Keep seeing rumors about Googs going BEFORE deadline

[Yuma]

Everywhere I look on the net Googs is supposed to be moved. What's curious is most rumors have a quote saying "player x will be moved for player y", etc. However, ALL the Goggs rumors I see say he will be moved, but noone is listed as a trade replacement for Googs. I am thinking the C's will take the luxury tax hit on Googs this season in order to get his cap relief for next season. Especially since all these trade rumors have no names associated with them.

 

[Mainstreet]

Utah may have enough money under the salary cap to take Googs without exchanging players. Of course Utah would probably want at least a first round draft pick to absorb Googs contract.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by Mainstreet
Utah may have enough money under the salary cap to take Googs without exchanging players. Of course Utah would probably want at least a first round draft pick to absorb Googs contract.

The most popular rumor is Googs and a first for Keon Clark.

Clarks deal is also expiring, so it doesn't affect the cap, but saves us a ton of luxary tax money. I think the total number of savings is in the 12-14 million dollar range for this year.

Also, by us moving a first rounder, it takes more money off of our cap (depending where it falls). It seems risky to do at this point, since the Knicks made another major trade. The suns pick is obviously off limits, we don't know if we get the cavs pick this year, and who knows how the knicks will finish the year.


I wouldnt really be surprised at all to see it happen though.

 

[Chaplin]

I just have a hard time believing that Utah would actually do it. Don't you think they could get a mid-first rounder and a player that might actually help the team, rather than a mid-first and a guy who will just take up space?

 

[elindholm]

Don't you think they could get a mid-first rounder and a player that might actually help the team, rather than a mid-first and a guy who will just take up space?

There's some convoluted scenario, explained on this board once or twice by cleverer souls than I, in which both the Suns and the Jazz save money. Phoenix saves money by getting under the luxury tax line, while Utah saves money by receiving cash from Phoenix to make up for the salary difference (pro-rated for what's left of the season).

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
Don't you think they could get a mid-first rounder and a player that might actually help the team, rather than a mid-first and a guy who will just take up space?

There's some convoluted scenario, explained on this board once or twice by cleverer souls than I, in which both the Suns and the Jazz save money. Phoenix saves money by getting under the luxury tax line, while Utah saves money by receiving cash from Phoenix to make up for the salary difference (pro-rated for what's left of the season).

Precisely. The Jazz would not have to pay Clark and the Sun would give the Jazz enough to pay Googs - yet still save money on the luxury tax.

BTW, none of this is worth even a future second round pick.

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Don't you think they could get a mid-first rounder and a player that might actually help the team, rather than a mid-first and a guy who will just take up space?

Maybe they could.
If they could not they will probably do the Googs-deal.

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by George O'Brien
Precisely. The Jazz would not have to pay Clark and the Sun would give the Jazz enough to pay Googs - yet still save money on the luxury tax.

BTW, none of this is worth even a future second round pick.

It's not worth even a future second round pick to whom? Remember that the Suns are a young team with a lot of young prospects, and they are also a business. Depending on where the luxury tax line falls the Suns could save $5-10 million by getting rid of Tom Gugliotta's contract.

Joe Mama

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by Joe Mama
It's not worth even a future second round pick to whom?

Joe Mama

Me.

The only way I would care would be if the money spent on Googs would be denied futre picks, which is not true.

I put the chances of this deal happening at about 50-50. The Jazz are very reluctant to do any kind of deal that will saddle them with contracts they don't want.

 

[slinslin]

One plus this trade would give us is the fact that Googs makes a lot more money than Clark so we would receive a pretty big trade exception which should be exactly enough to offset Marion's BYC status in trades.

I doubt the Suns really want to trade Marion but with that exception a lot of scenarios would open up.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by slinslin
One plus this trade would give us is the fact that Googs makes a lot more money than Clark so we would receive a pretty big trade exception which should be exactly enough to offset Marion's BYC status in trades.

I doubt the Suns really want to trade Marion but with that exception a lot of scenarios would open up.

With the exception, Marion, Jacobsen, and draft picks for Paul Pierce would work under the cap. Hey, I can dream.

 

[elindholm]

With the exception, Marion, Jacobsen, and draft picks for Paul Pierce would work under the cap.

The same trade would work this summer anyway, after Marion's BYC status expires.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

A couple things I was looking to clear up.

I understand that the suns can send 3 million cash to the Jaxx, but I thought that would mostly cover his trade kicker in his contract, not cover the remainder of his deal. Now I have no idea the amount of the kicker, but was that taken into account??

Also, George, I dont really understand your comment of the jazz taking on a contract they dont want to be saddled with. If both deals are done at the end of the year, how are they "saddled" with a contract?? Especially if it is true that both teams save money this way.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
With the exception, Marion, Jacobsen, and draft picks for Paul Pierce would work under the cap.

The same trade would work this summer anyway, after Marion's BYC status expires.

