don't see him as a very good free-agent for the Phoenix Suns. Surely somebody will give him a multiyear contract.

Joe Mama

Cardinal may get a multiyear deal, but under Plan C the Suns could pay a lot more for one year than anyone else could for the first year if the other team is going long term. While I think Cardinal could be a good replacement for Harvey, I just used him as an example.

Thinking in terms of one year deals takes some getting used to. The key is to avoid long term contracts to keep flexibility for a chance to get a superstar.

 

[F-Dog]

I like Brian Cardinal, but I don't see him as a very good free-agent for the Phoenix Suns. Surely somebody will give him a multiyear contract.

Joe Mama

Adonal Foyle might make a little more sense, though--he might even be willing to take a one-year deal, since he has been injured all year.

If the Suns don't trade away Jahidi White, though, there's no point in getting Foyle, either...


Here's an idea. If the Suns are just looking to tread water for a year anyway, why don't they take on a cap-killing contract in its last year to get rid of Howard Eisley's two-year contract? I have a hunch that Philly might be willing to trade Glenn Robinson for Eisley straight up, or perhaps the Warriors would take Eisley to get rid of NVE.

 

[scotsman13]

how about plan d?

with in the next 2 year the contracts for jj and amare will be up. amare will be a max contract. i think if we are lucky you may see jj starting around 7-9 million a year. this isnt even counting contacts for all the other players like casey, barbosa, lampe, zarko, and milos etc. who are going to need new deals sooner or later. right now the max contract is 25% of the team cap. between amare, marion and jj you are looking at over 70% of the gone. add in a big name free agent and you are at 95% of the cap and only have 4 players under contact. so plan d is that you bring in some solid free agents that will help the team as role player (mcdyess) and then save the money and let the team grow.

 

[George O'Brien]

Here's an idea. If the Suns are just looking to tread water for a year anyway, why don't they take on a cap-killing contract in its last year to get rid of Howard Eisley's two-year contract? I have a hunch that Philly might be willing to trade Glenn Robinson for Eisley straight up, or perhaps the Warriors would take Eisley to get rid of NVE.

I actually looked at that. The problem with Philly is that it doesn't help them. They are at $61.6 million right now, so they are not really any closer to going for a free agent.

The NVE situation is more interesting. It might be attractive to the Warriors if the Warriors are going to make a serious play for a free agent this year - rather than waiting a year. If Dampier walks, they are at $34.5 prior to trying to re-sign Foyle and Cardinal, so an extra $5.4 million might help. But if they are not close to signing an expensive FA, it makes no sense.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

how about plan d?

with in the next 2 year the contracts for jj and amare will be up. amare will be a max contract. i think if we are lucky you may see jj starting around 7-9 million a year. this isnt even counting contacts for all the other players like casey, barbosa, lampe, zarko, and milos etc. who are going to need new deals sooner or later. right now the max contract is 25% of the team cap. between amare, marion and jj you are looking at over 70% of the gone. add in a big name free agent and you are at 95% of the cap and only have 4 players under contact. so plan d is that you bring in some solid free agents that will help the team as role player (mcdyess) and then save the money and let the team grow.

JJ's extension will not kick in till the 2005-2006 season. Amare/Casey/Lampe will not kick in until the 2006-2007 season.

Zarko/Barbosa wont kick in till the 2007-2008 season.


Plan C relates to signing 1 year deals this summer if we fail on Kobe. The point being we want to keep all our cap space for the summer of 2005, before all the extensions kick in.

Of course, this could even be extended into the summer of 2006 if wanted (I wouldnt hope so) since JJ's extension and Eisley's contract should balance each other out.


Hopefully the new owners will be at least as willing as the Cs to pay for talent. The point of the careful additions, with planning to maintain flexibility is to keep us from getting in the financial nightmare we had before the trade.

