Caron Butler Traded to Bucks

[Chaplin]

There have been hints that Butler asked for this trade as well, especially if he heard Milwaukee was originally interested in him.

 

[elindholm]

So... in summary, IMO even finding a viable destination would have been difficult and landing a 1st I think would be really unlikely unless the Suns were taking on some really unappealing contracts.

Matching salaries in a trade is easier than it used to be, because each new CBA increases the fudge factor. Yes, the Suns would have had to take some junk back, but so what? They aren't hurting for cash, and it's not like someone due to make $6 million in 2014-15 is going to interfere with their long-term plans. Plus, if the Suns did take on a less desirable contract, that would put them in stronger position to demand a pick. I agree that there's no way to know whether Butler could have fetched a pick or not, but I do think he was probably a positive asset (if a minor one), and jumping at the first chance to give him away for free doesn't look like a home-run move to me.

 

[Chaplin]

Matching salaries in a trade is easier than it used to be, because each new CBA increases the fudge factor. Yes, the Suns would have had to take some junk back, but so what? They aren't hurting for cash, and it's not like someone due to make $6 million in 2014-15 is going to interfere with their long-term plans. Plus, if the Suns did take on a less desirable contract, that would put them in stronger position to demand a pick. I agree that there's no way to know whether Butler could have fetched a pick or not, but I do think he was probably a positive asset (if a minor one), and jumping at the first chance to give him away for free doesn't look like a home-run move to me.

But it's not for free. The cap savings is a valuable commodity for this team at this point, even if they aren't "hurting" for an excess of cash right now.

Butler would be useless for us, and to think he would fetch any kind of 1st rounder in the summer of 2014 is wishful thinking. Perhaps further down the line he could have got something, but any of Bledsoe, Butler, Dudley and Riddick couldn't get a 1st rounder. The market pretty much says that Butler won't get a 1st rounder of any value.

Plus, the benefit here goes further if you consider they use that cash savings to make waiving Beasley a little bit better to swallow.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I think the move is fine, but again it smacks of impatience on McDonough's part. Butler's trade value would only improve as the season went on. A team trying to position for a deep playoff run might have considered him a key missing piece. It seems likely that he could have fetched a first-round pick at some point. Today's trade makes the Suns worse -- okay, that's fine -- and saves them a bit of money, but the prospects are worthless, so it doesn't improve their future except by earning a few more lottery balls.

I had really doubted that Butler was going to play for the Suns this year anyway. They got back $5 million or so, and more time for the young guys. I don't think there is a chance at all that Butler would ever have garnered a 1st round pick.

No, its not a home run move. Its just a reasonable move in a timely manner. For too long, the Suns have waited around waiting for top dollar in trades and then when they can't get it selling for near nothing.

If our GM can avoid BAD moves and make then make a few great ones, he will be one of the top GM's in the league.

 

[Chaz]

Sometimes a fast nickel beats a slow dime.

Karma bonus points for sending him to his home town.

 

[elindholm]

The cap savings is a valuable commodity for this team at this point

Why?

Plus, the benefit here goes further if you consider they use that cash savings to make waiving Beasley a little bit better to swallow.

I hope that the front office's financial sense is better than that. The cost-benefit analyses of moving Butler or waiving Beasley should be evaluated separately, because they are independent of one another. If trading Butler is a good move, do it; if waiving Beasley is a bad move, don't do it. A bad move doesn't become better just because you've made a good move to "offset" it.

 

[Chaplin]

I hope that the front office's financial sense is better than that. The cost-benefit analyses of moving Butler or waiving Beasley should be evaluated separately, because they are independent of one another. If trading Butler is a good move, do it; if waiving Beasley is a bad move, don't do it. A bad move doesn't become better just because you've made a good move to "offset" it.

