googs

[boisesuns]

any news on how he is doing? he seemed slow last season, but he's a hard worker. i doubt we are going to be able to move him, and it would eb nice if we did, but does anyone think he'll be able to contribute this year? maybe play some center....

if he could come of ther bench hit some jumpers and give amare some rest, i would be happy. just pretend the salries are reversed

 

[fordronken]

He is actually, with the exception of Stoudemire and Marbury, our most moveable player right now(Marion's extension makes him almost untradeable). He is a huge expiring contract.

 

[elindholm]

He is actually, with the exception of Stoudemire and Marbury, our most moveable player right now

Except that the Suns would have no interest in anything another team would offer in return. Gugliotta has significantly less trade value than Terrell Brandon (Brandon's contract won't count for the luxury tax), plus the Wolves are willing to take on salary to add talent, which the Suns are not.

Outlaw, Tsakalidis, Johnson, and probably even Hardaway are more attractive trade bait right now than Gugliotta.

 

[slinslin]

Brandon does NOT have more value than Googs it is a wash at best.

1. Googs clears significantly more capspace than Brandon.
2. Most of the teams interessted in Brandon don't want him to avoid the luxury tax. They want him to create capspace for the 2004 offseason.


Brandon is more valueable for teams like the Phoenix Suns who are already over the luxury tax for next season. How many other teams are over the luxury tax for next season? Portland, New York and Dallas? And those 3 are so far over the luxury cap they need a lot more than Brandon to get under the cap.

Hardaway and Outlaw don't have nearly as much trade value as Googs. If the Suns were shopping Googs they would surely get a lot of offers.

 

[SirStefan32]

Originally posted by slinslin

Hardaway and Outlaw don't have nearly as much trade value as Googs. If the Suns were shopping Googs they would surely get a lot of offers.

They would get a lot of offers, but as Eric already pointed out-
"the Wolves are willing to take on salary to add talent, which the Suns are not."

 

[elindholm]

1. Googs clears significantly more capspace than Brandon.

Brandon makes $11.1 million next season, Gugliotta $11.7. That's "significantly more"?

2. Most of the teams interessted in Brandon don't want him to avoid the luxury tax.

Says who? Have you contacted most of the teams interested in Brandon? Why would any team not want to take advantage of Brandon's luxury-tax relief, all other things (compared to Gugliotta) being equal?

How many other teams are over the luxury tax for next season? Portland, New York and Dallas?

What is the luxury-tax threshold expected to be next season? According to RealGM, the following teams already have more than $57 million committed in salary for next year:

Dallas
Memphis
Minnesota
New Jersey
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Portland
Sacramento

If the Suns were shopping Googs they would surely get a lot of offers.

I can't believe they aren't shopping him, in spite of the alleged "gentlemen's agreement" that he wouldn't be traded. But he won't be traded, because the Suns aren't willing to take on what they'd have to accept in return.

 

[arthurracoon]

Originally posted by elindholm
What is the luxury-tax threshold expected to be next season? According to RealGM, the following teams already have more than $57 million committed in salary for next year:

Dallas
Memphis
Minnesota
New Jersey
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Portland
Sacramento

But some of those teams don't count, such as Dallas. Do they care if they go over the luxury? Mark Cuban is rich. very rich.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

While Terrel Brandon obviously has more value, I think that it is pretty irrevelent. It is not like there is only 1 player that could be had for an expiring contract. Googs is arguably the second best contract to be had this year. Is having the second pick in the draft that bad??

Anyways, both teams are looking for different things, so we probably would not even compete for the same players. Minny as far as I have read was interested in a slashing 2 guard or a big 4 so that KG and Wally could play the 3 and 2 respectively.

Like I said in an earlier post in reference to BC's comments of they have to explore trading Googs to lower the tax burden this year, I think that if the suns were to trade they would not be adding a max player like Minny wants to do. They would instead try to obtain 3 or so players or a couple draft picks. The suns are looking for depth, not a star. Financially wise it makes sense as well. For example, if the suns were to obtain Eddie Jones he would be basically untradeable until the end of his contract (2007) but if they obtain 3 4mil dollar contracts they could traded much easier.