Signing a bunch of role players for an unproven core would be a very large risk, one that has blown up on the team already. You add solid veterans to put you over the top, not to grow with the team. You want 1 or 2, but not an entire roster of them (JK suns). It would behoove the team to sit on the space and wait for a legitimate star to become available. If Amare is considered a legitimate superstar before this happens, then targer support players. You just cant jump the gun.

Most likely the ownership wont have a problem spending 60 million on payroll, but lets see if we can get there in a logical spending pattern this time.

 

[George O'Brien]

Plan C relates to signing 1 year deals this summer if we fail on Kobe. The point being we want to keep all our cap space for the summer of 2005, before all the extensions kick in.

Of course, this could even be extended into the summer of 2006 if wanted (I wouldnt hope so) since JJ's extension and Eisley's contract should balance each other out.

Hopefully the new owners will be at least as willing as the Cs to pay for talent. The point of the careful additions, with planning to maintain flexibility is to keep us from getting in the financial nightmare we had before the trade.

Signing a bunch of role players for an unproven core would be a very large risk, one that has blown up on the team already. You add solid veterans to put you over the top, not to grow with the team. You want 1 or 2, but not an entire roster of them (JK suns). It would behoove the team to sit on the space and wait for a legitimate star to become available. If Amare is considered a legitimate superstar before this happens, then targer support players. You just cant jump the gun.

Most likely the ownership wont have a problem spending 60 million on payroll, but lets see if we can get there in a logical spending pattern this time.

I think I agree. When you say,

Signing a bunch of role players for an unproven core would be a very large risk,

I assume you mean to more than one year deals.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

I think I agree. When you say, I assume you mean to more than one year deals.

Of course. There is very little risk in 1 year deals.

From Scotsman's post, it seemed like he wanted multi year deals for a couple role playing vets.

 

[scotsman13]

it isnt that i want multi year deals for a bunch of unproven roles players, but to get the type of players that we need you are going to have to sign them to multi year deals. i think that we will have to give mcdyess a deal that goes for 2 or 3 years to keep him. think back on a.c. green but for this team it is going to be players like milos, mcdyess, harvey and maybe camby or okur who bring certan skills to the table that will help this team fill its weaknesses.

by saying that he is going to sell the team JC has told the fans that for at least the until the new owner is found that this team will stay with in the salery cap. the dreams of tmac and kobe along with amare are only that dreams. at this point i would be shocked if the suns even make a play on kobe.

 

[George O'Brien]

it isnt that i want multi year deals for a bunch of unproven roles players, but to get the type of players that we need you are going to have to sign them to multi year deals. i think that we will have to give mcdyess a deal that goes for 2 or 3 years to keep him. think back on a.c. green but for this team it is going to be players like milos, mcdyess, harvey and maybe camby or okur who bring certan skills to the table that will help this team fill its weaknesses.

by saying that he is going to sell the team JC has told the fans that for at least the until the new owner is found that this team will stay with in the salery cap. the dreams of tmac and kobe along with amare are only that dreams. at this point i would be shocked if the suns even make a play on kobe.

In order to "make a play" this summer, the Suns would need to move White or Eisley. If you are right, then they won't offer the Bobcats anything to take one of them. If they do use a draft pick to move either, then there is a possibility. If they use their lottery pick, it is almost a certainty they will go after Kobe.

But keep in mind, it is not certain that Kobe will opt out of the last year of his contract this summer. There aren't that many teams with cap space and the trial has not been cleared up yet. Kobe may be unhappy (recent tensions with his teammates suggest he is), but he may decide to wait a year.

 

[Chaplin]

it isnt that i want multi year deals for a bunch of unproven roles players, but to get the type of players that we need you are going to have to sign them to multi year deals. i think that we will have to give mcdyess a deal that goes for 2 or 3 years to keep him. think back on a.c. green but for this team it is going to be players like milos, mcdyess, harvey and maybe camby or okur who bring certan skills to the table that will help this team fill its weaknesses.

The problem is that you are perfectly okay with overpaying players--overpaying huge injury risks because they finally have good years in a contract year.