What? They are not independent of one another. You either have the money to waive Beasley and cover the cost, or you don't. If you mean Butler has nothing to do with Beasley, then you're correct. But Butler's cap figure certainly has a relationship to Beasley's cap figure. I'm guessing that they do think trading Butler is a good move (because he has no place in the rebuild) and waiving Beasley is ALSO a good move (because... well, you know), so there's the disconnect. But why not combine both moves to cancel out any financial issues with not doing either.

The assumption here is that the Suns don't want Beasley. Do they keep him on the team and just not play him? Is that a detriment since they have to pay him anyway? It they are planning on waiving him AND Butler isn't a part of the plan (he isn't, I think that's is 99% accurate), why not use Butler to offset the money you will owe Beasley upon waiving him? I don't see how that is confusing and the don't correlate.

I get you are trying to be practical (I think), but I don't understand why you are unwilling to make the connection. Seems pretty straight-forward considering how useless having Butler on this team really is.

 

[KloD]

Why?

Because this way they will have room to absorb a bad contract in order to get a good piece. Bledsoe would not be in PHX if they hadn't have had the room to absorb Butler. This gives flexibility. Flexibility is good. Butler no longer is.

I hope that the front office's financial sense is better than that. The cost-benefit analyses of moving Butler or waiving Beasley should be evaluated separately, because they are independent of one another. If trading Butler is a good move, do it; if waiving Beasley is a bad move, don't do it. A bad move doesn't become better just because you've made a good move to "offset" it.

I hate when I hear the Beasley reason for the trade. That's all media speculation. This move was made for 3 reasons IMO:
1) Butler served no purpose.
2) Flexibility
3) Good will

The idea that Butler was going to fetch a 1st next year is silly. To wait and get nothing (even if all they gained is flexibility) would have been stupid IMO. The reward later would likely never come and another deal that required us to have cap space may have been lost out. There are what if's whether they did this deal or not, but I prefer knowing they have the ability to make further moves now then waiting to see if he fetched anything later.

 

[elindholm]

What? They are not independent of one another. You either have the money to waive Beasley and cover the cost, or you don't.

The Suns have to pay Beasley either way. They've already budgeted the money to pay his full salary. Waiving him doesn't add a cost; it simply removes him from the roster with no financial impact. (There could, theoretically, be a small financial impact if Beasley agreed to a reduced buyout, but that's unlikley.)

But Butler's cap figure certainly has a relationship to Beasley's cap figure.

No it doesn't. It sounds like you think that waiving Beasley somehow increases the amount the Suns have to pay him. It doesn't.

The assumption here is that the Suns don't want Beasley. Do they keep him on the team and just not play him? Is that a detriment since they have to pay him anyway?

I agree that if they think their best option, assuming he stays on the roster, is simply to tell him to go home and not bother anybody, then yes, they might as well waive him.

why not use Butler to offset the money you will owe Beasley upon waiving him? I don't see how that is confusing and the don't correlate.

Beasley is what's called a "sunk cost." The Suns have to pay him either way, so whether he remains on the roster is a decision that should be made independent of financial considerations. What happens with Butler is irrelevant.

Put it this way: Let's say that the league suddenly announced that they'd screwed up all of their luxury tax distribution contributions, and actually there's more money in the pot than they'd said before, and so several teams would be getting extra luxury tax rebates, and the Suns were one of them, to receive $6 million in a couple of weeks. Would that impact a Beasley decision? It seems obvious that it shouldn't.

I don't understand why you are unwilling to make the connection. Seems pretty straight-forward considering how useless having Butler on this team really is.

If having Butler on the team is useless (I agree) and there's no point holding onto him as a potential appreciating asset (I disagree), then sure, go ahead and dump him for free if the opportunity arises. That's a self-contained decision. What happens with Beasley doesn't figure into the calculation.

 

[elindholm]

Because this way they will have room to absorb a bad contract in order to get a good piece. Bledsoe would not be in PHX if they hadn't have had the room to absorb Butler. This gives flexibility. Flexibility is good.

Yes, it's true that they are now in a slightly better position to bring in a player through trade than they were before jettisoning Butler. I hadn't thought of that. How much under the cap are they now?