I agree. It seems like a long shot anyway because the Suns have at least an outside shot of getting the ping pong balls to fall right.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

About the Pierce deal:

If what JC meant what he said about not duplicating positions in the reference to Kobe and JJ

(I dont take anything he says for real, as much as people claim JC makes all the calls, I listen much more to BCs comments because he doesnt ******** his way around things)

Then I dont think they would go after Pierce by the same logic. Assuming they have the same chance and landing both players, Bryant is the better choice by far. Also, don't forget that Pierce once said about JJ "I totally forgot he was even on our team"

 

[elindholm]

I understand that the suns can send 3 million cash to the Jaxx, but I thought that would mostly cover his trade kicker in his contract, not cover the remainder of his deal.

It has to do with how much of the season is left at the time of the trade. The salary difference is a lot less than it appears, because the season is 2/3 over (or whatever). The trade kicker may be prorated also, but I don't know about that.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

I am guessing I am just forgetting something then. Capologist figure this one out??

BY my quick math, Googs makes around 12mil so he has 4 million left this year. Plus a trade kicker (which I dont think it is a prorated thing, since it is a one time payment, not an over time deal).

Without the kicker I could see where it would save money, thats why I was asking.

Cap, get in here and break it down for me!

 

[newfan101]

Well, I'm no Cap, but I came up with the idea that would save both teams money, and it also involved Casey. Here's the original post, if it still applies.

It's possible the Suns could make a deal with Utah without having to give up a 1st round pick.

The deal would be Googs, Casey and 3 million cash for Keon Clark.

According to my calculations, Googs remaining salary at the Feb 19th deadline with be roughly 3.7 million. Casey's will be roughly $320,000. So combined their remaining salary would be 4.2 million.

However, if Utah were to trade back Keon Clark, who hasn't played at all for them, they would forgo his remaining 1.58 million in salary. So they would only owe the difference of 2.62 million. If we gave them 3 million in cash, they would technically make $380,000 from the deal, and get a nice young Mormon kid as a prospect.

From the Suns side, the deal would put them roughly at 54,400,000, or about 1 million under the luxury tax. (according to Caps figures, which currently has them at about 62 million)

I can't see where Utah would pay hardball and demand a 1st round pick on a deal that would technically make them a profit, as well as give them a nice prospect. Unless, of course, someone else offers them something better.

Of course, we hadn't yet discussed the trade kicker, so that might change the scenario a bit.

 

[George O'Brien]

It may be that Googs has the option of waiving the trade kicker. He might do that if he thought he could get some playing time.

 

[zett]

Has it even been confirmed that Googs still has a trade kicker since he basically signed a extension to his original deal, My guess would be unless the language in the contract specified this, I would think his trade kicker deal is obsolete by now?
And I was thinking the jazz also were below the min right now and would also have to pay the tax for being under?

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

The Jazz cannot be below the min, I dont think that is possible.

He didnt sign an extension, his contract mere was for x years with an option for the last year. If he had a trade kicker to begin with, it is still in effect I would assume.

 

[zett]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr
The Jazz cannot be below the min, I dont think that is possible.

Why is that Impossible? There is a min along with a max the league wants every one in the middle, I know at the beginning of the year they were below because they couldn't attract any free agents.
and wouldn't Googs option for the last year be an option for a one year extention?

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

There is a minimum salary requirement. The Jazz have to meet that by league rules in order to field a team as I understand it. Then there is a salary cap, which as we all know, affects how a team can sign free agents.

The luxary tax and salary cap are independent of each other. In no way are they related. I am pretty sure the luxary tax is figured out based on player salaries in comparrison with league revenues. For example, for the tax to kick in this year, player salaries have to be more than 55% of the total league revenue. (It raised to 57% next year I believe)

There is no minimum for the luxary tax. From what I have read, any team over the luxary tax threshhold pays a dollar for dollar tax, with a portion of it being redistributed to teams that are under the tax threshhold. It is supposed to be like a makeshift revenue sharing scheme.


A team cannot be penalized for having a lower salary structure, as long as they are within guidelines of the salary cap rules.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by zett
because they couldn't attract any free agents.
and wouldn't Googs option for the last year be an option for a one year extention?

Well they did attract two free agents, their respective teams just matched the offer sheets however.

I am pretty sure it isn't an extension, because it was a previously determined value. If he had signed an additional 1 year contract on top of his current deal, with an amount that was determined at the time of the signing, then it is an extension.

However, if he simply chooses to exercise an option for the last year of his contract (which was negotiated for when the first deal is signed) it is more of a renewal for the last year than an extension.

 

[zett]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr
Well they did attract two free agents, their respective teams just matched the offer sheets however.

I am pretty sure it isn't an extension, because it was a previously determined value. If he had signed an additional 1 year contract on top of his current deal, with an amount that was determined at the time of the signing, then it is an extension.

However, if he simply chooses to exercise an option for the last year of his contract (which was negotiated for when the first deal is signed) it is more of a renewal for the last year than an extension.

That was a joke! lol