 

[scotsman13]

i dont think that the suns will give up their lottery pick for the bobcats to take anyone. they may give clevelands pick and some cash, to move eisley but i think that if they want to move white in the western conf. team as a shaq stopper they wont have to give up anything to move him. i think that the mavs would love to have him. i dont know that they have the room for him or have someone that we would trade for but that is just an example.

the whole point i am trying to get at is that just because kobe is a FA doesnt mean that we should go after him, even more to the point it also doesnt mean that he would help this team. as shown in the game sunday if kobe doesnt get the shots that he wants no matter if it hurts the team he will hurt the team even by passing up open shots. kobe isnt as much of a team player as marbury and marbury was moved in part because he didnt work to improve his teammates game as much as his own game.

 

[slinslin]

Yeah the Bobcats will take Eisley for a conditional future first round pick of the Cavs plus some cash after Colangelo put some cocaine into their GMs coffee.

 

[Chaplin]

the whole point i am trying to get at is that just because kobe is a FA doesnt mean that we should go after him, even more to the point it also doesnt mean that he would help this team. as shown in the game sunday if kobe doesnt get the shots that he wants no matter if it hurts the team he will hurt the team even by passing up open shots. kobe isnt as much of a team player as marbury and marbury was moved in part because he didnt work to improve his teammates game as much as his own game.

This is so short-sighted I can't believe it. We shouldn't go after Kobe? Are you insane? You HAVE TO at least explore the possibility of trying to sign one of the top 5 players in the entire league.

Will he help this team? Absolutely. I again find it funny that if he tries to win a game and doesn't, his "deficiencies" are magnified. But I don't hear you even mentioning the dozens and dozens of games he DOES win for his team.

 

[Joe Mama]

Yeah the Bobcats will take Eisley for a conditional future first round pick of the Cavs plus some cash after Colangelo put some cocaine into their GMs coffee.

LOL! My thoughts exactly.

Regarding White... it would be silly to keep them around just to go up against one or two players. Besides, Shaquille O'Neal has been looking like he is on the downside of his career.

In reality it would take at least the Cleveland pick and $3 million cash to get the bobcats to take White.

Joe Mama

 

[Chaplin]

In reality it would take at least the Cleveland pick and $3 million cash to get the bobcats to take White.

Joe Mama

I'm not so sure I agree with that. Like I said in another thread, expansion mock drafts have Charlotte taking White, sometimes very high. (I saw him taken as #1 in one)

 

[slinslin]

Yeah I am expecting to possibly give us our own pick to move White.

A horrible move considering we could have kept Knight and used the pick to move Eisley maybe.
But the additional capspace due to not having our own pick and moving one of their contracts should be worth it.

We could also use the Cavs pick to pay off San Antonio so we can trade our own future picks again.

 

[elindholm]

i dont think that the suns will give up their lottery pick for the bobcats to take anyone.

I think they'd consider it, but we're both just guessing at this point. You could be right.

they may give clevelands pick and some cash, to move eisley

They may offer Cleveland's pick and cash to move Eisley, but no one will bite. If that's all they're willing to give up, Eisley will remain on the Suns' payroll.

...as a shaq stopper they wont have to give up anything to move him. i think that the mavs would love to have him.

Remind me what success White has had in "stopping" O'Neal? If the Mavericks want to go after a big body for the sole purpose of slowing down O'Neal, Jake Tsakalidis is a much better option.

Still, the Mavericks have shown an irrational interest in another recent backup "center" for the Suns, Scott Williams, who has proved to be no more effective on Dallas than he was on Phoenix. So maybe they'd get all excited about White, too.

as shown in the game sunday if kobe doesnt get the shots that he wants no matter if it hurts the team he will hurt the team even by passing up open shots.

Bryant is the scapegoat for every Laker problem. No one ever criticizes O'Neal for being lazy and out of shape, Payton for his inability to adapt to the triangle, or Jackson for being a smug condescending do-nothing know-it-all. If the Lakers lose, it will be Bryant's fault, every time.