Basically I am saying that I could see it possibly that the suns would trade to do a 3 team trade where someone gets googs, someone gets near star player and the suns get a few role players with contracts ending in the next 3 years. Of course I could not even come close to thinking up an exact scenario, but I dont think that the suns would trade googs unless it was around those lines. But even that seems to be a longshot.

Andy

 

[elindholm]

Like I said in an earlier post in reference to BC's comments of they have to explore trading Googs to lower the tax burden this year

This is quite simply impossible, except if Gugliotta were to be traded to a team under the cap, which obviously is not going to happen.

Thanks to Gugliotta's trade kicker, any team that picks him up in trade will have to be sending out salaries totalling more than his current Suns salary, but less than the new (after kicker) amount. This is to get the salary change involved with each team to be within 10%, as is required by any trades between teams over the cap.

So the Suns would have to pick up salaries that are more than Gugliotta's current one. That means no reduction in the luxury tax burden.

The only way to ease the tax burden would be to persuade Gugliotta to accept a buyout. Apparently this is not going to happen, so the Suns are stuck. They can

1. Keep Gugliotta and pay a lot of luxury tax this year, or

2. Trade Gugliotta in return for someone who can play, but pay a lot of luxury tax this year and in later years.

Not much of a choice.

But some of those teams don't count, such as Dallas. Do they care if they go over the luxury?

This is irrelevant in the context of the discussion.

 

[slinslin]

Originally posted by elindholm


If the Suns were shopping Googs they would surely get a lot of offers.

I can't believe they aren't shopping him, in spite of the alleged "gentlemen's agreement" that he wouldn't be traded. But he won't be traded, because the Suns aren't willing to take on what they'd have to accept in return.

The Suns aren't shopping because he is too valueable for themselves to trade him even if they get good talent in return.

 

[elindholm]

The Suns aren't shopping because he is too valueable for themselves to trade him even if they get good talent in return.

We're differing on semantics. Of course if the Suns could trade Gugliotta for a good player on a large expiring contract, they would. That possibility is absurd, which is why they won't trade him. But his value to the team is relative -- there certainly do exist potential trades out there that would be good for the Suns; it's just that the other team would never make them.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by elindholm

This is quite simply impossible, except if Gugliotta were to be traded to a team under the cap, which obviously is not going to happen.

Thanks to Gugliotta's trade kicker, any team that picks him up in trade will have to be sending out salaries totalling more than his current Suns salary, but less than the new (after kicker) amount. This is to get the salary change involved with each team to be within 10%, as is required by any trades between teams over the cap.

Why would a team have to be under the cap to accept Googs in a trade? That doesnt make sense to me, I might be overlooking something though. The cap should never have any impact on trades, just FA signings. That is what it was designed for, to prevent a large market team from just buying up every good player on the market. Not to prevent them from trading their players with other teams.

The trade Kicker has no effect on the trade dollars. It is a cash sum that is to be paid to Googs if and when he is traded. Just like when we traded for Bo Outlaw, we sent 1 million cash to orlando. Bo had a trade kicker, and the million either paid it all or paid a good chunk of it.

Trades have to be within 15% not 10% I am pretty sure. That means that the suns could have an outgoing trade value of 11.7 million (googs contract) but are only required to take back 9.9 million. That would save almost 4 million dollars.

At least that is my take on it.

 

[elindholm]

Why would a team have to be under the cap to accept Googs in a trade?

Because the rule is, if a team is over the cap, any salaries they accept in trade must be within 15% of the salaries going out. (You are right, it's 15%, not 10% as I said before.) There is a $100,000 fudge factor allowed, but that's basically irrelevant when dealing with salaries this large.

If a team is under the cap, then they can add salary in a trade without having to give up the same amount of salary in return. So, for instance, the Nuggets could trade Nene Hilario for Gugliotta, once their current year's contracts expire. It is unlikely that Denver would go for this trade.

