Should The Suns Help Dallas Get Ilgauskas?

[George O'Brien]

Here is the situation:

1. The Cavaliers do not have the money to re-sign Boozer.
2. The Cavaliers are willing to move Ilgauskas for cap space.
3. The Mavericks want Ilgauskas, but lack cap space.

One way the Mavs could get cap space would be to do a sign and trade with the Suns on Nash. My idea would be to restructure the Nash deal to front end the deal to $14 million and then send Eisley to Dallas. This would give Dallas an extra $7.6 million in trade exemption to use in the Ilgauskas deal.

This clears Phoenix an extra $2+ million in cap space this year and saves them $6.9 million next season.

Dallas get Ilgauskas and Eisley as a veteran backup PG.

Cavs get somebody like Eduardo Najera and the money to re-sign Boozer. Even if they choose to trade him away, they at least would be able to sign him.

 

[Dave64]

Nice idea, but the blood between Cuban and Nash is not good right now. They ended kind of ugly.

 

[Chaz]

Nice idea, but the blood between Cuban and Nash is not good right now. They ended kind of ugly.

I don't agree, what basis do you have for that?




Help the Mavs get an often-injured center and we get rid of Eisley? Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[elindholm]

I've asked this question a few times and haven't gotten a satisfactory answer.

Isn't Boozer an unrestricted free agent, now that the Cavaliers declined his option? If so, Cleveland has no matching rights at all. They could try to outbid the Jazz, or put up a comparable offer and hope Boozer goes for it, but they can't force him to stay -- even if they do clear the cap space.

By the way, I also read that the Nash/Cuban relationship ended badly. There was a quote from Nash somewhere about how he didn't like the way Cuban spun things in his web blog and wished that his soon-to-be-previous owner would move on.

 

[Chaz]

By the way, I also read that the Nash/Cuban relationship ended badly. There was a quote from Nash somewhere about how he didn't like the way Cuban spun things in his web blog and wished that his soon-to-be-previous owner would move on.

Interesting, I had not heard that. If you remember where it was I would be interested.



And yes as most trade proposals this one seems like a longshot. The other question is would the Cavs want to trade away enough assets to get Boozer back after (in their eyes) he screwed them over like that.

BTW I don't think Boozer screwed them over, I think the Cavs were stupid for not exercising the option and telling Boozer and his agent to wait for an extension. They were trying to get him on the cheap(MLE) and it backfired on them.

 

[Dave64]

I do not have the link to Cuban's weblog deal, but there were pretty dicey words from Cuban, Nash, and his agent. I don't think there will be any favors between the Suns and Mavericks any time soon. Bad break-up.

 

[Phill11]

Nice idea, but the blood between Cuban and Nash is not good right now. They ended kind of ugly.

Where are you getting this. Nobodys burned any bridges. Cuban didn't say/do anything wrong, neither did Nash. There's no hard feelings. Just because a player leaves a team or a owner doesn't pay him more money doesn't mean they hate each other.

 

[devilalum]

I don't see that it matters whether they like each other or not. This make believe deal is about each team trying to help itself. I'd think the Suns would gladly do this to rid themselves of Eisley.

Its just bad business to turn down a good deal because you got your feelings hurt. GM's have to deal with agents they hate all the time.

Ford would make a trade with GM if they thought it would help them make more money.

 

[Chaz]

Yea, I remember Cuban Weblog and I'm sure he is not happy with Nash's agent. But the bottomline is the Suns were willing to pay more than the Mavs were. I haven't seen anything to make me think there is some bad feelings in regard to the personal relationship between Nash and Cuban.

Is a business man going to pout and veto a deal that would help his club because he got his feeling hurt or whatever? I don't think so.

Having said all that I think this deal has about a snowballs chance in hell of ever coming together just because of the trade advantages are a bit clouded and three team trades are difficult to work out.

 

[fordronken]

www.blogmaverick.com

 

[SunsTzu]

One way the Mavs could get cap space would be to do a sign and trade with the Suns on Nash.

How does this give the Mavs cap space? The Mavs payroll is 82mil without Nash and if you add Eisley the payroll will be around 88mil, meaning the Mavs would have to clear around 57mil to get far enough under the cap to take on Big Z's 15mil contract.

 

[sunsfn]

Isn't Boozer an unrestricted free agent, now that the Cavaliers declined his option? If so, Cleveland has no matching rights at all. They could try to outbid the Jazz, or put up a comparable offer and hope Boozer goes for it, but they can't force him to stay -- even if they do clear the cap space.QUOTE]

If the Cavs can clear enough cap space, they can offer Boozer a similar contract but, Boozer does not have to take it. He is a free agent and can sign with anyone. The thought is he would sign with the Cavs if they could get enough cap space to sign him. Know one knows if he would sign with them other than Boozer I would guess.