I would guess that, if you are an NBA player who can get your shot whenever you want, figuring out when to shoot and when to pass is a difficult balance, especially if you're struggling and you know your teammates don't trust you. If Bryant had forced shots and missed, he would have been criticized for not giving up the ball. So he's damned either way.

kobe isnt as much of a team player as marbury and marbury was moved in part because he didnt work to improve his teammates game as much as his own game.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it would be revealing to know what the Suns' management thought of Marbury on the eve of the trade. It's not as though he was interfering with a structured offense -- the coaching staff has now had half a season to develop a coherent offensive approach in Marbury's absence, and they have failed. Marbury's numbers were basically the same as they were last season, when he was the franchise savior. He has weaknesses as a player, perhaps first among them that he really isn't a reliable perimeter shooter, but he also has great strengths. And, for the second season in a row now, he has led a former lottery team to the playoffs (Phoenix last year, the Knicks this year).

My hunch is that Marbury was moved for financial reasons only. I think the Suns knew that they were getting reamed from a talent standpoint -- in spite of the hype surrounding Lampe and Vujanic -- but were so concerned about money that they reluctantly gave up their best player.

 

[slinslin]

If we gave San Antonio the Cavs pick for the Barbosa deal we could offer the Bobcats our 2005 and 2007 picks to take White or Eisley.

It is not like we would depend on getting more rookies in the next 4 years. But we better turn it around quickly so we don't give up lottery picks in 05 and 07.

And the Mavericks don't have interessting contracts that they could shop for White.

 

[Joe Mama]

IMO Marbury was moved for two reasons. Most people, including myself until a short while ago, believed it was primarily a money move. Money was definitely a large reason behind the trade. However I believe Amare Stoudemire was the main reason. The Phoenix Suns wanted Amare Stoudemire to be the focal point of the offense. Marbury really needs to dominate the ball to be effective. If they want Amare to be the focal point that makes Marbury less valuable. They saw an opportunity to solve that problem while fixing most of the financial problems. They took it.

Lampe, the rights to Vujanic, and the draft picks are all nice, but IMO the trade was made to open things up for Amare Stoudemire while freeing the Suns financially.

I thought Stephon Marbury get a great job with the Phoenix Suns last season. I think he has played very, very well with the New York Knicks. I will cheer for him in the playoffs despite my loathing for Isaiah Thomas. I also think that Marbury has handled himself very, very well from the time he was traded to the Suns until now, and that makes me like him more. That said, let's not overdo it with this "leading lottery teams into the playoffs" thing. Last season's resurrection was as much about Amare Stoudemire and a healthy Penny Hardaway as it was about Marbury. The New York Knicks team that will be in the playoffs has tripped and stumbled its way in there. They stink. They are only their because the rest of the Eastern conference is so pathetic.

Joe Mama

 

[Chaz]

It's not as though he was interfering with a structured offense -- the coaching staff has now had half a season to develop a coherent offensive approach in Marbury's absence, and they have failed.

I think the Suns offense is much better since the Marbury trade and the team PPG number backs that up. The scoring is much more consistant and they are moving the ball better. If nothing else they are not painful to watch on offense like they were to start the season.

I agree there was a desire to have Amare be the offensive focus and that was going to take years if (it happened at all) while Marbury was here.

 

[elindholm]

However I believe Amare Stoudemire was the main reason. The Phoenix Suns wanted Amare Stoudemire to be the focal point of the offense.

I'm sorry, Joe Mama, but I just can't agree with this. Between the end of last season and the time Marbury was traded, Stoudemire showed nothing. How did his position as Future of the Franchise improve when he wasn't even on the court or working out?

And then why was Marbury extended? You've said that the Suns extended Marbury "knowing they could always trade him to the Knicks," but that seems far-fetched. He could have gotten injured or the Knicks could have blundered into a different All-Star point guard, making Marbury redundant. I think they extended him because they wanted him to be part of the team for a long time. When the team stumbled out of the gate and financial support from the fans stalled, the organization's financial crisis became the determining factor.