The trade Kicker has no effect on the trade dollars.

I don't think we know the specifics of Gugliotta's trade kicker, but in general this is false. Trade kickers usually result in a higher salary for the player after he is traded, during the entire remainder of the contract.

Outlaw's salary went up when he was traded from the Magic to the Suns. If I remember correctly, his salary with the Magic (had he stayed with them) was to have been $5,500,000 in 2003-04 and $5,000,000 in 2004-05. Now with Phoenix, those figures are $5,955,000 and $5,355,000.

That means that the suns could have an outgoing trade value of 11.7 million (googs contract) but are only required to take back 9.9 million. That would save almost 4 million dollars.

If not for the trade kicker, that would be correct. No matter what the trade kicker is or how it is figured, however, its presence means that the Suns would have to take back more than $9.9 million in salary. This is because the other team would have to give up more than $9.9 million, in order to be within 15% of whatever Gugliotta's new salary is (either a flat extra fee, or a percentage increase).

Still, you are correct that trading Gugliotta could potentially save the Suns a couple million dollars this year, if they happened to find the perfect deal with a willing partner.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by elindholm
Why would a team have to be under the cap to accept Googs in a trade?

Because the rule is, if a team is over the cap, any salaries they accept in trade must be within 15% of the salaries going out. (You are right, it's 15%, not 10% as I said before.) There is a $100,000 fudge factor allowed, but that's basically irrelevant when dealing with salaries this large.

If a team is under the cap, then they can add salary in a trade without having to give up the same amount of salary in return. So, for instance, the Nuggets could trade Nene Hilario for Gugliotta, once their current year's contracts expire. It is unlikely that Denver would go for this trade.

The trade Kicker has no effect on the trade dollars.

I don't think we know the specifics of Gugliotta's trade kicker, but in general this is false. Trade kickers usually result in a higher salary for the player after he is traded, during the entire remainder of the contract.

Outlaw's salary went up when he was traded from the Magic to the Suns. If I remember correctly, his salary with the Magic (had he stayed with them) was to have been $5,500,000 in 2003-04 and $5,000,000 in 2004-05. Now with Phoenix, those figures are $5,955,000 and $5,355,000.

The thing I am not getting, is why can't both teams be over the cap? If the suns find a trading partner, who is also over the cap. The suns trade googs (we will just say 12 million for now) and recieve 3 players who make 3.48 million each, totalling to 10.44 million (87% of googs). Wouldn't the trade work? The suns are recieving a total salary 13 percent below what they sent out. The other team is recieving just over 15% past what they sent out. (It is small enough that the 100k fudge factor would settle it). So the suns wouldnt be able to get 15% under (I realized the math when I looked at it) but would be able to get close.



You are probably right on the trade kicker aspect. I havent really read up on them, but I assumed it was a seperate cash payment that had no effect on salary. (I got that from teams sending cash to compensate)

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr
The thing I am not getting, is why can't both teams be over the cap? If the suns find a trading partner, who is also over the cap. The suns trade googs (we will just say 12 million for now) and recieve 3 players who make 3.48 million each, totalling to 10.44 million (87% of googs). Wouldn't the trade work? The suns are recieving a total salary 13 percent below what they sent out. The other team is recieving just over 15% past what they sent out. (It is small enough that the 100k fudge factor would settle it). So the suns wouldnt be able to get 15% under (I realized the math when I looked at it) but would be able to get close.

I think I am really failing to see the reasoning for another team to trade expiring contracts of a slightly lesser amount to the Phoenix Suns for Tom Gugliotta. Why wouldn't they just keep those players themselves and save more money? Certainly they aren't thinking that Tom Gugliotta could provide something to make the trade worth while over the next year. He stinks now, and that's when he is healthy enough to actually play.

I'm also pretty sure that the luxury tax will not be $57 million. I thought it was supposed to be something around $54 million. I don't feel like looking up right now, but I'll bet a third of the teams in the league are projected to be over that amount.