 

[Phrazbit]

Yes, it's true that they are now in a slightly better position to bring in a player through trade than they were before jettisoning Butler. I hadn't thought of that. How much under the cap are they now?

Yeah, I only brought that up like 4 times already

A 5 mil savings on Butler drops us to ~49 million, about 9-10 mil under the cap, however, Len just signed and his contract does not show yet. I think it will be somewhere between 3-3.5 mil for the first year.

 

[Errntknght]

Suppose that Sarver wants to keep Beasley around because we have to pay him regardless but McD wants to waive him thinking his very presence would or could hurt the team. It could be that McD just saving him 5.5 mil by trading Butler will cause Sarver to go along with him regarding Beas.

 

[Phrazbit]

Suppose that Sarver wants to keep Beasley around because we have to pay him regardless but McD wants to waive him thinking his very presence would or could hurt the team. It could be that McD just saving him 5.5 mil by trading Butler will cause Sarver to go along with him regarding Beas.

I doubt it. Beasley is a sunk cost and everyone knows it. He gets paid no matter what, and keeping him only risks further tainting the brand. I doubt Sarver is sitting there going "If I'm paying him 9 million I better have him on the team dropping turds on the floor every night and blazing in his car after the game." For as much as Sarver gets bashed here, the man is not an imbecile.

Beasley's fate was sealed the moment he got arrested. He will be gone within a week.

McDonough finally said something about Beasley too:

“Trading Caron Butler has nothing to do with the Beasley situation,” McDonough said. “We thought this was a good deal for basketball reasons. I’d imagine over the next week or so we would have resolution (regarding Beasley).”

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/sun...milwaukee-bucks-ish-smith-slava-kravtsov.html

In other words... he is toast.

 

[Rab]

If trading Butler means we can just cut Beasley and absorb the whole payout this year, I am fine with it. Butler didn't have much in the way of trade value or a place here long term.

When Beasley is released my hope is to be able to pay him outright this year and not spread it out over however many years. I don't want to hear his name again and forget he was ever here. I don't want the Suns to not be able to make a move because they're still paying Beasely $2.5 mill that year or whatever the breakdown would be per year.

 

[Covert Rain]

All this is fine and dandy and not a bad idea to free up cap space. It remains to be seen if the Suns can actually do anything with cap space and lure anybody of consequence here. My guess is the Suns will have to trade to bring a significant player here and clearing up cap space to do so is a good idea. Butler was a rental player and if trading him gives us a higher draft pick I am game. This team needs to use every card in it's disposal to rebuild.

 

[slinslin]

Waiving Beasley does nothing for the Suns, i can't see them doing it they gain nothing.

They lose the ability to trade Beasley or his contract in other trades while still paying him the same money anyway and not getting cap space from it.

it only makes sense if Beasley agrees to a buyout for less money than what they owe him otherwise you lose a piece that could enable trades for nothing while still paying the same money and at the risk that Beasley goes somewhere else and makes you look stupid for waiving him but still paying him while he scores 20 for the Lakers.

I can't believe the Suns would pay 6-7 M$ just to get rid off Beasley a year early while gaining absolutely nothing from it.

 

[BC867]

I can't believe the Suns would pay 6-7 M$ just to get rid off Beasley a year early while gaining absolutely nothing from it.

Public relations. Team morale. Beasley is an embarrassment to the Suns both on and off the court.

Sometimes removing a negative is as important as adding a positive.

He is not a Power Forward. He is not a Small Forward. The only thing he represented was instant offense and he hardly ever delivered that.

The Suns took a chance and lost. It is time to cut the losses even at a cost. It is time to move on and not drag it out.

The Suns would gain from it, especially as they try to lay the foundation of rebuilding.

 

[slinslin]

They don't need to waive him to do that.

 

[leclerc]

Too bad about Beas. I hope he gets his head straight and really gets something out of his basketball talent, but not here and not now. Good luck in your future endeavours.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Waiving Beasley does nothing for the Suns, i can't see them doing it they gain nothing.

