Press conference tonight

[schutd]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Well, that does it. Didn't write it like a childish post, but, to each his own.

Sorry Chap. I know we get into it, but this time I was TOTALLY trying to egg you on. I shouldnt intermix my messing around with my seriously pissed posts, should I? And since I'm anti smiley, I guess I never get to convey emotions very well. My bad. Heh.

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by elindholm
[. I don't know exactly what a normal max contract will start at in 2005 (hcsilla?)

The normal max. contract in 2005 for Marbury would start at 30% of the actual cap.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by schutd
Sorry Chap. I know we get into it, but this time I was TOTALLY trying to egg you on. I shouldnt intermix my messing around with my seriously pissed posts, should I? And since I'm anti smiley, I guess I never get to convey emotions very well. My bad. Heh.

My bad. I didn't recognize it...

You da man Dave.

 

[elindholm]

Eric, I have a lot of respect for your basketball knowledge, I really don't know how you came up with this one.

Garnett's contract goes way beyond the cap, but even he is tradeable.

Marbury's extension is for the same average annual salary as Garnett's!

Actually, let's look at the Garnett example more closely:

This year he makes $28 million. That is huge. His "max" extension for the Wolves would have started at well over $30 million in 2004-05.

Now, the Wolves could have said, "We love Garnett, our fans love Garnett, and if we don't give him this overmax extension, someone else will." But they understood that this was not possible under the CBA. So they offered him less. Much less.

Could Garnett have argued, put up a fight, tried to squeeze more out of them? Yes. But he didn't, because he knew two things:

1. Minnesota was still offering him more than any other team would be able to.

2. By taking less money, he would be giving the Wolves a better chance of forming an elite squad around him.

So he settled for a modest (by his standards) extension, starting at a mere $16 million in 2004-05. This is less than Marbury will make in the first year of his extension. Yes, you read correctly: Garnett's extension starts at a lower salary than Marbury's.

I just think that the way this played out in Minnesota is much better for everyone than the way it played out in Phoenix.

Anyway, I retract the statement about Marbury being "untradeable." He certainly could be traded to a deep-pockets team that doesn't mind have an enormous payroll. For instance, it will probably always be possible to trade him to the Knicks.

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by elindholm

I can't believe that when I explain things, you put that in the same category as the bickering you, slinslin, and hcsilla seem to be so fond of.

I'm not fond of bickering Chaplin.
Sometimes I just felt that I was forced to do that.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Eric, my point was that Garnett's present contract--initiated under a prior CBA--is way over what any team can pay anyone else now.

In spite of that, he is tradeable.

Steph is a max player. There is no evidence he stomped up and down. He wants to be here. JC understands the value of Steph to this team and he offered him what he believes he was worth.

Let's put you in BC's shoes. Steph calls you up and says, I love this place, I'm not going to test the market, lets get an extension done.

Fine, you say.

Steph comes in. What do you offer him, and how do you present it to him?

 

[SirStefan32]

I present him with the contract just slightly higher than another team could offer him.

 

[elindholm]

I present him with the contract just slightly higher than another team could offer him.

Exactly. And then you say,

"I know this is less than the maximum that we could offer you, but I also know that you understand the financial stress that all teams are under if they want to compete at the highest level. Your ultimate goal is the same as ours -- to win a championship. We believe that, working together, we can achieve that goal here. But you can't do it alone, and you can't even do it with just Shawn and Amare. You'll need a supporting cast.

"An extra two or three million a year could really help us to bring in the extra talent that we'll need to compete at the highest level. You just saw what Garnett did in Minnesota. Teams can't seriously contend if they have too much salary wrapped up in a single player.

"I don't need your decision now. We aren't taking this offer off the table; it's here whenever you want it. Take a few days or weeks to think it over. The Phoenix Suns truly believe that this extension is best for you and for the organization. If you decide you don't agree, come back and we'll talk some more. But I think you'll realize that this extension will give you the best chance of realizing all of your dreams.

"Thanks for coming in. Have a good afternoon."

 

[schutd]

ELINDHOLM FOR GM!

 

[3rdside]

Just one question. What does it matter that we signed Marbury to the max? Does it really mean we can't afford players or does it just mean we'll be paying a luxury tax when the time comes that the owners decide 'this could be our year?'

Just as an example, look at portland - their payroll's like 100 million bucks; what do they care? They don't, just as long as someone pays the bill.

 

[elindholm]

Does it really mean we can't afford players or does it just mean we'll be paying a luxury tax when the time comes that the owners decide 'this could be our year?'

The latter. With respect to the salary cap, the amount of Marbury's extension doesn't matter (except in a couple of very contrived scenarios). So it is a luxury-tax issue -- or, more accurately, a total team payroll issue. The Colangelos may feel that the have to continue limiting overall spending even if/when the luxury tax is repealed.