As far as contracts that are more valuable, how about Rasheed Wallace? He is a top power forward in the NBA, and he makes something like $18 million with a contract that will expire after this season. I'm sure there are a few others too.

I'll be absolutely shocked if Tom Gugliotta is traded this season. The suns desperately need the cap relief his expiring salary will provide next summer, and I fail to see why another team would want him while giving up other expiring contracts.

Joe Mama

 

[elindholm]

The suns trade googs (we will just say 12 million for now) and recieve 3 players who make 3.48 million each, totalling to 10.44 million (87% of googs). Wouldn't the trade work?

Yes, that could work, but as Joe Mama says, why would the other team do it? And if two or three of the three players from the other team have contracts extending beyond this coming season, how would the Suns afford it in future years? Starting in 2004-05, they'll have a new contract for Tsakalidis to worry about, and then it's Joe Johnson's turn -- plus a new deal for Marbury. Right now, the Suns' will get a small improvement in their salary situation in 2004-05, and they'll need every dollar of it for their future.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Joe, in my earlier post I said that the suns would be taking back contracts with maybe a few years left on them. You are right, no one would swap expiring contracts.

I was more or less trying to make BC's comments about how he would have to look at trading googs for luxary tax relief this year make some sense.

Took me a while to find the original thread where i said something like this, but here it is:

Brandon's salary will not count against the tax this season if he retires as planned.

The only real thing I can think of how the suns will save money is if they package googs and outlaw together.

Their total salaries is 16 million. If they were to trade both of them, they would only have to accept 13.6 million in salaries back (15% rule) which could have potentially 4.8 million since the luxary tax doubles the cost.

Even if they just traded googs, and took back 8.5 million in salary it would still save the team 3 mil this year.

The only real problem is it is essentially a one year fix, since We would have to assume the players they would recieve back would have at least 2 years remaining on their deals. To make it fiscally reasonable over the long term, they would have to have a long line of deals planned out I would think.

Andy


http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11300&highlight=googs

 

[JCSunsfan]

Good grief!

What did B-ball fans talk about in the off season before the days of the salary cap?

 

[Skkorpion]

Googs is untradeable and unplayable.

Slow, injured, dumb (eating supplements he knew nothing about), and selfish (won't retire).

Rick Robey was not Colangelo's biggest mistake. Googs was and is.

I used to think Hardaway was the albatross weighing down the Suns but at least Penny did adjust his focus and game this year and contributed some good value.

Don't we have this same discussion about Googs every off-season?

There are so many good things that happened around the Suns this year, dredging up a walking bball cadavre like Googs is unnecessarily masochistic.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by Skkorpion
Googs is untradeable and unplayable.

Googs is very much so tradeable. The suns just most likely will not choose that option. I bet they could trade googs to half the teams inthe league, especially around the deadline.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by JCSunsfan
Good grief!

What did B-ball fans talk about in the off season before the days of the salary cap?

Who knows

Actually, probably about the draft and how they were looking forward to there being more than 3 immediate impact players a year

 

[elindholm]

Rick Robey was not Colangelo's biggest mistake. Googs was and is.

Ouch! It counts ... and the foul!

 

[Joe Mama]

Tom Gugliotta has been a bust... no doubt about it. However most of the time he has missed has been because of something that just was not his fault. His leg and most of his game were wiped out by a Randy Livingston fall.

He was never worth a maximum contract, but before that he was a good basketball player.

Joe Mama

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Well since I am a youngin, I have no idea about Rick Robey. Been trying to find something on him but can only find career stats and the fact that the suns traded Dennis Johnson to the celts for him. Anyone care to tell the story?

 

[Errntknght]

Suppose the Suns would have traded Jason Kidd for Luc Longley... that would have been comparable to the DJ for Robey trade, except that Robey wasn't quite as good a shot as Luc was. He did bring the same competitive spirit and toughness that Longley displayed... namely zip. DJ was a better defender than Jason, expecially on the ball, and he was slightly better in the halfcourt on offense but not as good running the break.