 

[binkar]

I do not have the link to Cuban's weblog deal, but there were pretty dicey words from Cuban, Nash, and his agent. I don't think there will be any favors between the Suns and Mavericks any time soon. Bad break-up.

I dont think that really will make a difference. Nash isnt the owner or GM of the Suns. So if Cuban gets offered a deal he likes from the Suns he will say "Nope, good trade but I dont like Steve Nash."

 

[nathan]

Isn't Boozer an unrestricted free agent, now that the Cavaliers declined his option? If so, Cleveland has no matching rights at all. They could try to outbid the Jazz, or put up a comparable offer and hope Boozer goes for it, but they can't force him to stay -- even if they do clear the cap space.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#34

"[Restricted free agency] is also allowed for all veteran free agents who entered the NBA in 98-99 or later, who have been in the league three or fewer seasons."

 

[Dave64]

binkar, do you just see my name and automatically take the opposite view? I say high, you say low. I say black, you say white. We are not meant to be together. LOL

 

[elindholm]

Thanks, nm132. But do you understand what "allowed" means in this context? Does the contract define what kind of free agency will be in effect when it expires. I don't understand why the FAQ doesn't just say that restricted free agency is "in effect" for players meeting those criteria. "Allowed" seems to imply that it's some sort of option.

 

[JCSunsfan]

If the Cavs can clear enough cap space, they can offer Boozer a similar contract but, Boozer does not have to take it. He is a free agent and can sign with anyone. The thought is he would sign with the Cavs if they could get enough cap space to sign him. Know one knows if he would sign with them other than Boozer I would guess.

There are a couple of problems. First, if the Cavs free up enough space to match for Boozer, Boozer then has to reneg on the commitment he made to the Jazz. Boozer has put himself in a no win situation.

However, if Cleveland does manage to get enough to match, Boozer better take it, or he'll have to wear a bullet-proof vest while playing in Ohio.

 

[sunsfn]

There are a couple of problems. First, if the Cavs free up enough space to match for Boozer, Boozer then has to reneg on the commitment he made to the Jazz. Boozer has put himself in a no win situation.

However, if Cleveland does manage to get enough to match, Boozer better take it, or he'll have to wear a bullet-proof vest while playing in Ohio.

Boozer does not have to reneg on the commitment he made to the Jazz.
The Cavs did not submit a qualifying offer to Boozer, that is why he is a free agent.
They may have had some communication that he would sign with them for more money if they did not make the qualifying offer, but obviously the Cavs did not tie down that detail very well.

If I recall, the amount of difference is about 28 mil., that is a hunk of change and Boozer jumped at it.
I am not sure he did the right thing, but we were not in the negotiations either.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Boozer does not have to reneg on the commitment he made to the Jazz.
The Cavs did not submit a qualifying offer to Boozer, that is why he is a free agent.
They may have had some communication that he would sign with them for more money if they did not make the qualifying offer, but obviously the Cavs did not tie down that detail very well.

If I recall, the amount of difference is about 28 mil., that is a hunk of change and Boozer jumped at it.
I am not sure he did the right thing, but we were not in the negotiations either.

Please read my post more carefully.

Now he has made a verbal commitment to the JAZZ. If the Cavs clear enough space to match, Boozer would have to reneg on his commitment to the JAZZ to go back and sign with Cleveland.

 

[Chaz]

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#34

"[Restricted free agency] is also allowed for all veteran free agents who entered the NBA in 98-99 or later, who have been in the league three or fewer seasons."

Thanks NM, I think Boozer is restricted the Cavs can match if they have the space to do so. All the language I can find points to this. If he was unrestricted then they would not sign an "offer sheet" they would just reach terms on a contract.

Jazz ready to sign Boozer to offer sheet
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Carlos Boozer changed his mind, much to the dismay of the Cleveland Cavaliers and the absolute delight of the Utah Jazz. Boozer, a restricted free agent, said just last week that he planned to stay with the team that drafted him two years ago as a junior out of Duke. But on Thursday, the Jazz said they had a deal in place to bring Boozer to Utah.

Did Cleveland make a Cavalier move by letting Carlos Boozer hit the free-agent market?

"We've reached an agreement for an offer sheet to be delivered on July 14," said Kevin O'Connor, the team's vice president for basketball operations.

O'Connor said Boozer planned to sign the offer, but would not elaborate.