They lose the ability to trade Beasley or his contract in other trades while still paying him the same money anyway and not getting cap space from it.

you're delusional if think they HAVE any ability to trade Beasley or his contract. if the T-Wolves couldn't get rid of this cancer when he was an expiring deal, what makes you think him proving himself to be a cancer/idiot/drugg addict AGAIN will make it any easier for us to trade him...when he's NOT an expiring deal?

waiving him rids the team of a cancer, plain and simple.

it only makes sense if Beasley agrees to a buyout for less money than what they owe him otherwise you lose a piece that could enable trades for nothing

his contract and general cancer disables trades, not enables it.

while still paying the same money and at the risk that Beasley goes somewhere else and makes you look stupid for waiving him but still paying him while he scores 20 for the Lakers.

LOL...you're delusional if you think anything like the above is going to happen.

the only kind of team that Bease can POSSIBLY score 20 ppg is one that has no future, sucks out loud and allows him to dominate the offense, while making no dent in wins and losses.

 

[Covert Rain]

Do you think if we genetically engineered a player and called him....let's say....Rochael Lopeasley... he would be better than Wilt Chamberlain?!?!? I know at least on person in this forum would think so.

 

[BC867]

while still paying the same money and at the risk that Beasley goes somewhere else and makes you look stupid for waiving him but still paying him while he scores 20 for the Lakers.

LOL...you're delusional if you think anything like the above is going to happen.

the only kind of team that Bease can POSSIBLY score 20 ppg is one that has no future, sucks out loud and allows him to dominate the offense, while making no dent in wins and losses.

True! And even if he does (score) . . . and even if it doesn't (dent) . . . we'd have to tie up a roster spot to stop that from happening. That would put us at a disadvantage. In addition to condoning his negative behavior.

 

[Phrazbit]

The "risk" that he scores 20 for the Lakers. I'd love to see Beasley in a Laker uniform. I'd especially love it if he took the 28 shots per game it would require for him to score 20 a night.

The only "risk" involved in axing Beasley is that some team ends up accidentally out taking us by virtue of having made the idiotic mistake of giving Beasley playing time. But, in all likelihood Beasley will never see regular playing time again (on this continent) so it wont matter.

 

[slinslin]

you're delusional if think they HAVE any ability to trade Beasley or his contract. if the T-Wolves couldn't get rid of this cancer when he was an expiring deal, what makes you think him proving himself to be a cancer/idiot/drugg addict AGAIN will make it any easier for us to trade him...when he's NOT an expiring deal?

waiving him rids the team of a cancer, plain and simple.



his contract and general cancer disables trades, not enables it.



LOL...you're delusional if you think anything like the above is going to happen.

the only kind of team that Bease can POSSIBLY score 20 ppg is one that has no future, sucks out loud and allows him to dominate the offense, while making no dent in wins and losses.

oh cheesebeef being the idiot he always is.. it doesn't matter if you think it is realistic that they can trade Beasley or not, having his contract available for trades is a LOT better for the Suns than waiving Beasley, paying him the exact same money and not even getting an exception they could use in trades for it.

 

[Phrazbit]

oh cheesebeef being the idiot he always is.. it doesn't matter if you think it is realistic that they can trade Beasley or not, having his contract available for trades is a LOT better for the Suns than waiving Beasley, paying him the exact same money and not even getting an exception they could use in trades for it.

Beasley has no value... at all, you can still live in your fairy tale world where Beasley is some great talent who just needs a chance, but in reality he is an overpaid horrific player who also has a drug problem. Involving him in a trade would make the trade MORE difficult from the Suns end of the equation. No one wants this POS... besides ignorant turds such as yourself, especially not for the 9 million guaranteed remaining on his contract. As Cheese correctly noted, the Wolves could not give his sorry ass away when the Sleaze was EXPIRING! Only buffoons like Blanks and yourself are still infatuated with this no talent clown.

The Suns HAVE trade flexibility as is, keeping Beasley does nothing to help that.