The deal could be a huge addition for the Jazz, who never developed much inside scoring last season after Karl Malone left as a free agent. But it could be an even bigger loss for the Cavaliers, who planned to use Boozer as a cornerstone along with Rookie of the Year LeBron James in building the Cavaliers into an Eastern Conference power.

If Boozer signs the offer July 14, Cleveland will have 15 days to match it.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2004-07-08-free-agent-roundup_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA

 

[Joe Mama]

Carlos Boozer he is a restricted free agent. Otherwise he would be just agreeing to a deal like Steve Nash did. In fact he has signed or agreed to sign an offer sheet with the Utah Jazz.

Joe Mama

 

[George O'Brien]

The problem the Cavs have with Boozer is that they can only re-sign him within their cap space. This is exactly the same problem that GS had with Arenas last year - they only had their MLE.

The only way to get more cap space is trade an expensive player for a less expensive player. In my proposal, this is Ilgauskas ($14.6 million) to Dallas for someone like Najera ($3.8 million) and Delk ($3.1 Million). This would give the Cavs and extra $7.7 million in cap space. The Cavs could then sign Boozer and trade him if they are sufficiently angry at him.

The problem with that deal is that the Mavericks are over the cap. However, if the Mavs signed Nash to a deal starting at $14.1 and traded him for Eisley, it gives the Mavs a trade exemption necessaryt to complete the deal. The Mavs cannot use that amount on free agents, but the trade exemption the Cavs get can be used to re-sign their own guy.

If we subtract Eisley's $6.4 million from the $14.1 million, it means the net cap hit for Nash this season would be $7.7 million. First year is at least $1 million and probably $2 million less than the original deal and cuts the Suns salaries for next year by $6.9 million.

Someone sent Cuban an e-mail asking if he would consider a sign and trade. His answer was that he would consider something. At this point there is no basis for assuming that either the Mavs or Cavs are even working on something. Still, I love the concept of using the very fact of signing someone you want as a way to get rid of someone you don't.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Carlos Boozer he is a restricted free agent. Otherwise he would be just agreeing to a deal like Steve Nash did. In fact he has signed or agreed to sign an offer sheet with the Utah Jazz.

Joe Mama

Several posts I had read on Boozer had said that he was unrestricted. They must have been in error. Please excuse me.

I did read at CNNSI just now that the offer sheet was even designed by Pelinka to be frontloaded so that it would even be more difficult for the Cavs to match.

Another problem is that any prearrangement between the Cavs and Boozer was technically illegal. They were not allowed to negotiate before July 1. I assume that Paxson thought that by cutting Boozer loose early, he would be able to sign him for less that he would next year, and in effect save money long term.

Its a classic con game. Ask a favor that provides a financial benefit to the person bestowing the favor. But make sure its illegal, so when you rip them off, they can't complain to anyone for fear of legal repercussions.

The league could nullify this whole deal. If I was Stern that's what I would do. I would say that there was an illegal pre-arranged agreement to cut Boozer loose. I would make him the Cavs property again. I would then fine the Cavs and take away draft picks.

 

[JCSunsfan]

The problem the Cavs have with Boozer is that they can only re-sign him within their cap space. This is exactly the same problem that GS had with Arenas last year - they only had their MLE.

The only way to get more cap space is trade an expensive player for a less expensive player. In my proposal, this is Ilgauskas ($14.6 million) to Dallas for someone like Najera ($3.8 million) and Delk ($3.1 Million). This would give the Cavs and extra $7.7 million in cap space. The Cavs could then sign Boozer and trade him if they are sufficiently angry at him.

The problem with that deal is that the Mavericks are over the cap. However, if the Mavs signed Nash to a deal starting at $14.1 and traded him for Eisley, it gives the Mavs a trade exemption necessaryt to complete the deal. The Mavs cannot use that amount on free agents, but the trade exemption the Cavs get can be used to re-sign their own guy.

If we subtract Eisley's $6.4 million from the $14.1 million, it means the net cap hit for Nash this season would be $7.7 million. First year is at least $1 million and probably $2 million less than the original deal and cuts the Suns salaries for next year by $6.9 million.

Someone sent Cuban an e-mail asking if he would consider a sign and trade. His answer was that he would consider something. At this point there is no basis for assuming that either the Mavs or Cavs are even working on something. Still, I love the concept of using the very fact of signing someone you want as a way to get rid of someone you don't.

I think that the Cavs need to clear about 10 million in cap space--at least thats what I have read.

By the way this article is a fascinating read on this Boozer deal
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/ian_thomsen/07/09/paxson.boozer/index.html

 

[SweetD]

I would be willing to help out anyone if we could move Howard. That would give us cash next year for a Big time Center and our draft pick #5 from the Bulls .